Talk:John McCain

Birthplace

The article needs to be more clear that McCain immigrated to the US from Panama as a young boy. His migrant story was a central part of his appeal as a politician from a state with large numbers of people with Latin American origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If there was any element of truth in what you said, then yes the article would have to be more clear about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is however incorrect about McCain's birthplace. While it is true his family was living in the Canal Zone, like most Americans he was not born at home but in a hospital and according to his birth certificate McCain was born at Colon Hospital which was located outside the Canal Zone. Ironically this improves McCain's case for meeting the "natural born citizen" of the United States requirement for the presidency since children born to American parents outside the Canal Zone were clearly citizens at the time of birth under the laws in effect when McCain was born. Had he been born in the Canal Zone he might not have been a citizen at birth but would have become a citizen when the law was changed in 1937. Prof. Gabriel Chin wrote law review article published in 2008 entitled "WHY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN CANNOT BE PRESIDENT: ELEVEN MONTHS AND A HUNDRED YARDS SHORT OF CITIZENSHIP". Even if he was right in his legal analysis, his facts were wrong. McCain was not born "a hundred yards short of citizenship" in the Canal Zone, he was born an American citizen in the Republic of Panama. Johhtfd (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The "birth certificate" you've seen on the Internet is a fake. He was born in a Navy hospital inside the PCZ. See John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, many former military kids get challenged over their American citizenship and get labled as "immigrants", when in fact they were born while their father (or mother) was a soldier serving their country at an overseas military base.

So John McCain was no immigrant, and never was.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Why does the main article have nothing specific about where he was born, only a date? That is bizarre. The connected article about his birth mentions the canal zone, nothing specific. I have no axe to grind here about his eligibility to be president, I simply came here wanting to know the details of exactly where he was born. This should be a simple fact, it is available for virtually every major public figure. [04:36, February 19, 2011 66.30.197.116]

The main article does say where he was born: "John McCain was born on August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, ..." Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

See that note by sinebot [first in this section] is not true. McCain did not immigrate to the US. He lived in Panama and was born there but no immigration paper work was needed. His citizenship was based directly on his parents birth in the US and his father was station in Panama. [06:41, February 28, 2011 99.13.123.131]

Nobody is saying he was an immigrant. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Dirt/Frankenstein Comment

"I am older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein."

Does this comment strike no one else as disingenuous? Dirt is the recent remains of ground minerals and decomposed plants and animals, while Frankenstein is the name of a fictional scientist who constructs a monster from dead body parts, and thus would not have any more scars than is normal.

98.230.43.227 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Arkhamite

See Figures of speech. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nixon Photograph?

I notice that the Photograph of McCain meeting Richard Nixon is gone; gone from all of Wikipedia in fact. I expect someone took exception to it on grounds of copyright or bias or some other feeble excuse. In reality, it was obvious that such an compelling, pertinent work of historical, political and cultural interest was of far too high a quality to be allowed to remain on any Wikipedia page. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your assessment of the photo is correct – it's iconic. But it was not taken and distributed by the military or some other branch of the federal government, in which case WP could use it, but rather by a photo syndicate. Thus, no go for WP, alas. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issues are not a feeble excuse; Wikipedia takes copyright as seriously as anyone (I know of) on the internet. If it's not free, we probably can't use it, regardless of partisan ideas. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Filibuster

McCain filibustered the whole National Defense Authorization Act, not just "a measure that would allow repeal" of Don't ask, don't tell, which he could not do since the language was already in the bill from the Armed Services Committee. That DADT was the reason was clarified, but the fact that it's the first time that happened since 1952 is sourced, notable and should stay in. It's also weird that the citation was de-formatted. Hekerui (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

First the style question. Due to a compromise from a couple of years ago between myself and Ferrylodge, the McCain main article does not use any cite templates, while the subarticles – such as Early life and military career of John McCain and so on – do use them. You may or may not agree with this decision, but it was done, and the main article is an FA article and thus has to be kept internally consistent in terms of style. I've found three cite templates that have crept in here, including yours, and I have changed to to the article's non-template form. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the substance of this, please note that the authorization bill hasn't failed yet, it's just mired in this dispute. Everybody expects that it will pass, possibly after a continuing resolution is put into place if things aren't worked out by the beginning of the fiscal year. If you follow Congress at all, you know this happens fairly often – a bill that is going to pass is held hostage to a variety of amendments and riders, some having little or nothing to do with the bill they are attached to. If McCain were really trying to defund the military, this indeed would be notable. But he isn't. And this main article, which is done in WP:Summary style, should not get into this level. That's for the Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present subarticle to do, where I have added this:

"In September 2010, McCain led a successful filibuster of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, which included a measure to allow repeal of the "Don't ask, don't tell" law regarding gays in the military.[132][133] McCain said that the debate on "Don't ask, don't tell" should wait until a Department of Defense survey on the views of the military towards repeal of it was published and that efforts to attach amendments to the authorization were politically motivated by the upcoming midterm elections.[132][133] The dispute over the repeal threatened to prevent the authorization bill from passing for the first time since 1952.[133]"

Do you have any problems with this description for the subarticle? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally, all that is really important for the main article, which as you can see is written very succinctly, is that McCain led a filibuster against DADT repeal. So I have changed that to read just this:

"McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards gays.[264]"

Readers who want to know more background about this or any of his other many legislative actions can consult the relevant subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of 'gays'

Responding to the use of the word "gays" under the "Filibuster" topic above --- I see in the Article Policies, this criteria - "Neutral point of view". In connection with the discussion on Senate action on a bill related to a change in the current DADT policy, I see the use of the word "gays". I believe the use of this word is contrary to the "Neutral point of view" policy. The first point to make in this regard would be that the law itself (DADT) does not refer to the male same-sex orientation by using the word "gays". The law itself uses the word "homosexual". You can read this in the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1994. The second point to make would be that the word "gay" is an example of a propaganda instrument employed by the homosexual movement to get its (preferred) message across to the people. In this regard, the use of the term "gay" fits the category of propaganda moreover, because the homosexual movement has adopted a term (gay) that is inherently untruthful in terms of accurately describing the character of the people that comprise the movement. I believe that from an objective point of view, if one were to accurately characterize the general demeanor of the members of the homosexual movement, most people would choose the words, angry, combative, frustrated, unjustly treated, and perhaps victimized. The characterization associated with the word "gay" does not exist anywhere in the public persona of this movement. This of course can be debated, but a wikipedia article is not the place for this debate. When you use the technically accurate word "homosexual" there is no debate. A homosexual is, what a homosexual is. By using this word (gay) in a wikipedia article to describe a homosexual or the homosexual movement, the article becomes an instrument for advancing the homosexual rights agenda. I do not believe that should be the purpose of wikipedia. And the neutrality policy itself, it seems to me, embodies this general desire to be accurate and truthful. Wikipedia should stand for the truth only. And I believe that the truth is the best policy in this situation. When we must refer to individuals that are defined as homosexuals, we should use the word "homosexual". StevenShowers (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely and utterly wrong. The word "gay" is the preferred term by The New York Times (see page 142 of their style manual), the Associated Press (see page 117 of their style manual), the Wall Street Journal (see page 102 of their Guide to Business Style and Usage).... I could go on, but you're right about one thing: Wikipedia articles (and their talk pages) are not the place for extremely biased comments like the above. Tvoz/talk 07:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe you addressed any of the points made by "StevenShowers". Your argument is basically, because these organizations have chosen to promote the agenda, then it's ok for Wikipedia to do it. That is an argument of the adenda promoters as far as I can see. It does not address the point about propaganda, and the fact that the term does not accurately portray the population in question. And this accusation that the individual is "extremely biased" is made only because he is obviously not a supporter of the agenda. That does not make him extremely biased. It makes him a non-supporter of the agenda. And it makes him simply an advocate for the truth. I don't see anything untrue in what he said. Does the term "gay" accurately represent the demeanor of this community? I don't think so. If it is not accurate or truthful, why use it? If these people are homosexuals, why not call them homosexuals? For myself, I find his arguments persuasive. What is the REASON that wikipedia should call them "gays" instead of what they are "homosexuals"? What is the REASON for wikipedia to hide the truth? What is the REASON that wikipedia should allow what appears to be a falsehood to appear in the place of the truth? Isn't that opening the door to the same kind of compromises in other areas, sort of like how rotteness spreads throughout an apple, where people are not sure when they read wikipedia, if they are getting the truth or not? EaglesGolden (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that you and "StevenShowers" are one and the same. That's a violation of WP:Sock puppetry. But I'll ignore that and your nasty and ignorant rhetoric for the moment, and just address how WP deals with terminology. WP uses 'gay' all the time in this meaning; see articles titled Gay icon, Gay pride, Gay square dance, etc. If you look at Category:LGBT culture, you'll see that a bunch of other articles are titled around 'LGBT', which includes 'gay' as well. And as you can see from looking at the entries in that category, very few articles are titled around 'homosexuality'. So that should convince you that WP endorses the use of 'gay' as used in this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument "Wasted Time" is the same argument made by "Tvoz". This person, and that person, and the other person, they are all making the same mistake, therefore, it must be OK. But I would have to say, that just because a lot of people are making the same mistake, that does not make it OK. And again, you have, like "Tvoz", failed to address the underlying questions at to whether the term “gay” is accurate, truthful, and not part of an agenda, and not an instrument of propaganda. I would appreciate it if "Tvoz", "Wasted Time", and others, would set aside this “everybody does it” argument, which is no argument at all, and address these underlying issues. Is the use of this term "neutral" or does it in fact serve the vested interestes of a particular political constituency? For myself, it is beyond me, why anyone would want to be part of such a practice of putting a false image into the minds of readers, rather than an accurate image, unless they have a vested interest in the spreading of that false image. For example, when you say "homosexual", the reader knows exactly what you are talking about. You are either talking about a man who is having sexual relationships with another man, or a woman who is having