Talk:John McCain/Archive 12

McCain obtained marriage license before his divorce was granted

According to the LA Times:

Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.

Any views on whether this should or should not be mentioned? (Under current Arizona law this should not be possible, though perhaps the law was different then. Regardless, this was surely pretty unusual.)

And if it is mentioned should the discrepancy be stated explicitly or just implicitly by noting the date he obtained his marriage license as well as the date he obtained the divorce? Crust (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article currently says:

In April 1979,[54] McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[57] Also in 1979, he pushed to end his marriage with his wife Carol, who accepted his request for a divorce in February 1980; the divorce became effective in April 1980.[18][54] The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments due to the injuries resulting from the 1969 car accident; they would remain on good terms.[57] McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980 with Republican Senator and future Secretary of Defense William Cohen serving as best man, and Democratic Senator Gary Hart as a groomsman.[57][11]

So, there's already quite a bit of chronology about his divorce and remarriage, in this Wikipedia article. Have we omitted any important part of the chronology? I can't see any. The LAT article that you mention is cited in Early life and military career of John McCain. No one is suggesting that he got married to his second wife while still married to his first wife, so the details about when he got a license to marry don't seem particularly notable.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would this be notable? Well, it sounds like McCain may have got his marriage license under false pretenses (claiming that he was not legally married when in fact he was). If true, that's surely notable. But on reflection, my instinct is we should not include this based on WP:BLP, at least not without more information than in the LAT article. Maybe there was some unusual aspect to Arizona law at the time or some other wrinkle that makes this other than it might seem.Crust (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems kind of like jaywalking, at the very worst. His wife agreed to a divorce in February 1980, a marriage license was obtained in March 1980, the divorce became effective in April 1980, and the wedding occurred in May 1980. Even if Arizona law technically required that the effective date precede the license date, it's hard to see this as notable. In any event, the LAT article doesn't mention any such technical requirement.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Arizona law at the time did not require a person to be unmarried to get a marriage license. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of you...(and specifically Arizona in the 70's), but I had to swear an oath before a notary that I was not presently married in the US or any other country in order to obtain a marriage license. I also had to state whether I had been previously married or were a bigamist (the first time I had heard the word), and if I had, whether I was widowed, or divorced. All of these things I had to swear were true, and then add my signature. It is not a light thing, and I can't believe 'Wasted's statement that a person in Arizona was not required to be unmarried in order to obtain a marriage license. What then would prevent someone with that license to become a bigamist? It doesn't make sense. I need some more solid backup 'Wasted' before I can believe you. 222.2.96.73 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Rawckuf.

I'd like to see this information posted so that we judge for ourselves. No one is suggesting that his second marriage is illegal, but that facts regarding when the divorce was initiated, when he got a marriage license, when his divorce was finalized and when he was remarried should be posted since they are completely unbiased (based on the legal documents). It's not the fault of the public that the facts are unflattering to his image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLauren (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Either he broke the law or he didn't. I haven't seen any reliable source that says he did. If a reliable source reports in the future that he may have violated some law, then we can address this again.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for whether something goes in Wikipedia is not whether or not the activity was legal or not. The Los Angeles Times is a perfectly credible source on this. This information should be in this biography entry. McCain applied for a marriage license while still married to his first wife. It's a fact. Period. Put it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.145.225 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times article contains lots of facts, but that doesn't mean we're obligated to put every single one of those facts into this Wikipedia article. A fact has to be notable to go in here. You argue that this particular fact is notable because it shows McCain broke the law. However, neither the LA Times article nor any other reliable source suggests that McCain broke the law.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My source for what I said above is inadmissable by WP rules, but one I believe nonetheless. In any case, per WP:BLP and similar considerations, the burden of proof is on those who claim that McCain violated or broke a law or regulation. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted an attempt to add this to the article. It is like adding, "Joe Politico was observed driving down Park Avenue at 50 mph." Without knowing if the speed limit is 25 or 55, this doesn't tell you anything, but the fact of an otherwise trivial detail being included in the article insinuates that it must have been illegal. This is, as I said, a violation of WP:BLP and similar guidelines. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a fact for you: While still married to his first wife Carol, John McCain had an extramarital affair with millionaire heiress Cindy Hensley. Even though this information is available in your article it is buried and has to be parsed together. It is not mentioned on the first page where his life is summarized. Your short biography conveniently jumps from 1973 to 1981. It is not your job to whitewash his biography for him. Let the straight talker do his own spin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.202.2 (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're correct that this information is covered in the article but not in the lead section. Unfortunately, the lead can only cover a few of the major events, so it necessarily jumps around. For example, there is also a jump from 1936 to 1958. Even the lead of the sub-article Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain necessarily jumps around a bit.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead section doesn't talk about McCain's personal life at all, good bad or indifferent. The John-Carol-Cindy business is described in the body of four different articles: this one, Early life and military career of John McCain, Carol McCain, and Cindy Hensley McCain. It's not explicitly labeled an 'extramarital affair' in any of these articles; whether it should be is a matter of opinion wherein different editors have had different views, and this is how it's worked out. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you'd like to see whitewashing, you might check out the Barack Obama article, which does not mention anywhere that he was a cocaine user. One of the Obama sub-articles mentions it, though does not mention that it was illegal. Compare an article like Sarah Palin, which does mention that she used marijuana, and also mentions whether or not it was legal.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge. Please don't point the "white-wash-finger" to other articles. It's just a senseless exchange between the two major camps and their editors. ;) --Floridianed (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right to point the "senseless-exchange-finger" at me. I should probably bring up the drug use thing there rather than here, but I'll have to work up my courage first.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparing articles is generally a bad idea. Each article stands on its own merits. What makes sense for one may not make sense for another. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How to describe pre-marital relationship with second wife

[out] I agree that articles need to stand on their own merits and just because something is handled one way in one article does not mean it must be handled the same way in another - including political rivals. And I agree that the details of McCain's personal life don't belong in the intro. I do not know anything about the laws of Arizona regarding marriage licenses, but I do know the difference between calling something an "extramarital" relationship and saying only that there was a "relationship", and I am bothered by the omission of the word "extramarital" here. I know this has been discussed, and I know that the chronology is spelled out in the subsequent sentences, but it seems to me that the way this ended up has gone too far in the direction of sanitizing what was obviously an extramarital relationship. There is no such hesitation in other articles across the political spectrum, and I am unconvinced that this is a direct and clear way of presenting information that is not in dispute, even by the McCains. All that needs to be added is the word "extramarital" - doesn't have to be "adulterous" or linked to adultery although that would be accurate - but to say just "relationship" followed by his "pushing" to end his marriage (as a reader I do not understand exactly what that means, by the way) may imply the truth but it doesn't state the truth, which I believe is what we should be doing here. He likely had a "relationship" with hundreds of people at that time, but the one with Cindy was presumably quite different and we ought to be stating it more directly. Tvoz/talk 17:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several reasons why this question resolved itself the way it did, and we can go into it again if necessary. First, this article does use the word "extramarital" where it is clearly appropriate to do so, regarding affairs in Jacksonville, Florida. So, there is no squemishness about using that word. Second, regarding McCain's initial relationship with Cindy McCain (which occurred several years after the Jacksonville stuff), the fact that they knew each other while McCain was still married to Carol is made very clear already in this article; adding the word "extramarital" would therefore not only be redundant (with the concomitant risk of undue weight), but would also potentially be misleading. It could be misleading because the word "extramarital" has connotations; McCain had lots of relationships with people outside his marriage (e.g. with other Senators), but we would not call them "extramarital", because that word has connotations of jumping into bed for sex. Regarding Cindy and John McCain, we have no idea when they first had sex, and one of our leading sources repeatedly uses the word "courtship" to describe their relationship before marriage;[1] obviously, the word "courtship" does not have connotations of having sex. I offered that we could use the word "courtship" in this article, but the consensus was to instead go with the bare word "relationship." A further reason to be wary about inserting the word "extramarital" is because that word is used less frequently when referring to a spouse who has separated and is seeing another man or woman, and it is unclear exactly when Carol and John McCain separated (he plausibly says that he was separated from Carol before he met Cindy). All in all, we can re-open this can of worms, but I'd rather not.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I was a party to the previous struggle on this, so it's not good form for me to try to open it. But I will say, I don't think the result has been very successful. In a short amount of time, there have been at least four editors (the IP above, Tvoz, Hanter and Sjh) who have felt that "extramarital", or some formulation of "still married to", needed to be added here. Like it or not, this is a high-profile part of the article, especially in light of the Edwards-Hunter business, and it does bother me that overall confidence in the entire article may be undermined by it appearing that the editors are dancing around a simple truth in this particular matter. And the "extramarital" truth is pretty simple: John and Carol were still married, still cohabiting, and not legally separated during this period. While Ferrylodge thinks the idea that they were nonetheless separated in some sense during this time is plausible, I think it's far-fetched. But even if so, the separation was of the informal variety and the "extramarital" would still apply. As for connotations, "extramarital" does not imply "jumping into bed for sex". All sources agree that McCain was smitten with Cindy at first sight and remained so; the fact that he quickly married her after the divorce went through makes this clear. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We had a long discussion already about whether or not they were separated.[2] In Florida (where the divorce was obtained), the law does not require filing of papers to become separated. So, while Carol and John may not have separated in any legal proceeding, they still may well have been separated according to the law, prior to John meeting Cindy. See Abrams, Brenda. Everything about How to Divorce in Florida: An In-Depth Guide to Divorce in Florida, page 14 (2003): "Parties living together in the same home are considered to be separated if they no longer have sexual relations with each other and no longer share the same bedroom."

I suspected that WTR's formulation of "relationship" without the word "extramarital" might become problematic. As I've said before, I would have no objection if we stick to the cited source,[3] and instead use the word "courtship" which does not beg for any adjectives like "extramarital". Rick Block also suggested "seeing".Ferrylodge (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And regarding Edwards-Hunter, please see here and here.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Definition of extramarital.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

[out] There is such a thing as commonsense understanding, and we all know what is generally meant by "extramarital", and as I said, I am not asking that "adulterous" be added or linked to (as it is in some other articles). It in no way would be undue weight to refer to his relationship with Cindy as an extramarital relationship - it is one word which clarifies the overly general "relationship". WTR's point is right on the money - there is an appearance of dancing around a rather simple truth, and that can raise questions in readers' minds about whether other things in the article are straightforward and reliable. I think this is a good article, and I'd like to see it eventually go forward as a featured article, but things like this give me pause. I strongly recommend the addition of the word "extramarital" in this sentence. I also again mention that "pushed for a divorce" is not particularly clear to me - does this mean that Carol contested it? Tvoz/talk 21:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No Tvoz, I would rather withdraw the featured article nomination than put this in the article. Extramarital relationship connotes (if not denotes) extramarital sex. You are not citing any reliable source. I would be glad for the article to say that he began "seeing" Cindy or began "courting" Cindy as stated in the cited source.[4] Regarding "pushing for a divorce", I think that is very understandable and is supported by the cited source (New York Times); have you looked at the cited source? It obviously means that there was some resistance, but this Wikipedia article makes very clear that she did not resist in court.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't post that note to argue with you about this. I made a point about how the article reads to an interested reader and it really wasn't about whether or not this article reaches FA status - I have a problem with that paragraph whether or not you withdraw the nomination, so doing so wouldn't help. Yes, I have read the NYT article, more than once in fact. It uses phrases like "aggressively courted" which is not the same tone as "courted" or "seeing"; "lived together as man and wife" (referring to Carol) from February to May 1979 suggesting that his relationship with Cindy was secret and, indeed, extramarital as anyone would define it. I don't expect that there are reliable sources regarding their sex lives, nor am I interested in including that kind of detail. But I don't think there are too many people who read this relationship as anything other than what is commonly understood of an extramarital relationship - especially since he himself acknowledges that he had other extramarital relationships before it. I think that the appearance here is of an effort to avoid the obvious, and that concerns me regardless of whether you go for FA or not. As for "pushed for divorce", I think it's colloquial and we'd do better with some more explanation - I see that Kristof used the phrase, but that doesn't explain the idiom to our broad-based, worldwide audience. Tvoz/talk 04:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of reliable sources that describe John McCain's initial relationship with the person who would become his second wife. As far as I know, none of those descriptions use your preferred phrase "extramarital relationship." Why are you insisting on it here then? Are all of those reliable sources written poorly? I am not wedded to the present language of this Wikipedia article. But I will do everything I can to oppose inserting material that is not reliably sourced, and your assertion of an extramarital relationship is not reliably sourced, given that the word "extramarital" connotes (and probably denotes) extramarital sex. I hope we can resolve this matter soon, and if it resolves in favor of including unsourced information, then I will withdraw the featured article nomination. Is there no phrasing that will be acceptable to you without using the loaded term "extramarital"?

As regards the phrase "pushed for divorce" used by the New York Times, please do go ahead and suggest something that you would prefer, so we can discuss it.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Eager to marry Cindy, McCain urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce", or words to that effect, is what you mean, I think - "pushed for a divorce" is an imprecise idiom whether the New York Times used it or not. "As the pair began dating, Lakeland allowed them to spend a weekend together at his summer home in Maryland, he said." [5] would be a reasonable source for "extramarital". I might be ok with something like "In April 1979, while still married to Carol, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley... " - would have to see it in context. I am not insisting on anything, Ferrylodge, and I didn;t say this article was poorly written. I am raising an issue about this section which I believe is oddly worded in a way that could be construed as trying to sanitize the biography, regardless of its status. And by the way, the cultural image section also seems to be worded in a way that takes presumably negative items and turns them into positives, an example being his well-sourced temper. Another example of a questionable item is his "close ties to his children from both of his marriages" - I believe this is a true and sourced item that is fair to include, but you've left out of this article the also sourced item that his children were so upset with his abandonment of their mother that they did not attend his wedding; we have it in the subarticle, I know, but in this article you are telling only half of the story regarding his relationship with his children - the good half. That also can be construed as sanitizing. I am well aware of the lengthy debate that went on previously on this talk page about some of this, and I am not interested in getting into a debate with you about it, having had that pleasure in the past. But I am registering an objection here to euphemism and sanitizing. Perhaps other editors have opinions on this - I'm going to step back for a moment and see, and hope you will too. Finally, I specifically said that removing your FA nomination is irrelevant, so please stop holding that out as a threat. The only thing that will accomplish is it will reduce the number of uninvolved editors who come to this article and talk page to review it, some of whom might share the concerns that I and others have expressed about this. I hope that's not why you're saying you'll remove the nom. Tvoz/talk 05:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz has a good point about being given a weekend together to spend at a summer home; I think that would be allowable as evidence of adultery in a divorce proceeding (it's New York, not Virginia or Florida, but see this for "the plaintiff can imply guilt through indirect or circumstantial evidence so long as it leads the reasonable observer to conclude that the parties were inclined toward adulterous acts and the opportunity existed"). Wasted Time R (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we move this discussion to the sub-article, here. This article merely summarizes what's there. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the subarticle goes into more detail, so the problem I am raising is here more than there. Tvoz/talk 00:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have no objection to the change I am suggesting at the sub-article, then I will implement it there, and then replicate it here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the article to try to address your concern. It now says: "In April 1979,[53] McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, whose father had founded a large beer distributorship.[57] They began dating, and he urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce, which she did in February 1980; the uncontested divorce became effective in April 1980.[18][53]"Ferrylodge (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[out] No, I think it needs to say In April 1979, while still married, McCain met Cindy Lou... - yes, it goes on to say he asked his wife for a divorce, but the way that is worded sounds now as though Carol had no problem with this and this could be read to mean that they were separated, but we have clear evidence that this is not the case - she was stunned, etc. With "while still married" we would more accurately summarize the longer section in the subarticle. I'm not sure if this is enough, but it would be an improvement. Thank you for adding the part about the children's reaction, and I think that the Cultural section should say "All of JMC's family are now on good terms with him". Tvoz/talk 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. A wife can be separated from her husband, but still hope for reconciliation, and therefore be surprised to learn about another woman. We have evidence both ways as to whether they were separated. See here. This article presently says: "They began dating, and he urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce…." This could not possibly be any more clear regarding the fact that he was still married when he began dating, unless we place this sentence in ALLCAPS with bolding, or alternatively we could achieve the same undue weight and redundancy by adding “while still married.”

As for the cultural section, it says “all of John McCain's family members are on good terms with him.” This is written in the present tense, and is therefore very clear. Inserting the word “now” would only confuse matters and require further explanation. As far as I know, he was never on poor terms with his adopted daughter Bridget, for example, although it’s certainly possible he may have been at some point.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read the separation/cohabit discussion when it was going on. The way the sub is written now makes it clear(er) that they were married, he began "dating", and then stopped living with his wife who later accepted his request for a divorce. There is no concern about undue weight here regarding this phrase - and if you'd allow the completely clear "extramarital" to be back in the article this would not be a problem. But since you feel that the word isn't sourced (Wasted and I disagree with you, but that's your position), our first responsibility is to accurately summarize the relationship as set out here:

McCain and his wife Carol had been briefly separated soon after returning to Washington, but then reunited.[58] In April 1979,[58] while attending a military reception for senators in Hawaii, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, eighteen years his junior,[185] a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch beer distributor, and Marguerite "Smitty" Hensley.[179] They began dating, travelling between Arizona and Washington to see each other,[186] and John McCain urged his wife Carol to accept a divorce.[58] The McCains stopped cohabiting in January 1980,[187] and John McCain filed for divorce in February 1980,[187] which Carol McCain accepted at that time.[58] The uncontested divorce became official in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on April 2, 1980.

