Talk:John McCain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John McCain article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

[edit] Bickering

Bickering is not acceptable. Attacks from right-wing and left-wing extremists on Wikipedia articles is absurd and pathetic. This article clearly no longer conforms to the Wikipedia Netural Point of View policy, it's too spotted with attempts to make McCain look like a bad person, and this talk page is covered with conservatives trying to make him look like he's too liberal. Shape up.

[edit] Reason for being labeled a "RINO"

The reason McCain was labeled as a “RINO” by some Republicans was not because he was a social moderate, but rather he is a fiscal moderate/liberal. McCain is in no way a fiscal conservative. He is probably the biggest fiscal liberal in the Republican party in the Senate. And I don't know how it's possible to label him as a social moderate, when on social issues he scores the same as Senator Sam Brownback, who is considered to be one of the most social conservatives in the Senate. Here, look at this link: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm McCain scores a 40% on social issues, when social Moderates are usually 50% or higher. He only scores a 50% on fiscal issues which is very low for a Republican. Burroughsks88 17:29, 03 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McCain's Office Response to Vietnam Issue - Do Not Archive

NOTE: I'm moving this up here since this *is* the source. Please respect the sourcing and do not archive this if the time comes where this talk page is archived. --badlydrawnjeff 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed McCain's Senate office for clarification. Until this is resolved we should leave the contradiction tag up there... Here is the full text of the email I sent:

Greetings, I am trying to validate information concerning Senator McCain that is presented in the Senator's article in Wikipedia, the prominent online encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain). There are two conflicting paragraphs in the article concerning Senator McCain's service in Vietnam. I am hoping you can assist me in correcting this problem. Could you read the contradictory paragraphs (included below) and let me know via email which version of the facts is accurate? Here are the two paragraphs in question:

<snip>

If you have time, I would appreciate it if someone in your office could review the rest of the article for accuracy and bias as well. This information is read by millions of people, and I'd love to make certain that it's correct. Again, the article is located at: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain) Killdevil 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

From Senator McCain's Office:"Thank you for taking the time to get your facts right! Both paragraphs have some truth to them.

McCain was first assigned to the USS Forrestal. He was in the cockpit of an A-4E Skyhawk on the deck of the Forrestal that was hit by an F-4 Zuni rocket to start the Forrestal fire on July 29, 1967.

He served with the Saints following the Forrestal incident. They were short on men after the Oriskany fire, and he volunteered to go serve there. It was not long after moving to the Saints on the Oriskany that he was shot down in Vietnam, on October 26, 1967.

So, while it would seem he would be in two places at once, he was just moving around. But to be clear, he was only in one of the fires, aboard the Forrestal. He came to the Oriskany after its fire. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.

Regards,

Executive Assistant

Office of Senator John McCain

241 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Based on this, and pending confirmation from third-party published sources, I have added "just before McCain's arrival" to the info on the Oriskany accident. -- Satori Son 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncategorized Comments

I feel the following sentence fragment needs to be sourced, or otherwise deleted.

" ... though in the 2000 elections, many saw Bush as the more moderate candidate and McCain as the more conservative candidate."

While it may be true that some viewed the two candidates this way, it was not in my recollection a very widely held view. It also appears contradictory since this wiki article states that Senator McCain is considered to be a moderate Republican. --198.70.80.65 20:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I took out "He is recognized as a Republican Hero by The Log Cabin Republicans for his opposition to President Bush's Constitutional Amendment." From the political views section, as it neither tells his political views, nor political groups of which he's a member. (i.e. Take back the party, moderates, gang of 14, etc) Rather it shows that his views have gotten him support of a specific group. A new section listing interest groups and demographics who support and don't support McCain would be a good addition though.

I've changed some of the wording of the "Detention of Suspected Terrorists" section to "Detention of Prisoners," Neither of which I feel acurately describe the range of detainees from the War on Terror. ("Terrorists" is to specific and a politcally biased/charged word, while "prisoners" is to general. Someone with a better vocabulary then me should take a look at it. Also changed "terrorists" in the sections body to "Detainees of the War on Terror" Dan 02:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

someone with an obvious bias against McCain added a "considered a democrat who runs as a republican" sentence on his intro page. i replaced with the classic "maverick" label, if anyone else has better ideas they're more than welcome to it.

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=AZ&VIPID=33 Some mention should be made of the fact McCain is an open borders radical.

page should include some reference to McCain's role in the Lincoln S&L scandal ("Keating Five"), especially since in McCain's own words that experience drove him to his championship of campagin finance reform.

[edit] The information above is acutally incorrect

"A naval aviator, McCain was assigned aboard the USS Forrestal where, on July 29, 1967, he escaped death when a missile accidentally launched across the ship, striking his A-4 Skyhawk. The impact ruptured the fuel tank on his aircraft, the leaking fuel instantly ignited, and knocked a bomb into the fire. McCain escaped from his jet by climbing out of the cockpit, walking down to the nose of the plane, and jumping off the nose boom. A minute and a half after the impact, the bomb exploded underneath the plane, starting a major fire which killed 134 sailors and threatened to destroy the ship.

Video tape shot aboard the Forrestal shows McCain narrowly escaping the explosion.

The information above is actually incorrect. Senator McCain (then Lt. CMDR. McCain) served with the VA-163 Saints. The Saints never were on the Forrestal. The incident above is mistaken for a similiar accident McCain was in while serving aboard the USS Oriskany in which the mis-handling of a Mk-24 illumination flare resulted in a deck fire while conducting strike operations in the Gulf of Tonkin. 44 men lost their lives, including 24 pilots."

What is this rubbish? "

We should also mention what happened between John Sidney McCain III and George Dubya Bush in the Republican primary:

Dubya outspent Senator John Sidney McCain III (interestingly, Senator John Sidney McCain III has supported campaign-finance-reform for years). Despite Dubya yelling louder than all other candidates combined (I personally believe that none should be allowed to donate more than 1k$ to political activities per year and organizations and corporations should not be allowed to donate at all), Senator John Sidney McCain III was still heard. On UseNet and blogs, vicious rumors began to emmerge about Senator John Sidney McCain III. One was that Senator John Sidney McCain III is an adulterer and fathered an illegitimate black daughter -- clearly playing off racism. No evidence supports this rumor. Another rumor was that Senator John Sidney McCain III coöperated with his captors. Evidently, Dubya feels that it is more honorable to server his country by dodging the draft, deserting the Texas-Air-Guard, pounding pussy like the pussy he is, boosing it up, and sorting cocaine than to serve bravely.