sexual relations with another woman. It is very clear and distinct. You are giving the reader the truth. And there is no confusion. But when the reader sees the word "gay" you have an image of bunch of really happy and exuberant people painted on the fabric of the reader’s mind. This is inherently dishonest. Those who argue for the use of the word "gay" are promoting an agenda, and the wikipedia policy forbids using wikipedia to promote an agenda. Every instance of the use of the word "gay" as a reference to homosexuals, within wikipedia articles violates the neutral point of view policy. We should recognize that, and we should draw the line here. EaglesGolden (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK this is enough. This is the talk page for the biography of John McCain and the purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to this article, not to debate the validity of the commonly-used term "gay". If you want to discuss the term, I recommend you go to the talk page of the article Gay (which is about the term), but I doubt you'll get much support there either. There is no agenda being promoted on Wikipedia by use of the term, any more than in the style manuals of the major media outlets I mentioned above which are politically diverse. Please take your agenda elsewhere and let us get back to the matter at hand here. Tvoz/talk 22:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "gays" in the context of the filibuster section above, is the issue at hand. Correcting an error in this article, even if it is only one word, would represent an improvement of the article. Yes, the changing of this one word to more accurately represent the truth, would represent an improvement of this article in my opinion. Let's see if we can work to find some common ground on this point. Again, just because a mistake has been widely accepted, does not mean that it cannot be corrected, or that it should not be corrected. For the sake of the truth, errors should be corrected. For example, some time ago, many people believed the world was flat. And they resisted the process by which their minds had to conform to the truth that the world was round. Along these lines, I would add to the observations above, this idea, that for the use of the word “gay” to be appropriate under Wikipedia guidelines, it seems to me that the term needs to be sourced to published information that shows that the term is an accurate representation of the demeanor of the homosexual movement in general. Now, it is clear that homosexuals see an advantage in characterizing their movement by the use of this word "gay". However, this fact alone does not make it appropriate for use on wikipedia in a situation like this. Especially if the word is a deception, embodying a conscious desire to deceive people, which appears to be the case. In that situation the use of the word on wikipedia, cannot pass wikipedia guidelines. Certainly, in any article where it is appropropriate, you could report the truth, that homosexuals desire to be known as gays. This is true. And that would be fine, as it is a statement of fact. But you also need to point out the truth, that the term “gay” is a deceptive identifier. That the homosexual movement as a whole does not exhibit the characteristics associated with the term “gay” as it is defined in standard dictionaries. If you did a poll asking people to describe their perceptions of homosexuals, and you gave them a list of happy, sad, frustrated, angry, combative, afflicted, you would not even have a majority of homosexuals choosing “happy.” If we understand that a particular word is no more than a public relations mask, a desire by the movement to present a deceptive facade, then it is inappropriate for an encylopedic endevour such as wikipedia to become a party to this deception. In this regard I would request that the sentence which reads "McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards gays" be changed to "McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards homosexuals." If we want to be completely accurate, we could change the sentence to read in this way: "McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards those individuals whom the law refers to as homosexuals." EaglesGolden (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You're probably just a troll, but in case not, please be aware there are many, many "gay" gays. Your entire premise is bogus. Get thee to a gay pride parade sometime ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort made in this last comment to go after my basic premise. I have never been to a homosexual pride parade, which is certainly an oxymoronic configuration of principles. But I have seen snippets of such events on the news. Just like going to any party, or parade, or festival, the participating homosexuals can escape their inner agonies for a time, and appear happy when they are surrounded by their supportive peer group. However, one afternoon spent in a delusionary state of happiness, does not a rule make. As soon as they return home, where they must live the other 364 days a year, away from this grand-standing support structure, they fall back into the thorn-like embrace of their guilt and shame ridden inner world, where they know they are different from the vast majority of people on the planet, and they are angry about it. They are not happy about it. They are angry about it. I believe if you did a scientific poll of long-time homosexuals, and you asked them, are you happy being a homosexual? The great majority would say "no". If they were told that there were a magic wand that could instantly turn them into a properly functioning heterosexual, without any effort on their part, and you asked them if they would want that magic wand to tap them on the top of their head, I believe that 99% of all homosexuals would say "yes". This is just common sense. So much agony would be removed from their lives by that simple wand tap. This bit of common sense supports my general premise completely. And therefore, because my premise, upon deeper analysis, appears to be valid, and thus supportive of the general thesis that the word "gay" is at best a deceptive PR tool of the homosexual movement, making the use of the word, in this context inappropriate according to wikipedia guidelines, I would ask again, that this sentence which reads "McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards gays" be changed to either, "McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards homosexuals," or "McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards those members of the military services whom the law defines as, and refers to, as homosexuals." EaglesGolden (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this homophobic creep has started in change every "gay" to "homosexual" in actual articles, I've reported him to WP:AN/I. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"this homophobic creep" - well, now, I see you are starting to use more of the homosexual movement buzz words which helps to make my case that the word "gay" is in fact a propaganda implant into this article, and it is surrounded by a phalanx of pro-homosexual agenda supporters to guard it. This is not what wikipedia is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EaglesGolden (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from EaglesGolden, 26 September 2010