Notice it begins with words that indicate that John and Carol had reunited, meaning they were still married and were living together; subsequently he met a woman and began "dating" her apparently seriously as they traveled btwn cities over months and he urged his wife to grant him a divorce, and then he and his wife stopped living together and then he filed for divorce, and then she gave it to him. Although I don't completely love the subarticle's wording in this part, at least the chronology is clear and there is less ambiguity. I think this summary is ambiguous: by not including the first point - i.e., that he and his wife were together - you imply that maybe they were separated and he was dating and asked his wife for a divorce. But I think the evidence shows otherwise, and importantly the subarticle we are summarizing says otherwise. So, I am less worried about undue weight which is a subjective thing anyway, and more worried about giving an erroneous impression which perhaps appears biased in one way or another. Adding "while still married" is not as good as adding "extramarital", but as I said, I might be able to accept it with the present available sources. Without it, we may be misleading. (By the way - I wasn't singling you or anyone out by using the word "sanitized" - I didn't study who made which edit and wasn't pointing fingers at anyone, any more than I thought "pushing' implied physicality. I merely am looking at the article(s) as worded and giving my impressions of what they say. ) Tvoz/talk 22:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is very clearly original research to use language that denotes or connotes sexual intercourse,[6] based merely on the fact that the people in question spent a weekend at someone's house. ALL of the reliable sources that I'm aware of use terms like "seeing each other" or "courting" or "dating", and I remain dumbfounded as to why there is a desire on your part to diverge here from the reliable sources. You may be 100% correct that the people in question may have been conducting a hot and heavy sexual romance, but you have not produced the reliable sources to show that. If you do so, then I will have no problem whatsoever changing this article accordingly.

You apparently believe that this main article is not now accurately summarizing the sub-article. I disagree. You say that this main article does not include the point that "he and his wife were together." But this main article does say that he asked his wife for a divorce after the dating began. So, this article very clearly indicates that they were still married. How married were they? The reliable sources disagree, and John McCain plausibly contends that they were separated. The sub-article therefore deliberately does not say one way or the other whether they were saparated when the dating occurred. The sub-article says that they were briefly separated and reunited (in 1977), but that does not imply that the marriage was in fine shape as 1979 began. On the contrary, the sub-article says that their "marriage began to falter" around 1977 and would later "collapse." If you read the sub-article as saying they were not separated when the dating began, then you are reading between the lines, because WTR and I and others deliberately decided that we would not say one way or the other when they were separated.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate my position from the previous discussion of this, yes the "separation" sources are conflicting in details, but I find the separated-before-meeting Cindy argument far-fetched, not plausible, and Ferrylodge's scenario for it relies upon his own original research about "separated while cohabiting". Like Tvoz, I find the main article treatment of this less satisfactory than the current subarticle treatment. I'm also interested to see what other editors think ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the sources do conflict.[7] Therefore, we shouldn't dismiss half of them, and only rely on the other half. As to "original research", WTR, you should realize that I did not suggest inserting anything into this article about how the word "separated" is defined. It is not "original research" to discuss such matters at a talk page. This stance of mine is very different from the stance that we ought to assert in the article that John and Cindy had extramarital sex, based on the fact that they spent a weekend at someone's house.

And just for clarification, WTR, are you saying that you find the following statement implausible? "Parties living together in the same home are considered to be separated if they no longer have sexual relations with each other and no longer share the same bedroom." Abrams, Brenda. Everything about How to Divorce in Florida: An In-Depth Guide to Divorce in Florida, page 14 (2003).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So McCain had an relationship with Cindy from April 1979 until he married her in May 1980. He only divorced his wife in April 1980 and stopped 'cohabiting' with her in January 1980 (according to the court documents). It is reported that (in 1979) McCain spent a weekend with Cindy in a summer house, owned by a friend, mr. Lakeland. And you would not call the relationship extra-marital? Very strange.S711 (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I might call it that, but the reliable sources apparently do not, perhaps because many people have dating relationships but wait until marriage to have sex.[8]Ferrylodge (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It has already been said: "there is an appearance of dancing around a rather simple truth", but perhaps there is another good adjective describing a romantic relationship you're having with someone while you're married to someone else.S711 (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Show us a reliable source that describes it as you think it should be described.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain himself admitted that he had extramarital relationships during his marriage with Carol. He did not exclude his relationship with Cindy from those. There are sources for that. So extramarital might be just fine.S711 (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This article already does use the word extramarital. If you'd like this article to use that word more, in order to refer to his relationship with Cindy, then please just show us a reliable source that does that or implies that. Thanks. All the reliable sources that I know of use words like "courting" or "seeing" or "dating", and that includes Carol McCain, the NY Times, and the LA Times.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

His biographer Robert Timberg calls it "dalliances" (amorous play). Seems to imply sex. Doesn't it? S711 (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dalliances with whom? Do you have a full quote from Timberg? This article already says that he had extramarital affairs.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight?

How much weight should be given to facts that would, at a minimum, raise in many readers' minds the strong possibility that he cheated on Carol with Cindy? His campaign certainly thinks that his character as to cheating or not cheating is an important issue. In response to evidence that McCain did not honor the protocols agreed to for the Saddleback forum, and could have had advance access to the questions, and appeared to answer more quickly and confidently than is his norm, his campaign spokesperson replied: "The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous." [9] So, With his campaign saying that he would never cheat (because, after all, he was a POW), I'd say the weight to be accorded to this information goes up. JamesMLane t c 00:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to keep the description of what happened to McCain in the 1970s distinct from the issue debates of the 2000s.[10] We ought to just say what happened, regardless of present circumstances. This article is unequivocal that McCain had extramarital affairs in Florida, that he dated his second wife while married to his first, and that he accepts blame for the failure of his first marriage. I don't think we need to devote an entire section of this article to the man's love live of 3+ decades ago, merely because of yesterday's news. If people do want to include and repeat further details about McCain's first marriage, then maybe we ought to also mention that he claims he was separated when he met Cindy, and that his first wife's injuries affected their ability to have children, et cetera, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain does place much value on honor, but he's always accepted the blame for the demise of his first marriage, including saying at Saddleback it was the worst moral failure of his life. So I don't think JamesMLane's attempt at tying these together holds water. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Ferrylodge: The facts of what happened in the 1970s are generally unaffected by the issue debates of the 2000s. (It's conceivable that McCain could say something now that shed new light on what happened then, but it isn't very likely.) Contemporary debates over substantive policy issues and even contemporary mudslinging matches may, however, affect the prominence that should reasonably be accorded to events of the 1970s. I was addressing solely the "undue weight" criticism.

Response to Wasted Time R: If he had stayed faithful to Carol, divorced her nonetheless, and begun canoodling with someone he met only after the divorce was final, he might still regard the end of his marriage as the worst moral failure of his life. Anyway, the relationship isn't to his answer to that particular question; it's to his assertion, in this campaign, that he would not cheat on the Saddleback rules because he would not cheat, period. That raises the importance of allegations of past cheating. JamesMLane t c 00:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like apples and oranges. Moreover, the apple is fresh whereas the orange is several decades old. And the apple is not mentioned in this article, whereas the orange is.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Something else to bear in mind: we know very little. McCain's first marriage involves very private matters that have not been (and probably should not be) detailed in public. We don't know with certainty how much one spouse's injuries may have affected the intimate aspects of their marriage, nor do we have any business making assumptions about how much pain this may have brought to both spouses. I respectfully request that we just stick to what's clearly verifiable by reliable sources, and also request that we please not try to use old intimate details to make a point about present political debates. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cindy McCain's own words

It took exactly 10 minutes for the following sentence to be deleted: Cindy McCain later described their first encounter: "I was standing at the hors d'oeuvre table, young, shy, not knowing anybody, when suddenly this awfully nice-looking Navy captain in dress whites was kind of chasing me around the table." An incredibly relevant insight into who was pursuing who and when. Wikipedia never disappoints. Pencil Pusher (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary was as follows: "Rv. That's fine for a sub-article, but we're just trying to summarize here. No need to include the 1979 hors d'oeuvres. Please see WP:SS."[11] Are you saying that this should not be a summary article, or that hors d'oeuvres from 1979 are an important thing to summarize? The present article currently says: "They began dating, and he urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce, which she did in February 1980, with the uncontested divorce taking effect in April 1980." If you would like to change the words "They began dating" to something else (like "He sedulously courted Cindy") then we can discuss it. But inserting hors d'oeuvres from 1979 is not appropriate for a summary article like this one, which also omits tons of other detailed quotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do a great job at wikilawyering. Keep on mentioning those hors d'oeuvres while ignoring the substance of the text. You might even be able to convince someone this is all about appetizers.Pencil Pusher (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

All he said is that that particular quote is more suitable for the subarticle Early life and military career of John McCain, as this article adheres to summary style and the subarticles contain more detail. Personal attacks are not warranted. Happyme22 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If it was important, we could definitely say succinctly that John was the pursuer in the relationship, not Cindy; it's established several times in the Kristof NYT story, for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Kristof wrote that McCain "aggressively courted" Cindy. But I think "sedulously" would be a better adverb, since I don't think Kristof meant to suggest any aggression. But Pencil Pusher does not seem to be interested in such a summary.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

$54,000 Navy pension

Is that what they paying John McCain?! That's pathetic. Gridge (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC).

There seems to be a peculiar fascination with this pension. We mention it in our McCain articles, but the amount of it seems irrelevant biographically, especially since we don't know the context of similar or different pension amounts. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To much, too little? It's just good to know he's doing financially well and I think there is no need to put any weight on this. If I'm not mistaken, that amount doesn't count for up-to-date "inflation" and was a decent and deserved amount at the time it was determent. I didn't look (because I didn't felt the need for it in this case;)into this further than to the comment above, so I might be wrong in factual parts but not in my opinion. --Floridianed (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems about right. When you retire from the armed forces, they take into account the years, your rank, and any disabilities that may have occurred during your duties. The disability ranking is based on a sliding scale, I'm not sure what the formula for it is, but I think it isn't an issue for someone of his rank and duration in the military. --Hourick (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to discuss the subject, please. SQL^{Query me!} 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Keating five

I agree with the above comment that the sentence involving the Keating Five needs to be separated from Campaign Finance reform by at least a period. The two are different items. ( Martin | talk • contribs 23:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

As an editor mentioned above, "McCain's push for campaign finance reform was in direct response to his experience in the Keating Five scandal. See the cite given, [12], in the article body text." Have you looked at this cite? It says:

"Sen. John McCain, held up to national scorn and ridicule as a member of the KEATING Five just a few years before, reinvented himself in the 1990s as one of the leading critics of money's corrupting influence on U.S. politics.

"In doing so, he created rifts with deep-pocketed special interests on the right and the left and helped set the stage for an insurgent 2000 presidential campaign.

"Detractors called McCain's newfound passion for reform a bit high-handed, especially coming from a man who accepted $112,000 in campaign contributions from Charlie KEATING and his pals.

"They also noted that McCain's stand on campaign-finance reform had not prevented him from working Washington, D.C., for campaign cash or accepting tens of thousands of dollars from corporations that are under the oversight of the Senate Commerce Committee, which McCain formerly ran and still sits on.

"The panel holds sway over a number of key industries, overseeing issues such as cable and satellite television rules, airline deregulation and access to telephone long-distance markets.

"McCain admits that his own involvement in the KEATING embarrassment made him take a hard look at the way congressional candidates finance their campaigns. If nothing else, politicians who grovel for special-interest money tend to disgust the public, he says."

So, it's pretty clear that the two items are closely connected. Also, please note that the lead paragraphs merely summarize the rest of the article, and it seems adequate to specifically mention Charles Keating Jr. later in the article rather than in the lead (i.e. mentioning the "Keating Five" is enough for the lead). By the way, I don't understand why John Glenn was mentioned in this edit summary. Oh, I see, you removed Glenn after inserting Glenn, which is fine.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ferrylodge ... except that he left in one bit, changing "investigated" to "investigated and cleared". This is a bit of a recipe for trouble, since it leaves out that he was rebuked for poor judgement. I don't know how to work that into the lead concisely enough though. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "investigated and cleared" we might try "cleared of all charges", since he wasn't charged with poor judgment (and no Senator would plead innocent to ever having exercised poor judgment). Or, we might try "cleared of acting improperly". The latter seems like the safest bet.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just change it back to "investigated" despite weaseliness.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Or "largely exonerated" which seems to get the whole thing across pretty well.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for "investigated and largely exonerated". K 5 had a big impact on him ("worst mistake of my life", etc.) and so I wouldn't leave out the "investigated". Also, I think that the sentence in the lead has parsing problems — if you don't already know what the "as a member of the 'Keating Five'" clause means, you might think it was a group that worked on campaign finance reform. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying "largely exonerated" would be accurate in a context where the charges had been stated and we could elaborate on the details. As it is, it's more than a little confusing. It's also both too harsh on McCain and too kind to him -- too harsh because it implies nonexoneration on at least one formal charge (which wasn't the case, only the "bad judgment" thing), and too kind because it omits the hit he took from the bad publicity, which was a significant aspect of his career. Of course, the problem is how to give a good terse statement of all this in the introductory section. I suggest this:

McCain was one of the "Keating Five", Senators who were caught up in a political influence scandal of the 1980s. He was exonerated of the formal charges against him, but his image was badly tarnished. Thereafter he made campaign finance reform one of his signature concerns, which eventually led to the passage of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002.

It's only a few words longer than the current version and I think it gives a more accurate picture. JamesMLane t c 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I don't think we should say in the lead that it badly tarnished his image. After all, the article says: "In his 1992 re-election bid, the Keating Five affair was not a major issue,[88] and he won handily, gaining 56 percent of the vote to defeat Democratic community and civil rights activist Claire Sargent and independent former Governor Evan Mecham.[89]"

Also, the "largely exonerated" language is supported by reliable sources that use that exact language.[13][14].

Additionally, I wouldn't worry about the "largely exonerated" language being too hard on McCain. This same language has been used by his own campaign.[15]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The "image is badly tarnished" part is problematic. It's hard to quantify, and he didn't have the trouble getting re-elected in 1992 that many had predicted. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain Aide and Accusations they provoked Georgia to attack S. Ossetia

I'm not going to get involved in this article but I think you all should be tracking this story about Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy adviser having been a lobbyist for the govt of Georgia who's brought McCain over there. Wash Post and Wall Street Journal. And Politico.com's accusations McCain and assumedly Scheunemann actually encouraged Georgia to bomb the heck out of S. Ossetia.The article on the topic, says in part:

McCain, who publicly confronted Putin in Munich last year, may be the most visible — and now potentially influential — American antagonist of Russia. What remains to be seen is whether the endgame to the Georgia crisis makes McCain seem prophetic or headstrong and whether his muscular rhetoric plays a role in defining for voters the kind of commander in chief he would be....To critics, McCain’s stance is grandstanding with little effect beyond riling a nuclear power. ...McCain has led the harsh denunciations of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, though neither he nor any other leader has suggested that the West has any real way to blunt Moscow’s ultimate intentions. He’s also faced the accusation that his encouragement of Georgia’s dramatic defiance of Russia helped trigger the crisis. (A McCain aide dismissed that notion, saying Russia’s provocations forced Georgia’s response.)

Note that Obama supporters have accused him of a conflict of interest; I haven't yet seen a direct accusation he encouraged Georgia to bomb S. Ossetia, but that may yet come out. Carol Moore 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

McCain's positions on Russia, Georgia, and South Ossetia are good and valid topics for the foreign policy sections of the Political positions of John McCain article. However, the notion that Georgia's actions in South Ossetia were based on something a U.S. presidential candidate (who's trailing in the race) advocates is silly. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed -- I'm sure the Russian and Georgian editors who have been feuding on 2008 South Ossetia War would consider the idea the height of America-centrism! Coemgenus 11:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems naive to think that neocons and McCain would not influence foreign politicians, esp. since a McCain aid was a $200,000 a year lobbyist for a foreign power. Will forward links to that article. More articles on this topic today: Associated press, another Wash Post, Robert Scheer, SF Gate, Georgia War a Neocon election ploy, CBS: Getting Georgia's war on Carol Moore 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The first two pieces are from legit news orgs, and discuss legit questions about Scheunemann, his possible conflict of interest within the campaign, and whether McCain's very pro-Georgia stance is influenced by Scheunemann's prominence. The second two pieces are opinion columns by very opinionated writers, and thus not WP:RS. There's still no WP:RS to suggest that Georgia got in a war with Russia because of the views of some Americans who have a 35% chance of being in office half a year from now. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

MORE just to keep on top of this as relevant info breaks:

• NY Times - McCain to Send His Wingmen to Georgia - he also denies he encouraged the war.
• NY Times: In Split Role, McCain Adviser Is Sometimes a Lobbyist
• Reuters: Quotes by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili including complains that McCain is just words and not actions. (What other revelations might follow?) Carol Moore 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Saakashvili's saying that McCain's words are just words and not actions is quite true, and moreover it helps disprove your original assertion, that somehow McCain's views helped lead to the war in the first place. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it shows he's disappointed McCain didn't come through on what Saakasvili thought were promises; also could be a threat to reveal some secret communications between McCain's aide and himself. But that's all just speculation. We are waiting for more facts to be revealed and if there aren't enough it won't go in the article, will it?? Carol Moore 17:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Uh, exactly how is McCain supposed to have "come through"? He's just a senator; he's not in the executive branch; his ability to affect U.S. foreign policy is zilch. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You and i know that but that doesn't mean that someone like Scheunemann might not have been convinced by recent joint US military operations, McCain being Bush's boy for president, etc. that someone McCain would put the fix in. Of course Scheunemann and the neocons just were setting up Georgia to provoke the Russians to make them look bad to support more US ABMs in the region. But that's all speculation. So let's wait and see if any further facts come in. Carol Moore 14:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Hensley & Co.