Dubya ruins the Republican Party of the United States of America. This is the party of Lincoln, the great Emancipator. Dubya may soon declare himself Emperor, thus ending the American Republic -- Lincoln fought for saving the republic. If it were not for the dirty tricks of Dubya, McCain would have won the Republican Primary and could have won the General Election fair and square -- Dubya had to cheat. Dubya is a disgrace to the Republican Party, the United States of America, the World, and Humanity. McCain, although perhaps not a Lincoln, would be a credit to the Republican Party, the United States of America, the World, and Humanity.

If Dubya would not have spread lies about McCain during the Republican Primary, both the United States would not have its biggest Constitutional Crisis since the American Civil War, and the World would not now be in greater danger of a Major Wolrld War since the late 1930s.

?alabio 22:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

alabio, that's a bunch of BS and you know it.

Alabio is right. During the primary Bush's political guru Lee Atwater did some Push polling (Push poll) in February in South Carolina where they would call people and say "If you knew that Senator John McCain was a cheat and a liar and a fraud, and that he has fathered an illegitimate black child, would you be more likely to vote for him or less likely to vote for him? " (as quoted from Al Franken's latest book). You have to agree that's it's a really sneaky way to spread lies without appearing to have the intention of doing it?

And I agree with the above anonymous poster that there needs to be some information about the "Keating Five" since it almost destroyed McCain's career. Mastgrr

Lee Atwater died of brain cancer 12 years ago. You might want to find a more cedible source then Al Franken.

Presumably, Mastgrr meant Karl Rove, not Lee Atwater. I doubt such a glaring error would get through in a published book. --Xanzzibar 01:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When I hear the tired cliche of Bush is a dictator, blah blah blah- I know I'm dealing with a wacko here.

Bush should've said McCain's father in law was a cheat and a liar and a fraud.[1] [2] [3] [4] Funny how it's fashionable to pick on Kerry for marrying his money... 142.177.24.144 17:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Once the article is fleshed out more on McCain's career as a Senator, there should probably be included this unflattering aside about his joke at the expense of Chelsea Clinton. [5] Ellsworth 21:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] McCain is Conservative

John McCain is a free trader, pro-life, and a strong supporter of George W. Bush. Having a rare bipartisan personality does not qualify mean he is a liberal republican. The insertion of the word "liberal" was done by a friend to annoy me, as I am a fan of McCain's conservative positions.

I agree that McCain cannot reasonably be described as liberal. However, I would not call him a "conservative Republican" either, since that would imply that he's considered conservative for a Republican, which he's not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:32, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Why not "moderate"? I tend to think of him as a moderate Republican. Liberal probably isn't a good description, but it wasn't for nothing that people floated the idea of him being Kerry's running mate. Everyking 03:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think he's moderate either. A moderate, to my mind, avoids the extremes of one side or the other, and takes middle-of-the-road positions. McCain seems to me to take strong, controversial positions, but these positions are not easily defined by the left-right divide. (I think, by the way, that his name was floated for Kerry's veep because he's a maverick with personal animosity against Bush. He declined, it should be noted, saying he was too conservative for the ticket.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:03, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

He's not a "strong" supporter of Bush. He supports him out of party loyalty and some ideological agreement, but he clearly can't stand him. —Chowbok 20:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think he is Purple. Blue/Red, Liberal/Conservitive, you get the idea.--The Republican 17:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Geniuses

Why not just call him a Republican?

Your sarcasm isn't appreciated, but your suggestion is. Sounds like the best solution to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:03, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like the best suggestion as there's a stigma attatched to the word "liberal" and "moderate" doesn't seem to be popular either. Diceman 16:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Republican" doesn't do justice to the uniqueness of his politics. Especially in light of fairly recent changes to the face of the republican party. "Old-School Republican" might be a better compromise.--Louis Ward 15:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even that term doesn't immediately conjure up images that are, I think, representative of McCain. How about 'unconventional Republican'? Tim 21:43, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

How about 'maverick Republican', it is pretty clear he doesn' fit well into the moderate, liberal or conservative molds? --Lazarias 19:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"maverick Republican" is fine by me. I haven't seen any better suggestions. --Louis Ward 03:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] TOO PARTISAN

There is some evidence that the fall of Saddam has been a "tipping point" for reform in the Middle East, in places like Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Demonstrations in Beirut, Lebanon broke out in early 2005 protesting the Syrian military occupation of Lebanon. These demonstrations are believed to have been influenced by the bold moves of George W. Bush and the supporters of military intervention in Iraq (such as John McCain and most U.S. congressmen/women).

This section is extremely partisan, just opinion, and only vaguely relevant to McCain. This has likely been inserted by some Bushbot and should be removed.

[edit] Excelente

!The inclusion of 'The Gang of 14' was excelente!

[edit] Disambiguation page

When one uses the "go" button on Mccain, or MCCAIN, or anything but McCain, it seems to automatically bring the user to McCain Foods, the company. The disambiguation page works fine for McCain. Is this a feature or a bug? Could we correct it if it is a bug?

Mccain used to redirect there. It's fixed now [6] --Berkut 12:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faith of Our Fathers

Shouldn't this movie be mentioned somewhere? It was shown on memorial day and it bascially tells his story of what happened when he was a POW and stuff, I didn't watch it, or else I would have added it

[edit] Of Boobs and scars

"I work with boobs every day in congress"

Last night on Jat Leno When asked how he felt about having a cameo in "Wedding Crashers" a film that also contains brief topless nudity McCain joked.

I noticed he also has a long scar the left side (his left) of his face.

He had a cancerous growth removed from his face in 2000, I think that's what it's from. There was an article in the New Yorker about him a few months ago that mentioned this. The growth's cancerous nature was detected by doctors in a routine checkup after he had been defeated in his run for the Republican nomination -- the article speculated that if he had been nominated, he probably would have put off the checkup until after the election, at which time it would have been much more serious. --Jfruh 18:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

He also admits he may run for President in 2008

[edit] facts

with regards to "There were also allegations that Bush supporters engaged in a whisper campaign-style smear tactic, implying to voters that McCain was mentally unstable and that he had a "black baby," although there's no evidence of such a campaign occurring or coming from the Bush campaign.[1]" Let's stay away from allegations and stick to facts, or every politician's page would be humongous. -web

Because no one seems to remember:
http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/030100/gen_slur.shtml
http://www.asianweek.com/2000_02_24/feature_mccainapology.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views/030200-104.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml
If there ever was a smear campaign, it didn't matter. He was a much greater enemy to himself.

