Talk:John McCain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John McCain article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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] Lack of morals

Did anyone hear that when his first wife was in serious accident and put in a wheel chair. he decided to leave her and marry someone else. Can you believe she waited for him for five years when he was pow and did not cheat on him. This sob could not do the same for her ? He is evil man and should not be allowed in the white house. (Irishmonk)

[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] 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 [1] to an extent quite unusual for a politician. McCain has often infuriated Republicans [2] [3] by opposing conservative policies,[4] such as with filibuster politics over judicial nominees [5], campaign finance reform they see as beneficial to Democrats, and economic restrictions to reduce global warming [6]. 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)

[edit] 2008 Presidential Candidates

I'm a wiki newbie, so I wasn't sure of the right place to put this, but shouldn't there be a reference category for the 2008 presidential candidates? I think a lot of people accessing this article for the next two years might want to contrast John McCain to other 2008 candidates. 02:58, 18 December 2006 24.205.99.159

While a category might be useful, there already is a section about his 2008 Presidential hopes, including a link to a main article that in turn links to articles that list the full set of candidates. John Broughton | Talk 16:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "f*cking jerk" comment

The source cited for it no longer exists. It needs either a new source now, a "citation needed" tag, or to be removed altogether. CyberRaptor 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. I have updated the reference tag with a new Salon.com active URL for the article. Remember, we should never remove references just because the link becomes inactive; see WP:REF#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" and Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. -- Satori Son 16:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Amendment views

Shouldn't this be included? It's a very important issue for many American voters. In fact, I came to this page to look up what McCain's views on gun control are, and couldn't find a word on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tullie (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Chronological Order of Naval Incidents...

Regarding his the incidents which occured on Oriskany and Forrestal, it talks about an accident on Forrestal in 1967, from which he was then assigned to Oriskany, where another accident occured, but it lists him coming aboard in 1966 from the Forrestal...In other words he was transferred from Forrestal to Oriskany in 1966 after an accident on Forrestal in 1967. Just need someone to verify the dates and rearrange it, unless I am reading it wrong. Genrethan 05:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Genrethan

The accident on the Oriskany occurred before McCain transferred there. I have tried to rewrite that paragraph to make the timeline more clear. -- Satori Son 05:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His opposition to the federal minimum wage

SA 116. Mr. ALLARD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of section 2, add the following:

(c) State Flexibility.--Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(h) State Flexibility.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to pay an employee a wage that is greater than the minimum wage provided for by the law of the State in which the employee is employed and not less than the minimum wage in effect in that State on January 1, 2007..

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00024

[edit] Born on a military base?

"Despite being born in a foreign country, his parents were both U.S. citizens and he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, making him eligible for the Presidency." I was under the impression that just as US embassies are US soil (see Iran hostage crisis), that US military bases are US soil (see Gitmo). Therefore, the natural born citizenship is not just due to his parent's status, but also due to being born on US soil, even if it was not in a state. Someone from Washington DC or Peurot Rico could run, since it is US soil, and I would figure that military bases follow that same rule. Am I wrong? just curious.... CodeCarpenter 17:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not my particular field of law, but my limited understanding is that military bases are not legally considered U.S. soil as embassies are. And I know that Gitmo specifically is not considered U.S. soil, that's why the Bush administration placed the Guantanamo Bay detention camp there, the theory being that detainees housed there would not have access to U.S. courts (said argument was ultimately unsuccessful; see Rasul v. Bush#Question of jurisdiction).

Anyway, I believe the sentence is accurate as written and cited. -- Satori Son 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. in the end it didn't matter, but I was thinking of all the military kids out there. Their parents' citizenship is the deciding factor. I wonder what happens if the child is of mixed nationalities. But, that is off-topic... CodeCarpenter 19:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is "acquisition of citizenship at birth" the same as being a natural-born citizen ? Is there any legal precedence for that interpretation? If John McCain were elected president, could his eligibility to hold that office be questioned in the courts ? 161.24.19.82 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See Natural-born citizen Nil Einne 12:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If John McCain had been born outside U.S. soil, despite being the child of U.S. citizens, he would be ineligble to run for President. However, at the time of his birth, the Canal Zone itself was U.S. soil, so he may serve as U.S. President.

