Talk:John McCain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q1:Why does this article cover up the fact that McCain has called Asians "gooks" and made other similar remarks?

A1:Nothing is being covered up. This article is written according to summary style which requires that material in other articles is only summarized here in this article. The information about McCain's use of the term "gook" is discussed in the articles on John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 and Cultural and political image of John McCain. Many other controversial remarks by McCain are detailed in the latter article. The "gook" comment was narrowly used by McCain with reference to the specific people who captured and then tortured him in Vietnam; McCain stopped using the term in 2000, and many Asians did not mind him narrowly using the term in the way he did. Singling out this remark for inclusion in this article would give it undue weight, and providing the necessary background and context would also take up too much space in this article. This issue was previously discussed in March, May, and June of 2008.

Q2: Where is X? It is a well-known development in McCain's life.

A2: As stated above, this article uses summary style; think of it as an executive summary of McCain. Much more information about McCain's life, military career, political career, and persona is included in the McCain biographical subarticles shown in the navigational box: Early life and military career of John McCain, House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999, John McCain presidential campaign, 2000, Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and Cultural and political image of John McCain.

Q3: Which of these is the subarticle that lists his controversies?

A3: None of them. All such material (such as his role in the Keating Five, for example) is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article and in the various subarticles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see here.

Q4: This article is not neutral! It's biased {for, against} him! It reads like it was written by {his PR team, Democratic hatchet men}!

A4: Complaints of bias are taken seriously, but must be accompanied by very specific areas of concern or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements such as these are of no help to editors; we can't read your mind.

Q5: The section on his presidential campaign leaves out important developments. What gives?

A5: The main article's presidential campaign section is intentionally brief. The subarticle John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 has a much fuller treatment of the campaign and that is where most new additions should go.

Q6: Something in the lead (introductory) section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{fact}} tag on it right now.

A6: This article (like many others) uses the approach that there are no citations in the lead section, because everything in the lead is also found in the body of the article along with its citation.

Featured articleJohn McCain is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
Article milestones
December 6, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 5, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 18, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 22, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
August 18, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
Current status: Featured article

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018[edit]

This change was made a few days ago, by an editor who says McCain has voted since December. But he has not, as this Politico article today confirms. Please revert the change from a few days ago. 2600:1001:B002:19D6:EDA6:4FDC:1F71:3FE5 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not done The point is made correctly in the article and in the appropriate place: John McCain#Return to Senate. It does not yet belong in the lede section. As long as he is alive and a Senator, his vote in December 2017 may not be his last. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2018[edit]

John McCain died August 25, 2018 at the age 81, at his home in Hidden Valley, Arizona. (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Already done ☑Y ~Awilley (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reached to have a Wikipedia to add reference of the web site

This aricle speaks about Senator John McCain in Viet Nam. God bless you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTMcG (talkcontribs) 02:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

In the Death section the first sentence reads "John McCain's family announced on August 24, 2018, that he would no longer receive treatment for his cancer."

The 2nd sentence then begins "Few days later on 25 August ..."

That sentence should be amended to read: "The following day, on 25 August ..." Wiki999Adam (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Already done —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Another request[edit]

Under "Reaction from the White House" it says "belatedly issued", i feel this is biased. should be just "issued" or should explain how it is belated, like the cultural norms or whatnot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, "belatedly issued" seems quite a bit toned down from what the sourced cited say. GMGtalk 16:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Good point. then maybe it should indicate that this criticism is specific to the source or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Newslinger talk 10:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Death reactions[edit]

Not listing all "standard reactions" (unless there are non-platitudes), but Trump, who had disagreements and as sitting POTUS is notable.Lihaas (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

No such thing as react or not about it or elite or not. Bornx doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendp (talkcontribs) 11:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph on topic of Tributes be changed to that shown below to better reflect the facts (and media reaction) around Donald Trump's single terse tweet. Omitting footnote references: "Tributes were widely given on social media, including from Congressional colleagues, former Presidents George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Vice President Mike Pence. President Donald Trump sent his condolences."Wiki999Adam (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the label[edit]