It's a encylopedia not a forum to solve the worlds problems or worse percieved problems. -web

While it is not a forum to solve the worlds problems, you can see that unsupported rumors are pageworthy to many folks who visit here. I simply provided the links above to stand as a reminder to those who would edit without evidence backing them.

[edit] I wouldn't think it was worth posting if McCain's managerhadn't said I was true

According to John McCain's 2000 Presidential campagin manager, much of the saturation came in the form of a Whisper campaign which claimed John's wife Cindy was a recreational drug user, that John was mentaly unstable from the time he spend in Vietnam, and that John McCain's adopted daughter Bridget was infact the result of McCain's having had sex with a black protstitute. + - + - He further states these lies were spread by multiple talk radio stations in South Carolina being called on the same day and these stories being told there, and that a few days before the primary vote Churches across South Carolina had notes placed under the windshield wipers of their parisioners cars while they were at prayer. These notes made one or more of the lies stated above. + - + - John McCain's campagin manager now feels that Karl Rove GW Bush's campain maniger and friend was the one responcible for the Whisper campaign. + - + - Bush's Brain + - [7]

[edit] "Natural-born" citizen?

I'm intrigued that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was under the "control" of the United States but not, I don't think, technically considered a part of the United States during the course of its existance (a la Guantanamo Bay). The fact that he's run for president no doubt means that smart legal brains have determined that he is in fact a "natural-born" citizen of the US, but it makes me wonder what the precise definition of this term is. Does it mean that you are born on US soil (with that definition being loose enough to include the Canal Zone), or that you were a US citizen at birth (which McCain would have been no matter where he was born, by virte of his parents' US citizenship)? --Jfruh 18:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I see that some of this is considered over at Natural-born citizen. Might be interesting to integrate into this article. --Jfruh 18:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where he was born; if his parents were citizens, then he's a citizen.

I think this has been resolved, but note that the qualifications to be US citizen are not just being a citizen, but also being a natural born citizen, that's why it might be an issue to determine where he was bornAronk 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, at that time, it was the same as being born on an Air Force Base in Germany, or a Navy Base in Spain. Plus his parents were U.S. citizens.

[edit] Global Warming & Ethanol

I'd really like to see some mention of McCain's positions on Global Warming/Climate Change and Ethanol, where he differs from most Republicans.

Personally I strongly disagree with him on both, assuming that he's still against ethanol. (Is he?) It's not that I don't think Climate Change/Global Warming is real - it is - or that humans aren't causing a substantial portion - we likely are and it could even be a majority - but I feel efforts to slow or stop it are so inconsequential as to be meaningless, at least until more advanced technologies arrive in coming decades. McCain seems to think that by preaching the realities of Climate Change/Global Warming he's somehow actually doing something against it.

As for ethanol, I don't blame McCain for being extremely critical of how it's being done - in America, corn to ethanol conversion and the politics and economics of it is a process that makes sausage-making look lovely - but despite that it's well worth while and could go a long ways toward energy independence, especially if corn ethanol is a step to switch to more efficient sources like (imported) sugar cane. I dunno, maybe McCain's been listening to Pimentel or something.

Despite those two big disagreements - which are actually in opposition to each other - I feel McCain will get his act together on both and he's as good as got my vote for President in 2008.

[edit] Section with no McCain information

The section titled "Intimidation of officer who tried to contact McCain about torture by US troops" doesn't contain any information about McCain. It tells a story of someone trying to contact McCain, but not being allowed. How is this relevent? Gronky 12:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant either. Why does it keep getting added back? --badlydrawnjeff 17:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "McCainiacs"

There should at least be a mention of the term "McCainiacs", which entered the American lexicon circa 1999. I suppose you can relate it to his strong popular following, especially (relative to other Republican senators) among young people.

It should also be mentioned how this strong following often didn't do him much good since many of these young supporters were registered as Democrats and thus unable to vote for him in the primaries.

The point of having lots of Democratic supporters is that if he does get the GOP nomination, he will win the November election. That makes them useful! Rjensen 17:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that. My point was just that 'you gotta be in it to win it.'

[edit] 2000 election

"His loss has been attributed to (...) the general reluctance of the American people to elect a senator to an executive position." Is that reluctance a well known fact? Are there sources for this? Stats? An explanation? Michaël 23:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Bold text

I don't know if it's a well known fact or if that line merits inclusion in the article without citation. Even if few senators have been elected president, can anyone cite a source saying this is why McCain didn't win his party's nomination? However, senators are generally not elected to the presidency.

In the history of the United States, only two sitting senators have been elected president (Warren Harding and JFK). Only 14 of the U.S.’s 43 presidents have been senators. Of those, eight had held at least one other major political office (governor, cabinet secretary, or vice president) in addition to being a senator. (I’m not including Andrew Jackson as he was an appointed military Governor of Florida, which was a territory at the time). Of the six remaining senators who became president, three were generals who relied heavily upon their military experience during their campaigns (Andrew Jackson and both of the Harrisons). Only three of the U.S. Senators who became President were neither generals nor holders of other major offices (Pierce, Harding, and Kennedy). As it stands, Governor is the office most commonly held by future Presidents. Eighteen of the U.S.’s presidents served as governor before election to the presidency. Eight sitting governors have been elected president. Four of the U.S.'s last five presidents have been governors (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush; GHW Bush was not). Hope this helps.Jim Campbell 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from Appearance on The Daily Show

Should this be included or not?

"Washington is a funny town. One day your up, next day your down as I was saying to my driver on the way over here Scotter Libby."

-Senator John McCain in response to the question from Jon Stewart whether Dick Cheney was insane. I think it clearly shows McCain has a good sense of humor about his party. If anyone wants to comment feel free. Davidpdx 15:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC) He also then said something like *turning to the audience* "That was my rehearsed line, how'd you like it?" Wasn't really funny, rest of the interview was brilliant though.