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{edit semi-protected}} Under this heading - Senate career after 2008 - Remainder of fourth Senate term - Please change this sentence --- McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards gays. --- to this - McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards homosexuals. --- Because - First, the law refers to homosexuals, not "gays". Second, the term "gay" is a deceptive propaganda instrument employed by the homosexual movement to further the homosexual rights cause. It is truly (1984) Orwellian in scope. A propaganda instrument has no place in an encyclopedia article about John McCain. EaglesGolden (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)  Not done: The consensus in the section above agrees to keep the terminology as "gay" not "homosexual". This has even been brought up in WP:ANI at the moment. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Might I also point out that if you read the Wikipedia article on Gay, you would see that the history of the word shows that it was meant to be a derogatory term when applied to homosexuals. Thus, it's quite ridiculous to assert that it is a "propaganda instrument" by the "homosexual movement". SilverserenC 02:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC) that piece of information, if it is accurate, which I doubt, is not known to the American people. The term "gay" has a definition, it is basically a very happy and carefee individual, exactly the opposite, as a general rule, of what homosexuals are. If the homosexual movement itself thought it was derogatory, they would drop the use of it, not encourage the use of it. They use it because it paints a deceptive picture of happiness over a condition of internal psychological agony. EaglesGolden (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Well then, you might want to start a blog to inform the American people about the deceptions of the "homosexual movement". Your comments are offensive, bigoted, and do not belong here. And I think this troll has been fed far too much already, so I'm done here. Tvoz/talk 03:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC) So, let's see. We have two zealous homosexual agenda supporters standing as the guardians of John McCain's wikipedia biography. I wonder what that means. Obviously you two are not Christian conservatives! Am I Right? McCain always did hate the conservative base of the Republican Party. Is that what this all about with you, that you wanted to portray his actions to the homosexual community in the most positive light, and the use of the word "homosexual" in that particular location seemed just too harsh, and would've have disrupted your agenda in that regard? After all, you know he is the friend of the homosexual community, he really is (except when it comes to getting the votes of the Republicans that he needs to hold his Senate seat), and you feel the need to soften that picture of betrayal as much as possible? EaglesGolden (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Since this twaddle was never intended as anything more than a chance for this person to espouse his or her personal views, can we just delete the whole section? -Rrius (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Soytenly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Military Childhood ("Early Life" Section is Missing the Fact that He Moved Constantly/Attended 20 Different Schools While Growing Up)

This is a very common ommission in documenting an American military childhood (and I know is not intentional)--

The article is otherwise really great, by the way--

But it misses the fact that, like most American children (of career military familes), John McCain grew up moving constantly. In fact he lived in more than 23 different locations and attended 20 different schools by the time he was 18 years old.

