Talk:John McCain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John McCain article.
Article policies
Good article John McCain has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
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 current 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 the following WikiProjects:
News This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
21 April 2008 Liberal Web John J. Miller – National Review
03 April 2008 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin – Bryant Park Project, NPR
12 April 2008 Wikipedia Wars Tom Foreman – This Week..., CNN
28 May 2008 Clinton's entry in Wikipedia has a watchdog Kelly Heyboer – The Star-Ledger
28 May 2008 one of two pieces aired Paul Murnane – WCBS Newsradio 880
Archive
Archives

November 2003—August 2006
September 2006—November 2007
December 2007—mid February 2008
mid February 2008—end February 2008
Early March 2008—mid March 2008
mid March 2008—end March 2008
April 2008—mid May 2008
mid May 2008—end May 2008


Contents

[edit] Iowa

I've added a sentence about Iowa into the section about the 2008 campaign. Iowa was critical. McCain's decision to not expend much effort there was pivotal to his later victories. Romney made a major effort in Iowa, and Romney's loss to Huckabee weakened Romney enough so that McCain could win in New Hampshire. The rest is history. This article really should mention Iowa. I've also added a few pics today.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're going to need a lot stronger citing than one hyperbolic Novak column for this contention. New Hampshire often votes differently than Iowa, witness Obama and HRC this year and many examples in the past, so a Romney win in Iowa would not necessarily carried over to NH. McCain had a history of strength in New Hampshire going back to 2000, McCain had put almost all his effort this time around into NH, and McCain had gotten a ton of newspaper endorsements in NH. Do you have any exit polls that support your contention? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Here from 2000 and here from this year are a couple of cites on New Hampshire voters being contrarian with respect to Iowa results. There are many more, as this search indicates. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll double-check, and get some better cites. My recollection is that Iowa was devastating for the Romney campaign. McCain's decision to bypass Iowa was critical.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Losing both Iowa and NH together was devastating to Romney's campaign, because he was counting on wins in both to give him momentum going forward. But that doesn't mean that his loss in Iowa caused his loss in NH. These were largely independent events; Romney lost to McCain in NH because of McCain's renewed strengths and a campaign style that has always appealed to NH'ites, not because of what a bunch of social conservatives who voted for Huckabee in Iowa did. As for McCain's decision to bypass Iowa, it was forced on him by lack of funds and the necessity to commit everything to a state where he had a natural base of support. He bypassed Iowa in 2000 as well, for much the same reasons. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Now look at some data. This RCP page has all the polls done in NH. They bounce around a lot, of course, but I don't see any big change pre-to-post Jan 3, when the Iowa caucuses were held. McCain's big surge happened during the entire month of December. It's easier to see on this RCP polls average chart. From about a month to go on, Romney was steadily decreasing, McCain was rapidly increasing, Huckabee was slowly increasing (his big jump having occurred earlier), Giuliani was continuing his nosedive, and ol' Fred was going nowhere. Looking at the whole chart, Romney's final position was not inconsistent with where he'd been most of the year; he didn't lose it, but rather McCain regained his lost territory and then some and won it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I've also briefly mentioned Fred Thompson, whom pundits credit for McCain's South Carolina win (by drawing votes away from Huckabee).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a different claim, and more tenable. There's no question that overall in the nomination process McCain benefited from the vote being split among several lacklustre or limited-appeal candidates. Although Thompson would argue you've got it backwards — Huckabee drew votes away from him. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This article does not currently mention Iowa. I very much think it should. McCain's decision to not do much in Iowa was pivotal, allowing him to focus on New Hampshire, and allowing Huckabee to take down Romney a notch in Iowa without hurting McCain. Here are some further sources:

"About 48 percent of Republican voters in the New Hampshire primary decided who to vote for within the last week and McCain overwhelmingly bested Mitt Romney among this group, CNN polling shows -- an indication Romney's second-place showing in Iowa may have had a significant effect on New Hampshire voters." ---CNN

"McCain won by never really leaving when his Republican rivals invested time in Iowa." ---Manchester Union Leader

"Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's victory in the Republican Iowa caucus threw open the party's race in New Hampshire....McCain has concentrated his efforts in New Hampshire and stands to gain from Romney's second-place finish, said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster not aligned with any campaign. Huckabee's victory over Romney in Iowa 'goes a long way to helping ensure a McCain victory in New Hampshire,' Fabrizio said." ---Bloomberg