Closing per SNOW: The consensus is for "politician". --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead sentence refer to McCain as a politician or statesman? Fundude99talk to me 05:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Statesman. No contest.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Politician, as it currently reads, sounds the most neutral and straightforward to me. Are there an abundance of reliable sources which refer to him as a statesman? Mz7 (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Politician is very appropriate. Most definitions of "statesmen" relate to leaders, and even referring to a president as a statesman reads awkwardly. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 10:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A politician he was. A neutral, clear, and accurate description. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Politician - FlightTime (open channel) 12:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Politician is certainly the more appropriate label. —Zingarese talk · contribs 22:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Politician (Summoned by bot) agree with Brendon. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Politician, which is entirely neutral and non-demeaning, and also neutral in the sense of WP:NPOV. To use statesman would be subjective and hyperbolic – although his achievements include diplomatic ones, politics within the US account for most of what makes him notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Politician is the more WP:NPOV of the two. Kerdooskis (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Politician We already fawn over him enough by using "war hero" instead of "naval pilot". InedibleHulk (talk) 12:35, August 28, 2018 (UTC)
  • Politician History will tell if he ends up viewed as a "statesman". For now, we stick with the neutral (less peacock-y) term -- politician. --Calthinus (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Politician -- He is probably best known as a U.S. senator and secondarily as a presidential candidate so politician would be a better term. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Politician – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Politician - more neutral and more clear description.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unclear citation style[edit]

Coffeeandcrumbs tagged this with {{Citation style}}, saying "This article uses a fix of several citation styles, including WP:CS1 and WP:CS2. This is not an ITN concern. Article improvement should not be sacrificed for the sake of ITN's convenience."

It no longer mixes CS1 and CS2, so are there any such WP:CITESTYLE problems left that we should keep the tag? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem persists. Here are two examples:
  • Unidentified citation style[1][2]



The problem is all throughout the article's references and the §Bibliography section. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: If you look at the article contribution stats, you will see that by far the two largest writers of this article have been User:Anythingyouwant and myself. Back when this article was first being brought to GA/FA status in 2007–08, there was considerable debate across Wikipedia between the "plain" citation style (no templates) and the "cite news" etc style (templates). I liked templates, but Anythingyouwant hated the templates approach on stylistic/editor usability grounds and also thought they were significantly slowing down article load times, which was a real issue with heavily cited articles back then. So an agreement was made that we would use plain style, not templates, in this article and I often reworked other editor's contributions to change the template cites to the format used by this article.
Time passed. I stopped working on heavily viewed, contentious article subjects, such as this one, and Anythingyouwant has taken periodic breaks from Wikipedia entirely, including one currently. Article load times stopped being an issue and cite templates became almost universal. So other editors' contributions always used cite templates and none of them thought to rework them into the existing article style, thus producing the mixture you see.
That said, the difference in styles will be imperceptible to 99% of readers, as your examples above illustrate – only someone with a copyeditor's soul would notice it. Thus I do not think that this situation warrants an ugly warning notice at the top of the article. If there has to be a notice, put it at the top of the References section, where it would be more appropriate. But to be honest, jillions of WP articles have much worse clashes of citing style than this one, and carry no warning notice at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Wasted Time R: I agree that the notice tag should not be at the top. This is a minor issue that should be tagged at §References. Someone keeps moving the tag I placed to the top. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: The issue still exists. It is NOT a sourcing issue. It is a citation style issue. Please add the tag back to the References section. Users keep moving it to the top of the page where it does not belong. Just because he died we should not stop improving this article. If there was a FAR today, this article would fail.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know that it would fail FAR. This seems like a minor issue, one that makes a tag at the top inappropriate. I don't know that it's appropriate to have at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2018[edit]

why is president donald trump disrespected being call drumpf ? (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The vandalism has now been reverted. L293D ( • ) 13:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

"the men who thwarted his presidential aspirations"[edit]

how is that statement not neutral? soibangla (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