You could probably include the quote in a trivia section, but I don't think it should occupy the same section as quotes on issues and policy. One thing I would recommend is a grammatical correction: "One day you’re up" (not your).Jim Campbell 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McCain and the "Strategies for Winning the War" area

A new user has decided that we need some sort of rather long area about McCain's ideas for the war, based almost entirely from a speech McCain made. My personal view is that we're better off summarizing it and adding it to the article as opposed to creating a huge new section for it within the article that looks POV and isn't entirely necessary to McCain's history or even one of his more well-known causes. If people disagree with me, perhaps we should hash it out here before getting into a bitter edit war over it. --badlydrawnjeff 20:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The information is actually incorrect?

Under the Vietnam heading there is a line in the third paragraph: "The information above is actually incorrect." What type of rubbish is this? This is an encyclopedia not the talk page. Could someone get a reference for the correct information and remove the incorrect information. There is no point writing "The information is actually incorrect". If it is a point of debate it is best left to the talk page as only fact can go in articles.Hobo 02:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a contradict template to the article in hopes of resolving this issue. Killdevil 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The contradiction logo does not solve the problem, but it does degrade the prestige of the article. If anyone cares let them do some research! Like email the Senator's office..they will reply,. Rjensen 17:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed McCain's Senate office for clarification. Until this is resolved we should leave the contradiction tag up there... Here is the full text of the email I sent:

<snip>

From Senator McCain's Office:"Thank you for taking the time to get your facts right! Both paragraphs have some truth to them.

McCain was first assigned to the USS Forrestal. He was in the cockpit of an A-4E Skyhawk on the deck of the Forrestal that was hit by an F-4 Zuni rocket to start the Forrestal fire on July 29, 1967.

Regards,

Executive Assistant

Office of Senator John McCain

241 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

[edit] blackmail?

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

[edit] Wowzers...

That's some pretty strong language here! Unbelievable really. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whisper Campaign/Dirty Campaigning

Okay, I'm getting a tiny bit frustrated about this particular section. Since I've started editing this article, this certain section (some sort of lowbrow discrediting campaign coming from unknown camps about McCain in South Carolina) has reappeared in various forms, never with decent verifiable information. We know the 2000 campaign was heated. We know that McCain nods toward various allegations. Whether the allegations are true, or even what they consist of (was it his daughters? Was it fathering illegitimate children? Was it an affair?) are something we DON'T know. Until we have good, verifiable sources, we should keep the section trimmed to what we know, not what we assume. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I re-added this point. There is currently a reference to the general point. When I get home from work I will add a reference regarding the specific issues and allegations, as I found them when I added it originally. I certainly dont think that it is warrented to remove the point completely. Hopefully I will find the source I found originally. I think you will be satisfied if I can find it.--Andy 19:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll hope that it's a legitimate source and not a conspiratorial one. It's most certainly in dispute, and I'll wait on further action until I see what you have coming. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this one is reputable, but heres one.[8]. heres another [9].. unfortuntely its useless because it requries subscription. Heres a good one [10]. With that I am going to reintroduce it again. --Andy 06:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Boston.com one works fine, I've reworded it to make it make sense. Thanks for getting the link. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

I reverted the controversy section with a new heading stating that it is a summary. I think it is useful to have them all in one place even if it repeats information in another section because readers very rarely read the entire article in one sitting. Having a controversey section with an in complete set is a little confusing when you have to go back up in the article and skim for the others.

There's absolutely no need to duplicate the section. For one, it reeks of POV pushing, for another, there's no need to mention twice what can be said in the article once. Please don't add it back, the article is getting long as is, and if he runs for President in 2008, it's only going to get longer. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if we arn't going to list all of the controversies in the controversies section, then it should be taken out and the orphans should be added somwhere appropriate. Which POV does it seem that I am pusing by the way? -- Andy 16:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of pushing a POV, I'm merely stating that it looks like POV pushing when the same controversies are repeated throughout the article. No controversies being removed from the "Controversy" header are being removed from the article at large, simply listed in context to situations already listed. It's better to mention the SC whisper campaign issue in the 2000 campaign, it's better to mention the "Wedding Crashers" flap in the media section. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with moving those 2, but I do have a problem with the fact that you removed the paragraph on the Keating scandal, replacing it with a one-sentence long parenthetical sidenote that fails to adequately explain the controversy. It was a significant scandal and deserves a full paragraph. It doesn't matter whether it's in the Controversy section or elsewhere, but it needs to be somewhere. I'm going to add it back to the Controversy section since that appears to be the most appropriate place for it. - Maximusveritas 22:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll explain my rationale: Since he was cleared of all charges and the article little to say about the scandal, I figured it could be boiled down to his Senate section. I won't move it yet, but it's worth noting that it's hardly more than a footnote considering he was never charged or implicated in the scandal outside of the initial investigation. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think it would be usefull to have a complete controversy section but I suppose lableing it "Other Controversies" is enough to indicate that some were discussed before. Andy 17:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think one sentence with a reference to the article for Keating 5 scandal is sufficient for this article.Jim Campbell 01:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support for Iraq

I agree with Rjensen that "overthrow" is a more neutral term than "invade" or "liberate." However, the term does not imply a continuation. Therefore, I added that McCain continues to support the war effort in Iraq. Kimathi 11:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Abortion?

Is there a consensus on the use of anti-abortion instead of pro-life? AP style aside, I would assume we'd use the Senator's own preferred nomenclature, just as we would when referencing someone's sexual orientation or ethnicity, so long as the nomenclature is clearly understood by the general public. Would we call Sen. Clinton or Mayor Giuliani "pro-abortion"? I'm reverting to "pro-life," but would love to hear discussion on this issue, and would defer to "pro-abortion" of course if there is a conensus supporting it.