That's correct. I am from a military family and had two siblings born on military installations overseas-- both were not considered US citizens at birth (my parents had to have them naturalized later).

Panama was a US territory, otherwise McCain wuld be (ridiculously) ineleigible.

128.138.173.228 06:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Played by Tom Cruise?

Hmm, looking at the picture of the interview from 1974, I was struck by the resemblance. Does this mean that Cruise will look like McCain in 30 years? Is it just my poor eyes that see the similarity?

Cruise in The Firm

Interview with McCain on April 24, 1974, after his return home.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CodeCarpenter (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Theodore Roosevelt Quote that Applies to McCain

From TR's speech on "The Duties of American Citizenship, given in Buffalo, NY, January 26, 1883.

"...Somebody has said that a racing-yacht, like a good rifle, is a bundle of incompatibilities; that you must get the utmost possible sail power without sacrificing some other quality if you really do get the utmost sail power, that, in short you have got to make more or less of a compromise on each in order to acquire the dozen things needful; but, of course, in making this compromise you must be very careful for the sake of something unimportant not to sacrifice any of the great principles of successful naval architecture. Well, it is about so with a man's political work. He has got to preserve his independence on the one hand; and on the other, unless he wishes to be a wholly ineffective crank, he has got to have some sense of party allegiance and party responsibility, and he has got to realize that in any given exigency it may be a matter of duty to sacrifice one quality, or it may be a matter of duty to sacrifice the other." PS - You McCain staffers out there who keep tabs on this article (I bet at least one of you does it) - pass this on to the boss man as I think he'd agree with it and Semper Fi to your boss. PSS, He gave fine commencement at my stepson's graduation at USNA 1993. Source URL - The American Experience on TR SimonATL Theodore Roosevelt Association Member 05:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Flip-Flopping?": Neutral??

Hello. Long time listener, first time caller.

I have an issue with the following quote and its source: "He has also come under increasing criticism for a pattern of "flip-flopping."

I have put "flip-flopping" in quotations for now but to be honest I think this term falls under the categories Wikipedia would call NPOV "weasel words" in the following way: "A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue. Weasel words...are frequently used by politicians. A weasel word can be compared with, but is distinct from, a euphemism."

First of all, the source "The Real John McCain" (http://therealmccain.com/) has no neutrality whatsoever. I'm not a particular fan of McCain myself, but this web source is a clear all-out attack on Senator McCain for political purposes. It offers no alternative viewpoints and represents merely the opinions of one group of people (his political enemies) attempting to turn people against him. Is this source and its aims legitimate without any attempt to balance its views?

Secondly, the phrase "flip-flop" is a stale political slogan created by Republicans during President Bush's re-election campaign in 2004. Rather than neutral, it is an obvious attempt to create a derogatory moniker intended solely for one side's opponents, and its use here is obviously intended to link in the readers' minds McCain's alleged behavior to other Republican opponents like John Kerry or Hillary Clinton.

Simply put, I have nothing wrong with the allegations per se but I am loathe to let stand such a politically loaded term in an article with no NPOV warning, neutral sourcing, attempt to find alternative neutral ways to allege said behavior ("he has been accused by his opponents of changing sides on issues in the past") or any balancing viewpoint.

I didn't change anything except the quote marks because I am unregistered here. Thank you.

210.20.86.85 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)jon anderson February 18, 2007 at 10:08 Tokyo time

I've deleted the sentence as this does not comply with WP:RS.--Mbc362 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Is "mavrick" NPOV?129.133.90.64 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a quote from a reliable source about McCain. He does have a reputation for not always voting the same way his party does. If you can think of a better way of explaining that to the reader that you feel is more neutral, please share it with us.--Mbc362 01:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Views: separate article?

Many of the other potential 2008 candidates have separate articles for their political views. Should this article, too? Yavoh 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely say yes. See Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Political views of Barack Obama, Political views of Rudy Giuliani, Political views of Mike Gravel, etc. Wasted Time R 13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now done so. Wasted Time R 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for taking care of this. -- Satori Son 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

I'm curious as to how McCain's lack of support for MLK Day as a holiday resulted in "Arizona not observing this holiday for years." It seems as a US Congressman and US Senator he would have no direct effect on the Arizona state government, the body that presumably decides whether to observe/not observe holidays in Arizona. I'd change it myself, but I could be missing something.