"Thwarted" implies bad intent. Or that McCain deserved to win. Neutral would be "defeated". That's redundant to the article as it's already mentioned, and not relevant to the funeral. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
It implies no such thing. If you think it does, then change it to defeated. It IS relevant to the funeral because McCain asked to be honored by the men who thwarted his presidential aspirations, at his funeral. soibangla (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2) I deleted it. So did Moboshgu. It is completely out of place in a discussion of his funeral. He chose them to speak; it was like him to reach across the aisle and across their past history, a gracious way of putting the past behind them - but he didn't make a point of that graciousness and neither should we. P.S. does any Reliable Source mention this bit of history in connection with his funeral plans, or is it Original Research to mention it there? --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Both of you are reading intent on my part that simply is not present in the edit. If anything, it supports "a gracious way of putting the past behind them." Slow down, relax, and read it again. soibangla (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I ask again: are Reliable Sources making this connection - calling attention to their past opposition in direct connection, the same breath, with his funeral plans? --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
RS aren't needed to present the indisputable fact, which some readers may not know, that both Bush and Obama thwarted McCain's presidential aspirations. A lesser man would've been bitter at them, but instead he asked both of them to honor him at his funeral. Again, if anything, it supports "a gracious way of putting the past behind them." There is absolutely nothing wrong with the edit. soibangla (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, well, you are free to continue to maintain that, even though it is purely synthesis - i.e., taking two indisputable facts and trying to establish a connection between them. ("RS aren't needed" is a rather strange argument to put forward at Wikipedia.) Anyhow, you will need to obtain consensus before it goes back in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no synth whatsoever. Both of you overreacted and you both know it. Show some humility and restore it rather than forcing me to jump through hoops to put back a perfectly fine edit. soibangla (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
No. "Thwarted" isn't a neutral word. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Look it up. It has no connotation. The edit is not prejudicial in any way to any of the men. soibangla (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You don't think it has a negative connotation. I do. to oppose successfully; prevent from accomplishing a purpose; to frustrate or baffle (a plan, purpose, etc.) sounds plenty negative to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does have negative connotation in this case and it is best to choose a more neutral word. Gandydancer (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Complain to the AP: “McCain was elected to the Senate from Arizona six times but twice thwarted in seeking the presidency.” soibangla (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't need to. They can use whatever words they like. They follow their own style guide, we follow ours. – Muboshgu (talk)`
It is not “ours,” it is yours. Even the definitions you provided above show it is not the least bit prejudicial. The objections to the edit are utterly preposterous. I’m done here. soibangla (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a community and communities follow standards. You've had at least four editors tell you that "thwarted" is inappropriate language. I suggest you read through the Manual of Style. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

New York Times says the same thing: "Mr. McCain’s plan for his funeral — that he be eulogized by both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the two presidents from opposing political parties who vanquished him in his runs for the White House" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B002:19D6:EDA6:4FDC:1F71:3FE5 (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a good thing we are not a newspaper, because "vanquished" isn't neutral either. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course it is, in the second sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

"Thwarted" does not have a neutral tone. It reads, even if unintentionally, as if "the men who thwarted his aspirations" intentionally and out of malicious intent sought to stop him from becoming the president. In reality, the men who thwarted his aspirations were simply other candidates with the same aspirations. Such words would be fine if this were a newspaper, but this is an encyclopedia and its purpose is solely to inform. For more information, read WP:MOS. This request is clearly made out of good faith, but by an editor that does not appear to be familiar with the Manual of Style. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 14:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Associated Press: “McCain was elected to the Senate from Arizona six times but twice thwarted in seeking the presidency.”
San Diego Union editorial: “Before dying, McCain asked George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the two people who thwarted his presidential runs, to speak at his funeral.” soibangla (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
We're definitely not following the lead of an editorial. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

NPR just referred to them as McCain's political opponents. Simple. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Presidential opponents would also work. No sourcing needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
"...requested that both of his presidential opponents, Bush and Obama, eulogize him..." Something like that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I still think we should leave it out entirely. And that latest wording proposal - "requested that both of his presidential opponents, Bush and Obama, eulogize him" - makes him sound small, petty - like he was getting the last word, forcing them to say nice things about him - that's not at all how I think he felt or meant it. IMO there is no good way to say this, and no need to say it at all. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. The article already mentions in great detail his competition against Dubya and Obama. No need to say it again. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
"Competitor" and "opponent" are too neutral, omitting the result of the contest. Purely as a verb, there's absolutely nothing wrong with "thwarted"; the point of all competition is to thwart your opponent, and wanting to defeat a consenting player is hardly malicious. Its impropriety at a funeral comes only from its misfortune as a string of text, which (sometimes subconsciously) resembles a contraction of "the warty twat that farted" if skimmed too quickly. Some synonym of "thwarted" is in order. Whether Obama "upset his apple cart" or Bush "queered" him, something happened along the way to ensure he never became president. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:48, August 28, 2018 (UTC)
Our article presently reads: "Prior to his death, McCain requested that former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the men that defeated him in his first and second presidential campaigns, respectively, deliver eulogies at his funeral, and asked that President Donald Trump not attend." Melanie suggests: "requested that both of his presidential opponents, Bush and Obama, eulogize him" I tend to like the present one best since it brings out something that he's known for - his ability to look beyond past differences and make fresh starts which is an important sign of maturity, (and especially as opposed to Trump who is well-known for holding a grudge forever). On the other hand, if most don't see it my way I think that Melanie's suggestion is fine as well. Gandydancer (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I did NOT suggest that phrase; that was BullRangifer's suggestion, and I opposed it, saying it made him look small and petty. I still oppose any mention of their previous competition in connection with their eulogizing him, and I have seen no proposed wording that I agree with. More to the point: why is there anything about this in the article? Who re-added it, after it was challenged twice (once by Moboshgu, once by me)? I'm going to review this discussion to see if there is consensus to include this. If not I am going to remove it again. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Put me down for Keep. If "defeat" is a truly dirty word, there are many other instances here that need deletion, too. Just sounds a bit too much like "the feet", in my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:37, August 28, 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is the word "defeat". I think the problem is that it's redundant because anyone reading McCain's bio already knows who he lost to in 2000 and 2008. We aim for brevity. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
A noble goal, for sure, but this particular article is already extremely wordy and overcited. I thought that was the look we were going for. If we're genuinely trying to slim it down now, I can get behind starting here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:04, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