Having grown up as a military kid myself, I can attest to the fact that growing up while moving constantly, and having no permanent roots, is a very challenging circumstance.

Also it's misleading (unintentionally so, to be sure), to merely mention a military kids birthplace because it implies that he or she grew up there, when in fact they probably only lived there for a year or so.

I wish this (highly mobile/rootless) aspect of the military childhood was noted more often in the "early life" section of kids who grew up like us, because it really was so different. A good Wikipedia article on the American military childhood can be found here Military brat (U.S. subculture) ("military brat" is an affectionate/not a derogatory term in military culture, by the way).

By the way-- John McCain is mentioned in that article in the sub-page entitled "List of Famous Military Brats".

There is also an award-winnig documentary on the subject of American military childhoods that deals with the issue of high-mobility (constant moving from place-to-place while growing up). It was produced by a non-profit and won nineteen awards.

(Again, this is a nonprofit link, but it illustrates my point-- http://www.bratsourjourneyhome.com)

This also adds new context to the section below this one (here in the discussion area) on "Birthplace" and citizenship. Ironically, many former military kids get challenged over their American citizenship and get labled as "immigrants", when in fact they were born while their father (or mother) was a soldier serving their country at an overseas military base.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this article states "His family, including his older sister Sandy and younger brother Joe,[2] followed his father to various naval postings in the United States and the Pacific.[6] Altogether, he attended about 20 schools.[7]" You must have missed that. And for an expanded treatment of McCain's early life, including his difficulties with moving a lot and at schools, please read the Early life and military career of John McCain article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great (my apologies). But the current layout is confusing-- Because the "Early Years" link is easy to miss, and there is no mention of it in the "Formative Years" section which is what most people will see when they read the article.

I also think that mentioning that he attended 20 different schools would make this aspect more clear.

Otherwise, my compliments on a high-quality article.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

One possible solution might be to make the "link-text" for the "Early Life" link larger and harder to miss?

But it might also help to have some reference to the '20 schools' it in the "Formative Years Section".

98.245.150.162 (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. There is a "Early life and military career, 1936–1981" section and within that a "Formative years and education" subsection. That subsection is where you would expect to find information about his schooling. And indeed, the last sentence of the second paragraph of that subsection says "Altogether, he attended about 20 schools.[7]" So the 20 schools statement is pretty hard to miss. As for the link to Early life and military career of John McCain biographical subarticle, I agree that people do often miss that and not read it. But that format is a Wikipedia standard layout item, and there isn't much that can be done about it (can't change the size or add color, for example). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Changing Size of Link to Early Life Section

I don't understand why you are asking a question and then closing the discussion before I can answer it.

I meant the section (in the main article) entitled "Formative years and education".

As you have acknowledged-- the "Early Life" link in that section is hard to see/not likely to be clicked as often as it should.

So since we agree that there is a problem, here are two possible solutions:

1) Put a (brief) mention of his mobile childhood into that section (with the expanded version on the other page).

or 2) Keep in mind that some rules in literature can be broken, so long as they are broken well.

No one is likely to complain if the link were to be made bigger. Here is how you do it-- use the "Section Header" code (==) or (===) on either side of the link to adjust the size.

I would also argue that this doesn't violate Wikipedia policy anyway, since this "Section Header/Link" actually pertains to a real section anyway.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't close anything, the "This discussion has been closed" legend refers to unrelated topic above about McCain and DADT. All I did was move this new topic to the bottom of the Talk page, rather than the beginning where you had started it. New topics are always supposed to go on the bottom.

As for mention of this mobile childhood, there seems to be a huge disconnect here. This article, John McCain, the one you're on the talk page for, already mentions his mobile childhood and the 20 schools. There's nothing further to be done on this.

As for making the link to the Early life and military career of John McCain article bigger, no can do. Wikipedia is run by detail-oriented types who quickly see and revert Manual of Style violations. Moreover, this is a Featured Article which means it has to be kept with every i dotted and every t crossed with respect to the style guide. So it is the way it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I just saw the "20 schools" line.

This is the honest truth-- I misplaced my reading glasses yesterday. I still haven't found them/am squinting as I read.

My sincere apologies.