I'd call them pro-abortion, as I call myself pro-abortion. I don't know if there's a NPOV standard for abortion description here, but I have no qualms with using the AP standards on this one. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to calling advocates for abortion rights "pro-abortion." However, I think the most NPOV terms would be anti-abortion groups and abortion rights groups since "pro-abortion" implies advocacy FOR abortion INSTEAD of pregnancy and partuition. The term "anti-abortion" is not as loaded as "pro-life" or "pro-choice" because the opposite side of each implies a negative connotation - "anti-life" or "anti-choice." In addition, a pro-life description is inconsistent with advocating for the death penalty as is the case with John McCain. Journalists, exemplified by the AP reference, are moving away from the propagandistic phrase, and I think an encyclopedia should as well. I simply do not accept the argument that John McCain should be called "pro-life" because he describes himself as such. There are numerous examples where we have decided not to call a person by their own description when it portrays that person in an unfair light. Kimathi 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-life" is a euphemism for "anti-abortion". --Hermitage 04:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "pro-life" not only implies a greater spectrum of views than "anti-abortion" (for example, some would disagree that McCain's views on stem cell research would qualify him as "pro-life"), it is a loaded term that should not conform to NPOV in an encyclopedia. As it stands in the article, I think the term, "anti-abortion", holds its own as a fair and accurate description. Kimathi 06:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I updated it to say Pro-Life but it was reverted. It is more approprate to say Pro Life or Pro Choice, especially if the link goes to Pro Life or Pro Choice. I see no consensus here, so I am changing it to the name of the linked article. --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 22:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

McCain supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=108), which puts him at odds with the WP article about the Pro-Life position: "Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos." Any objections/corrections to the following additional sentence, citing his Senate site? "He also supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=108)." Quena 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POW/MIA Controversy

No political complaint, it's just poorly written (not even written in complete sentances), but I don't know exactly what the facts are and what the author intended to write, so I can't fix it, I just wanted to bring this to others' attention.

[edit] Political Views

I made a few changes in the section. -His campaign finance position is listed above so I removed the duplicity. -I removed the sentence about tobacco. Maybe someone can explain the relevance or the significance to McCain, it seemed out of place to me. -His "appeal" does not relate to his political views, and is stated in the 2000 presidential election section. -Is it normal (in wikipedia world) to state in an article to read a speech? -I took out this line - "He once fought against funding the construction of a new aircraft carrier, saying the money should be spent on the 12,000 enlisted families who were on food stamps." I am not opposed to leaving it in if everyone feels like it represents a political view. However, it seemed more like a campaign sticker (and the "once fought" sounds silly, but that one is just me). Feel free to comment here about the changes. Kimathi 06:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intellegent design advocate category

Removing the Category:Intelligent design advocates. The cited source says McCain supports the teaching all ideas about the origin of life. This is not an advocacy statement for ID over any other idea about the origin of life. FloNight ^talk 15:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links Controversy

I added the Anti McCain Blog because it doesn't seem that only NPOV sources are being used on other prominent political profiles. An example would be John Kerry's profile which includes a link for the book "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry". Not exactly NPOV...

[edit] John McCain and Joe Bonnano

Could somebody please provide a source for the statement in the Trivia section that says that McCain was associated with mobster Joe Bonnano? (It was added by an anonymous user a few weeks ago.) Thanks! --Hnsampat 16:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PS - Expanded the article on McCain's grandfather

I added some more info and several photos to the John S. McCain, Sr. page. I'll add a photo to his dad's page when I find time. Usually from the Library of Congress, a great source for military folks' pics. Incidentally, I heard Senator McCain speak at the US Naval Academy at the graduation of the Class of 93. Good public speaker, McCain, especially on friendly turf. Speaking of friendly turf, I can still remember the contrast in the response by the midshipmen to McCain's address compared to one at USNA in 1998, by by Bill Clinton that I watched on CSPAN. Seem's somehow that McCain was better received than Clinton. Go figure... But that's another article/discussion. isn't it? Maybe just home court advantage. SimonATL 01:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Wikipedia sometimes gets a bad name...

The vast majority of this article is ridiculously not NPOV. Not presuming to be a great wikipedian, i still think we would be better served with the omission of this article than its current condition. I'm gonna post some of my major issues independently to see if anyone wants to talk about them.

[edit] 1. Lack of Unity

This article is primarily a collection of wreckless, superfluous, and often contradictory political statements. Collective axe-grinding has made it pathologically difficult to arrive at any understanding of the subject if this is your primary source.

[edit] 2 POV slant

At times the POV slant on this article is so apparent that it makes for awkward reading. To me, it seems that this article has been largely created by conservative political activists. The reason the article reads as so un-encyclopedic is that so much of it is political in nature. If any POV is used in a biographic it should mostly reflect the subject's POV and even then it should be clearly identified.

[edit] 3. South Carolina Primary

The South Carolina primary has been white-washed beyond all reason. Not only does the article try to skirt around Karl Rove's 'Black Baby' scandal, it seems to intentionally cite the weakest sources it can find in relation to this episode. The article also has the gall to state that percieved cultural insensitivities towards vietnam cost him votes... in the Republican Primary... In South Carolina. At the same time it refused to acknowledge the extremely well documented fact that George Bush's campaign used racism to sink McCain in said primary, by spreading a rumor that he fathered an illegitimate 'black' baby. The truth was that he had adopted a foreign orphan. This is extremely well documented, but the authors pretend that insensitivity towards asians played a bigger role among voters in the South Carolina Republican Primary.

These issues must be resolved. Until they are this article is not only worthless but a huge discredit to the wikipedia effort as a whole. I would very much like to work with people to correct his article, and would invite any suggestion or criticism with the issues I have raised.

Kind Regards, CFoster

Hi Foster. Did you know that you can sign your entries individually by putting for "squiggle signs" (?) in a row? --Hermitage 13:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

I note the article says he is an Episcopalian, however as I recall his campaing website said he was a Baptist. The citation appears to be a link about his voting record from a group which may or may not be authoritative. While he went to a high school affiliated with the Episcopal church, I see nothing that shows he has an affiliation today. jme66.72.215.225

I have not been able to find a definitive reference (such as his Senate site) on his religious affiliation (of any kind), but there are multiple sources that list it as Episcopalian. The most authorative I found was US News & World Report for the 2000 election. [11] --Mikebrand 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If there really isn't a good reference (his Senate site for example), can we conclude that McCain is not too concerned with his religious affiliation and it is not that relevant to his encyclopedic entry? Given the confusion, should we leave his religious affiliation in the first paragraph? Maybe it would be more appropriate in his personal life section. I propose moving it, and will later do so if not further discussed. Kimathi 08:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Kimathi, I support your suggestion to move it to his personal life section (maybe with a satement along the lines that he is widely reported to be Episcopalian but his religious affilition is difficult to determine with certainty).--Mikebrand 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order!

I support the criticism of points 1-3 and I don't think that the lack of information on McCain's religious affiliation is satisfyingly covered by the one sentence in 'Personal life'. However, my main problem with this article is the dubious order of the chapters. I came here to check McCain's early life, not knowing what he did before Vietnam. Hm, it came as a surprise to me that his early years were totally personal ('personal life'), even though he went to Annapolis...