The article used to say the following (until today): "In April 1979,[53] McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[57]" The next section provides further info about the company (a large beer distributorship), in connection with McCain going to work there. I don't think the company needs to be described twice, as Rosspz suggested.[16]. On the other hand, it does seem a little bit odd to mention that she's the daughter of the founder of a named company without mentioning what kind of company. Nevertheless, we don't need to suggest that McCain was marrying a beer distributorship. Any thoughts?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to, "In April 1979,[53] McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, whose father had founded a large beer distributorship.[57]" Details like the name of the company are provided in the next section. And saying that she is an only child is unusual when describing a spouse, and smacked of "sole heir."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

supposedly plagiarized wikipedia on speech about georgia/russia war

people have been noticing similarities between his speech and the wikipedia articl about the nation of georgia. problem is, who knows where the wikipedia article got its' language from? wikipedia contains plagiarized paragraphs and sentences too, you know? if wikipedia and mccain used the same original source, say a history book, of course it will be similar. until that is investigated, maybe people should chill out a little bit. [17:57, August 13, 2008 68.240.91.25]

If only he had recycled from one of our McCain bio articles! Then we would truly have a loop. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

America's 10 Best Senators

McCain was listed as one of America's 10 Best Senators by Time magazine Sunday, Apr. 16, 2006. Almost every Senator on this list has it mentioned on their wikipedia page (same with the 5 Worst Senators list they did) but McCain has no mention. I feel it should be added to the article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If so why don't you give us a citation and we'll fill it in (since you seem to prefer someone else should do it... don't know why). Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added it both here and in longer form in Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present. Others can tweak the location in this article if they wish (there wasn't a single obvious place to put it). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking someone else to do it User:Floridianed, I just felt uncomfortable adding it myself since I don't normally work on this article, and was expressing that I thought it was noteworthy to see if others felt the same. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Understandable. I might have done it the same way, or as a matter of fact, I mostly do it this way. So another big oops from my side but that's just the way I am :) . Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Involvement with lobbyists etc. in International Republican Institute

McCain's 15-year leadership of the International Republican Institute should be discussed, with description of the organization, its activities and membership. Mike McIntire of the New York Times wrote a story on the group and McCain which appeared on July 28, 2008: "Democracy Group Gives Donors Access to McCain." The story contrasts McCain's image as a reformer with his interaction with corporate and foreign lobbyists as leader of the institute. At the very least, the story relates to other commentary during the presidential campaign that connects McCain to lobbyists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.195.29 (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The IRI has long been mentioned in the House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 article, and I've added this NYT story as a cite to that along with a mention that his association with IRI helped his future fundraising prospects. When I first read the NYT story, I didn't find the attempt to highlight lobbyist linkages very compelling. On the other hand, I don't have a good feel for exactly what IRI (or its Dem counterpart) does. Furthermore, the International Republican Institute article itself is something of a mess, with bad formatting, inadequate sourcing, and lots of edit warring including from IRI IP addresses. The interested reader should probably start with improving that article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WTR. However, an editor named User:ObjectivityAlways has just edited this article to insert a great deal of info about this organization,[17] without any talk page discussion (unless ObjectivityAlways is 207.200.195.29).

McCain's role in this organization does seem like something that could be mentioned briefly in this article, but putting in a whole paragraph plus a whole new section in external links is way overdoing it. External links are generally for stuff that isn't already linked in the main text. And, why so much in the main text? The sub-article is House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, and we now have more in this article than in the sub-article. Please see WP:SS. As the sub-article mentions, McCain was named at the same time to be head of recruiting and fund-raising for Republican senatorial candidates, but that needn't be mentioned here in this article. Not everything in the sub-article needs to be repeated here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Which religion?

According to the article it calls him a "Baptist" in the info box. The LA Times reports: "McCain, an Episcopalian, attends North Phoenix Baptist Church but has not yet converted to the Baptist faith."

It is misleading to call him a "Baptist" when McCain himself says: "questions over whether he identifies himself as a Baptist or an Episcopalian are not as important as his overarching faith. 'The most important thing is that I am a Christian', the Arizona senator told reporters" (source). We66er (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the section above titled “McCain’s religion”. This issue has already been discussed, a consensus was reached, and the article was edited accordingly. Your two links both go to an ABC News article dated September 17, 2007. That ABC News article quotes McCain as saying: “I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist.” So, I'll revert the change you made, and please try to convince others before changing stuff that's already been discussed. If you're right and this Wikipedia article is wrong, then you should be able to convince us. All you have to do is provide reliable sources that contradict the sources that we've already reviewed. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now you just inserted a cite into the article to a very recent LA Times article that says: "McCain, an Episcopalian, attends North Phoenix Baptist Church but has not yet converted to the Baptist faith." That's a good source. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

Sorry I did give the wrong link on this talk. The ABC News article above is cited in the article and from 2007. However, this LA Times one is from today on tonight's McCain interview about religion (that means its one year more recent). The LA Times reports: "McCain, an Episcopalian, attends North Phoenix Baptist Church but has not yet converted to the Baptist faith." While he might call himself a Baptist, he has never converted. We66er (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. That's why it's best to suggest your changes here at the talk page first, so we can edit the article once and get it right the first time. I see that you've also now added a new paragraph to the section on his cultural and political image. That section merely summarizes what's in the sub-article Cultural and political image of John McCain. Therefore, I'd suggest you correct what's in that sub-article instead of adding this new paragraph here in this article. We decided to leave out his religion from this section of the article, because McCain isn't really known by many people as either a Baptist or an Episcopalian, plus the matter is already well-covered in the infobox and accompanying footnote (as well as in the sub-article).Ferrylodge (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(od) To me, the definitive statement here is still this AP story from 2007, where McCain says "By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist." In WP generally go with what people self-identify as. Whether he's gone through some specific Baptist conversion process or ritual is another matter, which I think is what today's LA Times article is referring to. Why doesn't our top-of-article footnote on religion include this quote? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We've already got two refs in the footnote, one of which is quoted as saying "McCain...now identifies himself as Baptist." You can insert the McCain quote too if you want, but it merely confirms what we've already got in the footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WTR, are you suggesting that the infobox should not mention Episcopalian? Incidentally, I think the official conversion process probably involves being baptised, which McCain has said he has not been.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should say convey some formulation of "he used to be an Episcopalian, now he's a Baptist". Just like we list both spouses, we can list both denominations. And then we can give the footnote with all the details. That's the way it used to to appear, in fact, then it got changed along the way. The current "Episcopalian and/or Baptist" formulation seems a bit unfortunate to me: it possibly suggests that McCain himself doesn't know what he is, which, according to the quote I gave above, does not seem to be the case. But whatever ... I think in many religions, denominational affiliation can be a lot murkier than our infobox pigeonholing would like it to be. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WTR, you say "That's the way it used to appear." Can you please provide a link? I looked for that version but couldn't find it. It may be well worth restoring.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It was like that way just before the big split out (without the footnote yet), don't remember how much longer it stayed like that. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to edit the article accordingly. See what you think.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The infobox part looks ok. The footnote is already out-of-date – the LAT story was rewritten overnight and that quote's not in it. Perhaps it was the "has not yet converted to the Baptist faith" part being objected to ... I seem to remember a previous talk thread where someone said that not all kinds of Baptists require a baptism or a formal conversion process, but now I can't find the thread. I really know less than nothing about this subject, so I can't say much more. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the overnight change in the LA Times article. I've adjusted our footnote accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the best way to suggest that McCain is Baptist through self-identification? To say that while McCain may not formally be a Southern Baptist, he's a congregant there? A snippet (although it's lacking any footnote) from the WP article on Baptists says, "Some churches, especially in the UK, do not require members to have been baptised as a believer, as long as they have made an adult declaration of faith - for example, been confirmed in the Anglican church, or become communicant members as Presbyterians." So somebody can even be a member of certain Baptist denominations without a traditional Baptist baptism. In McCain's case, he was raised Episcopalian but his present self-identification is more Baptist and he expresses his Christian beliefs through such means as attending a Southern Baptist church although he reportedly hasn't sensed any call or felt an imperative to formally join the group via the Southern Baptists' "believers' baptism" by full-immersion. Hey, I myself self-identify as Unitarian-Universalist but have never even attended a UU services in my entire life. Would I be alone in this? Go to Adherents.com. I live in New Jersey so we go down to the two New Jersey entries to find there were 3,602 UU members in New Jersey in 1990; however, a phone survey of New Jerseyans estimated there were nearly twice as many folks such as myself who self-identified as UU in 1990, counting U/U's by belief whether or not we're actual members.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 09:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point as well. "Baptist" is not a specific denomination. You can believe in "Baptist" principles without ever joining a Baptist church. Also, a lot of Baptist churches are kinda like Wikipedia - you have the same privileges whether you are a registered user or not. At one that I have attended before, you can even join the choir without being an actual member of the church. --B (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What is all this talk about McCain being EITHER Baptist OR Episcopalian? Surely as an Episcopalian, he was already baptized. Would the Baptists really expect an Episcopalian to repudiate his previous baptism and be rebaptized? There is, after all, a much older Christian Tradition that Christians accept only ONE baptism, and do not do rebaptism. 69.3.146.82 (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Baptists (and most evangelical Protestant denominations) do not believe in baptismal regeneration, so there is never a requirement to be rebaptized, but someone who is baptized as an infant (which is the practice in Episcopalian churches) is expected to be rebaptized after salvation. Baptists accept that baptism whether it occurs in an Episcopalian or any other church, but if John McCain's only baptism was done as an infant, he would be asked to be rebaptized in order to join a Baptist church. Baptists and their predecessors have been re-baptizing since at least the 16th century. See Anabaptists, for example. --B (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not liking maths, duh

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

I mean, wtf!!! The onle fact in the above aforementioned sentences is the FACT that his rank was 894 out of 899. I mean, insinuating that he studied enough to pass subjects he disliked like math is an opinion more than anything else. A couple of quotes about it from McCain or anybody doesnt make it a fact. He may have not liked math but the truth is the reason why he didnt like math could have probably been because his IQ may not be that high. Since when is doing well in math a matter of choice - the only real subject they use for IQ tests. Using that logic, anybody here can be a bloody Einstein. [05:30, August 17, 2008 74.78.230.219]

This is a somewhat complicated subject. The Early life and military career of John McCain article tries to explain it more fully: "Possessed of a strong intelligence,[39] McCain did well in a few subjects that interested him, such as English literature, history, and government.[13][33] There was a fixed Bachelor of Science curriculum taken by all midshipmen;[40][41] McCain's classmates were impressed by his cramming abilities on mathematics, science, and engineering courses[42] and thought his low grades were by inclination and not ability.[13] His class rank was further lowered by poor grades for conduct and leadership, which reflected his sloppy appearance, rebellious attitude, and poor relations with his company officer.[42][43]" McCain's IQ is known – it was measured at 128 and then later at 133. (See Alexander Man of the People p. 207 or this Time article.) I'm not a big believer in IQ as a metric, but while not at genius level, those are still strong scores. So why was his class rank so bad? Without studying his transcript, and knowing the weighting of academic vs. conduct/leadership grades, we can't know for sure. But for us to just report his 894/899 rank and nothing else would give an incomplete portrayal; his other biographers have tried to understand what went into that, and so have we. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A person's IQ has nothing to do with how good of a student they are. This is not a fluff piece or an autobiography. How can you claim to give a "complete portrayal" when you are intentionally searching to excuse his bad grades(or however they rank)? Why is it neccesary to tell the world that "John McCain didn't like math, and so he didn't study very hard, and therefore did not do very well in that class"? I come to wikipedia to learn "The Whats", I can go buy his books if I want "His Whys". Just my two cents. LD 09/05/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.204.212 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with children

There was an objection above regarding the cultural image section, which discusses his "close ties to his children from both of his marriages." The objection is not that that is untrue, but that we have "left out of this article the also sourced item that his children were so upset with his abandonment of their mother that they did not attend his wedding; we have it in the subarticle, I know, but in this article you are telling only half of the story regarding his relationship with his children - the good half."

It's true that his children from his first marriage did not attend his wedding with his second wife. They later reconciled, and I think one of the kids from the first marriage is now an executive at the company run by the second wife.

It does not seem correct to give equal weight to an apparently brief period in 1979-1982, alongside decades-long periods that followed and preceded 1979-1982. If we did detail the reactions of his children to the divorce, here in this main article, it would properly be in the chronological section about his early life, rather than in the cultural image section. The main article on his early life says, "McCain's children were upset with him and did not attend the wedding,[58] but after several years they reconciled with him and Cindy.[58][62]" I just don't think this is notable enough, since it's a very typical and expected reaction under the circumstances. I very much sympathize with the desire to include more material from the sub-articles, but we are already bumping up against the limits of WP:Size. If this were a real problem about undue weight, then I would agree, but it's not.

In fairness, if we did include the children's reactions to the divorce, I think we would also have to include their statements that they did not blame Cindy, but rather blamed their father. Plus we might want to also include a quote in which he accepts the blame. But, all in all, I think there's currently no undue weight in the article regarding the children. If people disagree, then it might be best to remove the children from the cultural image section, rather than enlarging the article further. I hope we don't do that, though, because his current harmonious family relationships help put his alleged temper in better context, and also his large family is an important part of his image.

Incidentally, I'd take issue with the "abandonment" characterization. An uncontested divorce with a substantial settlement is not typically considered abandonment, and I'm not aware of reliable sources that characterize this situation that way. Not that I'm particularly trying to defend McCain here, but where is there a reliable source that says he "abandoned" his first wife?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm thinking about doing a 180 on this. The present article currently says, "McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980, with Republican Senator and future Secretary of Defense William Cohen serving as best man, and Democratic Senator Gary Hart as a groomsman." We could instead say, "McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980, with Senators William Cohen and Gary Hart attending, but McCain’s children did not attend and would not reconcile with him for several years." Same number of words. What do people think? I do suspect it may be undue weight to mention Cohen and Hart but not the children. I'll be bold and change this, and see how people react.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what happened here is that when I did the cutdown of the main article during the big split-out, I was being very aggressive in size reduction and removed both the children being estranged (in the bio section) and the close ties later on (indeed I removed all of the "Cultural and political image" section, leaving only a tiny summary text). Subsequently the "Cultural" section's summary text was expanded significantly, including mention of the close family ties, but the initial estrangement was never restored in the bio section. I agree with Tvoz that it should be there. It's not undue weight; McCain said the other night at the Saddleback thing that the greatest moral failing of his life was the failure of his first marriage, and this was no doubt an important manifestation of that. The Ferrylodge wording above is okay, except that it needs to say Cohen and Hart were in the wedding party (otherwise not worth mentioning) ... but it looks like that has been added since the above was written. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article!

Congratulations to all! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! Congrats especially to Ferrylodge and WastedTimeR. Now, no matter how the election turns out, the 43rd President's article will be featured (unless Nader pulls off a massive upset!) --Coemgenus 11:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Credit to Ferrylodge for putting it up. I agree that it's very important to WP's credibility that its best article classification include subjects like these. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All three of you have been immensely helpful, WTR especially (who has done at least as much work on this article as I have). Let's see how long we can keep it in good shape, neutral, well-sourced, and concise.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Left cheek

Why no mention of the growth there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnamus (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain's rescuer Mai Van On written out of McCain's history / "cross in the dirt" controversy

I think there needs to be mention of Mai Van On, the Vietnamese man who rescued McCain from the lake in 1967, and how John McCain later gave him the cold shoulder. There are a couple of articles that could be referenced: Vietnam rescuer talks and How war hero John McCain betrayed the Vietnamese peasant who saved his life. I think Mai Van On should have his own wikipedia entry too.

Mai Van On is briefly mentioned in the Early life and military career of John McCain article. Our footnote there reads: "A number of Vietnamese have claimed to have led the McCain rescue effort in Trúc Bạch Lake, but the one most often credited, including by the Vietnamese government in the 1990s, was Mai Van On. He and McCain met in Hanoi in 1996, but McCain did not mention him in his 1999 memoir and it is unclear whether McCain believed On's account. On's story also does not completely coincide with the well-known photograph showing a number of Vietnamese pulling McCain ashore. See "McCain's Vietnam rescuer talks", Associated Press (February 24, 2000). Retrieved on June 28, 2008. ; Alexander, Man of the People, pp. 47–49; and Parry, Simon (June 27, 2008). "Wartime rescuer of John McCain dies a forgotten hero", Deutsche Presse-Agentur for Thaindian News. Retrieved on June 28, 2008." Wasted Time R (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The marked comparison of McCain ignoring his real Vietnamese savior in his 1999 book Faith of My Fathers while promoting a story in that same book about a Christian guard has been noticed in reference to the controversy over McCain's "cross in the dirt" anecdote which may not have happened at all but instead be apocryphal to Solzhenitsyn or taken directly from Solzhenitsyn's own writings (is thought to be in Gulag Archipelago or First Circle, but I don't think the actual text has been found as I write this). I think the "cross in the dirt" controversy is worth summarizing in McCain's wikipedia entry as well. One source for that is Andrew Sullivan's 3/18/08 blog The Daily Dish, "The Dirt in the Cross Story, Ctd." ; there are many others.

Thanks Thatvisionthing (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The cross in the dirt story is given in Early life and military career of John McCain too, along with another long footnote indicating the dating of it is unclear. The 'controversy' about it is being discussed in Talk:Civil Forum on The Presidency. Bottom line: nothing to say more about. And Andrew Sullivan is not even remotely close to being a WP:RS; he is obsessed with some kind of "Christianist" involvement in all this. And note the Solzhenitsyn writing angle has already been discredited, per [18] . Wasted Time R (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Under these circumstances, McCain is not a reliable source. Our article should not unquestioningly repeat this tale as if it were established fact. It should be attributed to McCain as his assertion, but we can take up that issue at Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain. Neither the story nor its debunking belongs in the Civil Forum on The Presidency article. JamesMLane t c 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

refusal of early release

It turns out that it was standard (and legally mandated) for all POWs to refuse early release. I always had the impression that McCain was unique in this regard, and I think that impression was partially formed by reading this Wikipedia article. It would be nice to clarify this fact and not make a saint out of someone who was just following standard procedure. See the last paragraph here: http://www.alternet.org/election08/95825/i_spent_years_as_a_pow_with_john_mccain%2C_and_his_finger_should_not_be_near_the_red_button/ . 216.20.151.85 (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Butler piece, the original of which is at http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html. It doesn't contradict anything in our McCain articles, indeed it confirms a lot of what is in Early life and military career of John McCain and Cultural and political image of John McCain. Butler's main theme is that lots of POWs went through as bad or worse a time as McCain. This is quite true, especially of those like Butler that arrived in the camps earlier than McCain; see pages 211-214 of Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound, for example, to see what Butler went through in summer 1966, leading to his own suicide attempt to escape the endless pain. McCain himself in his writings acknowledges the terrible treatment of others many times; see his 1973 USN&WR account, where he talks about Dick Stratton and others. Same with several passages and interludes in Faith of My Fathers. Same with an interview with Mark Salter somewhere that I can't find right now, where he tells Salter to make sure to convey that others suffered worse than he did. Inevitably, McCain's experience is now getting the most play of any of the POWs in the press now, and that may justifiably annoy some of the other POWs.