Take care,

98.245.150.162 (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested change

Going through the current senators' articles, I have standardized all those that were not locked, with the style, in every case, of the majority of pages. Please italicize the list of senate seniority in the order of precedence. All other items match this article's. Missing parties and states have been filled in elsewhere, and sized where needed. Thanks. 75.203.4.199 (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be italicized? None of the other 'middle columns' of these bottom-of-the-article succession boxes are italicized. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, because it was already like that on the majority; the number of very recent senators didn't skew the results. 75.204.236.52 (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Addionally, the same box for seniority in the house of representatives are italicized (from Rep. Conyers to Rep. Young, and thereafter many are not included), and no, I didn't just go do it, and, no, it wasn't me. There were about 60 italicicized and 40 not, with this, Sen. Grassley, and Sen. Inhofe semi-protected. If I had looked at the semi-protected pages first, I would have done them all without italics, but the consensus of the majority was italicized. 75.204.49.226 (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A 60-40 split isn't too convincing. It's better to discuss something like this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress first rather than just converting the 40. To my eyes, the italics make no sense. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Candy desk

I have been working on the article Candy desk, and have discovered that John McCain sat at it for two years in the Senate. I would like to add it to his article, but seeing that it is a featured article, and there is probably alot of contentious stuff in the article, i will just post this here and allow someone more familiar with the article to add the information. --Found5dollar (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's too minor to go into this article, but you could add it to an appropriate place in the House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Where's the birth certificate?

I heard that John McCain was born in Panama, and is therefor ineligible to run for president. I also heard that he refuses to produce a long-form birth certificate. Why isn't there a section about the controversy? I'd write it, but I'm just an IP address. 24.177.123.74 (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he was about to be born in the Panama Canal Zone, but his father, who was a submarine commander, snuck the family over to Kenya, which has long run a secret facility that specializes in giving birth to future U.S. presidential candidates. For another take on this, see John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)-

According to my admittedly accurate understanding, McCain can run for president as many times as he wants, even if born in Paraguay to Eva Braun and Dr. Mengele. He could run, but he would not be eligible to serve.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Formative years and education: Speculative comments

Regarding his Naval Academy rank, the statenment:

McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, and he did not always obey the rules, which contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899), despite a high IQ.[10][12] He did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he struggled with, such as mathematics.[5][13] McCain graduated in 1958

is speculative and sounds contradictory. Did he not do well because of conflict with these nebulous "higher-ranking personnel" over the four years he was at West Point or did he not do well because he did not study? As written, it almost reads as if McCain were "too smart" for those who out-ranked him (the faculty) and was therefore punished with a low class rank. The wiki entry should leave the facts but drop the speculative causes. E.g. "Despite high IQ test scores, McCain ranked 894 of 899 in his graduating class." 141.157.189.99 (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This part of the main John McCain article is an unfortunately very terse summary of the much more expansive treatment in the Early life and military career of John McCain subarticle. What you're probably not getting is that at the Naval Academy, grades were given for conduct and leadership as well as for performance in actual classes, so McCain's rank suffered from the double whammy of being an underachieving student and an attitudinal rebel. So read the subarticle and get a much better idea of what McCain was like back then, or better yet, get one of the Timberg books out of the library and read it directly. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to add

In the overall description we need to add that he is the first white presidential candidate to lose to a Black African American. [06:41, February 28, 2011 99.13.123.131]

Your formulation is objectionable, but looking at the article it's true that it's never stated that Obama became the first African American to be elected president. I've added a sentence indicating that McCain acknowledged the historic and special significance of this in his concession speech. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I believe that it is important to note the Sen. Mccain is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=M [20:36, March 25, 2011 204.99.118.9]

I disagree. He's already listed in Members of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is enough. Most longtime Washington figures like him are members. Except to the conspiratorially-minded, it's not worth noting. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

I think the article fails to meet the neutrality standards, especially in the "Cultural and political image" section. It contains several opinionated statements about him and his personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.100.30 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a couple of examples.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, specifics are always needed. Note also that that section, and especially the underlying Cultural and political image of John McCain article, need updating for the course McCain has taken (and the reaction to that) since 2008. It's on my list of things to get to ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To follow up, I did do that updating a while back. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of quotes with punctuation

I propose changing all usage instances involving quotation marks and a form of punctuation to conform with the rules outlined here: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp. The article's present format is both inconsistent and (at times) grammatically incorrect.174.55.58.22 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of publishers follow the rules you reference, but Wikipedia does not. It has its own house style, as described at MOS:LQ. Accordingly, this article follows that style. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really major enough for main article?