Ferrylodge (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article does mention Iowa — I left in the bit about him not campaigning there. The third quote is speculation (the same people who were saying Obama would beat Hillary there), the second quote is okay but reaffirms what the article already says (he focused on NH), and the first quote is a guess that the voters who decided late may have been influenced by Romney's IA loss. If we're going to downplay McCain's victory as the side effect of another contest, I'd rather have something more solid than that. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't notice that you left Iowa in ("McCain decided not to campaign significantly in the January 3 Iowa caucuses, which saw a win by former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee"). That's fine.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Equal treatment in candidate biography articles

It looks like Noroton has identified a number of examples of inappropriate POV/Soapboxing in articles about other people. Some of them really are quite egregious. He would do Wikipedia a great service to remove (or at least heavily trim) those digressions into third persons that partisans put into other politician articles. If Noroton does not get to it, I might make an effort myself to clean some of that up (obviously though, as we've seen here, cleaning up to encyclopedic standards can often meet great resistance from anti-Bio-Subject partisans). Unfortunately, I can't personally improve millions of articles at once, probably not even dozens where the subjects are living persons of high general interst. LotLE×talk 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC) -- From the Talk:Barack Obama page (diff)

One useful way of checking the neutrality of an article is looking at how similar articles are edited. Right now there's a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama (in fact, it's a long, ongoing debate taking up most of the page, but the active section right now is at the Attempt to build consensus on the details section. I looked through this McCain article and the ones on Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani to see how negative information was treated in each, particularly how much information was presented about people associated with the candidate. The debate over on the Obama page is about whether to include any information on people associated with him (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, specifically) and if so, how much information to include about each. My own opinion is that, since there are articles about each of these people and their relationship to the election, we can have a very small amount on each, but we should have just enough so that the reader immediately knows why the person has become controversial in the election. For Bill Ayers, for instance, people should know that he's controversial because he's said to be unrepentant about violence with the Weather Underground. Other opinions are that this description unnecessarily lengthens the article or has nothing to do with Obama or that it's an opinion, not a fact, that he's unrepentant. It would be useful if people interested in this page would participate in the discussion there, because, as the quote I've put at the top of this section shows, editors there may be coming here to make changes.

Here's what I found in looking into negative information in three similar articles, particularly as it relates to people associated with the candidate who have become controversial. I'm re-posting it here for the information of editors who are unlikely to see it at Talk:Barack Obama. Any comments about this comparison as it relates to this article would be useful on this page, of course, and any comments on how the Obama article should treat information on associates would best be posted on that page. Please keep in mind that whatever happens in that discussion may well affect this page, with a good number of editors willing to form a consensus that might force changes here. A centralized discussion on the common points may be best on that page, where it's already started:

  • Hilary Rodham Clinton — numerous mentions of various people that put Clinton in a negative light. Regarding people associated in some way with Clinton:
    • The Presidential campaign of 2008 section has three sentences on Norman Hsu, who was certainly less close to Clinton than the Rev. Wright has been to Obama.
    • The same section has several sentences on comments by another Clinton associate who puts the candidate in a bad light: Bill Clinton's controversial comments about race and the campaign. Surely that is worth keeping in the article on Hilary Clinton.
    • The same section has two sentences on Geraldine Ferraro's comments that put the Clinton campaign, and by extension, Hilary Clinton, in a bad light in the eyes of some.
    • Regarding other negative information on Clinton (usually full paragraphs on each thing mentioned), there is the cattle futures contract (in two different places in the article), conflict-of-interest charges in Arkansas regarding the Rose Law Firm; controversy involving her term on the Wal-Mart board of directors; the controversy/investigation on missing legal papers in her East Wing White House office regarding the Whitewater controversy; and Clinton's sniper-fire gaffe during the campaign (a sentence).
  • John McCain:
    • Information on Richard Keating (footnotes 84-87; John McCain#House and Senate career, 1982–2000 section: Amount of space: two paragraphs
    • ADDED POINT: The article does not mention the Rev. John C. Hagee whose controversial remarks about Catholics and about the Holocaust caused McCain to disassociated himself from the minister. The article also does not mention McCain's ties to a lobbyist that some suspected was having an affair with him. (Personally, I think the Hagee stuff belongs in that article, in a sentence or two, and a link to the lobbyist controversy article should also be there, but it's a point in favor of the exclusionist side in this discussion that those two people are not mentioned in the article.)
  • Rudy Giuliani:
    • Rudy Giuliani#Early life and education: This section opens by telling the reader his father "had trouble holding a job and had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing" and worked as a Mafia enforcer for his brother-in-law who "ran an organized crime operation involved in loan sharking and gambling at a restaurant in Brooklyn." Mind you, this last quote is about Giuliani's uncle.
    • The Mayoral campaigns, 1989, 1993, 1997 section has a subsection called "Appointees as defendants" consisting of a paragraph each on scandals/controversies involving Russell Harding and Bernard Kerik, and the Kerik paragraph is preceded by: "Main article: Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik" Kerik is mentioned in at least two other places in the article. "Post-mayorality" section is one ("Politics" subsection), and the "Family" section, where the last paragraph is a sentence stating that Giuliani is godfather to Kerik's children.
    • Other negative information on Giuliani includes part of the Legal career section, which opens with details his draft deferment in a paragraph; another paragraph is devoted to criticism of his setting up public perp-walks for arrested Wall Street bigwigs and then eventually dropping prosecutions of them. That paragraph is larger than Giuliani's leading the prosecution in one of the biggest Mafia trials in history (perhaps the most important).