To be frank, I think the order of the chapters, and the emphasis of this whole article, reflects the desire of some of the contributors here to present the most flattering info in depth and preferably close to the start of the article. Imho, this article would be quite good on the webpage of McCain, but here in Wiki we should follow a more encyclopedian approach. This means, after a short intro (what are the senate initiatives and the honorably discharge doing there?), there should be a chapter 'Early life' or something like that, covering his birth, parents, education and maybe the first years after graduation. That we have to scroll near the end of the article to find out to which high school he went is RIDICULOUS! Look at 'Contents' - Point 1: Vietnam. This sounds as if he was born there! Btw, about 40% of that chapter aren't about Vietnam, did anybody notice??? This got to change if we want this article to represent something remotely akin to NPOV.

Another, minor point: Even after I have read the article, I still don't know when exactly McCain was sent to (or near) Vietnam. Before or after his marriage '65? For an article THIS long (imho too long), the lack of data on some important points is pathetic. Gray62 10:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Gray62, I agree that the order is different from most Senators' entries; therefore, I support efforts to make it consistent with their entries including order change. I personally think the 'Personal life' section is poorly written, and should be revamped and then placed before 'Vietnam.' Perhaps, an early life, education, and career section would be more appropriate, thus including Vietnam as part of his career. I also wonder if the 'Vietnam' section could be more effective if it were more concise. I also want to work to make this a better entry, and support your efforts to do so as you outline your approach and we continue our discussion on this page. Kimathi 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Kimathi, I was busy for some days and when I returned I saw that you already did a great job! Now this looks more like an encyclopedia. Thank you, well done! Gray62 20:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His Religion?

I don't believe the article mentions anything about what faith he his. I would add but don't know what it is. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 20:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is in the Personal life section, which, as of now, is at the bottom of the page. We are discussing how this should be changed to allow readers such as yourself to find out what you want to know about Sen. McCain without first reading a massive section on Vietnam. The community seems to believe that McCain is a member of the Episcopal church, but this is currently questionable. Anything you find and your contribution concerning his faith tradition would be appreciated. Kimathi 21:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bilbray cancellation

Bilbray's event was not a "random fundraiser". Whoever made that comment knows zero about the House elections, Republican party politics, or California politics.

That would be me that knows zero. Is this event truly encyclopedic? Does it warrant more words than the Keating Scandal or the Gang of 14? As stated on a previous revert, Wikipedia should not document day to day activities. If the community does think this event is significant, would you say this event has more to do with immigration or McCain's possible presidential run than a stand-alone paragraph in political views, and if so could we include it within that context? Kimathi 01:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Meet the Press

Wasn't McCain on Meet the Press a few years back? I believe Tim Russert won some award for that episode. --Asulca593 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish-American or Scottish-American

McCain is the head of the "Irish-American Republicans Foundation", so are we sure that he's really Scottish-American? I mean, he's from the South originally and his family has roots that go back, which is why I didn't suspect he was Irish American, but if he's head or chair of the foundation with Susan Collins, it makes a little sense.

[edit] Ohio State U commecement address

info probably should be added since other commencement addresses are discussed, the speech focused on genocide and how US cant look the other way anymore, and people need to see that even if they dis agree with what we do internationally, we need to see the givieing spirit of amercica and need to see how we hare helping thoose people, he also talked about how the political system needs to stop treating everyone else as an enemy, think of them more a countryman then an enemy, and realize that you maybe right on some things, and he maybe right on some things, and know that no matter what you are discussing the best way to run a nation. thats written off of memory, hopefully someone with more time then me can look it up, there alot of info pointing to his moderate stance, and to his stance internationally

[edit] Is this thing legit?

I found this while browsing a conservative news page: http://www.straighttalkamerica.com/ It seems like it's endorsed by McCain....but is it really?

I looked on there and saw that the website endorsed Rick Santorum, and it's hard for me to imagine McCain endorsing Rick Santorum. Or, maybe it's true and I'd just rather he didn't.

Does anyone know if McCain actually endorses that website? --User:Zaorish

I'm not sure he endorses that website, but he did do some rallies in October with Santorum and Weldon.

[edit] Height

Perhaps I am missing sometghing obvious, but it seems that the McCain article lists his height as 57" (4'9" if I am correct). Can this possibly be true?

I added a space between 5' and 7". The ' did get lost making the entry look like 57"--Mikebrand 12:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moore and Race for President 2004

I am not sure that the following belongs in this article:

After McCain's statement, Moore was caught on camera forming an "L" on his forehead with his thumb and index finger (in some circles this is a shorthand for "Loser", a term of derision). Moore also chanted "Four More Weeks" in response to the crowd's cheers of "Four More Years".

Those two sentences would be appropriate in an article on Moore but have very little to do with McCain. I am inclind to remove them. Any thoughts? --Mikebrand 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone has already deleted the entire paragraph. That is probably just as well. --Mikebrand 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone tell me just what the hell is up with his cheeks?

I'm dying to know. They're so big it's like he could fit entire gerbils in there.

Scars from his two surgeries during his fight with skin cancer. He has had 3 melanomas total. One on his left temple, one on his cheek, and one on his left arm. The tumors on his cheek and left arm were removed in 2000. The one on his temple was removed in I think 1993 or 1994 or 1992 somewhere in there.

[edit] Sources

I just went through and did a clean up of the article, fixing grammar/spelling and adding {{fact}} tags throughout. The entire article contains an incredibly large number of statements that have no back-up. The ones I marked are only the tip of the iceberg. Also, the page isn't using <ref> tags, so I'm going to be adding those soon. If anyone would like to help me start sourcing this article, it would be very much appreciated. --MZMcBride 01:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McCain as a moderate or conservative