Turn out that "what is in the article now" was added less than 12 hours ago, [1], by Pickle Mon, who has not taken part in this discussion and was probably unaware of it. I’m going to remove it since there is ongoing discussion here and no conclusion. At this discussion we have five four people (counting the IP) who want to include something but haven’t agreed on the wording, and three four people who oppose saying anything. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)d

Sorry to be such a dope which I won't get into right now, but you can add me to the list of "oppose saying anything" editors. Gandydancer (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the two men who thwarted Mr. McCain’s ambitions to become commander in chief, stood one after the other before the nation’s elite at Washington National Cathedral on Saturday to honor the man they beat Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Schanberg's allegations during 2008 election[edit]

Volunteer Marek, just what is "UNDUE" about my edit? Similar allegation are discussed in the section on McCain's "First two terms in U.S. Senate". Also, the NYT source supports claims made about Sydney Schanberg in the text. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That POW myth was put to rest many years ago. Gandydancer (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Whether the "myth" has been "put to rest" is irrelevant. It was the subject of a major investigative report by a respected, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a venerable albeit left-wing weekly magazine less than a month before the 2008 election. Neutrality favors the inclusion of "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". The text is well-sourced, takes no position on the allegations, and is relevant in the context of the section on McCain's failed 2008 presidential bid. Further, one paragraph on that subject in context of the hundreds of other words on the election is not disproportionate and does not violate WP:UNDUE.--Mox La Push (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Well no. If these allegations have been put to rest there's no reason to include them, especially not in the way you have it written. You would have to show that these allegations are still relevant and still being covered in recent sources. Volunteer Marek 07:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
First, neither you nor Gandydancer have provided any reliable sources showing that the allegations have been "put to rest". You have merely asserted that to be so. In any case the allegations are relevant in the context of the section on his failed 2008 presidential bid. And what Wikipedia policy indicates that for a topic to be included in an article it must be "being covered in recent sources"? There is plenty of stuff in the article and I'm pretty sure no one is writing now about how "During the 2006 election cycle, McCain had attended 346 events ..." for one example. --Mox La Push (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not up to us to provide such sources, it's up to you to show that this is still relevant. The policies are, as already mentioned WP:UNDUE and also WP:EVENT. And yes BLP applies here because BLP applies to articles about the recently deceased (second sentence of WP:BLP). Since more than one user has objected to this material, and since you're the only one who wants to add it, the WP:ONUS is on you to convince others, not vice versa. Volunteer Marek 13:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
"...1993. The group’s difficult finding—that there was no evidence that any Americans had been held back in Vietnamese prisons—was agreed to unanimously by all members, across the political divide, from far right to far left. It was a truly bipartisan outcome, one of those increasingly infrequent moments in which facts vanquished ideology on Capitol Hill. No one was more central to that blazingly controversial effort than John McCain. By dismantling the last pillar of American contempt for Vietnam, McCain, in partnership with Kerry, led the way to the lifting of the embargo, the diplomatic recognition of Vietnam, and the true end of the war." [2] Gandydancer (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you are way off base and ripping Wikipedia policy out of context. The fact that allegations from a reliable source concerning McCain's role in POWs/MIAs allegedly left behind in Vietnam resurfaced just weeks before the 2008 presidential election is both useful to the reader and within the scope of the article. Neutrality favors the inclusion of "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". The text is well-sourced, takes no position on the allegations, and is relevant in the context of the section on McCain's failed 2008 presidential bid. Further, one paragraph on that subject in context of the hundreds of other words on the election is not disproportionate and does not violate WP:UNDUE. WP:EVENT is inapplicable because we are not debating "whether a topic can have its own article". WP:BLP only applies to "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced". The material in dispute is well sourced. As for WP:ONUS, there is no consensus that the text on the 2008 allegations "does not improve an article" and only you have removed the content. Gandydancer, has merely asserted that "POW myth was put to rest many years ago". As I have pointed out "put to rest" or not "put to rest" is irrelevant in the context of the section on the 2008 election. --Mox La Push (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There's at least two users here who disagree with you. And BLP applies. So yes, ONUS, is on you. Volunteer Marek 03:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
1) Please don't use false edit summaries or make false accusations. I did not violate 3RR. If you really believe I did, feel free to report me to WP:AN/3. Keep in mind however that you could get a WP:BOOMERANG especially since WP:BLP applies to this page.
2) Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are just repeating the same thing over and over again, both in your statement above and in your edit summaries, and refusing to actually consider the points made by others. Volunteer Marek 03:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