As for the specific point about early release, Early life and military career of John McCain says: "In mid-June, Major Bai, commander of the North Vietnamese prison camp system,[114] offered McCain a chance to return home early.[113] The North Vietnamese wanted to score a worldwide propaganda coup by appearing merciful,[115] and also wanted to show other POWs that members of the elite like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.[113] McCain turned down the offer of release, due to the POWs' "first in, first out" interpretation of the U.S. Code of Conduct:[116] he would only accept the offer if every man captured before him was released as well.[87][117] McCain's refusal to be released was remarked upon by North Vietnamese senior negotiator Le Duc Tho to U.S. envoy Averell Harriman, during the ongoing Paris Peace Talks.[118] Enraged by his declining of the offer, Bai and his assistant told McCain that things would get very bad for him.[117]" Footnote 116 says "The Code of Conduct itself only forbade prisoners from accepting parole or special favors from the enemy. The POWs decided this meant that they could only accept release in the order they had been captured. They made an exception for those seriously sick or badly injured. One fellow prisoner told McCain he qualified under that exception, but after deliberation McCain refused nonetheless. See Timberg, An American Odyssey, p. 92." So McCain's refusal to accept early release is especially notable because he was sick and injured and possibly qualified under the exception, and because the North Vietnamese really wanted him to accept it, because of his larger propaganda value due to his father's role (and beat him badly when he didn't accept it). Also, what Butler doesn't mention is that some POWs did accept out-of-order early release, including McCain's cellmate Norris Overly. So it is still notable that McCain and the others did not. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember watching a program in which the POW officers ordered an enlisted POW to sign a document for his release so that he could deliver a list of prisoners to officials. I'm currently looking for a reference for it, it might not be relevant enough to go into the article, but it might be suitable for a related article.--Hourick (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug Hegdahl. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To (belatedly, got backed up on the queue) address one of the themes of the Butler piece, as well as some past comments here, I've restored the language that used to be in the article, that emphasizes that McCain was not a unique case. I've never been happy with that removal. Others endured even longer and worse treatment that he did, which McCain emphasizes over and over in USN&WR, Faith of My Fathers, and elsewhere. And as Hubbell and other sources make clear, virtually all of the POWs made anti-American statements given enough torture to break them. The context of McCain's experience needs to be made very clear: he was not a unique case overall, but one of many that had to go through this ordeal. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTACKS

Fox News, other news outlets just mentioned that the Senator is under attack. Someone is sending threatening correspondence and a WHITE POWDER to his campaign offices. This is in the news RIGHT NOW. The Dept. of Homeland Security is investigating this matter. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just got word now that HAZMAT is on scene in two locations. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source. Give it some time to develop and see what happens. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Known:

• A white powder has been found
• Threatening letters have been found
• The Feds and HAZMAT is on scene
• Someone has attacked the Senator, motive is unknown

I'll Google this and see what I find. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Found these two sources. Google "Someone attacks Senator McCain's Campaign Offices". Sources are: http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCanidateFeed7/idUSN2129629620080821 and http://www.english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/08/2008821231339271481.html 205.240.146.233 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You probably meant http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/08/2008821231339271481.html and not www.english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/08/2008821231339271481.html --Bowlhover (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A threatening letter does not an attack make. Plasticup ^T/C 01:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You forgot about the white powder which is being analyzed. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain is in Arizona, the white powder is in a Denver suburb (in Colorado). We do have tremendous winds on occasion (see Chinook wind), but they usually blow east, not west, so I really don't think the Senator is in any danger. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As Sen. McCain was not at the campaign office on the day the powder arrived there, it is incorrect to say that it was an ATTACK on him. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Eight properties

I'm well aware that it's the Hot Campaign Topic of Today, but why exactly does Cindy McCain owning eight properties (or ten, or seven, or whatever number depending upon the source you pick) belong in this article? I think it's safe to assume that most people worth $100 million have collected a bunch of nice domiciles along the way. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that people might like to learn details about the properties, and the footnoted article may sate that curiosity. Only four words were added to the text.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your latest formulation of "including several homes" is just edit-war-bait. I don't think this belongs here at all (should leave it for the Cindy article, she's the one with all the dough), but if it is here, you're going to have to pick a number. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There's disagreement about the correct number (4 says McCain, while various newspapers say 7, 8, or 10). If we do give a number, we should specify whether it applies to homes that the McCains rent out, or homes that they actually use for living in. I'll remove it for now, to avoid the edit-war-bait.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason this is an issue is that the McCain campaign brought up the subject of the value of Barack Obama's (only) home. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Spouse names in page sidebar.

Changed John McCain's first wife's name FROM "Carol McCain" TO "Carol Robinson Schepp". Why? Because that was her name. For the same reason, to be accurate, "Cindy McCain" should be edited to "Cindy Lou Hensley". (Not to put too close a point on this, but the name "McCain" is a legal surname of personal choice in addition to their legal birth surnames. In quite the same way, John McCain could equally legally have once been known as "John Schepp" or presently as "John Hensley", if he so wished.) Thanks to anyone who will make the changes. Cleona (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking around at articles about presidents, other politicos, famous business leaders, etc., I see it done both ways; probably 2/3 married name, 1/3 previous name. It should be a project-wide decision, not done on an article-by-article basis. Also, what source do you get the "Robinson" from? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wasted. Yes, it's quite understandable that high profile men prefer that their wives use their married names solely - a rather quaintly Victorian idea that has no basis in law. However, that's not the issue. Both Carol Schepp and Cindy Hensley are amply referred to in the body of the article by their married names. No problem. However, under the sidebar subtitle "Spouses", it is not correct to suggest John McCain married McCain women. He married Schepp and Hensley, respectively. A huge thank you for requesting the source for "Robinson". I was quite wrong on that. Cleona (talk)

Oh, my goodness. Having discovered that I could, in fact, make the edits, I see you've gone ahead and removed them. How curious. Is there some reason you need to have Carol Schepp's surname expunged? Hey, it's your country. I could truly care less. But there are, in fact, some people who may be interested in having accurate information where ever possible. Cleona (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I took your edit out because (a) we haven't agreed on this point yet and (b) you misspelled "Shepp" as "Schepp". This is a high-profile article and getting the small details right is important. Regarding the underlying issue, when they are first introduced in the body of the article, they are indeed referred to as Carol Shepp and Cindy Lou Hensley, as those were indeed their names when he met them and until he married them. But the infobox is different; that refers to "Spouse", which would seem to mean their name as a spouse, not before. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't realize it was necessary for you to agree to changes. You're quite right again. The ex-wife's surname is indeed spelled "Shepp", not "Schepp" (a mistake that's widely made, I notice, including even a Reuters article.) I don't think I agree that "Spouse" implies anything other than their actual legal names, regardless of their marital status. Cleona (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

We generally don't try to ascertain whether spouses legally changed their names after marriage or not, but rather go by what they commonly use or what they are commonly called by. See WP:NAMES, WP:NAMEPEOPLE. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been married (or a woman) so I'm not sure, but I'm sure that the marriage license generally affords you the opportunity to legally change your name. Unless I'm reading this wrong, Cleona's complaint seems to be based on the assumption that Cindy McCain's legal name is not Cindy McCain, but it may very well be. Unless the claim is Wikipedia article always have to refer to people by their birth names... JEB90 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think WTR is right about what WP:NAMEPEOPLE says, but I think that guideline is wrong in this context. It supplies more information to write that John McCain married Cindy Hensley than to say that John McCain is married to Cindy McCain. Of course, clicking on the link will give you both names quickly enough, so I don't see that it's a huge deal. --Coemgenus 15:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The article does say that he married Cindy Hensley, the info box says he is married to Cindy McCain. It seems to me that this covers it pretty well, unless the claim is being made that her name isn't really Cindy McCain. JEB90 (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify re what Coemgenus said, the guidelines I mentioned deal with how to refer to people in general, and how their article should be named. I couldn't find any guideline that dealt with how to deal with the "Spouse" field in infoboxes in terms of married vs. unmarried names, which was the specific question here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the guideline doesn't seem to speak directly to this specific situation. Until they do, I don't see that it matters all that much -- as I said before, the link will lead to an article on the spouse that has both names. --Coemgenus 01:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Article should be defeatured if section "Prisoner of war" remains not NPOV

The section is extremely pov and doesen't put facts in proper context. The content is inconsistent with reports from fellow prisoner Phillip Butler: [19].--Sum (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to point out some specifics of what you feel is "POV"? This article is written according to summary style, meaning the POW section on this page only summarizes the POW section at Early life and military career of John McCain, another featured article. If you have problems with the section, I would recommend bringing them up at the subarticle talk page first. Happyme22 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read the Butler piece, and I don't think it contradicts anything in this article. It does emphasize that other POWs had it just as bad or worse than McCain, which is quite true (and emphasized by McCain in his own writings too); there used to be a sentence to this effect in the main article, but it was taken out over my objections (see Talk:John_McCain/archive_11#New_material_about_torture). I think it should go back in. Regarding the significance of the early release refusal, see what I said in #refusal of early release above. Regarding Butler's overall theme that McCain's POW experience doesn't necessarily make him best qualified to be president, sure. But our article makes no such claim. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Detailing Carol McCain's injuries

This article was recently edited to list some of the injuries that Carol McCain sustained in 1969. There are several reasons why I'll revert. First, this is more info than is in the sub-article (Early life and military career of John McCain) that this article should be summarizing. The sub-article says:

She had suffered her own crippling, near-death ordeal during his captivity, due to an automobile accident in December 1969 that left her hospitalized for six months and facing twenty-three operations and ongoing physical therapy.[154] Businessman and POW advocate Ross Perot had paid for her medical care.[58] By the time McCain saw her, she was four inches (ten centimeters) shorter, on crutches, and substantially heavier.[58]

The recent edit to this article goes further, listing several injuries (broken legs, broken arm, broken pelvis). Please see WP:Summary style for details about the summarization rules. Another problem with this recently inserted list is that it is incomplete; she also ruptured her spleen, and had further internal injuries as well, some of which may have affected her marriage.[20] The recent edit that listed injuries thus gives an impression that the injuries were less than they actually were; they required at least 23 operations, she refused to let her husband know about them until he got back from Vietnam, and their ability to have more kids was affected. I think it's better to leave this for the sub-articles and the Carol McCain article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ferrylodge. The place for describing Carol's injuries in detail is the Carol McCain article, not either of the John McCain articles, and certainly not this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking sub-articles in the lead

Since this article is written in summary style, the question arises whether the sub-articles should be wikilinked in the lead. If we start doing so, are we going to have to wikilink all the sub-articles in the lead? I think it might be better to link none of them in the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done it both ways; I added 2000 just to balance the add of 2008. But when you do link a subarticle, you generally have to give a longish blue link to indicate that the article is specifically about this person and this event, otherwise the reader can easily mistake it for a general purpose article. I've never understood the disliking some people have for longish blue links; the goal is always to inform the reader whether they might want to click on it or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lot's of people have objected to a "sea of blue", and I agree that the lead should preferably not turn into a big blue thing. Also keep in mind that you can let the cursor hover over a link, and get a little tooltip that tells where it goes.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I just had found it a bit odd that the lead did not contain a link to his 2008 presidential campaign article, which is frequently viewed. I feel that a prominent link to this article may assist readers. But I suppose then you could make the argument that the other subarticles (Early life and military career, Senate careers, etc.) should be wikilinked, so I will abide by the decision of the consensus. Happyme22 (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The McCain political positions article gets about 50% more hits than the McCain 2008 campaign article, judging from this site. So, I don't think there's any particular reason to link to the latter but not the former in the lead. Any disagreement there? And since I don't think we ought to link to political positions in the lead, my inclination would be to not link to any of the sub-articles in the lead. I sympathize with the desire to publicize the sub-articles. Maybe there's some way to list the sub-articles in the infobox? In the mean time, I'd like to remove the sub-article wikilinks from the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Putting "Main article: Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present" and so forth seems to make it pretty clear that there's more info to be found in the sub-articles. Having a link in the heading itself looks odd, I think, and definitely contributes to the "sea of blue." --Coemgenus 11:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the "Life of John McCain" nav box? It always used to be right below the infobox. That's where the nav boxes are supposed to be on these "fully broken out into subarticles" cases, see Jan Smuts or Isaac Newton for examples. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See here. The nav box is now in the bibliography section.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's completely useless there. No one will ever see it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just attempted to expand the infobox.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Article well researched but may contain formatting errors

The article appears, on the whole, to be well-researched. However, there may be some subtle bias and polemical deficiencies which should be considered.

EXAMPLE ONE: ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE: In this example, the article actually quotes the subjects own book in what appears to be an obvious “rationalization” of McCain’s remarkably low class rank. This is a potentially flawed method of vetting, owing, in part, to the self-serving nature sometimes attributed to autobiographical accounts. Furthermore, McCain’s book is co-written, lending it even less credibility in the minds of some readers.

Nonetheless, an individual’s academic performance is a salient feature of one’s history. It may underscore either the presence or absence of character, perseverance – and as a predictor of intelligence, it is considered of primary importance by academic institutions. It therefore merits substantive inquiry.

However, the section in question further states: “McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899) which he did not aim to improve.”

That statement, which attempts to link attitude with academic performance, conflates an emperically unproven relationships between the two – at least in McCain’s case. In the matter of intelligence, one would frankly require standardized testing.

Early life and military career of John McCain does a better job, in my view, of discussing his Naval Academy performance. It relies less on McCain-written sources, it establishes that attitude was explicitly weighed in the class rank, and it also establishes that McCain tested high for intelligence in standardized testing. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The title of this talk page section seems inaccurate. The commenter ("pay war") is raising objections that seem to go far beyond formatting errors. This Wikipedia article is supposed to summarize the respective sub-articles, per WP:Summary style. The sub-article says: "McCain's classmates were impressed by his cramming abilities on mathematics, science, and engineering courses[42] and thought his low grades were by inclination and not ability.[13] His class rank was further lowered by poor grades for conduct and leadership, which reflected his sloppy appearance, rebellious attitude, and poor relations with his company officer.[42][43]....McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in June 1958; he was fifth from the bottom in class rank, 894th out of 899.[33]" This seems to be well-summarized in the present article. What specifically is the problem? Is there a contention that this article inaccurately summarizes the sub-article?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

EXAMPLE TW0: In like fashion, the article states: “Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information, and he was given medical care only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral.[33] His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of major newspapers.

Here, the article slips into a midly fawing and sycophantic portrayal of what McCain himself admits (in his own book) to be a shameful betrayal of his commnad and his country. As for the mention that his POW status “made the front page of major newspapers”, one might ask: “And, this proves ‘what’, exactly?” (Afterall, Paris Hilton and Britteny Spears have also made national news, which is to say that journalistic notariety is hardly a measure of either gravitas or accompishment.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pay war (talk • contribs) 13:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, read Early life and military career of John McCain for a much more expansive treatment of the POW period. The inclusion of the newspaper coverage is not to claim gravitas or accomplishment, but to demonstrate that McCain really was a high-profile POW due to his father's role. And your characterization of "what McCain himself admits" is grossly oversimplified and incorrect. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it takes a fawning sycophant to acknowledge that McCain was badly wounded, or to acknowledge that his captors refused to treat his injuries until they realized who his father was.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain article echoes the conservative meme, trips on premises and sprawls to dishonest conclusions

(Posted by psy_war: -- Wikipedia CHANGED my sign in from psy_war to "pay war.")

This article offers little more than heuristic, self-serving attributions – but is not intellectually honest enough to admit its underlying bias and syllogistic flaws:

The unstated syllogism goes like this: McCain was a tortured POW ----Tortured POWs are war heroes ---- Threfore, McCain is a war hero.”

I still therefore assert that the McCain piece, on the whole, reflects the mantic chant of McCain’s mythopoeic “war hero” status – which is perfectly aligned with the election year. Now, may I address your sophomoric umbrage with respect to my criticism?

The bias to which I refer is well-hidden -- and disguised by voluminous attributions -- including the one I addressed: McCain's own book. To cite this as an explanation for McCain’s poor academic standing constitutes not a valid source, but simply an apologia. (It smacks of Corsi's use of "Canadian bloggers" in his most recent ad hominem attack on Obama.)

Furthermore, your response to my criticism also fails to address my other points -- to wit: A bad attitude toward school (McCain’s excuse for poor grades) -- regardless of how it is factored into performance -- is still a “bad attitude.” In the long run, this may say more about an individual than his academic performance. Why did McCain display such inimical relationships toward authority? What are some examples? What do these demonstrate about his character? Is there psychometic information on McCain, or any diagnositc profile related to PTSD? I suspect not -- this would be antithetical to the agitprop of this piece.

I also noted that your response (whoever you are) reiterates references to the gravity of McCain's injuries -- but shys away from his capitulation with the enemy, which he admits to in his book. Since you opened this line of inquiry, may I suggest other fruitful avenues of research?