I'm not really sure how or if this information should be incorporated into this article, but I did a little bit of Google research on McCain's ideological status. Searching for moderate "John McCain, I clicked through the first four pages of links, around 40 in all. About 37 of these, which were mostly left of center blogs or political articles but also included a handful of conservative blogs, were arguing that McCain does not deserve the "moderate" reputation they say he holds. Two of the articles were from moderately liberal opinion magazines and took slightly different approaches. A 2002 Washington Monthly article argued that Democrats should attempt to get McCain to switch parties because his ideological differences with Republicans were growing too great. An April 2006 New Republic article argued that (1) McCain has only pretended to be a conservative the last couple years to get the support of the Republican base for a possible presidential run but he is really a liberal or moderate and (2) he should stop pandering to conservatives. The other link in the search was to this Wikipedia article.
Most of the writers arguing that McCain is not a moderate are on the left, which is unsurprising and unconvincing, frankly. However, McCain has also been given high marks by the American Conservative Union and has, of late, tended to toe the conservative line consistently. I realize this is all original research. However, it demonstrated to me, anyway, that almost no one is calling McCain a moderate anymore (though I tend to agree with the New Republic here). I'm curious as to who is or was labelling McCain a "moderate" and why. I realize that the campaign finance reform bill et al had something to do with it, and the 2000 primary probably did as well. But is anyone aware of a reliable source that tracks McCain's ideology over time, especially for his pre-millennial career? If nothing else, I think this information demonstrates the need for expansion of the section on McCain's ideology beyond its focus on the last 3 years (there is currently one paragraph on pre-2003 ideology, but it's entirely uncited). · j·e·r·s·y·k·o [[User talk:Jersyko|talk]] · 14:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright infringment

I have removed the last paragrph of the scetion about detainee treatment, because a number of sentances were copied verbatim from its source. --Samael775 02:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

there was no copy violation. All fair use guidelines cover the use of several hundred words from a published source. Rjensen 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

IT's also cited so it's not plagiarism although verbatim words should be quote. It should not be removed however.--Tbeatty 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torture "compromise"

The lead of the article needs to reflect that McCain approved, on September 20, 2006, a Bush White House "compromise" which included the relaxation of enforcement on Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. In other words, McCain approved torture for detainees, as well as the legal suspension of habeas corpus for many held in U.S. facilities. McCain also approved language retroactively excusing U.S. government officials for having ordering torture (dating back nine years).

As a prisoner of war, McCain himself was tortured, signing a false confession in 1968. According to his book, McCain told his captors both truthful and untruthful information, including heavily-embroidered accounts of fictional U.S. military facilities. Despite his posturing for many years against torture, he has apparently had a recent change of heart about its effectiveness. As of this writing, however, McCain has professed in public interviews not to know what specific coercive practices he has approved. The article should reflect the controversy. Sandover 16:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

McCain's "compromise" includes the use of confessions obtained by torture as evidence in military tribunal trials, so long as those confessions were obtained by December 2005.Sandover 16:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the lead of the article since it's only one vote made by many senators. Indeed, he was a leading figure in the whole affair, but at most a sentence or two should be devoted to it in the main body. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UT

Tomf688, you deleted all mention of "torture compromise" not only from the lede, but from the main body. While I realize a "sentence or two" is all that a McCain supporter like you might want to concede, in fact his "compromise" touched many issues, legalizing U.S. torture going back nine years, legalizing the use of hearsay evidence (gathered by torture) in military trials, legalizing new torture practices (and giving the White House discretion to determine, without review, whether those practices are in accord with the Geneva Conventions), and ending the right of habeas corpus (i.e., a day in court, a right to review evidence) for those the White House calls "illegal combatants," whether they are foreign nationals or U.S. citizens. McCain's change of heart affected the votes of other Senators as well. While it's very difficult to reduce it all to a single sentence or two, I and others have done my best here to do just that — and given that McCain's former POW status is, arguably, his chief political calling card, the issues deserves to be mentioned in the lede as well as in the main body of the article. Sandover 01:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly an issue which you have strong opinions over, and it is reflected in your recent additions to not only this article, but to other senator's articles as well. While your additions are well cited, they simplify things by saying these senators support torture and the suspension of habeus corpus, when there are far more complicated political and social issues involved in the debate. For example, you have given Mary Landrieu's article an entire section devoted to this vote, which nearly comes to the same length as the section that covers her handling of the Hurricane Katrina crisis, which was a far more significant event in her political career. If we were to devote as much attention to other major bills which she has voted for, and every other senator's article that you have edited with these comments, their articles would be very long, so you can see why this is a problem (see Wikipedia's policy regarding undue weight). This simply wasn't a huge deal in her's, or any of these other senator's careers or lives, and should not be given much attention in their articles. I would be more than happy to help edit a stand-alone article about this issue, but it doesn't really belong in these senators' articles. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I won't be reverting your edits (at least until some consensus can be reached) because I feel those would simply be reverted again and lead to an edit war. I also want to emphasize that I am mostly referring to other senators' articles above, and that I would not object to having a few sentences here in McCain's article because he was a major figure in this affair. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And on an unfortunate note, I initially missed your jab at me in your first sentence above. I strongly encourage you to read up on Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith, since you have made the incorrect assumptions that I support McCain, that I support this bill, that I am a Republican, and that I have an anti-you, pro-McCain/torture/USA #1/death to a-rabs agenda. That is regretful, because all of those assumptions are wrong, and instead I aim to help create an encyclopedia that is unbiased, verifiable, and free for everyone. A simple mistake, I suppose. Thanks for your time. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have assumed good faith. I wrote those words in response to your deletion of all reference to McCain's September 2006 compromise on torture, not only from this article but from others. (For example, this deletion, justified because you felt the copy gave "undue weight to one vote made by many senators, hence is POV".) It's well-established that McCain played a key role in negotiating this deal, and that his support for it offered political cover for other Senators voting for it. The copy is accurate and has been stable for a while, so thanks for letting it stand. Sandover 00:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McCain loves bush!

http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/1-mccain_bush_hug.jpg They love each other very much!!

It certainly is a big issue all over the US and the world--McCain dominatibe the story again; so it needs full play. It is not POV to describe what he did. (Wiki is not endorsing his position, just describing it.) Rjensen 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McCain's religion

He is in the "American Episcopalians" category as well as the "Roman Catholics" category. Which one is he? Geoffrey Gibson 02:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He's an Episcopalian as per his Project Vote Smart profile. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 10:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torture section misleading

"On December 15, 2005, President Bush announced that he accepted McCain's terms [on the torture ban law]"

The President didn't accept all of McCain's terms, it was a compromise. The President retained the right to interpret relevant Geneva Convention sections, etc. This is misleading.