At least three users. I just read the section. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, I don't have time to further engage tonight and I'm not sure it would help in any case. I do have time to say that you are correct, my last edit summary was false. I was mistaken, you did not violate 3RR. I apologize for the error. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I hear you just fine. "Do not confuse 'hearing' with 'agreeing with'." --Mox La Push (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it again as there's clearly not a consensus to include it. Perhaps John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 would be a more appropriate location to discuss this material. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Well I'll say this, to write of your own work essentially that it's not been widely covered in the mainstream press because there's a conspiracy to suppress the information...Well...if there's such a thing as a Wikipedian dog whistle, where normal people in crowd don't give a second thought, and editors hear panicked screaming "Don't put me in an article!"...That's it right there. It's basically a self-admission of WP:UNDUE weight. GMGtalk 12:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    • With respect to the purported failure by other media outlets to take up Schanberg's allegations against McCain, the disputed/reverted text never uses the word "conspiracy" or alludes to one. I used the word "colludes". While conspire and colludes are synonyms they are not precisely the same. In any case, that was probably a poor word choice on my part and I believe I would have been open to constructive feedback on that point. More importantly, in the Nation article cited, Schanberg doesn't explicitly allege collusion and the following is his sole reference to conspiracy: "McCain has insisted again and again that all the evidence has been woven together by unscrupulous deceivers to create an insidious and unpatriotic myth. He calls it the work of the 'bizarre rantings of the MIA hobbyists.' He has regularly vilified those who keep trying to pry out classified documents as 'hoaxers,' 'charlatans,' 'conspiracy theorists' and 'dime-store Rambos.' " Finally, I would add that if, say, the allegations had been made in 200-word rant by 19-year-old fry cook on an obscure blog then, yes, the references to other media failing to run with the story would point to WP:UNDUE. Here, however, we're talking about a long-form investigative piece by a veteran, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist in a national magazine that has been a mainstay of American journalism for over 150 years. That doesn't mean that Schanberg and The Nation were correct about the allegations but I do think, in context, it obviates claims about WP:UNDUE. --Mox La Push (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Well...let's be clear, Schanberg is unequivocally making accusations of a grand conspiracy including not only McCain, but also Kerry, the Pentagon, the media...I dunno...what?..five presidential administrations? And his own credibility as an individual doesn't at all satisfy UNDUE, because he's only one individual, and is individually the primary proponent of his conspiracy theory. And elsewhere it gets picked up by folks like [ Infowars] and Zero Edge, both smorgasbords of conspiratorial nonsense. GMGtalk 15:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC) 
  • failure by other media outlets to take up Schanberg's allegations against McCain This settles the matter right there. A primary source (even from a Pulitzer Prize winning author) is not worth mentioning here if its contents are not repeated and extended by secondary sources. As for the allegations themselves, history has disproven them. No "left-behind" POWs were ever found, and no evidence of them has turned up even after we re-opened relations with Vietnam. An equally well-sourced, and far more likely, explanation for the "POWs left behind" claim was that the Nixon administration promoted it as an excuse to keep the war going - deliberately combining the MIA numbers with the POW numbers to inflate them, and during his second term changing the rationale for the war from "repel the Communist invaders" to "get our people back".[3] --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Schanberg's work isn't a primary source for the purposes of this discussion. As is clear from the removed text, other media outlets did, in fact, "take up" Schanberg's allegations. One cited in the removed text was the Editor & Publisher piece. Also, in 2008, St. Martin's Press published An Enormous Crime: The Definitive Account of American POWs Abandoned in Southeast Asia by Bill Hendon and Elizabeth A. Stewart. Hendon and Stewart cite one of Schanberg's Newsday pieces in support of their argument. I haven't read the book but according to the Publisher's Weekly blurb: "Hendon and Stewart directly accuse a long list of government officials of the coverup. Among the most culpable: Kissinger, President George H.W. Bush, Senators John McCain ..." Before that, in 2004, as John Kerry sought to become the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, The Village Voice (VV) ran a series of articles on the subject by Schanberg. One accused Kerry of covering "up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973." The VV piece also implicated John McCain by name and the VV also published list of dozens of works on the subject by Schanberg published by Newsday. Moreover, when McCain was running for re-election to the Senate in 2010, The American Conservative republished Schanberg's Nation piece four months before the election. You claim, "No 'left-behind' POWs were ever found, and no evidence of them has turned up ..." We can surely agree the John McCain article isn't the place to hash that out and the disputed edit was NPOV re: the merits of Schanberg's claims. What is relevant is whether the disputed/deleted addition is NPOV in context. For reasons I have already stated, I submit that it is NPOV and that the special circumstances exceptions of BLP are inapplicable to the disputed/deleted addition. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • GMG, let's be clear: First, in the Schanberg article cited in the deleted text, Schanberg himself chose not to use the word "conspiracy", except to describe how McCain had deployed that word against his critics. I think it's a fair point that his allegations are tantamount to an allegation of conspiracy by McCain and other officials but I can't claim to know why he didn't come right out and say that. It could be that he had a more nuanced view, that he thought making such a claim would trigger some readers to reflexively dismiss his case on specious grounds, or something else. Second, WP:UNDUE isn't about whether a point of view posits a conspiracy—"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I maintain that the deleted text, in context, represents a significant viewpoint published by reliable sources and that one relatively short paragraph in the entirety of the John McCain article is proportionate. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support content inclusion. We follow the sources, right? Based on that argument used minute to minute on various other political articles in Wikipedia to add content, there's no reason to keep it out of this article. -- ψλ 16:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    We don't follow EVERY source - only the sources/reports that are given WEIGHT by being reported on and repeated by multiple, independent, reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2018[edit]