For example: According to Captain Frogbert Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:42:36 PM PDT

McCain told his captors is the locations of US bases and made propaganda films for the enemy

Similarly, since McCain trades heavily on his "war hero" status, the Christian Science Monitor suggests that since McCain is running as hero, it's fair to point out that those who oppose dishonorable wars are also heroes

May I also suggest, by way of concluding, that it is an equally defensible position to assert that a soldier who DOES NOT BREAK under torture is actually MORE of a hero? My uncle was a POW – he did not break.

Should he run for president? Pay war (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/10/231144/262 http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0414/p09s01-coop.htm

This page is for discussion of the article, not your complaints about the McCain campaign. --Coemgenus 19:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To address some of your points:

1. This article's text never says McCain was a hero. It never uses the word "hero", in fact.
2. This article doesn't go into much detail about McCain's youth, Naval Academy time, or military career, instead reserving most of its space for his political career. Early life and military career of John McCain has much, much more detail.
3. I believe we need to tweak the Naval Academy class rank material a little – what's there now does come off as a bit too McCain-defensive. I will try to propose alternate wording.
4. But your assertions about McCain's personality are without WP:RS supporting them. He was extensively examined for mental or psychiatric conditions after his return from Vietnam, and came out clean. You are just recycling the pro-Bush GOP primary campaign smear line of 1999-2000, that McCain was a nutjob as a result of his POW experiences.
5. Early life and military career of John McCain goes into full detail of what McCain told the North Vietnamese and when. But to say he "capitulated to the enemy" is a gross mischaracterization of what happened. Read Hubbell or Rochester & Kiley, listed in the bibliography; almost all the POWs in North Vietnam were broken at some point or another, after they had reached points where they could endure no further. That does not mean they capitulated; they, like McCain, continued to resist afterwards.
6. Yes, I fully agree that those who oppose dishonorable wars can also be heroes. That's a good topic for a different article, such as Opposition to the Vietnam War, but if off-topic for this article. Incidentally, Early life and military career of John McCain tells that McCain, unlike many ex-POWs, made his peace with the anti-war movement soon after his return.
7. This article never says or implies that McCain's having been a POW makes him qualified to run for president. It just describes the events in McCain's life. It's not us in WP who gave him the nomination, it was Republican Party primary voters.

But thanks for the phrase about "heuristic, self-serving attributions", I'll see if I can write a WP essay about such a notion ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On point 3, the sub-article says: "McCain's classmates were impressed by his cramming abilities on mathematics, science, and engineering courses[42] and thought his low grades were by inclination and not ability.[13] His class rank was further lowered by poor grades for conduct and leadership, which reflected his sloppy appearance, rebellious attitude, and poor relations with his company officer.[42][43]....McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in June 1958; he was fifth from the bottom in class rank, 894th out of 899.[33]" How is this not accurately summarized by the present article?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

First lockdown

Just a note that for the first time ever, one of the McCain articles has been locked down — Political positions of John McCain, after a series of dumb (IMO) edit wars over various silly (ditto) entries: is singing "Bomb Iran" a political position, is a one-word answer to a survey self-explanatory, does McCain want to ban the birth control pill, does McCain's short answer to a long, jumbled town hall question mean he wants to reinstitute the draft, stuff like that. Oh well, I thought we might get up to the election without this happening, but guess not. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Famous qoute about McCain

Arguably the most famous quote about McCain is missing from the article as delivered by Senator Clinton, "Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House and Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002. Hobartimus (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Falls into the category of "Things said during a heated primary battle that come back to look bad in general election". Not that significant from a biographical perspective. If McCain picks Mitt for veep, there will be more quotes of this ilk, still not significant. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you present a single more significant and famous quote about McCain anywhere? Also there are many qoutes currently IN the article such as "It is not the kind of anger that is a loss of control. He is a very controlled person." can you honestly claim that these are "more significant from a biographical perspective"? Hobartimus (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The part about McCain is that he "has a lifetime of experience." This seems self-evident. Clinton undoubtedly meant it in a complimentary way, but it really does not say much.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What Hillary said about McCain was said to needle Obama, not to be a deeply profound biographical assessment of McCain. She's said a bunch of very different things about McCain since then, especially at the current convention. You want to include all of those too? Do you have any WP:RS that proclaim this the most "significant and famous quote about McCain anywhere"? Has the New York Times or Time magazine or CNN said that? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a point there, it was my assessment based on the sheer number of articles that cited this qoute. But we have some qoutes in the article or you can bring up any other qoute that you think is more famous or significant and then we can check 'em against each other to see the number of articles citing each one. There might be a more notable qoute on McCain or on the McCain Obama comparsion but I'm curious as to what it can be as to this qoute I see over a hundred thousand hits (with direct qoutes alone) for this single qoute. I don't think we should substitute our judgement on what is notable or not for actual notability. As to your question if Hillary said a bunch of different things we can also include those provided they reach the same level of notability. The point is exactly not to include every statement ever made only the couple most notable ones about McCain.Hobartimus (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If this quote turns out to be a turning point in the campaign, and leads to difficulties for Obama, then it can be included in the pertinent campaign articles. If this quote turns out to be the deciding factor in the entire race, as determined by exit polling in November, then we can include it here in the campaign section. But in terms of including it here in the biographical or cultural/political image sections, no. It's not a very useful biographical quote, because it's not really about McCain, it's about Obama. If the GOP presumptive nominee had been anyone else with a serious foreign policy/national security resumé, she would have said the same thing. It could have been George H. W. Bush in a different era, or Dick Lugar, or Rudy Giuliani, or Duncan Hunter, or Orrin Hatch, and she would have said the same thing. In other words, this quote really tells you more about the Obama-Hillary battle than it does about McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

political image

Important negative image omitted from both Obama and McCain article. Added, good sources found, phrased in a neutral way. McCain: not conservative enough, too conservative. Obama: inexperienced in foreign policy per Associated Press, CNN, and Hillary Clinton.

Please help Wikipedia by keeping these and making Wikipedia complete. Reverting away all but positive information hurts Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a campaign tool. All of additions that I made have impeccable sources and are very widely held political images of both men. Oprahwasontv (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your interest in this article is appreciated. However, this is merely a summary article, and therefore sources should not go beyond what is in the sub-article. See WP:SS. Also, the footnotes should be formatted like all the others, instead of being bare URLs. Additionally, the material you added was already covered by what Robb and Continetti say in the political position section of this article (i.e. that many do not consider McCain to be "a conservative"). See WP:Undue weight. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge is correct that the "Political positions" part of this article already assesses McCain's place on the political spectrum, using more objective metrics such as ACU, ADA, and Almanac of American politics ratings. Your bit about McCain being accused of being Bush III is just a Democratic campaign slogan. This article, and its subarticles such as Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present, already discuss where McCain has parted from Bush and where he has sided with Bush. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Education

I understand wanting to defend McCain but this section "McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899) which he did not aim to improve. He did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he disliked, such as math."

I didn't know that we could PROVE that he only did well in some classes the he wanted to. Its not very encyclopedic at all, especially for a "featured" article

Mannymix (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's confusing that you've quoted two sentences, but only objected to the second one. Regarding the second sentence, did you look at the cited source? The cited source says: "McCain's grades were good in the subjects he enjoyed, such as literature and history. Gamboa said McCain would rather read a history book than do his math homework. He did just enough to pass the classes he didn't find stimulating. 'He stood low in his class,' Gamboa said. 'But that was by choice, not design.'" None of this can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it's from an uncontradicted reliable source.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Mannymix, you're one of a number of people who've had a problem with this passage, and I agree it needs revision. For starters, I think we need to state first what his class rank was. Then we can explain what factors went into it. As it stands, we're already explaining it away before we even say what it was, which is the technique of an apologia. Also, McCain himself has said he wasn't very good at math and engineering (Faith of My Fathers p. 134: "Unfortunately, the curriculum at the Academy was weighted preponderantly toward math and sciences. Indeed, in those days, all midshipmen were obliged to major in electrical engineering. I struggled with it, possessing no special calling to the trade."). I think that needs to be added into the mix, both here and in Elmc. The final problem is that we don't have his actual Naval Academy transcript, so we can't see exactly how well he really did in these other subjects. It can't have been that well; just a few A's here and there would have propelled him above 894 out of 899, I would think. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WTR, you're the first person I've heard of that wants to give his class rank even more prominence than it already has, and I disagree. This article already is extremely forthright about his class rank of 50 years ago, and we place it near the top of the article where everyone will get a good long look at it. Do we do this for Biden, or some of the other politicians who weren't over-achievers in college? No, we don't, we only do it for McCain. Which is fine. But now you want to emphasize it even more?

The Biden article mentions both his unexceptional undergraduate grades and his lousy law school class rank (76 out of 85). It does so in the 1988 presidential campaign section, not the early education section, because Biden didn't represent these marks honestly to the public and it helped blow up his campaign. Thus it seems more relevant there. I've considered moving the grades/rank and the law school plagiarism up to the early section, on chronological grounds, but am waiting for the article to quiet down a bit. Right now, significant changes like that don't last long, as there is a lot of editing going back and forth. McCain is different. He's always been upfront about his class rank; as you know, one whole chapter of Faith of My Fathers is entitled "Fifth from the Bottom". His Naval Academy performance (both in attitude and rank) is part of the McCain persona. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This article says: "McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899) which he did not aim to improve." The information about conflicts and obeying rules is independently notable even if we didn't know what his class rank is. Therefore I emphatically disagree with you that it's some kind of apologia. Why do you think class rank ought to come first? Do our cited sources put it first? No, they don't. I am especially concerned that you seem to be suggesting turning what is not now an apologia into exactly that, by announcing class rank more prominently, and then expending numerous words to explain or justify it.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would have no problem changing "but studied only enough to pass subjects he disliked, such as math" to "but studied only enough to pass subjects he struggled with, such as mathematics."Ferrylodge (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. As a whole, the Naval Academy paragraph here in the main article is awful, in the sense that it doesn't capture the feel of what went on or the nature of McCain's character during that time. This isn't our fault per se; this is really a case where it's hard to summarize, where the truth is in the small details. The much larger Elmc section does a better job of it, and Timberg and McCain-Salter the best. I'll keep looking at this paragraph to see what can be done; meanwhile, I cut out a couple of superfluous cite usages from it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The recent changes are okay. I hope we continue to emphasize third party sources rather than McCain himself, though the latter is inevitable to some extent.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that most of the section should be left out, while there is a "source" for it, its really not encyclopedic content, maybe it can be shuffled around. His class rank is a hard fact, but the reasons behind it could be made up by any source and really shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. It gives a hard fact (class rank) and then it seems very apologist as to why the ranking is low.

If we were writing a data sheet, you'd be right. But we aren't; we're writing a biography. No real biographer would just let a fact like this go by without trying to understand and explain what was behind it. Timberg spends a lot of time on this, for example, and he's not just making stuff up. We need to spend a little time on it too. Yes, it can't come across as an apologia, but we can't run away from it either. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to know what McCain's degree from the US Naval Academy was in. I know he has a BS, but there's no information I can find about what he majored in in college. 24.61.133.19 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See Early life and military career of John McCain:

There was a fixed Bachelor of Science curriculum taken by all midshipmen;[40][41]" 40^ "A Brief History of the United States Naval Academy". United States Naval Academy. Retrieved on April 5, 2008. 41 ^ Blum, Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. (May–June 1977). "Changing Educational Goals at the United States Naval Academy". Air University Review 28 (4): 72–82.

McCain wrote that it was forced electrical engineering major, which I couldn't confirm, but certainly that describes the kinds of courses that predominated. In reality there was no "major" – everyone took the same stuff. As footnote 40 explains, "The Academy later replaced a fixed curriculum taken by all midshipmen with the present core curriculum plus 18 major fields of study, a wide variety of elective courses and advanced study and research opportunities." Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to address the many concerns raised about the language around the class rank. I've changed

McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899) which he did not aim to improve.[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]

to now be

McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899) despite a strong intelligence.[10][12][13] 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][14]

where the new cite 13 is

^ Alexander, Man of the People, 207. McCain scored 128 and then 133 on IQ tests.

The rationale for my changes is that (a) "which he did not aim to improve" was both redundant (the subsequent "studied only enough to pass" gets the same idea across already) and not fully accurate (there were periods where he did try to improve – see pp. 141-142 of Faith of My Fathers, where he made a concerted effort before and during the start of his final year, only to be badly graded by a superior who hated him), and (b) per several of the complaints, what readers want is some kind of objective assessment of his intelligence. I'm not a big believer in IQ tests, but that's all we have to go on, so I've added it (it's long been in Elmc). Hopefully this section will get less criticism now. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

North vietnamiese and former KGB agents talks he was very loyal during his time in prison

Mccain had additional food, free time and the periods, when his appearance was unidentificated. When he was. and who is Mr. Mccain. He could be double game player, whose just trying to trick with American people's opinion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.178.194.36 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This notion is not supported by WP:RS. But I do have some free advice that will serve you well: don't believe everything you find on the Internet. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The American POW/MIA groups have the exact opposite view, siting the 23 North Vietnamese Propaganda films that featured McCain, as well as his nickname "Songbird" and that his claims of torture were greatly embellished.68.161.177.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

Yes, there are American POW/MIA activist groups who believe there has been a conspiracy across every American presidency and government since 1973 to keep live American prisoners trapped in Vietnam. These groups hate McCain for not believing in this theory, and for denouncing the groups as profiteers and exploiters of families' hopes. They have also concocted a vastly different interpretation of McCain's time in Vietnam. This mentioned in several of our articles, see #Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain below. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rear admiral offer

Should the claim by the NY Times that McCain was offered rear admiral be included? Relying upon a single source (and a disputed one at that) to support this claim seems a bit tenuous, particularly given the sources that contradict this. Being offered a star is a very momentous occasion for a person in the Navy, one would think that if he was offered such it would have been included in one of the bios written of/by McCain... This was previously discussed here. Even if you discredit the Huffington Post source, the National Journal source and use of McCain's Worth the Fighting For autobiography that underpins the Huffington Post article seem to cast enough doubt that another source supporting this claim is necessary. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain#Huffington Post. I'm certainly willing to omit the Lehman item from the main article here (on summary grounds, if nothing else), but I didn't like the weaselly wording we were getting into. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is that we not start using HuffPost to start shooting down NYT articles. And please quote the portion of the National Journal article you think is important. The National Journal article is written by one of Obama's top campaign people, by the way.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I would yank it from here then. From the summary story perspective, the Lehman exchange didn't change anything. McCain had already decided to retire and go into politics. Nobody thinks he could have made 4-star admiral, and if he couldn't match his f and gf, he was going to make his big mark doing something different. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I may end up supporting yanking it, WTR, but what's your main reason for thinking it might not be true?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Don't get me wrong. I'm not using the Huffington Post article alone. Much like Wikipedia the only thing HuffPo is good for is getting sources. Heh. Anyways, in the NJ article down towards the bottom of the article in the "Finding a home" section:

Hart says, “It became clear that he was not going to receive a star and not going to become an admiral. I think that was the deciding point for him to retire from the Navy.”

The Hart mentioned is Gary Hart, one of McCain's better friends, so one would think such a thing would have come up in conversation. Additionally, the wording from McCain's autobiography is:

I had been summoned to see the CNO, Admiral Heyward, who told me that I was making a mistake.... His attempt to dissuade me encouraged me to believe that I might have made admiral had I had been in the navy, a prospect that remained an open question in my mind.... Some of my navy friends believed I could still earn my star; others doubted it....

Granted, there is a lot of .... there, so there could be quite a bit of information behind those ....'s, but it does seem that it's more of a "could become an admiral" versus "would become an admiral" and certainly not a "All you have to do is sign the dotted line. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well, maybe some additional info would be helpful here. R. Emmett Tyrrell had a peice recently in the American Spectator titled "Captain McCain". Here's a bit of it:

Interviewed for this piece, Lehman told me of one of their earlier disagreements that reveals the senator's peculiar sense of public service. It was February 1981. Lehman had just become secretary of the Navy. Captain McCain dropped by his office to tell him he was quitting to run for Congress. Lehman objected, telling him he was certain to be promoted to admiral in the autumn and was on track to reach four stars. The young officer who had just been so effectual in reviving the military rejected the stars, stars his father and grandfather had won. He wanted to enter Congress, saying, as Lehman recalls: "The Navy's in good shape, but I have never seen such a f -- -ed up organization as Congress. I can do more to help the country there."

Does this change our analysis, one way or the other?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to discredit Douglass because she joined the Obama campaign a month after the NJ article, you're still relying upon the same source that is one of McCain's senior advisors. The problem is that McCain himself contradicts Lehman. Why wouldn't McCain say he was being offered a star and tell everyone around he didn't think that he wasn't going to get one when in reality he had been offered it? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should just stick with what is unequivocally true, and try not to speculate about matters that are in legitimate dispute. So, I'll try to do that.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've re-worded it. See what you think.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to stick to what isn't in dispute, it may be better to limit it to saying that when he notified Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Thomas B. Hayward that he was retiring, Admiral Hayward told him he might make admiral. Of course, McCain's prospects of becoming an admiral (rear or full) can be explored at greater depth in the ELMC article, including the comments by Lehman that his recollection was that McCain was going to be offered a star in Fall of '81. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If we have any bias about whose words to follow, the bias should be toward following secondary sources rather than McCain himself. Several commenters advised that this series of McCain articles cut back on citing him directly, and that seems right. Anyway, the stuff now in this article seems indisputable. It says: "McCain decided to leave the Navy. It was doubtful whether he would ever be promoted to the rank of full admiral, as he had poor annual physicals and had been given no major sea command.[62] His chances of being promoted to rear admiral were better, but McCain declined that prospect, as he had already made plans to run for Congress and said he could 'do more good there.'[63]" I think everyone agrees that it was doubtful he would ever get four stars. And everyone agrees with the obvious fact that he had a better chance of at least getting one star. I don't think we need to go into any details here in this main article about what Hayward or Lehman or Hart said regarding this whole subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe a single thing Bob Tyrrell or the American Spectator says. I wouldn't believe them if they said the sun rises in the east. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about him. I note that Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House isn't mentioned in her Wiki article, though.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, it is mentioned there.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The American Spectator was Exhibit A of 1990s pathological Clintons hatred, and Tyrrell was its head nutcase. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good thing he's not a Wikipedian.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

By all indications it's Pawlenty. It's already getting busy there. Repeat to myself, I will not get involved in that article. I am already backlogged and overextended. I will not get involved in that article, I will not get involved, I will not get involved ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you help out with the Tim Pawlenty article? --Elliskev 00:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. I'd revert to this version. Looks pretty unassailable to me! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No way! That has linked years flying solo!