Presidential candidates are big boys (and a big girl), and they get tough treatment in the media because they are trying to get a very powerful, very important job. We don't overprotect them on Wikipedia just as the U.S. media and international media don't protect them. The exclusionist side of this discussion appears to want far higher standards for inclusion of information about Obama than we have for Hilary Clinton, John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani. This goes against both Wikipedia practice and policy & guidelines. Noroton (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Equal treatment would be great. The issue is broader than inclusion or exclusion of info about questionable people linked to a candidate. The broader issue is inclusion or exclusion of all negative information generally.
The present article contains lots of negative info about McCain, as I've previously mentioned. He was ranked 894/899 in college, has physical limitations from his injuries, has accepted blame for his failed first marriage, began a relationship with his current wife while still married to his first wife, and he also opposed creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Moreover, he received trips on Keating's jets, and was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled his greatest legislative victory to date (the line-item veto) was unconstitutional. He was criticized for accepting funds from corporations and businesses under the Commerce Committee's purview. The 2000 campaign left McCain in a "very dark place". If inaugurated in 2009 he would be the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency. He has been treated for skin cancer. He has admittedly made ill-considered remarks. He acknowledges being impatient. He made a joke in 1998 about the Clintons that was not fit to print in newspapers. He is known for being prickly and hot-tempered, and he has used profanity and shouting with colleagues, one of whom says: "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." McCain's father was an alchoholic, and his current wife was addicted to painkillers.
So, the Keating info is far from the only negative thing that's included in this article. As for the lobbyist controversy, it’s a ten-year-old story that the NY Times tried to revive several months ago, but their own ombudsman criticized the article for its lack of details and independent proof. The story has since vanished, and is adequately covered in John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 with a summary in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Hagee is also covered in the latter article, and the relationship (if one can call it that) between Hagee and McCain was vastly more remote and brief than that between Obama and Wright.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Largely concurring with Ferrylodge (and with Noroton). Whether politicians are "big boys" is irrelevant, however, what matters is that we're writing an encyclopedia not calling names in a schoolyard. But as to specific facts:
  • College ranking: probably very brief mention is OK. Something like "poor academic record" avoids false specificity.
  • Was the marriage stuff in his own book? If so, maybe very brief mention; or maybe if it was widely reported. But it seems minor to overall career. Just saying "married twice" probably gets it.
  • The MLK stuff seems to be reduced and clarified enough to be encyclopedic (discussed here recently).
  • The Keating connection seems to have too many words. Also not convinced it need to be in lead. I do think it merits some inclusion, but probably three sentences, not three paragraphs.
  • I think something on McCain's acknowledged temper is worth including, but the quote about "erratic, father alcoholic, etc" seems to be far to much "spin." I haven't followed this page long, but I suspect it's one of those false "balance" things: add a sentence of praise and one of condemnation... until the article is a bloated collection of contradictions.
LotLE×talk 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
LotLE, which of those is your biggest concern? It would be easiest to address things one-at-a-time.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with most of LotLE's concerns. McCain is a character-driven political figure (as opposed to ideology-driven, say), and portraying the personal biographical facts of his life is very important. The class rank need not be shied away from; McCain's titles one of the chapters in his memoir "Fifth from the Bottom". It was part and parcel of his rebellious nature back then, much of which carried over into his political persona. His marriages are very important to his biographical narrative, both in terms of the consequences of the war, of his own (lack of) maturity, and of the beginning of his political career. There's no way we should short-change that. Keating Five was the major scandal of his political career, one that observers thought might end it early; McCain devotes over 40 pages to it in his second memoir. We're trying to convey the whole story of McCain here, not just describe what a Senator did in Congress. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As for Noroton's comparative analysis, I'm skeptical it can help us much. Just listing "negative things" compares apples with elephants with trains. The mentions of Charles Keating here, for example, are not because Keating said outrageous things but because McCain was investigated for possibly improperly intervening with federal regulators on Keating's behalf. Big difference. As for Hagee and Parsley, they're mentioned in the campaign article. Every election features cynical games of "Politician X is associated with Somebody Y, and look at the crazy offensive things Y has said! What an outrage!" Most of these games are not important enough to warrant coverage in the main bio article. Obama-Wright-TUCC is a bit different, because it's gone on so long and because of the closeness to it in Obama's life and because of the American political and cultural fault lines it's crossed. I don't see that here. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm also not a big fan of trying to get these articles to look like each other. The people they are describing are very different, and may require different treatments for their articles to be effective. The best real published biography of McCain doesn't read or look anything like the best real published biography of Hillary, for instance. I realize that the Obama editors have been going through collective madness for some time now, and are casting for comparisons to help calm the waters, but I'm not sure it's a valid approach. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it's a rough comparison, but not nearly as rough as you make out. And principles of when to include something and when not and by how much should be affected by a comparison. If Hagee, for instance, is not as important in relation to McCain as Wright is to Obama, then one way of judging how much to cover the Hagee situation is by looking at how much of Wright is covered in the Obama article. It isn't definitive by any means, but it should help in thinking about the matter. I didn't see Hagee on the page and I did a page search and didn't find the name that way, either. Please point out what section Hagee is mentioned. I was also hoping editors interested in this article would be knowledgeable and interested in the subject of Obama and might want to contribute to that discussion. It seems to me that even taking a look at that discussion might be helpful in editing this page. Noroton (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hagee gets two paragraphs in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, currently nothing here. If he turns out to bedevil McCain as much as Wright and TUCC has affected Obama, it would merit inclusion here. Unfortunately I don't know enough about Obama and Ayers to comment in your discussion; when it gets to Obama and Wright I might. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
And another few things: Hagee, it seems to me, is worth a sentence or two with a link to his WP article. The Keating matter has been covered a lot and can be expected to be brought up in every news feature that looks over the whole of McCain's life, and it did seem to mark a turning point for McCain. You don't short change turning points. The alleged affair has its own article, and it seems to me it's worth at least mentioning in the text with a link to that article. And amidst all the deadly serious pall that we tend to put over controversial topics on Wikipedia, both in discussion and in the articles, we might want to come up for air for a second and remember that readers are going to be plodding through these articles and if you've got a few facts in there that are just damn interesting, like his class rank, it helps to keep your reader from falling asleep before getting to the end of the article. Not a criticism of what's in the article now, just a friendly suggestion about another factor to consider. Noroton (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Noroton, just because something about McCain has its own article does not mean that it has to be summarized here. After all, there are many sub-sub-articles and sub-sub....sub-articles in Wikipedia that aren't mentioned in the top-level articles.
The lobbyist controversy is a ten-year-old story that the NY Times tried to revive several months ago, but their own ombudsman criticized the Times article for its lack of details and independent proof. The story has since vanished. Noroton, this McCain article already has vastly more negative info about McCain than the Obama article has about Obama, wouldn't you agree? Why do you think that the lobbyist controversy is inadequately covered in John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 with a summary in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008? Also, I agree with WTR that, as of now, the relationship (if one can call it that) between Hagee and McCain was vastly more remote and brief than that between Obama and Wright. Do you disagree?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just been looking over the Campaign section. In all that space we can certainly mention that a prominent supporter of McCain, the Rev. Hagee, was widely criticized for making controversial comments about the Roman Catholic Church and the Holocaust, then cut his ties to the campaign (or had them cut for him, I forget). The point isn't to criticize McCain, the point is that the incident was prominent enough for a reader to remember it and wonder "Hey, who was that minister who got into that controversy? I can't remember his name." And then quickly find it by going to the first article a general reader is likely to go to. It requires a slight amount of space and it serves the reader. Same with the alleged affair. If nothing else, the alleged affair was something staffers very close to McCain worried about a lot -- so much that they took some pretty dramatic steps to keep her away from him. Readers deserve to be able to find that information quickly. I think it was a shitty decision on the NY Times part to cover it the way they did -- I went on and on and on about that in arguing at the AfD for Vicki Iseman (I even tried to get the reference to the New York Times removed in WP:BLP because I didn't want the paper