[edit] I made some edits and put on the citation tag

because I think this article has all the basic elements of becoming a very good article. I would like to believe that if it was better sourced, differently organized and cut down in some places with sub-pages added that it could someday be FA class. If you have any issues with the edits I have made or will continue to make in the future, please bring them up here. Thanks Jasper23 19:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation nag tags should almost never go at the top of an article page, they should go in the Footnotes or References section, but this article already has a ton of citations, it's a mis-use of the tag to use it for other purposes. -- Stbalbach 23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the citation tag "This article is missing citations and/or footnotes." Yes, it does belong at the top of the article and yes, this article is missing citations. It "has a ton of citations" does not mean it has enough citations. The citation tag stays until there is a compelling reason (such as little to no uncited material)to remove it. Jasper23 03:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation nag tags, it is generally agreed on, don't go at the top of articles. See the documentation of Template:unreferenced. "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." Further, this article currently has over 51 citations, it has more citations than probably %99 of the articles on Wikipedia - a more inappropriate article for a citation nag tag I could not imagine. Please stop junking up the article space and making the article look like it is of poor quality and unreliable - your personal opinion about what "enough" citations means is inappropriate, and frankly I wonder why your trying to discredit the quality of this controversial article with nag tags. -- Stbalbach 15:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to discredit any article but just to keep wikipedia quality standards high. This tag reminds editors to reference materials already in the article and to add referenced materials. I think it is you who is trying to discredit this article by ignoring the serious citation issues that it has. This article is of middling quality and with events unfolding as they are this has to, and will be, one of the better political articles on wikipedia. Should I just put in 200 fact tags throughout the article? I hate unsourced material in important articles. Jasper23 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Jasper, use {fact} tags (as you have done). That is what they are for. Every article on Wikipedia needs more citations, every article could have that template, every article is important, your rationale makes no sense given how many citations this article already has. This article not only has 51+ citations, it has tons more external links. Why don't you try to improve the article by incorporating those external links as real footnotes, by researching citations and adding them. If you persist in this I will open it up for an RfC as the next step. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll: Use of Citation Tag

This is a straw poll to gage consensus if the article should have a {{citations missing}} banner template at the top of the page. And where on the page it should go.

No template. The article has over 53 citations. The citation tag should not be used by individual editors to pass personal judgment on how many are enough. Would 65 be enough? 134? The article clearly has a lot of citations and a nag tag at the top of the article takes away from the quality and authority of the article. If a citation tag is used, it usually goes in the References section and not at the top of a page, per the instructions at Template:unreferenced: There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page. -- Stbalbach 16:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Template At my count, the article has 28 individual "citation needed" requests, so its seems appropriate to have the template. As to location, the Template:unreferenced states outright that "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template" - I say it should go at the top. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Template TOP-At least an additional 40 citation needed tags could be added to this article. I say we stop worrying about the tag and start working on the article. This will be one of the most important political articles on wiki. We might as well get a head start. Also, it is not a question of having "enough" citations, it is a question of not having uncited material. Jasper23 17:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No template. All the information is well-known to readers of the current press, and it misleads readers into thinking there are many bad mistakes in the article, which is false. Rjensen 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The 40+ in-line citation needed tags are a problem. According to policy WP:Verifiable:

you may tag the sentence by adding the ^{[citation needed]} template.. Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Since this is a WP:BLP, just remove the unsourced material, fact tags are not a license to bypass the Verifiable policy, in particular with living people. And "citations needed" banner templates are also not a free pass. If no one else does it I'll give this article a day two then come back and start removing all the un-sourced statements. -- Stbalbach 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck in that activity. I hope you have thick skin. Jasper23 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL.. Well, I did it before with Movement to impeach George W. Bush which was a war zone. In the end people either added it back with citations, or they stay out. People will defend their turf when it actually gets removed from the article, fact tags are not a free pass. -- Stbalbach 17:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have done it on a few articles and it turns into a free-for-all. The article basically gets gutted for awhile (which I find preferable to unsourced), but ends up in a much better place. Well, if you do chose to go that route you have my full support. Jasper23 17:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Since it's a BLP article, I'd suggest that any serious unsourced statements be removed - but those few (if any) which are "obvious" be left in with a fact tag on them. I believe usage of the Citation/Footnotes banner is unnecessary since most of the unsourced statements should be removed as per WP:BLP, which states that "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages". --Tim4christ17 ^talk 22:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

no template - This is a well written, well cited article. Few articles I have seen match it. It needs some polishing, but certainly does not need a template for non-adequate citation. Ludahai 08:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC) no template - The purpose of the template is not, in my opinion, to indicate that there are lot of "citation needed" tags in the article. A reader can see that for himself/herself. The purpose of the template is to say, essentially, "rather than put a lot of individual tags on sentences, I'm putting a tag/template on the whole article". That isn't needed here. John Broughton | Talk 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyone should realize that the article has been cleaned up and even I agree that the citation tag is no longer necessary. Thats why I took it off the page awhile ago. However, it did generate about 25 new citations. Jasper23 03:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Why is there a NPOV tag? -- Stbalbach 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Its gone. Jasper23 18:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Party leanings in lead section

Regarding this section in the WP:Lead section:

McCain has simultaneously aroused intense support and notoriety as well as intense opposition [12] to an extent quite unusual for a politician. McCain has often infuriated Republicans [13] [14] by opposing conservative policies,[15] such as with filibuster politics over judicial nominees [16], campaign finance reform they see as beneficial to Democrats, and economic restrictions to reduce global warming [17]. McCain's lifetime rating by the American Conservative Union is 83 percent^[1].

According to WP:Lead section it should have no footnotes. It is a summary of what is already contained in the article. It should not be detailed or original discussion but a summary of what is already in the article. Basically, this is a fairly detailed and sourced discussion about McCain crossing party lines on certain issues - it can be summed up in a sentence or two without the need for footnotes. Some of these cites are of poor quality (blogs) and don't support what is being said (except in an interpretive way), it also has an undertone of emotional appeal ("infuriated republicans"). The current sentence "While conservative on many issues, McCain has been called a "maverick"" is a fair summary for the lead section, with more details in the section of the article title Political views. I've moved some of this material down to that section. -- Stbalbach 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Leanings

In all this information on McCain, no economic matters are mentioned. Astounding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.236.23.108 (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Not sure what you mean by "economic matters". If you mean McCain's preference for reducing the deficit over cutting taxes, I agree, that's pretty significant. Pan Dan 12:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
What additions to the article would make it less "astounding"? Remember, all information must be cited to reliable sources. Thanks, Satori Son 13:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_McCain_5071.html"

	This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.