OK. Enough. Sorry for the disruption. --Elliskev 00:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Come on, Wasted, if you were really a glutton for punishment, you'd be on Obama's article. Way too many fanboys and haters there. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with the Ferrylodge change to the main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me then. I'm just an interloper on this article. It just struck me as odd that the sentence began with "One news report suggests..." Anything that is single sourced is suspect and shouldn't be in a featured article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's better now, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image of McCain at Naval Academy

The Manual of Style says: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." The only way that the Academy picture can face twoard the text is if it is on the right side of the article. Therefore, it was placed on the right side of the article, following a discussion about this matter here at this talk page.[21]

If anyone is encountering some kind of problem with this arrangement, please explain. How can the Academy image conflict with the infobox? Do they overlap or something? Please discuss before reverting against consensus.[22] Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"It is often preferable" means that it isn't compulsary. All images should be kept away from infoboxes otherwise they will conflict causing a large white gap in the text. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Where does the gap occur for you? And is there any guideline about keeping images away from infobox? I would like to figure out a way to solve your problem, without having the image face away from the text.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you have reverted it, there is a huge white gap under the naval training header - this will likely affect anyone using a widescreen monitor which is a lot of people. Generally you should always try and keep images to the left at the top if there is a large infobox to counter ths problem. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Gustav, as I said, I want to find a technical solution that will make everyone happy. I do not like your technique of edit-warring about this. In the mean time, I will try to figure out a solution that will avoid the white space, while still allowing the image to face into the text. The "compromise" that you have now jammed into the article is not a compromise at all, because the image is now facing away from the text. I don't see why you have a problem discussing things rather than edit-warring about them. The problem you are now experiencing is apparently unusual, because no one else has mentioned it.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't unusual- I just tested my (widescreen) laptop and it has the same issue. It is not compulsary to have portraits facing into the text, just preferable- if you move the image any further down on the right it will look out of place. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be very obvious to any reasonable person that the preferred solution would be to keep the image under the infobox, but without creating any white space. If you cannot acknowledge that, then apparently there is no point in further discussing this. Apparently, most people do not use wide screens like you do, but I am more than happy to look for a solution that will work for both you and the rest of us.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The portrait facing into the article is not as big a deal as you are making it really- it is just preferable that portraits face inwards- sometimes, as in this case where there is an oversize infobox the image might have to to go on the left in order that it doesn't clash and that is not too far away from the accompanying text. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to me. But, it was important in the view of another user, and I agreed to do it that way, so I'm just trying to keep my promise here. I hope that the white space is now eliminated for you.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done for finding a solution- sorry if I seemed a little crabby last night! It turns out it was an Internet Explorer bug after all as the white space doesn't occur in Firefox or Safari. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for bringing the problem to our attention. By the way, your name reminds me of something. Let's hope it's no Katrina.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

RUNNING MATE ANNOUNCEMENT

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/palin.republican.vp.candidate/index.html--Bednarluck (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain's torture

McCain's Torture, as Defined by McCain and Bush/Cheney, Wasn't Torture. The text telling of his torture should be removed.

"The torture that was deployed against McCain emerges in all the various accounts. It involved sleep deprivation, the withholding of medical treatment, stress positions, long-time standing, and beating. Sound familiar?

According to the Bush administration's definition of torture, McCain was therefore not tortured.

Cheney denies that McCain was tortured; as does Bush. So do John Yoo and David Addington and George Tenet. In the one indisputably authentic version of the story of a Vietnamese guard showing compassion, McCain talks of the agony of long-time standing. A quarter century later, Don Rumsfeld was putting his signature to memos lengthening the agony of "long-time standing" that victims of Bush's torture regime would have to endure. These torture techniques are, according to the president of the United States, merely "enhanced interrogation."

No war crimes were committed against McCain. And the techniques used are, according to the president, tools to extract accurate information. And so the false confessions that McCain was forced to make were, according to the logic of the Bush administration, as accurate as the "intelligence" we have procured from "interrogating" terror suspects. Feel safer?"

lol Mccain is strongly against "torture" altough I don't consider waterboarding torture. KingsOfHearts (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC) http://www.hoffmania.com/blog/2008/08/mccains-torture.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjdp9 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Dozens of WP:RS describe what McCain and the other POWs endured in North Vietnam as torture, including the cites we use in this article. What Bush/Cheney do or do not consider torture in the 2000s is completely irrelevant to what happened in North Vietnam in the 1960s. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Married to the Mob?

[snip rant/possible copyvio of some blog]

It is up to Wikipedia and the Internet truth squad to do their job.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/24/america/23mccain.php

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,6546861.story

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/01056.htm

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2000-02-17/news/haunted-by-spirits/1

http://samsedershow.com/node/2470

http://tiodt.blogspot.com/2006/12/married-to-mob.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012403383_pf.html

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57354

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vZi6QqFSH4&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.192.247 (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Several of the news sources you give above are used in our McCain or McCain-related articles, including the NYT, LAT, and Phx NT ones. In particular, our Jim Hensley article describes the nature of his early relationship with Kemper Marley. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Article's focus is not right, needs re-write

I saw a 2 hour CNN documentary about McCain and a separate one immediately afterwards about Obama. There were some major points addressed by CNN which are not covered well here.

One of them was lengthy coverage about his 1983 opposition to keeping the Marines in Lebanon which made the Republicans mad.

Thanks for the comment. You're right that the 1983 Lebanon opposition isn't in this main article, but it is covered in House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000#House years:

"However, his vote against a resolution allowing President Reagan to keep U.S. Marines deployed as part of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, on the grounds that he "[did] not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon," would seem prescient after the catastrophic Beirut barracks bombing a month later;[1] this vote would also gain him national media exposure and start his reputation as a political maverick.[1]"

Should this be here too? This main article is (somewhat unfortunately, in my view) an "executive summary" that glosses over some important aspects of McCain's life. If we start adding things about his House years, is this the one thing we should add? Or does it give undue weight to one of McCain's few departures with GOP orthodoxy in that period? For the same subarticle section also says:

"McCain’s politics at this point were mainly in line with those of President Ronald Reagan, [1][26][20] whom McCain would later write had the greatest political influence on him of anyone:[27] "I embraced all of the core Reagan convictions: faith in the individual; skepticism of government; free trade and vigorous capitalism; anticommunism; a strong defense; robust internationalism that championed our values abroad; and most important, his eloquently stated belief in America's national greatness ..."[27] McCain supported Reaganomics.[26] He supported school prayer and opposed abortion.[28] He supported most aspects of the foreign policy of the Reagan administration, including its hardline stance against the Soviet Union.[26] He supported the Reagan administration's policy towards Central American conflicts,[26] including U.S. support for the Contras in Nicaragua.[28]"

So how much of this should be included in the main article? Wasted Time R (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A key criticism of this Wikipedia article is the selection of details. Some the article is long but the depth and detail is uneven. Some things are covered well, some in too much detail and some too little. A few things aren't even there. Fwlok (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's not an easy process to decide what goes in here, and what stays in the various subarticles. If you have other specific items in mind besides 1983 Lebanon, you have to list them here. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If we want to go out of our way to describe McCain's risk-taking/maverick character (that is a theme of the article), then the Lebanon position would seem more appropriate than the conformist things.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird thing with Obama's article

I just saw the Obama discussion page. Something is going on to prevent people from writing things there so only a few people are able to do this. This obstructs writing. I understand that the articles have this type of guard (can't write in the McCain article until I somehow get certified, probably is the same way with the Discussion Page of Obama).

Could someone fix this problem? It will help both the McCain and Obama article and also subject them to equal treatment. Any debate about Obama is stiffled with the difference in access to the articles by Wikipedia users.

I just saw a CNN documentary about McCain and one about Obama soon afterwards. The CNN documentary about Obama has quite a few things that the Wikipedia article is missing. It also has some important things about McCain that isn't mentioned in this article. Fwlok (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Talk:Barack Obama is semi-protected, which means that unregistered users and brand-new users can't write to it. That's because of the extraordinary amount of vandalism, partisan propagandizing, libelling, etc. that goes on there. This talk page has seen much less of that, and thus is not semi-protected. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia content on Obama and McCain, the solution is simple: make some edits to other, lower-profile articles, wait a few days, and then you'll be a regular user and on the same status level as most of us. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for VP pick

I'm going to tentatively revert this edit. It cites a NY Times article for the proposition that, "McCain made the selection in an effort to recapture his maverick image, wagering that her youth, reformist record, appeal to social conservatives, and possible appeal to disaffected Hillary Clinton voters would outweigh her lack of national or international visibility and experience."

There are a couple problems with this. First, it completely discounts everything that McCain said when he introduced Palin. Second, it directly contradicts McCain's previous statements that his main criteria would be to make a pick that did no harm, and would pick someone ready to take his place. There are, of course, reliable sources that confirm all this.

So, while the cited NY Times paragraph may be accurate, and it may or may not be true that McCain abandoned his prior criteria, and lied through his teeth when he introduced Governor Palin, there may be another POV that needs to be presented here. Or we can keep things simple and brief.

Also, characterizing McCain's decision as primarily driven by "image", and as a "wager", seems kind of harsh. And, if Pawlenty had been chosen, would there be such emphasis on "lack of national or international visibility and experience"?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to get into this right now, but I will be back later tonight. But your assumption that what I wrote suggests that McCain "lied through his teeth" is utterly wrong. I'm willing to add some text about his stated reasons for picking Palin, most of which has to do with her reformist record, which I tried to include already. But we have to say something – this was a startling pick with big potential upsides and downsides that represents McCain's risk-taking/maverick character that is a theme of the article. Anyway, I can tell this is going to be a talk discussion that goes on for 5 or 10 screens worth, so I'm not going to start now. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should probably say something more. So, in order to maybe expedite the discussion, I'll draft something up. Then you can slam it just like I slammed your draft.  :) Ferrylodge (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Okay, how about this:

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was revealed as McCain's surprise pick for vice-presidential running mate on August 29, 2008. She would be the first female vice-president of the United States. Palin began her political career in 1992 as a city council member in Wassilla, Alaska. Her youth, reformist record, appeal to social conservatives, and gender could attract voters and help McCain recapture his maverick image.

Note that this does not speculate about McCain's motives, nor does it address the things that Palin is not.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that Palin's 16-year political career means there's no risk or downside to her selection. With all these positive aspects to her, she must have been the obvious choice that everybody predicted all along and that McCain settled on early in the process. ... We're so far apart on this one, there's no point in even discussing it. Let me find my way back to the reality-based world.... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't despair. I am a very reasonable person.  :) The question remains, if Pawlenty had been picked would you want us to write all about his lack of experience on the national and international stages? We could also write about his lack of service in the military, his lack of millions of dollars to self-finance his campaign, his lack of fluency in Spanish, his lack of business experience, his lack of friends in Hollywood, et cetera, et cetera. I acknowledge that we shouldn't puff up Palin here, but generally speaking BLPs are not supposed to list all the things that the subject is NOT.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not writing about Palin here, we're writing about McCain's decision making. Decision making involves evaluating tradeoffs, and all veep picks are tradeoffs. How presidential candidates deal with the veep pick is considered an important window on their political personality and possible presidency, by both newspaper reporters and the time and biographers years later. By utterly omitting one side of the tradeoffs involved with selecting Palin, you're rendering McCain's decision trivially obvious rather than daring. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)Try this, then:

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was revealed as McCain's surprise pick for vice-presidential running mate on August 29, 2008. She would be the first female vice-president of the United States. Palin began her political career in 1992 as a city council member in Wassilla, Alaska. Her youth, reformist record, appeal to social conservatives, executive experience, and gender could attract voters to the ticket, but her relative lack of experience at the highest levels of government could make it difficult for McCain to criticize Obama on those grounds.

Here's another reference, talking about how Palin's selection may cut against McCain's experience argument against Obama.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still just spinning for Palin. My writeup didn't try to summarize Palin's bio. I didn't say that until 21 months before the pick, the highest office she'd ever held was mayor of a 6,000 person town at the farthest reaches of the nation. Yet you're bragging on about her 16 year political career. Like I said at the start, this is hopeless. It's better off we say nothing and hope our readers look at newspapers. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)WTR, we should say that her experience at the highest levels of government has been brief, even though you don't seem to want to. That's not spinning for Palin in any way, shape, or form. Anyway, try this:

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was revealed as McCain's surprise pick for vice-presidential running mate on August 29, 2008. She would be the first female vice-president of the United States. Palin began her political career in 1992, but her experience at the highest levels of government has been brief, which could make it difficult for McCain to criticize Obama on those same grounds. However, Palin could attract votes on account of her youth, reformist record, appeal to social conservatives, executive experience, and gender.

Ferrylodge (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your definition of "the highest levels of government"? She has no experience at the middle levels of government either. That's what's totally misleading about your statement. You keep wanting to compare her to Pawlenty, but he had five terms in the Minnesota state legislature. That's extensive experience at the middle level, that she doesn't have at all. A 6,000 person town, that's the lowest levels of government. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I'd say that "the highest levels of government" primarily means serving not just a town or district, but being elected by an entire state or nation. So, I'd be glad to clarify that in the suggested language. But I disagree that ten years in a state legislature is necessarily more substantial than ten years as a mayor. To take an extreme example, Rudy Giuliani got 1000% more accomplished as mayor of NYC than he could have as a single state representative. And I dare say that the same goes for the mayors of Schenectedy, Syracuse, and Buffalo. In any event, here's a similar version but without the vague "highest levels":

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was revealed as McCain's maverick choice for running mate on August 29, 2008. She would be the first female vice-president of the United States. Palin began her career as a local elected official in 1992, but her experience serving a statewide constituency has been brief, which could make it difficult for McCain to criticize Obama on that same basis. However, Palin could attract votes on account of her youth, reformist record, appeal to social conservatives, executive experience, and gender.

Ferrylodge (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeez. If you don't think being a state legislator and voting on laws that affect 5 million people (Minnesota's population) is a higher level of experience than being a council member and mayor of a town of 6,000 people, then we're not on the same planet. Here's an experiment: find out how many small-town mayors run for state legistature, versus how many state legislators run for small-town mayor. And your criteria is a red herring; Jack Kemp never served a "statewide consistuency" (18 years in the House), yet no one thought he was inexperienced when Dole picked him for veep. And to get back to basics, if you can't see that your text is worded defensively in Palin's favor, then we aren't going to get anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Any citizen who votes on a referendum is voting on laws that affect millions of people. Big deal. And I don't think a ten-year governor of California necessarily has more experience than a ten-year governor of Wyoming, despite the population difference.

So let's get back to basics. Do you agree or disagree that picking Palin weakened McCain's ability to go after Obama on grounds of inexperience? Your cited source says so, and my cited source says so, and it has been in almost every version I have proposed, but you have not said one word about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This presentation is still a talking-points distortion of the issue of her lack of experience, worded to get in a so-called negative about Obama. Try instead just talking about the perceived positives and negatives of the choice of Palin without a defensive backhand slap. Tvoz/talk 05:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Here's the NYT article that WTR has cited:

Last Sunday, 24 hours after Mr. Obama announced his running mate, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Mr. McCain met with his senior campaign team at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Phoenix. By then, campaign advisers said, the group had long decided that Mr. McCain’s “experience versus change” argument against Mr. Obama had run its course, to the extent that it had worked at all.... In any case, one campaign adviser said, Mr. McCain hated running as the wizened old hand of experience.

Here's the Bloomberg article that I cited:

Obama, who appeared on the CBS program with Biden, his vice presidential candidate, said he wasn't sure whether McCain's selection of Palin would prevent Republicans from attacking him on the issue of experience. Obama is a first-term senator from Illinois, and Palin is less than halfway through her first term as governor. "That's a good question to address to Senator McCain," Obama said. "Of course, the issue of experience is going to be relevant."

Both of these reliable sources emphasize that, by picking Palin, McCain undermined his ability to criticize the inexperience of Obama. This is a cold hard fact about a major element in McCain's decision-making process. Why leave it out?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Ferrylodge, is that your wording gives the impression that undermining the ability to criticize Obama on experience is the only inexperience-related risk of selecting Palin. But it isn't. There's the basic risk of her not appearing ready to assume the presidency. Much has been written about how because McCain is 72 and has had some health issues, the chance that Palin might be elevated to president may be perceived by voters to be increased over normal and that this magnifies her inexperience. Another risk is that McCain will appear cynical, in selecting someone for political appeal to certain voter groups despite that person not matching up with his previously expressed goals for what a vice president should be or with his overall image ("Country first"). And by the way, I find your dismissal of the importance of state legislators astonishing. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your 'non-controversial' addition of "She would be the first female Vice-President of the United States." was also problematic. While obviously true, it might give readers the impression that she's also the first female vice-presidential candidate. Again, what's important for this article is McCain's decision, not Palin herself. I've changed this to "McCain was only the second U.S. major-party presidential nominee to select a woman for running mate and the first Republican to do so; Palin would become the first female Vice-President of the United States if elected."