being implicitly praised by being mentioned as an example on that page), but it's prominent enough and concerns readers enough that it deserves a mention where readers are going to look for it. We're not a tabloid, but we're also not a government record. We're here to serve the readers, even when one of the most prominent parts of the subject's life may just be a load of crap (not that we actually know). The standard ought to be pretty high for going into detail on something. The standard should be pretty low for linking to a Wikipedia article covering a part of a person's life with a bare outline in a sentence saying what the connection is. The allegation of the affair sticks in everybody's mind, so there should be a link. Noroton (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Wasted Time just below) Noroton, this McCain article already has vastly more negative info about McCain than the Obama article has about Obama, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I agree, but there's also more positive info, simply because McCain's been around a lot longer than Obama and has more accomplishments and adventure under his belt. Weren't you the one saying we can't make exact comparisons? Just mention the major nasty things said about McCain, because the readers are going to be curious about them. The prominence matters. With garish news items (alleged affair and a minister advocating fringe ideas) are going to punch above their historic weight a bit in the readers' minds. I can't imagine the Britannica Book of the Year not covering those two items in at least a line a piece. The standard I'm arguing for over at the Obama talk page is to simply say, as briefly as possible, what the nub of the controversy is, in a prose section of the article, and link to the relevant Wikipedia article. I'm not looking first at what's positive or negative -- the first consideration is what's prominent enough for the reader to want to know about. I think this is a reasonable way of thinking about it. I don't know, maybe I'm the only one. Noroton (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
With McCain and WP, the subarticles are everything. There's lots of good stuff that's in Early life and military career of John McCain that's not in the main article, for example. If there's one message we need to give readers, it's don't stop at just the one article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(yet another edit conflict, this time with Ferrylodge just below) Two second reaction: No, that is not the most important message. The most important message is We're here to serve you with encyclopedic information and make it as convenient for you to get to as possible. OK, that's two messages, but you get the point. For many readers it most certainly does stop at one article. Check the page-view stats for this page (12,000 on a slow day) and that one. It just should not be that big a deal to get a sentence in the article about a prominent part of the campaign -- prominent in terms of news coverage and reader interest. It doesn't mean we have to dignify it by treating it as something very important or serious. One thing I would not put in the Hillary Clinton article is the sleazy anti-Clinton "organization" that Roger Stone set up with the initials C.U.N.T. -- but not because it's disgusting (this is the encyclopedia with pictures of penises and coverage of porn stars, sex fetishes and beauty queens famous for sounding stupid), but solely because it isn't prominent enough. We're here to describe the universe in an encyclopedic way, not steer people way from notable subjects because we think it's better for them to think about something else. Readers will decide that, but you know as a reader you want to have that decision in your hands as much as possible, not the editors'. Noroton (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WTR. The Hagee and lobbyist matters are two items in the sub-articles, and there are hundreds of other items in the sub-articles also. Picking out just Hagee and lobbyist for this article, and not picking out those other hundreds of items, would cause undue weight, in my view. Also, this article is about McCain's whole life, not just the current campaign, and in the context of his whole life these two things are just not significant. If a person is scratching their head wondering the name of some minister connected with this election, then the person can go to the article about McCain's 2008 campaign (which has a couple paragraphs about Hagee). And why mention Britannica Book of the Year? Wikipedia is not a yearbook. Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. And I very much doubt that Britannica Book of the Year will mention McCain and Iseman, but may mention Obama and Wright (click for Google hits). The Iseman story was a flash in the pan, nothing more than titillating gossip. Why do we have to include it in this main article?