[ moved here from User talk:Wasted Time R ]

Greetings, Wasted Time R. You moved my addition regarding McCain's vote on the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act to the separate page regarding his Senate Career. I feel that for many Senators (or other elected officials), this might be appropriate. However, it's widely known that McCain himself was militarily detained as a prisoner of war in Vietnam (and obviously, that occurred before his Senate career). His insertion of language authorizing military detention without trial of American citizens is thus of profound importance in understanding the man on a personal level, not merely as a Senator. I suggest my addition should be restored. Agreed? Ewcarson (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't like your phrasing and the use of the Lithwick source, but upon reflection, I agree this is important enough for inclusion in the main article (not because McCain was once a POW – nobody has ever disputed the right of the North Vietnamese to capture and hold him as a military prisoner – but because this is a very important policy area and McCain was a leader in the Senate on the issue). I've put it back in with revised wording and a different second source, see what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Times in torture

User:Wasted Time R - It is unfortunate that you would reinsert such a statement about McCains torture into you otherwise fine edits. For one year I was National Librarian for American Ex–Prisoners of War, Inc organization. During that time I received and read many documents about POW's torture from the men themselves and from various other documents, some smuggled out of the POW camp at great personal risk. I even wrote to DIA because POW's records were classified and asked for copies of de-briefing sessions. Was denied. In addition. my father-in-law was a Prisoner of War. I also worked for years as a volunteer at the Vietnam Vet Center in Fort Lauderdale and in Connecticut.

I have also had the pleasure of many correspondences with Senator McCain. He is a very humble man and always said others did better than him insofar as bearing the torture sessions. That is said by many POWs. The fact is, and this is substantiated by psychiatrists, that no POW remembers exactly how many torture sessions they had as the intense suffering clouds their mind and often blurs minor facts. It is the mind's safety mechanism (and many abuse victims have the same loss of minor facts) as well as feeling unwarranted guilt. The fact that McCain REFUSED EARLY RELEASE while living with only superfically treated wounds for five years as a POWs shows a courage that, according to many studies done on former POWs, you and I and the next ten thousand people would probably not have.

It should be obvious that Senator McCain and others have stated these things because of what they all feel - a combination of a mind which tends to blur the excruciatingly painful episodes and produces a "survivor guilt" that they feel as they see other prisoners carried out dead from wounds or beatings.

I do not know the author's source but ultimately, it could only come from the POW himself. For him to put this phrase in the book shows a callious disregard and a total ignorance for what these men endured and the pathology attached to it. I have never seen it before in print and hope I never do again.

I am removing it and I hope you will please show some compassion and see it for what it is and leave it out. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions here. The phrase in question is not meant to denigrate McCain's courage or experience in any way. It's simply to indicate that some others went through even longer and worse maltreatment than he did. This is true of those who were captured earlier, such as James Stockdale or James Robinson Risner in 1965 (compared to McCain's October 1967), and thus endured two additional years during the "bad" stretch (before conditions for POWs generally improved in late 1969). It also includes those who spent all their time in the hard-core bad camps, compared to the stretch that McCain spent at "the Plantation", which was (relatively) less bad. In McCain's case, he had two stretches of really bad beatings, one when he was first captured and the other in summer 1968 that led up to his forced "confession". Of course his state was further worsened by the terrible injuries he suffered during his shoot-down and the inept attempts to treat them.

And before you go off making negative remarks about the Hubbell book, I strongly suggest you read it, and the other account that I used as well:

• Hubbell, John G. (1976). P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-Of-War Experience in Vietnam, 1964–1973. New York: Reader's Digest Press. ISBN 0-88349-091-9. Republished and available from Amazon
• Rochester, Stuart I.; Kiley, Frederick (1999). Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-694-9. Available from Amazon

In addition to Amazon, both books are available at better local libraries or at university libraries. They do a great job in correlating different POW accounts into a whole tapestry of chronology and experience. By literally interviewing hundreds of POWs, they could reconstruct events that, as you say, might be hazy or confused in any one POW's memory, and could assess from common experiences whether any one account seemed inconsistent. These books also name names regarding those who resisted the most, those who suffered the most, those who collaborated with their captors, and so on; they are honest about what happened. In sum, these are the two standard works on American POWs in Vietnam.