This recent edit should be reverted. McCain's father was a four-star admiral at the time which is the highest rank of admiral. It is because of this prominence of the father that the North Vietnamese became especially interested in their new POW. If his father only been one star, it's possible they would not have made the connection. 2600:1001:B002:19D6:EDA6:4FDC:1F71:3FE5 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Your explanation relies on original research. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Pardoned for treason[edit]

Just FYI that this is getting enough traction for Politifact to start picking up on it. Apparently totally fabricated by their measure. But I wouldn't be surprised if it pops up here, assuming it hasn't already. GMGtalk 10:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure it just did. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

Financial information totally missing[edit]

The article is deficient in that it completely fails to discuss his finances. While a public servant all his life, he is also known to be extremely wealthy, owning a huge mansion and a number of other properties, so many that he said he didn't know how many he had. A complete article would include a section on his sources of income and financial status. I don't have that information, and was disappointed when I came here to find it and found it totally missing. He was an important public figure, and deserves a more complete Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4202:59A0:84DC:94F5:FD0F:694C (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Per that article, his financial status was "Married to a beer heiress". So basically "set for life". Not much more to say, unless I'm overlooking something. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:03, August 28, 2018 (UTC)
If he didn't know how many houses he owned, I'm not sure how we would know. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Turns out he was moonlighting as a retired captain all along, and that's not nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

Should a Legacy section be created?[edit]

AHC300 (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What sorts of things would it include? Buildings, streets, schools etc. named for him? I think this idea has possibilities - we often do that kind of section for prominent people - but can we see some examples? Certainly if they rename the Russell Senate Office Building for him, that would be one. Are there other types of legacies - organizations he founded, significant bills still in effect that he authored? --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Here's some people who had kind of the same idea. Let's see what they come up with. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I notice that other articles such as John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy combine my idea here - memorials and things - along with historical evaluation of their impact, into sections variously called Legacy, Honors, Historical impact, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
In due course it seems relevant to include here, but doing so now is jumping the gun a little, imo. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2018[edit]

Remove "subsequently enlisted in" and replace with "was commissioned into"...the United States Navy.

Rationale: Naval Academy graduates do not enlist in the navy. They receive an officer's commission. Johnrmosierjr (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done - You appear to be correct. It does not seem McCain was an enlisted man prior to attending the Academy. GMGtalk 14:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2018[edit]

"As chair, McCain has tried to maintain a bipartisan approach and has forged" ==> either drop the "has" or change to "had" 2605:E000:9149:A600:803C:B302:3874:B989 (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done GMGtalk 10:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2018[edit]

"and has forged" ==> "and forged" 2605:E000:9149:A600:803C:B302:3874:B989 (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Break out separate article for Death and Memorial services?[edit]

Have we considered breaking out a separate article for McCain's death, memorial, funeral, and legacy? There has been significant media coverage, and the politics of it (Trump's non-invitation) are noteworthy. Additionally there is movement to rename the Russell Senate Office Building for him. Any opinions on this? KConWiki (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I would oppose this. There is room in the article for what we have and maybe a little more; there is no encyclopedic need to chronicle the memorial services in great detail. We may create a legacy section later, when history has had a chance to evaluate him. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft of Funeral Changes[edit]

Should a sub-section for Funeral Service be broken out, as well as perhaps his memorial service in Arizona? His funeral service at the Washington National Cathedral was a significant moment broadcast by CNN. In that interest, I've drafted parts that I hope others will add to, confirm, and add references.