That change you made to the article is fine with me, WTR. If you would like to suggest some revised further language here at the talk page, that would be fine too. My main concern at this point is that we should not use this John McCain article to emphasize only the inexperience of his running mate, when in fact the inexperience of his opponent was also a major factor in her selection. A legitimate, NPOV point, no? And by the way, I find your dismissal of the importance of local government service surprising, particularly mayoral service. Giuliani would not approve.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you (California vs Wyoming), I believe that scale matters. Being Mayor of New York City is indeed somewhat like being president of a small country. Being mayor of Wasilla, Alaska is an utterly different job with only 1/1000th the challenges. As for your latest point, I have no idea what you mean ... McCain thought his presidential opponent was too inexperienced to lead the country, so he picked a vice president who was also too inexperienced to lead the country? But no matter. This discussion has already gone on too long and been unproductive. We'll just say nothing here in this article. When the election is over it can be revisited. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the paragraphs I excerpted above from the NYT and Bloomberg, you would see that the inexperience of Obama was a major factor in deciding whether to select Palin, because selecting Palin would hurt McCain's ability to go after Obama for his inexperience. McCain thought this was out-balanced by the benefits that Palin would bring to the ticket. That seems quite obvious.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Too many complaints

Wow. So many complaints in this discussion section. Online forums are the acceptable place for people to debate their opinions, and lying should have little place in wikipedia. Let's leave the hypocrisy to the candidates, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nincompoot (talk • contribs) 05:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Net Worth

Why is McCain's net worth listed as the combined total of his and his wife's assets? Wikipedia defines an individual's net worth as "In personal finance, net worth is used to refer to an individual's net financial position" Infernallek (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)infernallek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.206.51 (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1) Because it's what the source says. 2) Because it's how net worth is usually reported for married couples. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A while back I found sources that gave them separately, and then I listed both net worths in the infobox. That way readers could see who owned what, since they have separate finances, but also see that he was in a marriage that held a large net worth, which is certainly relevant as well. I thought this was clearly the best way to do it, but got overruled. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clinton joke

The Clinton joke is now explicitly in the body of this article, following this edit by someone else (subsequently modified by me). The explicit text certainly belongs in the sub-article that is being summarized, and maybe even belongs in the footnotes of this main article, but putting it in the body of this article is going to be problematic for many reasons already discussed (undue weight, need for context, magnet for future edits, wish of Clinton White House to not draw attention to it, privacy of family members, lengthening of article, lack of Obama's dumbest quotes in his article, et cetera, et cetera). I'll leave the explicit text of the joke in this article for now, but would have no objection if someone else moves it out; mentioning that the joke was made should be sufficient, without reciting it verbatim.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through the archives, and while the joke might have been not quite necessary in the main article a while ago, now that McCain is talking about the proper way to treat Palin's children, this context of this joke is now beyond relegating it to a footnote, although I'm sure he would like it to be buried.Trishm (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What did he say about her children?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I thought that McCain himself had said something about respecting the privacy of candidates' children, but in this case it is a campaign statement: "The Palins, in a statement released by the McCain campaign, said Bristol "came to us with news that we as parents knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned." They wrote that their daughter "has our unconditional love and support. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."Trishm (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I think you've made a bad situation (mentioning the terrible joke without giving it, which was always going to be a red flag) worse. You've changed the subarticle's

"McCain's biographer Robert Timberg would characterize it as "an unspeakable thing to say, unworthy of him."[60] McCain subsequently said: "This is the bad boy. It was stupid and cruel and insensitive. I've apologized. I can't take it back."[61] His letter of apology to President Clinton was described as "abject, contrite, and profuse."[60]"

into just "McCain subsequently apologized," thereby giving the possible impression that McCain didn't think there was much wrong with the joke and was just giving a pro-forma apology. You've also brought up the whole muted White House reaction, which only goes to show that Bill Clinton was a louse and/or Bill Clinton was trying to get more acquittal votes for his upcoming impeachment trial, both utterly irrelevant to McCain's character and temperment. All this just makes McCain look even smaller, for picking on a girl whose parents were already in a pickle. The honorable thing to do here is just give the joke, and then give just this part:

"McCain subsequently said: "This is the bad boy. It was stupid and cruel and insensitive. I've apologized. I can't take it back."[61] His letter of apology to President Clinton was described as "abject, contrite, and profuse."[60]"

That should suffice for this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, WTR, this article is supposed to summarize the sub-article, which is what "McCain subsequently apologized" does. If you would like to insert an adjective in there (e.g. "profusely"), then that would be fine with me. But I do not like your suggestion to go on at length about it. As for quoting the White House, it explains why the newspapers deemed it not fit to print, don't you think? But I can leave out the White House quote if you want, although I really think it should be included, to show that the apology was ACCEPTED.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down to "McCain subsequently apologized profusely,[252] which the White House accepted.[253]" I've fixed the first footnote to be the right one, and I've removed the bud/smack aside from the second – it's too off-topic for the main article, and to be fully understood requires impeachment context and the like. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okey doke.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

Hello. The section on Political positions says a lot about various ways of measuring positions and almost nothing about Senator McCain's positions. It reduces the issues to two as measured in April and to various numbers on scales which are themselves explained more than what they mean. Sorry to come in late. Is this meta-talk a recent development to this article and can it be fixed? Thanks for your thoughts. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been this way for a long time, for several reasons, so I'm not sure anything really needs to be fixed. As indicated in one of the footnotes, "The question of how to measure a senator's or representative's ideology is one that political scientists regularly need to answer. For more than 30 years, the standard method for gauging ideology has been to use the annual ratings of lawmakers' votes by various interest groups, notably the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the American Conservative Union (ACU)." So I don't think the "meta-talk" should be removed from this article. Regarding particular issues, we cannot cover every issue here, because there's just not enough room. So, we picked out the two issues that polls have shown people are most concerned about. This seems like a valid approrach to me. There's a link at the start of the section to Political positions of John McCain for people who want more information.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Ferrylodge. I found the lack of specifics in this article is in stark contrast to the Political positions section in Senator Obama's article. My own preference is for a search in my browser to find actual words about real things beyond very high-level mentions of "Iraq" and "economy" which for the most part are the two issues this article identifies. I understand that specifics can get long in the tooth and can imagine this article is easier to maintain if all the issues are on another page so I won't add what I was looking for unless other editors do. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Even if we did put info about more particular issues in this article, that's no guarantee you would find what you're looking for. In the Obama article, for example, I could not find anything about his opposition to the "surge" in Iraq or any statement about whether the surge has succeeded. You can find the words "abortion" and "choice" in that article, but they don't indicate his position on abortion or when life begins. I think it's better to go into the leading couple of issues in a bit more depth, than to give an incomplete treatement of additional issues. Anyway, I'm glad you raised the question, so it can get discussed here. Best wishes.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to thank the editors here. It can't be easy. Several sentences of specifics are alongside the general stuff that stood out at first and they are cited. Thanks again. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would take an even more radical approach, and only list the interest group ratings and other metrics, and leave all the specific positions for the Political positions of John McCain article. That's because trying to boil positions down to very short summaries is inherently a dubious proposition: you get superficiality and sound-bites and oversimplification. The whole point of the separate article is to avoid all that. So while my radical approach hasn't held the day here, I certainly would argue against trying to expand the specific position coverage here. As for the difference with the Obama article, hey that's Wikipedia. Different editors, different approaches. If you want a side-by-side comparison of positions, check out Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"McCain would not be the first U.S. leader to have a temper,[263] or to be passionate and engaged.[243]"

I took out the following editorial comment:

McCain would not be the first U.S. leader to have a temper,[263] or to be passionate and engaged.[243]

It was promptly reverted with the comment: "Rvt. This material is from a scholarly study (by Renshon) and from a prominent cultural critic, both describing McCain. Not everything in this section has to be negative about McCain. WP:Weight." I would like to discuss the reasoning behind it, before we get into an edit war. I am not interested in removing all vaguely positive comments about McCain. I am interested in removing vague comments.

This is a referenced source, as the full edit text reveals: McCain would not be the first U.S. leader to have a temper, or to be passionate and engaged.

I don't think that

McCain would not be the first U.S. leader to have a temper,[263] or to be passionate and engaged.[243]

stands on its own. It's just a feel-good comment. It would be different if the comment went something like: "A study by X, (titled) "Y" indicated that this trait is not unusual...."

I just think that If the scholarly study is notable, it should be mentioned explicitly, else not at all. Same reasoning for the joke: if the joke is notable, then tell the joke. It's not a long joke. Trishm (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we could say "a study by X showed Y", and "The cultural critic of the Chicago Tribune said thus and such." And I would have no problem doing that for a statement that is controversial or disputed, but the sentence in question does not seem to be controversial or disputed. Notice that 99% of the authors listed in the footnotes are not mentioned in the text of this article. If you can find sources that dispute the two sources cited here, then indeed it might be worth a further change in the wording of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute the statement. It is so bland, that it is barely worth mentioning, other than to soften the harsh impression given by surrounding statements - and that is what I find not appropriate. I would much rather see a detailed description of something in the same vein that McCain has done that generated good publicity, than a vague generality that seems a little out of place, well sourced and indisputable as it is. Trishm (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Better still, some detailed comment from the sources. Trishm (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the benefits of this bland statement is that it leads readers to the footnotes, where extended quotations and links are provided. Unfortunately, this article is already very long for a featured article, and therefore we have to omit a lot of stuff that we would not otherwise omit. If we totally removed this brief and bland statement, then there would be no path to the cited sources, and perhaps more importantly the section would read as though McCain's temper is unusual for a U.S. leader, when in fact it is not unusual.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that giving the names of of 2 or 3 other presidents named in the source would be a great improvement.Trishm (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed Cultural and political image of John McCain to give seven of the presidents that Renshon named. This summary section, alas, is constrained by space and style to pretty much ineffective and unconvincing, in my opinion. The best thing is for readers to go straight to the subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Trishm, try looking at the underlying Cultural and political image of John McCain article. This does give in-text attributions of all its scholarly and 'serious journalist' statements. But for some reason these (second) Renshaw and Keller attributions were missing; I've now added them. As an extra bonus, I've started a stub for Julia Keller ... as a Pulitzer Prize winner, she merits one. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Being "passionate and engaged" is not the same as having a temper, but is an attempted to change the subject. Further, it appears to "concede" what in fact is a positive claim. If a discussion of McCain's passion and engagement is called for, it should discuss what he is passionate about (the military?) and what not so much (economics?).Melonseed (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has never said that being "passionate and engaged" is the same as having a temper.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys are quick; I think I was reverted before I got my explanation up on the talk page. So this time I'll talk first. (I didn't realize there was an ongoing discussion about this.) No, the article doesn't say that "passionate and engaged" is the same as having a temper, but it only makes sense that way. You cannot relevantly say that someone would not be the first to have some characteristic, unless you first assert that they have that characteristic. Also, the topic at hand is McCain's temper, not miscellaneous characteristics that McCain may share with past presidents. Also, the source cited refers to what characteristics people want in a president, not what characteristics past presidents have had. But I have no dogmatic objection to mentioning John McCain's passion, as long as it doesn't sound like a McCain ad. So let me see what I can do here. (Give me a minute to make the edit before you revert.)Melonseed (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The best approach in a situation like this is to discuss the suggested edit here at the talk page, and build consensus for it. See WP:Consensus. I've changed the sentence in question to "McCain would not be the first U.S. leader to have a temper, given that voters like leaders who are passionate and engaged." I think that addresses your concern, right? Note that your most recent article edit created a red error message in the footnotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the reference error. I saw the smaller footnote number and assumed that "real reference" was earlier. I should have checked. I can live with your wording, As for reaching consensus -- if I'd thought it would be a controversial edit, I probably wouldn't have bothered. To me, worlds like passionate and engaged applied to people almost always merit the red pencil. They are the province of flacks and lazy journalists. Everyone is passionate about... things that they're passionate about, and engaged with... things they find engaging. That's my view anyway. But I'm not really all that passionate about it, so I think I'll disengage.Melonseed (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

add 2nd chinese language iw link please

language : Wuu
article : [[wuu:强 马凱恩]]

Thanks !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.233.23 (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 19

Footnote 19 is cited to by 3 sentences.

On July 3, 1965, McCain married Carol Shepp, a model originally from Philadelphia.[19]

His combat duty began when he was 30 years old, in summer 1967, when Forrestal was assigned to a bombing campaign during the Vietnam War.[19][25]

McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980, with Senators William Cohen and Gary Hart attending as groomsmen.[60][19]

Footnote 19 is listed as ("John McCain", Iowa Caucuses '08, The Des Moines Register.) The link seems to not contain the information cited. Does anyone know if a different source was intended than the Des Moines Register page? Nightkey (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please double-check the link. Make sure you scroll down to the timeline. It supports the information cited.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Prisoner of War?

Shouldn't this entry make it clear to a reader that the term "Prisoner of War" is a gray area
when used to refer to the soldiers and airmen captured during what used to be called the
Vietnam Conflict?

Technically speaking there was no declared war between the United States of America
and North Vietnam. This was a major sticking point at the peace negotiations because
it allowed the North Vietnamese to claim that the prisoners were not subject to the
international laws that protect POWs, but were instead subject only to North Vietnamese law.

Perhaps this is not the place to make this distinction, but then again this little
historical footnote seems to have been completely forgotten; everyone just uses the term
"POW" without giving it a second thought. This is all-the-more ironic for the fact that this
"Undeclared War" loophole is the same legal maneuver that the US has and is using to
justify its treatment and continued holding of those captured in the War on Terror. . .
and that John McCain supports this position.

Can the term "POW", as it pertains to the Vietnam . . . thingy, be qualified
or linked to a page that might suggest that it wasn't so cut and dry? As it stands now the
page merely states that John McCain was a POW during the Vietnam War, with "POW" linking only
to an all-encompassing definition of the term. And no way for the reader to understand the
politics of the time.
--BD Rumsfeld (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A war is a war, whether some or all parties formally declare it or not. Our article is called Vietnam War, not Vietnam Conflict. Prisoners taken during a war are prisoners of war, regardless of whether that war is formally declared or not. Prisoners of war may or may not be treated humanely or in accordance with international law; when not, countries come up with all sorts of rationales and justifications. Comparisons with the 2000s War on Terror may be a debating point in current politics, but are irrelevant to history and biography. Every WP:RS then and now refers to the Americans captured by the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong as prisoners of war. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No mention of his Misogyny?

Considering the use of the "c-word" toward his wife, one would think that would merit something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.136.113 (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussed several times before, answer is no, the remark is not considered reliably sourced. Look at the archives here and in Talk:Cultural and political image of John McCain for more. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Most Watched Convention Speech"

It would seem notable that John McCain's speech was the most watched/highest viewership convention speech in the history of American politics. Or at least it was a notable event last week when said item was included in the same section of the Barack Obama article. I'm not sure if the reason for not including this item was meant in jest or not, but I suspect any additional population added to America between last week and this week would be unlikely to spend much time watching the conventions. Suggested wording is: "John McCain's nomination acceptance speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention was the most watched convention speech in American political history with a reported viewership of 38.9 million on eight networks slightly edging the mark of 38.3 million viewers set one week previously by his political opponent Barack Obama" [23] Anyone have issues with this to be included in the 2008 National Election section? Will someone with permission please add this as an alternative to the wording of another poster that was reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Textmatters (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add to 2008 election section "The acceptance speech given by John McCain at the 2008 Republican National Convention was the most watched convention speech for an American election in history, slightly besting the previous record set by Barack Obama during his own acceptance speech during the Democratic National Convention one week earlier" [24]

It should be included in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, but I don't see it being important enough for inclusion here. Comparing it to past years is a function of population, TV/news viewing habits, etc. Comparing it to Obama isn't especially meaningful either; the figures are probably within the Nielsen margin of error. That Palin's speech got so many viewers probably is notable for her main article, since wannabe-veep speeches are usually much less watched (cf. Biden). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wasted; mind reconsidering? A quick look at the Obama page shows a prominent statement of "largest viewership in history" with no mention of the McCain speech. I have proposed a NPOV statement on that page that could be used identically here thereby bring some sense of consistency to the articles treatment of the item. Noting it in the arguably "less prominent" article doesn't feel right. Each article stands on its own, I understand, but the guidelines seem to indicate that similarity in treatment between similar articles is encouraged. e.g. "if it's notable, it's notable".--Textmatters (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be dogmatic about this ... but if I had to rank the four nomination speeches in notability, it would be Palin (huge audience for unknown person, generally viewed as rousing success), small gap, Obama (huge audience for unusual outdoor spectacle), big gap, McCain (conventional no pun intended speech, possibly got big audience because of Obama and Palin stirring up interest ahead of him), really big gap, Biden (nothing special at all). So in other words, even if both candidates do thing X, that does not mean X has the same notability in each article. And as a practical matter, trying to keep these articles in synch just isn't going to happen. For instance, on an instability/craziness scale of 1 to 10, Biden is a 2, McCain a 4, Obama a 9, and Palin a 1,000. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't waste any more breath on it (or text). I agree the Palin speech is most "notable" of them all. I'd much prefer an edit to the statement on the Obama page than a new inclusion here, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. At the very least the Obama article item should read "At the time it was presented, the speech was the most watched..." blah, blah, blah. As is it's sort of like saying that "the final episode of MASH was the most watched program in television history"...see what I mean? Heh, maybe I should see how long that lasts on the MASH article page :) Well, anyway, Cheers! --Textmatters (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

D'oh, I can't believe it...the MASH article DOES state it. --Textmatters (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Error found - please correct

I noticed that the sidebar lists daughter Bridget as born 1991, but the text says she was brought to the US in 1991 at age 3. if someone knows which is correct, please update this. Thanks 140.254.100.195 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

She was born in 1991 and brought to the U.S. by Cindy at the age of three months, also in 1991. Her adoption became final in 1993. You misread "three-month" in the text. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's vetting

It's my opinion that information about the controversy regarding Palin's vetting (or the lack thereof) should be included in this article. It's quite possible that the McCain campaign chose her in a hurry in order to sway the Hillary voters who are furious that she is not the Democratic nominee for President.