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to be able to change the readership stats on subarticles. I would put the "Main article: Early life and military career of John McCain" reference in bright red 20-point bold font if I could ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(redent because no one should have to count more than six colons) I'm not saying any particular thing about McCain is as prominent or should receive as much coverage as some particular thing about Obama should receive. That's not part of my argument (although it is worth looking at Google hits and other things in trying to decide how much to cover something). We're not just the equivalent of the old dead-tree Britannica but the equivalent of the Britannica Book of the Year. (I just checked the online version of the BBotY, the Obama article is only about five paragraphs long, no mention of any of this in that space, of course, and nothing in Iseman; they give you an "EBSCO" magazine and journal search function, and you get to Wright that way but not Iseman, and about 10 hits for "Hagee", all on the reverend, but none of this is really what we're talking about, oh well). I think the old printed Book of the Year would've mentioned it, but never mind. My point is that the items we're talking about are just encyclopedic enough for a mention and that a mention would mean a link and the mention and link would be in the best interests of our readers. We don't even have a "See also" section in this article where you could at least list the WP article on the affair. How are you serving the readers better by not having a link? Because it gives you that slight bit of extra space? (Not rhetorical questions.) Noroton (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Recentism. This is not a year book, and even if it were, it would not be "The Year in Obscure Gossip". Not one person in 10,000 could tell you who Vicki Iseman is. We are serving readers by not linking to her lobbyist controversy the same way we're serving readers by not linking to corvette even though McCain once drove one.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No, this is an article on a subject who is going through the most important time of his life to date (most important for us, most important for him in his relationship to us), and it's in an encyclopedia that can be updated constantly. And that makes a difference, as you well know. You're arguing over a minute part of the article but not a minute part of McCain's image. One hell of a lot more than 1:10,000 could tell you that McCain was alleged this campaign season to have had an affair with a woman. It's not possible for you not to know that it was a more prominent part of his campaign history than is represented in the campaign section. Oh, and I don't have time now to follow the link to Recentism, but if it doesn't account for the importance of a prominent element of a presidential campaign in a WP article the subject of which is the presidential campaigner, then it's not a workable guideline. I've got to go, so feel free to have the last word and I'll read it later, but we're not going to come to an agreement. It was an interesting discussion though. Thanks for making such good points. But think about it. I will. Noroton (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't look like there will be agreement. However, I could easily name for you off the top of my head five features of McCain's 2008 campaign that are vastly more notable than this brief Iseman controversy, and yet are not significant enough to go into this article. In no particular order: (1) he accused Romney right before the Florida primary of wanting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq; (2) one of his top aides is Meg Whitman who used to be the CEO of E-Bay; (3) he's mistakenly said that we've gone back to pre-surge levels in Iraq; (4) In Denver, he announced support for a fissile material cutoff treaty; (5) Mitt Romney's supporters deliberately uprooted McCain's signs in New Hampshire and replaced them with Romney's signs. I could go on and on and on. The Iseman controversy occurred, and people can find out about it by linking from this article to his campaign 2008 article, and from there to the Iseman article. That seems like the way Wikipedia's supposed to work.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Consider this an "executive summary", not a link farm. We make dozens of decisions about what the most important things in his life are, and those that aren't quite as important don't make the cut. I'd much rather have more about his Vietnam service before the shoot-down, or more on McCain-Feingold, or more on his relations with the Republican Party in the early 2000s, than I would Hagee or Iseman. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Or if you want to stick to the "what readers want", this article glosses over his known extramarital affairs during the 1970s (and not just with his future wife), including a potential scandal involving subordinates. It's covered in Early life and military career of John McCain, and it's more important and better sourced than the Iseman thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you know that link farm is an exaggeration. I'm talking about two sentences and two links. You don't decide what's important in a vacuum, and Wikipedias editors aren't supposed to decide what they consider important but decide what the sources have already considered so important so that the article will have a hole in it if it doesn't at least mention them. These are two small holes. When I say "what readers want" I'm not talking about readers' leering interests in general but what readers have obviously heard about and might search for in this particular article. (And we don't have to always give readers what they want -- just the encyclopedic stuff, for instance.) It doesn't appear that old affairs have hurt McCain so far and likely won't, so they may not be important enough to include here. But the fact that the Times has slapped this on its front page, that we suddenly know his staff was worried, that the article was also put in the Washington Post that day, and that the news played prominently across the country -- it's worthy enough of a mention, sleazy reporting or not. Sometimes we do things we don't like because, like it or not, it makes for a better encyclopedia. I'll stop now. Gotta go. Thanks for such an intelligent chat. Noroton (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