CountryMama27 (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is excessive. Wikipedia is not a memorial. We can have some prose to mention the eulogies by Bush and Obama, and other important bits, but we don't need to list the hymns and readings at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it should be written as prose. I welcome others to help shape it as such. I used the narrative of Reagan's state funeral (even though this wasn't a state funeral) as a loose basis but it needs work. At least it's a start:

After lying in state at the Capital, McCain's flag-draped casket was transported by motorcade to the Washington National Cathedral for the Episcopalian funeral service. Eulogies were given by Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain; Sen. Joseph Lieberman, former Democratic Senator from Connecticut; President George W. Bush; Sec. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State under President Nixon; and President Barack Obama.[1] Interspersed with the eulogies were anthems and hymns performed by the U.S. Naval Academy Glee Club, the Washington National Cathedral Choir, and the U.S. Navy Band Brass Ensemble. The songs included Amazing Grace by the U.S. Naval Academy Glee Club, The Lord is My Shepherd, How Great Thou Art, Danny Boy, sung by opera singer Renee Fleming, and America the Beautiful. Following tradition, three readings were given: Wisdom 3:1-5, 9 read by Sen. Kelly Ayotte; 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 by Sidney McCain, daughter of John McCain; and John 15:12-13 read by Senator [Lindsey Graham]] [2] A brief homily was given Rev. Edward Reese, followed by prayers from Rev. Canon Jan Naylor Cope. After a benediction, the casket was carried by a military honor guard down the aisle, followed by Cindy McCain and the McCain family members.

Thank you for the feedback CountryMama27 (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@CountryMama27: You don't start a discussion and then add the material to the article that you're seeking consensus for, let the discussion run its course, then it will be determined if it should be included. This is how these things work. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not a memorial page, but referencing the elements of the service given, particularly those who spoke, readings shared, and hymns and songs performed. I understand that I shouldn't have moved it to his page - but then please put it back in here in Talk. All of the references took a great deal of time to put together, and I think there's a reasonable discussion that this detail of his service is a moment in history that's important to include. In the interim, please put the detail back? CountryMama27 (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
It is inconsistent with other famous people pages, and is a memorial section. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
In taking a look at some other famous people pages (see,_Princess_of_Wales - I'm sure there are others), when there is a nationally televised/publicized funeral, even though it isn't a state funeral, it is clearly a newsworthy event. For some people who are interested in the details, having them would be useful. There certainly are many references for each of the eulogies, songs, and Biblical passages read at the service thus far, as well as critiques and commentary. It was a major, newsworthy, important event. Perhaps I didn't write it in the correct format (see - Cathedral Events). CountryMama27 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree you should return the material to this discussion, you're the one that remove it. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who removed it, but here it is with some additional information and fixes missing.


I beg your pardon, but you did - FlightTime (open channel) 18:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
You're correct - I moved it to the main page, I didn't consider that removing it as you did when it was deleted. Regardless, it's moot.
Yes I removed it from the article, because this discussion has not reached consensus yet. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with you. CountryMama27 (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it is way excessive to list all the speakers, hymns, performers, etc. Focus on the things that all news coverage is focusing on, per WEIGHT. That will have to wait for the summary-type, next-day news coverage, as opposed to the contemporaneous play-by-play reporting. My hunch is that the regular coverage will be about the eulogies by the two ex-presidents - not what they said, just that they spoke. That's the encyclopedia-worthy item. Let all the other details go. TMI for an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Unclear sentence needs revision[edit]

McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958 and was commissioned into the United States Navy. He became a naval aviator and flew ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers. During the Vietnam War, he was almost killed in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire."

As it stands, the second sentence seems to indicate (by position that McCain was flying group-attack BEFORE the Vietnam War, which begins in sentence 3. What war could McCain have been fighting in before Vietnam? I think 1958 is too late for the Korean War. Under Ike it became "Peace & Prosperity." If sentence 2 concerns the Vietnam War, then "During the Vietnam War" (intro to sentence 3, should be moved back before sentence 2. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC))

Agreed. The fire was also much more significant that the initial writing. How about the following:

After graduating from the United States Naval Academy in 1958, McCain was commissioned as a Ensign and attended flight school in Pensecola, FL [1], graduating in 1960 at the start of the Vietnam War[2]. After serving as a flight instructor in Mississippi, he volunteered to join a combat squadron on the USS Forrestal in 1966. He was seriously wounded in a deadly, accidental missile firing on the Forrestal in 1967 that killed 134 soldiers [3]. CountryMama27 (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with this change. References 1 and 3 are the same and should be combined. And of course the references have to be expanded to give all the information, not just a link. If you don't know how to do references, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. It's just a draft rewrite. Expanding the citations into wiki format, I agree it would need to be done before publishing but until the writing is agreed to, it didn't make sense to me to put it all in at once. In reading where these sentences appear in the article, I'd probably trim back this a little bit since much of the detail (e.g. rank, Forrestal fire) is included later in the article. It really should be a single sentence, two at the most. Interestingly, his service as a flight instructor and then volunteering for combat duty isn't mentioned in the detail part of the article and should be there at some point. CountryMama27 (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2018[edit]

The Veterans group AMVETS was the lead group asking the White House to re-lower the American flag to half-staff to honor the laste Senator. Here is one of many sources:

Thank you. EJKelly12 (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

According to sources (including the one you cited), the American Legion was equally strong in urging this, if not more so. [4] --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
On thinking about it, I have added AMVETS to the "backlash" sentence; we already had a mention of the American Legion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"III" vs "IV"[edit]

The father of John Sidney McCain Sr. (the senator's grandfather) is also "John Sidney McCain" (the senator's great-grandfather). Is the numbering and naming of our articles off? The senator is the fourth of the line with this name, in direct succession. -- (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

He went by John Sidney McCain III. His father went by John Sidney McCain Jr. His grandfather went by John Sidney McCain Sr. His great-grandfather apparently didn't use a designation. We go with how people style themselves - not by how we think they ought to be styled according to some rule. For example, the president is called Donald Trump, not Donald Trump Sr. - even though he has a son called Donald Trump Jr. --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In the info box, John McCain's son's name is linked to the article on his father, not his son.[edit]

In the info box, John McCain's son's name is linked to the article on his father, not his son. (I'm a little confused on how to fix it -- I don't want to mess it up.) Morris (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  • The infobox doesn't mention McCain's son's name. The line for children is "7, including Meghan," because Meghan McCain is his only notable child. John S. McCain IV and the other sons don't meet Wikipedia notability requirements. John S. McCain Jr. is the Senators father, and is listed in the infobox as such. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    • He probably mistook the "Jr." as his son. Kiwifist (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Footage of McCain memorial services, speeches, etc.[edit]

Good afternoon fellow Wikipedians - I recently added a collapsible table with the C-SPAN footage of the McCain memorial services, including the speeches by Biden, Bush, Obama, Lieberman, Kissinger, et al. This edit was reverted with the rationale of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. That guidline is reproduced here:

"Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (However, for the Wikipedia page for deceased Wikipedia editors, see WP:RIP)."

I do not see how the inclusion of the links to the footage, which (to me, anyhow) would seem reasonable to be of interest and use to at least some of the WP readers visiting the section about McCain's death and funeral, violates the above guideline. To me, that means that if a friend or relative passes away, that they ought not automatically be considered article-worthy. The McCain memorial services and the attendant political factors dominated the news that week, at least in the United States, and from what I have seen elsewhere, were prominent in news coverage internationally as well.

The box is collapsible, so as not to take up too much space for those readers who are not interested in viewing the footage. If the placement or formatting of the box could be done differently, then I would be happy to discuss and learn from fellow editors with suggestions on it. However, I do not see how the inclusion of the links harms WP or its readers, and I do not see how the removal of the links helps.

Thanks to all for the many important things you do to make WP function, and let's discuss further as appropriate. KConWiki (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I agree that NOTMEMORIAL does not apply, but I think including this would be overkill. This is a biography; it's about his entire life. Why C-span footage of his entire funeral, blow by blow, hours and hours? Why not C-Span footage of him getting off the airplane after his captivity, or of his vote to save Obamacare? Those are much more notable. I'm not suggesting we add them, quite the contrary. Basically I think if we start providing links to extended TV news coverage, on any subject, we are opening the door to something that could overwhelm our articles. If people really want to see this, no doubt they can easily find it on YouTube. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2018[edit]

In the 'Awards and Honors' section please add: "In the spring of 2018 Senator. McCain was decorated with the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun from the Japanese Emperor for 'strengthening bilateral relations and promoting friendship between Japan and the United States'".[1] Odysseas2001 (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fish+Karate 11:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ "2018 Spring Conferment of Decoration on Foreign Nationals" (PDF). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Retrieved 22 September 2018.

Photo of Meghan crying[edit]

I think that the photo is irrelevant, since Meghan is not mentioned prominently in the "Death and funeral" section. I propose that it is removed. wumbolo ^^^ 13:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)