For a campaign to not properly conduct this procedure is irresponsible and lead to the flack that McCain & Co. is catching because of the Alaska "troopergate" controversy (see Newsweek article located at http://www.newsweek.com/id/157439), not to mention the announcement of her teen daughter's pregnancy (something that I agree should remain a private matter, although Palin seems to have screwed up in that regard).

If the McCain campaign is not afraid of scrutiny, then information such as what I outlined above should be allowed in this and other articles.

How does that old saying go - "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen?" I wholeheartedly agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeWoman (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the prior discussion above at #Reasons for VP pick, or take even a passing glance at Talk:Sarah Palin, you'll see that any chance of getting editors to agree on text regarding any Palin topic is about zilch. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace

How come, in the infobox, it says:
Born: Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone????
Since when do we put the exact location of a person's birthplace (e.g. hospitals) yet not the country??
It should read: Panama Canal Zone, Panama
--Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It says Panama in Early life and military career of John McCain, and it used to here; I'm not sure where along the way it got lost. But I agree, it should be in, and I've restored it. Indeed, the clarifying statement in this article "At that time, the Panama Canal was under American control" was written with respect to Panama, and doesn't make much sense with it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The article says: John McCain was born in 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912).[3]

Is this true that he is not U.S. born? QuackGuru 03:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain

Why is kerry's 527 mentioned in a "Controversies" section, but McCains arent?

Without endorsing their point of view, I see many reason why they are more credible than the swift vets.

-Unlike "Vietnam Veterans Against John Mccain", the SBVFT were created mid-election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth while -The "Vietnam Veterans Against John Mccain" have existed since 1997. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Against_John_McCain

-SBVFT claimed to be 'just out for the truth' in what was a transparent and obvious attempt to discredit Kerry right during the election. while -The "Vietnam Veterans Against John Mccain" are angry at McCain for specific legislation which, while it may have helped any POW/MIA, would have unsealed McCain's record.

-"almost none of the swift boat veterans actually served with Kerry in Vietnam, or even met him." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Controversy_over_military_service_and_awards while -People featured by the "Vietnam Veterans Against John Mccain" video clearly know McCain, from either service or from his time in Legislature.

-SBVFT were funded by billionaire oil-man T. Boone. Pickens, who has more than enough cash to convince a few people to lie about Kerry. while -The "Vietnam Veterans Against John Mccain" have no billionaire support.

This group has existed for over 11 years, so I don't see why it isn't relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuriousJorge (talk • contribs) 06:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read This New York Times story from January 2008. "Vietnam Veterans Against McCain" is basically a one-person group with no money and a website. It's affiliated with "U.S. Veteran Dispatch", another one-person outfit headed by the longtime McCain antagonist Ted Sampley. These people and others in the POW/MIA activist movement have hated McCain because he disagrees with them on the POW/MIA live prisoners issue. We do mention this source of opposition to McCain, in several articles:

• John McCain says: "McCain was vilified by some POW/MIA activists who, unlike the Arizona senator, believed large numbers of Americans were still held against their will in Southeast Asia.[96][97][98]"
• House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 says: "During his time on the committee and afterward, McCain was vilified as a fraud,[82] traitor,[78] or "Manchurian Candidate"[83] by some POW/MIA activists who believed that large numbers of American servicemen were still being held against their will in Southeast Asia. They were angry that McCain did not share their belief and that he sought to normalize relations with Vietnam.[82] McCain's high profile on the Vietnam issue also cost him the friendship of some fellow former POWs;[85] McCain and 1992 independent presidential candidate Ross Perot, who had helped McCain's wife Carol during her husband's captivity, also had a falling out over the POW/MIA issue, which then extended to Perot blasting McCain's remarriage to Cindy McCain.[86] In return, McCain attacked those he saw as profiteers exploiting the families of those missing in action.[87]"
• John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 says: "Bush allied himself on stage with a marginal and controversial veterans activist named J. Thomas Burch, who accused McCain of having "abandoned the veterans" on POW/MIA and Agent Orange issues: "He came home from Vietnam and forgot us."[13][51] Incensed,[51] McCain ran ads accusing Bush of lying and comparing the governor to Bill Clinton,[13] which Bush complained was "about as low a blow as you can give in a Republican primary."[13] An unidentified party began a semi-underground smear campaign against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, audience plants, and the like.[13][52] These claimed most famously that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter Bridget was adopted from Bangladesh; this misrepresentation was thought to be an especially effective slur in a Deep South state where race was still central[47]), but also that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days.[13][46]"
• United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs says: "Thus at times the hearings became heated and contentious.[5] McCain was criticized by some of his fellow POWs for wanting to find a path to normalization.[19] He was also being vilified by some POW/MIA activists as a traitor or a brainwashed "Manchurian Candidate",[10][20] which the embrace with Tin only exacerbated.[15] Occasionally his famous temper flared during hearings and Kerry had to calm him down, for which McCain later said he was grateful.[10] McCain had an emotionally-charged exchange with Dolores Alfond, Chair of the National Alliance Of Families For the Return of America's Missing Servicemen. McCain said he was tired of Alfond denigrating the efforts of himself, Vessey, and others involved in investigating the POW/MIA issue, while a tearful Alfond pleaded for the committee to not shut down its work.[21]"

So the POW/MIA activist hatred of McCain is indeed represented in WP articles about McCain, to the proper weight that it merits. But the "Vietnam Veterans Against McCain" isn't mentioned by name, because it isn't any more significant than any other anti-McCain group on this issue. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I also notice there is no mention of opposition from Veteran's Affairs Groups in the "2008 Presidential Campaign" section, while it is mentioned in the "2000 Presidential Campaign." Why is that? What has changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuriousJorge (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a factor in 2008 like it was in 2000. But it is mentioned in the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article; see the "South Carolina" section there. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You've made an excellent case. I can agree that 200,000 views on their youtube video does not constitute any signification impact on this campaign However, it sounds like you would agree that should some 527 get sufficient funding to run some nationally televised advertising, then that might constitute a significant factor. Can I hold you to that?

FuriousJorge (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

oldest canadate

ARE YOU THE OLDEST CANADATE EVER????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.159.88 (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article tells you: "Also, if inaugurated in 2009 at age 72 years and 144 days, he would be the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency,[204] and the second-oldest president to be inaugurated.[205]" (Footnote 205 tells you Reagan was older at the start of his second term.) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's sounds a bit contradictory. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Reagan was being inaugurated for a second term, at the age of 73. McCain would be inaugurated for his first term at 72. Reagan was already in office (he ascended to that office aged 69, the current record) and McCain will not be, thus he would be the oldest president upon ascention while Reagan would still hold the record as the oldest president inaugurated. Happyme22 (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"asserts" versus "argues"

The article presently says: "cultural critic Julia Keller asserts that voters want leaders who are passionate and engaged." There has been a suggestion to change "asserts" to "argues". I think it's fine the way it is. The word "asserts" indicates that Keller is expressing an opinion. The word "argues" does that too, and also suggests that there is an argument about it. However, I am not aware of any argument about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a deliberate misrepresentation. I had originally written "journalist Julia Keller argues that voters...", which was then edited by Ferrylodge to describe her as a "cultural critic" and to use the word "asserts" instead of "argues". To then come back here and say, "oh there's a suggestion we change it, but I think it's fine as it is", is a blatant attempt to mislead. Moreover, I am STILL unable to understand the relevance voters' desire for "passionate and engaged leaders" has to John McCain's temper. Passion and temper, fair enough; but engagement and temper!? All I see there is a quite deliberate and partisan effort to take the sting out of any facts which might present McCain in a bad light. The article is virtually unreadable because any damaging fact about McCain is followed by a qualifying sentence that is rarely totally relevant, and rarely backed up by an appropriate source. The Chicago Tribune might be a respectable publication, but that does not mean that its Op-Eds are somehow the gospel truth. We need to be aware that Wikipedia is a major propaganda tool in this upcoming election, and some people are determined to use it to spin things their way. I am, quite frankly, disgusted. --Terrencethetractor (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrence, please try to assume good faith. I reverted your edit, so at the time I wrote my initial comment in this section the McCain article used "asserts" instead of "argues". Okay? No one was misrepresenting anything.

Additionally, our job is to follow reliable sources, and that's what we're doing with Keller. This is not a "deliberate and partisan effort to take the sting out of any facts which might present McCain in a bad light." On the contrary, this article is packed with language that presents McCain in a bad light, including material in this very section (see quote from Thad Cochran, the details about the Clinton joke, et cetera). The Pulitzer-prize-winning cultural critic for the Chicago Tribune believes that having a temper shows that a person is engaged. Who are we to argue? It certainly sounds plausible. And we are not saying it's gospel truth. We're merely saying that Keller asserts it. So please lighten up. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrencethetractor is not guilty of assuming bad faith. Ferrylodge, you must know that your edits often give the appearance of doing just what he said. Even your examples are a case in point: you insisted on eliding the most memorable part of the Cochran quote, and you wanted to lessen the impact of the Chelsea joke by including the muted (but irrelevant) White House reaction. And you are surely in no position to tell anyone to "lighten up", as you probably have as many or more talk page edits arguing points as anyone in Wikipedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WTR, if you want to join in the accusations that I have misrepresented anything, then please come right out and be specific. I like to consider myself an honest person, but if you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means let's hear it. I don't appreciate being called a liar, and I don't think you would either.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As Wasted Time R correctly asserts, I have not assumed bad faith. However, I again must take umbrage at your misrepresentation of the facts. Changing the word "argues" to "asserts" was not a revert, and you know that. Besides, the more important point is that you keep editing this passage to qualify unsavoury FACTS about McCain with generous OPINIONS. If you want to add positive facts about McCain, then fine, but just quoting someone's (rather unrelated) opinion (even if she did win the Pulitzer Prize) is typical of your efforts to undermine the integrity of this article. I really feel that you ought to step aside and stop meddling. Wikipedia's policy of assumption of good faith is not a licence to act in bad faith and then play dumb. You are a dishonest person, and this article and its talk page serve as evidence. If you don't appreciate being called a liar, then don't lie. --Terrencethetractor (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrence, my first comment in this section did not say anything about "reverting". Yet you accused me of misrepresentation, for reasons that I do not remotely understand. I brought this matter to the talk page, whereas you made edits without doing so. And I'm glad that you've joined me here at the talk page. But would you please stop with the inflammatory accusations?

The article initially said "Keller notes" and you changed it to "Keller argues" and I changed to it "Keller asserts", if I recall correctly. Whether I technically "reverted" you or not, all I meant was that I edited what you had written by removing what you had written. I have nothing to gain by asserting that I "reverted" you versus saying that I "edited what you wrote". Why in the world would I lie about it? And would it be remotely possible for us to have a civil conversation without you accusing me of "meddling" and acting in "bad faith" and "playing dumb". I suppose WTR endorses all those accusations, but they are all false. Quoting a cultural critic commenting about McCain's cultural image seems to me about as appropriate as anything in this article. I did not create a section on McCain's "cultural image" but it certainly seems to me that the opinion of a renowned cultural critic would be relevant to such a section.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am most definitely not calling Ferrylodge a liar. I've never called any editor on WP a liar. I think Terrence's new comment right above is way over-the-top and unwarranted. I was not referring directly to the dispute you are having with Terrence regarding these edits and reverts (I haven't followed it fully), but to the general notion of an "effort to take the sting out of any facts which might present McCain in a bad light". That is consistent with your editing pattern, Ferrylodge. This doesn't imply at all you are a liar; it may just mean that you follow the American model of justice, where both sides of an argument have their advocates. That's just an example, I'm not saying you do that either. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I just want the article to be neutral. That includes the good, the bad, and the ugly about John McCain.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I obviously can't known what you want. But given that you fight tooth and nail to water down or ameliorate almost every instance of 'bad' and 'ugly', your model of neutral is different from mine. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the article as it now stands is a fairly neutral one, and I feel that that would not have been so but for the tooth and nail business. And of course, there was also someone on the other side arguing tooth and nail, if I recall correctly.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the February 8 version of the article, both before the big split-out and before you became substantially involved. What do you see in there that is not neutral? (On a quick look I see only one thing I wish I'd done differently, the bullet list of the controversial remarks, which gives them too much visual emphasis. And the "Political positions" section was mostly crap, I hadn't started cleaning that out yet. No, I'm not suggesting we revert back to this, although at a lean, mean 11,973 words I think it was the perfect length!) Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I really would like to give you a detailed critique of that huge version, but I am just incredibly pressed for time right now. I was involved with that article before February 8, and I recall changing the misleading and unsourced statements that McCain had an "aggressive personality" and that he "followed his father around naval bases." As to the February 8 version, the bullet list was definitely a big no-no. Saying that McCain was "mocking" a Governor probably wasn't quite on target. I felt that the early sections of the article over-emphasized unruliness, defiance, contentiousness, and the like, at the expense of the positive attributes that he had. The simple hugeness of the article was a big problem, and many of our disagreements involved me trying to convince you to cut stuff simply to shorten the article. I also felt that the cultural image section was kind of slanted (e.g. you found a non-objective person to discuss "the suck-it-up adherence to the orthodoxies required of a Republican presidential front-runner"). But overall, it was a very impressive and well-researched article as of February 8, of which you should be very proud. The best of it has now been distilled into an amazingly stable article that you continue to protect, and that you should continue to be proud of. As I've said before, what I did was primarily to edit your edits.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't spend time on it, it's moot. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To the matter at hand, the problem with a section like this (and I created what is now in the subarticle and is summarized here, so I am not blaming anyone) is not in representing reliable sources accurately, which isn't that hard, but in which reliable sources we choose and how much overall weight we give them. Obviously, there have been 1,000 different pieces written about McCain, which presents a real danger of cherry-picking to present any representation desired. Right now as I write this, we're using four words from Keller (passionate, engaged, fiery, and feisty) which seems too much, and is more than the subarticle uses (passionate conviction). Keller is not an academic and her Pulitzer was in a different area than this, so she's not "a leading authority" on presidents and tempers. I'd limit her to two words. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

She is the cultural critic of the Chicago Tribune. She is therefore an expert on matters cultural, which I thought was in the title of this section. If we are to limit such people to infinitessimal sound bites not exceeding two words, then we may as well remove the section.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would love to remove the summary in this section, and just have the xref to the subarticle. As I've said several times before, the nature of this topic is that you have to explore it at some length to make any sense at all, and it is thus very difficult to summarize fairly or accurately, even without the added pressure of the topicality and political environment. I will be happy to argue that omitting the summary would be a valid invocation of WP:IAR to make an exception to WP:SS. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, the article has becom featured with this section. I am not arguing now to delete this section, but I will argue to delete it if we cannot quote more than two words from the cultural critic of the Chicago Tribune, which seems quite unreasonable to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, for months it was just "..., nor is it unusual for leaders to be passionate and engaged.[239]" Two words. See for example this version from August 21. You were happy with two words all along, you didn't protest two words at FAC or GAR or any of the other reviews that were done. It makes no sense that two words would now become a deal-breaker for you. You're just reacting to this particular dispute. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Today (or yesterday, I forget), an editor pointed out that we had selected those two words (passionate and engaged) from a total of four words used by Keller: passionate, engaged, fiery, and feisty. In response to that editor, I tend to agree that we really have no basis for selecting only two of those words. Do you think we have a neutral basis for selecting two of them? The editor in question preferred to select fiery and fiesty, at which point I added back passionate and engaged, for a total of four.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a silly section. But regarding Judith Keller, it seems to me the best word to replace "argues" and "asserts" would be "opines". --Textmatters (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. I want to note that this article mentions McCain's "temper" five times in the text, unaccompanied by qualifiers like "so-and-so argues that McCain has a temper".Ferrylodge (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The subarticle does in-text attribute all those mentions of temper. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be perfectly legitimate to shoe-horn "straight-shooter" in front of the "hot-tempered" note that references cite #258. If you check the cite, McCain is voted #1 "straight-shooter" in the same poll that has him voted #2 for "hot-tempered". Certainly the original editor could not take umbrage with that ;) I still think the section is silly, though.--Textmatters (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be said about how the people view McCain, etc. so I don't see the "Cultural and political image" section as being 'silly' (Obama, Hillary Clinton, and even Reagan have cultural image sections). 'Opines' would be a good choice for the wording of the Keller quote. Happyme22 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any meaningful difference in "asserts" or "argues" or "opines" in this context, so all are okay with me. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain Campaign Finance

A recent front page article in the Wall Street Journal powerfully illustrates the symbolism and the reality that Senator McCain effects in his Political life in Washington D.C. The article ran on 7 July 2008 in the top right corner,under the headline MCCAIN ALLIES FIND FINANCE-LAW HOLES. It states that "Allies of Sen. John McCain have found new loopholes in the campaign-finance law he helped write--and the're using them to reel in huge contributions to help him compete with Sen Barack Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.159.213 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth including something here that he essentially gave up on campaign finance reform as an issue in the mid-late 2000s. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This article presently mentions that "McCain accepted public financing for the general election campaign, and the restrictions that go with it, while criticizing his Democratic opponent for becoming the first major party candidate in history to opt out of such financing." After Obama rejected public financing, it should hardly be surprising that McCain started looking for loopholes.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain had already de-emphasized talking about the issue well before the Obama decision. One of the arguments made at the time against campaign finance reform (besides the constitutional and free speech ones) was that it just wouldn't work; money will always find a way to get in. My guess is that McCain has realized that. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Spousal Abuse

A dozen times it has been stated here, no this is not going in. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Staying mum?

"[McCain] has now gone four weeks without doing a press conference and three weeks without taking questions from people who attend his campaign events." [25]

Is this true? It sounds hard to believe. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that he's winning, he won't for sure. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it is true, if it is going to be in the article (which such a thing would belong in the campaign article, not the biography), it needs a better source than a pop culture blog. When I read the about us on that site, I see nothing about professional journalists. --B (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)