And again, saying that others endured worse treatment than McCain is not a negative thing about McCain's endurance, any more than saying that Babe Ruth hit more home runs than Lou Gehrig is a negative thing about Gehrig's greatness. It's included in the article because McCain is now the most well known of the POWs, and this gives the reader who might not otherwise be aware of the American POW experience in Vietnam a quick idea that as bad as McCain's treatment was, others had it even worse. If you can think of a way to change that wording to make it more clear about what I was trying to get across, and less likely to be misunderstood the way you seem to have, I would be happy to reword it. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I do not agree with your Babe Ruth analogy, I must defer to you only because you are "technically" correct. I know that McCain said many times that he believes that others were tortured more. If I may, I will say this though: even though a prisoner was a POW "longer" does not necessary mean he was tortured more. Stockdale was certainly tortured many times and it almost broke my heart to see him break down in public when in his debate and also when he made a speech as a vice presidential candidate. Certainly the lights above that he kept looking at were distracting him and it brought tears to my eyes to think of what he was reliving. I will also say that I firmly believe the McCain was certainly tortured more than others, because at some point, the record shows that they found out who his father was and wanted very badly to break him to use him as propaganda. Interestingly, he never brings up this point himself to try to defend himself. Lastly, I will say again that I have many books about various POWs, including those on the Pueblo, and never have I seen any author put in that one sustained less torture than another. Certainly Bucher received more beatings at some point because he was "the highest ranking officer" and again, better propaganda. The same is true for General William Dean in the Korean war. So, by inference, one would infer that the others on the Pueblo received "less", but it is not mentioned in that way. Some might call is a difference without a distinction. I just feel it is unkind and really, despite what McCain himself believes, unprovable and totally unnecessary for the article. I wish we in this Wikipedia article could rise above this and not insert it back into the article.Mugginsx (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your chronology about McCain is off. His captors discovered he was the son of an admiral within a day or so of capture, and that point gave him medical treatment when at first it looked like they were going to let him die of his shoot-down wounds. McCain's status as a POW made page one of the New York Times and Washington Post two days after the shoot-down. He was in hospital for six weeks during which he was interviewed by a French television journalist and was visited by prominent North Vietnamese. He was sent off to the Plantation and thrown into solitary but didn't face any concerted torture efforts until August 1968, after his refusal to take early release angered the commander of the prison camp system. There's a passage in one of these two books where McCain wonders how he'll respond to the ropes torture, because he hadn't faced it until then, whereas he had heard about other POWs who had already been enduring it on and off for three years. It's to mark the suffering of those earlier, or even more unfortunate, POWs that I put the text in the article, knowing that it might be the only thing many readers encounter about the POW experience in Vietnam. Yet you turn this around and see the text as "unkind" towards McCain, when McCain, also trying to pay tribute to those other POWs, has said the very same thing himself. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My point is THEY ALL SAY IT OR THINK IT. They do not all run for Congress and speak publically but they all think it. I have been eye to eye with these men from three of the four conflicts and they ALL FEEL THEY WERE NOT AS BRAVE AS THE OTHERS. My question is: DOES IT HAVE TO BE IN THE ARTICLE? I am giving you an educated opinion based on personal experience i.e., interviews, telephone calls and letters, and sit-in sessions with their shrink on one occasion and after reading many psychological reports, both on the men personally, and as a group. Is it so important to be "technically correct: in that we meet the Wikipedia guidelines or can we once in awhile rise ABOVE the standards of Wikipedia and give these guys a break while understanding as much as possible their terrible confusion of the entire episodes. You will do whatever you feel you should do, but I ask you, is it so important to be "technically" correct when another, and I think better choice, is to see the obvious and real truth and just leave out THESE FEW WORDS? Mugginsx (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You are continuing to see some kind of derogatory conclusion that is not there. But it's clear we're not going to be able to reach any agreement on this. And as a word of general advice, typing in all caps on discussion pages does not strengthen one's argument, and in fact will quickly get you disregarded in the Wikipedia subculture. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been doing it for several years now. It is my style and not meant in any derogatory way. This is not a game to me as to who wins or loses this discussion. I was appealing to your sense of honor. Do whatever you want to do. Mugginsx (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Endorcement of Mitt Romney

I strongly think that John McCain Endorsing Mitt Romney should be added to the page. So I added it. Thank you, Keith G.J. Cody (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Grumpy old man

Why aren't people talking about how he is a grumpy, old man? He is grumpier than Barney The Dinosaur, and is so mean to everyone! Shouldn't it be in there? He once told me to vote for an old man! 199.80.226.18 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)