I agree with you - in fact I came to the discussion page because of this and several other confusing and/or poorly worded items in the "Other Controversies" section. This is my first time to view this article - perhaps someone more involved with it should considering editing the section as a whole - it looks like it was pieced together and needs to be retooled. I'd be happy to do it, if no one else wants to . . . Mdeaton 22:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the MLK part and the Roe v. Wade part as they are less "Controversies" than political views...hence they properly belong in that article.74.130.23.77 20:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That might be the case, but until they are added to his policital views section, they should at least remain here. CodeCarpenter 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Roe v. Wade part is covered and, again, merely holding the view that a particular holiday should not be a day off is not a "controversy" as intended by the heading (i.e., scandals and faux pas of varying degrees). It may be a controversial political opinion depending on which side of it you are coming from, but not a controversy.

Therefore, I'm removing the Roe v. Wade part again, and I invite you to add something in the political views section about the MLK part sometime in the next few days. I would be sure to include his current beliefs on it as well, exemplified by the following..."In 1983, when I was brand-new in the Congress, I voted against the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King. That was a mistake, OK? And later I had the chance to...help fight for...the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King as a holiday in my state." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.250.85.186 (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I've removed paragraphs from this section on a complaint by a 9/11 group and what seems a single article referring to his former stance on Martin Luther King Day. Searching news articles indicates there is NO controversy about these....they've been mentioned is all and the 9/11 group only on their own website - Peripitus (Talk) 09:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

After some seaching I've removed three paragraphs from this and am considering more. The first entry was real but the news story was referring to someone else ( the former president of International Republican Institute). The second referred to him calling another senator a "fucking jerk"...I've listened in two parliments and this is not too far out of the ordinary + cannot find that any significant number of organisations cared. The last was about hacking a myspace page and is hardly significant - Peripitus (Talk) 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to USS Forrestal

I believe I have seen a documentary on the military channel that McCain's rocket lauched and hit another fuel tank. I can't remember, however, so please remove this concern if my information is misleading. Thanks, Michael Norkus 06:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to information irrelevant to John McCain

Hi. I wonder how relevant the following information is to John McCain per se: "Before McCain's arrival, on October 26, 1966, a mishandled flare caused a deck fire, resulting in the death of 44 men, including 24 pilots, and the Oriskany was just returning to duty after significant repairs." I know he served on this ship, but the incident happened prior to his service there, and Im just wondering if anyone else finds this background information a bit superfluous in an (increasingly) lengthy article about an individual? Also, what's up with the photo of an "unidentified man" in the water? Is this a necessary photo, or is someone trying to make a "dramatization" of McCain's rescue? Just wondering. Thanks. Unregistered user.

[edit] edits by User:CrystalizedAngels

Are these appropriate?

He began campaigning with a strong anti government corruption message, but many said he stepped on the toes of too many big donors and business people, whereas Bush greased them.

McCain has a strong independent streak, and supported some initiatives not agreed upon by his own party,...

McCain's reputation as a maverick stems from various issues, his strong stance against government-business corruption and lobbying which is untypical for his party, his support for a guest worker program for some immigrants yet tough border controls, support for stricter limits on political campaign funds, his moderate record on environmental issues, and frequent opposition to president Bush, including the $350 billion in tax breaks to the very top income brackets over 11 years which is also known as the Bush Tax cuts.[7]

--Media anthro 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "is a liar and a deciever" ???

"John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is a liar and a deciever. He is staunchly supporting President Bush's surge in Iraq and said on CNN, "There are neighborhoods in Iraq where I could stroll around." He is a total embarrassment, a total discrace. To even suggest such a thing is disrespectful and misleading. He is undermining our troops and emboldening our enemies with such lies and by supporting the Bush Administration."

hey that doesn't sound very NPOV ;) someone should fix that 216.113.96.110 11:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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