There has long been a McCain (disambiguation) page. I disagree that there also should be a John McCain (disambiguation) page. The latter is included in the former, and this adds clutter to the top of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation (current last section), you should chime in there. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It also involves Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy, a word I'd never heard of! I better just be a lurker on this one ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Not sure I'll get involved much either. I plan to just mention that clutter is best avoided. (I never heard of "Anthroponymy" either!)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Networth - is it relevant?

Why McCain's networth relevant? Obama and Clinton's networth aren't mentioned, so I don't see why McCain should be either. In addition, there is no reference or elaboration regarding his financial situation in the article, which is further reason to delete the networth mention.

If McCain's networth fact is going to remain, I hope editors will add Obama's networth (which is somewhere north of 1.5 million).

thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How much money political figures have, and where it comes from, is always relevant. The Hillary Rodham Clinton article discusses the evolution of the Clintons' finances in several places. I agree that the discussion in this article isn't very good; House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 and Cindy McCain cover it better. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point. I'm not debating whether how much money political figures have is important. The answer to that is obvious. My point is no such reference is mentioned in the fact box of either Clinton, Obama, or any of the other candidates. If wikipedia fines the mentioning of candidates networth relevant, than all candidates networth should be mentioned in full colors and in the same place.

when an unsuspecting reader notices McCain's bloated networth, and tries to compare it with the rivaling candidates (who's networth are not mentioned in the fact box), it creates an unnecessary bias.

i think my comments are pretty reasonable and i hope editors understand.

thanks for the quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with IP 70.181.148.148, because the point about an unnecessary bias is a good one. It should be included in Obama's article (but my wost fear came true - Obama is the presumptive nominee) as well. WTR is correct in that it is mentioned in Clinton's. Happyme22 (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about what the Obama article has or doesn't have in it. The average edit there lasts about 20 minutes before another edit wipes it out. In general in WP if you look for consistency across articles on a given topic, you'll go crazy. All you can do is the best job you can on the articles you work on. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A solution exists: remove the networth in the fact box, or add networth information in the fact boxes of the rivaling candidates. I'm thumbing through the rules of wiki but can't find nothing that justifies the inclusion of McCain's networth, but the exclusion of the rivaling candidates.

subtleties go a long way, and in this day an age, it's better to be careful. the internet is a powerful tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I will try to improve the financial coverage here. I have no control over what appears in the Obama article; it operates in a Hobbesian state of nature. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well then for now I think it's fair to DELETE the info. There is no elaboration in the article regarding his financial situation, and none of the primary candidates have their networth mentioned in the FACT BOX. Is this not fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added two key financial points into the main text of the article: (a) from the beginning, John and Cindy have kept their finances separate, file separate tax returns, and have a prenup; (b) Cindy currently has a net worth of around $100 million. As for the net worth in the infobox, I wasn't crazy about the official Senate financial disclosure form that was there. It's a primary source that's hard for regular folk to make much sense of. More importantly, the notion that it (apparently) and some other sources have, that John McCain's net worth is $20-40 million, seems strange to me ... it looks like some kind of melding between what he's actually worth (< $1 million, from what I can see) and what's she's actually worth (the "unit", as Texas oilmen say). So I've changed the infobox to break them out separately. This may be the wrong approach, so I won't object if someone more knowledgable sees a better way of handling this. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like <$1 million for him is a guess. Better to say nothing than to guess, IMHO. And regarding "five top aides" versus "several", I would only support the former if it specified how many top aides he has (e.g. "five of his 25,639 top aides"). The number "five" seems potentially misleading without knowning how many top aides he has.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in the text of this Wikipedia article, nor in th source cited in the infobox, says McCain's net worth is less than $1 million, so I'll tentatively remove that from the infobox. Also, I think it's sufficient for the text of the article to mention Cindy McCain's net worth, without it going in the infobox too; none of the other candidates have that kind of info in the infobox, plus her wealth is legally separate from his.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for removing the info. I hope writers with lock privileges can update the article eventually.

again, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that focusing on Cindy McCain's networth, which is seperate from John McCain's, as they have filed sperate tax returns, unfairly influences the presentation of John McCain's financial status. He does not now nor never has had legal control of her $100m + assets, and to attribute them to him in the infobox is unethcial. And while I understand that networth of the candidates can be considered a viable fact for this page, I think the current election places a heavy burden on neutrality or perceived neutrality. We must have a content balance between this article and that of Obama, even if we feel it necessary to carry this article's discussion over to the other article. Mrathel (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain Infobox and Succession boxes

Sample boxes placed in sandbox: User:Therequiembellishere/President-Infoboxes

[edit] Military Ranks & Rates, here: spelling

I seem to not be able to edit this page despite the fact, that I am a longtime registered user.

In any event, US military ranks and rates (enlisted personnel does not have ranks but RATES) are always capitalized. That should be done in this article too. If somebody with authority cares to bother, please do so. For further reference see here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ranks/rankrate.html

That may be the practice in the U.S. military, but Wikipedia has a different usage convention. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms:
Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as titles (see above). Thus, one would write "Brigadier General John Smith", or "John Smith was a brigadier general".
We're following that guideline here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image placement

In the section on his 2008 campaign, we should make sure that we follow the rules, absent a compelling reason. The MOS says: "Images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text, because the reader's eyes will tend to follow their direction. Therefore, portraits of a face looking to the reader's right should be left-aligned, looking into the main text." There may be some contary reasons in this long discussion, but for now I'll arrange the images per the MOS. Feel free to offer reasons why the MOS should not be followed in this instance. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Organization(# 1.2 Military service and marriages)

This section seems fractured at best. While there are 7 paragraphs on Senator McCain's captivity and torture, his family life is relatively unmentioned and the dissolution of his first marriage is effectively hidden at the end of paragraphs detailing his accomplishments.

Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973.[55] McCain's return to the United States reunited him with his wife and family. His wife Carol had suffered her own crippling ordeal during his captivity, due to an automobile accident in December 1969.[56] As a returned POW, McCain became a celebrity of sorts.[56] McCain underwent treatment for his injuries, including months of grueling physical therapy,[57] and attended the National War College in Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. during 1973–1974.[56][17] Having been rehabilitated, by late 1974, McCain had his flight status reinstated,[56] and in 1976 he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida.[56][58] He turned around an undistinguished unit and won the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Commendation.[57] During this period, the McCains' marriage began to falter;[59] he would later accept blame.[59] McCain served as the Navy's liaison to the U.S. Senate, beginning in 1977.[60] He would later say it represented "[my] real entry into the world of politics and the beginning of my second career as a public servant".[56] McCain played a key behind-the-scenes role in gaining congressional financing for a new supercarrier against the wishes of the Carter administration.[61][57] In 1979,[57] McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[59] His wife Carol accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[57] effective in April of 1980.[21] The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments for injuries resulting from the 1969 car accident; they would remain on good terms.[59] McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980.[12]

Senator McCain's wrote in his book about a series of affairs he had when he could not deal with his the aftermath of his wife's crippling accident which led to his divorce and second marriage. While I believe this is relevent information (and frankly think much less of him for it), I can conceive others may not. However, the information should either be presented or not. As currently organized, it seems as if the Senator's behavior is being deemphasized (intentionally or not) by placing it in subordinate places within the broader military record.

Simply grouping the information about the end of the Senator's first marriage into one paragraph would be cleaner and provide a more unbiased presentation of his personal affairs. Alternately, removing the information would reduce the lack of logical flow and actually create less of an air of trying to hide negative information IMO.

As an example, this is the organization of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Although he married after he began his military service, his marriage is included with his family life in general. I propose something like

McCain's wife Carol was involved automobile accident in December 1969 that led to multiple surgeries and left her partially disabled[56] In the years following his release in 1973, their marriage suffered in part due to McCain's "[c]arousing, womanizing, and a poor choice of companions" which "led to some unsavory episodes"[4], for which he would later accept blame.[59]. After seperating with his first wife, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co in 1979.[59] One year later, his first wife Carol accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[57] effective in April of 1980.[21] The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments for injuries resulting from the 1969 car accident; they would remain on good terms.[59] McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980.[12]

Alternately, the two sections could be divided entirely, so his family life and military service are kept under their own subheaders (which would probably be more consistent with other bio entries). In my opinion this seperates the early personal and professional lives of Senator McCain. PantsB (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article Early life and military career of John McCain goes into much more detail on this subject. You also have some facts and sources wrong. McCain did not admit to multiple affairs in his memoir; that comes from Robert Timberg's biography, which McCain cooperated with. Answers.com is not a WP:RS, and the "a poor choice of companions led to some unsavory episodes" its of unknown origin to me. The issue was whether he was carousing with women who were subordinates of his in the Navy. And McCain was not separated from Carol when he met and began the relationship with Cindy. As to why the personal and professional descriptions are intertwined, it's because that's how people live their lives. What happened in Vietnam affected the first marriage, the second marriage helped enable the start of his political career, the smears about his adopted daughter in 2000 helped cause his estrangement with the Republican party, etc. You can't unwind the two, they are interleaved. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
""[c]arousing, womanizing, and a poor choice of companions" which "led to some unsavory episodes"

I hardly think this is a neutral point of view and wikipedia appropriate. Not only is the phrase sensational, it's downright debatable. But alas, I'm not here to argue. Rather, bring light to the fact that are multiple perspectives regarding this ordeal, and thus we should treat the situation accordingly. Throwing in a controversial term like "womanizing" is not the right move. I gather that intellectual honesty is a primary concern among wiki wizards, so I think we should go the safe route and avoid controversy. And by controversy, I mean using information from politically motivated sources.

Any naysayers?

( 70.181.148.148 (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC) )

[edit] Military Service Info Box

As done with James Stewert's page on wikipedia may I suggest that a Military info box be added to the appropriate section, with the accompanying 'salad bar'.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a military info box in the main article, but if I remember it was deemed to have formatting problems and was seen as redundant, since Early life and military career of John McCain already has one. (The James Stewart (actor) case is not parallel since there's no separate article dealing with his military career.) There also used to be a section in the main article on his medals, including the ribbon images, but that was also removed as being excessive (with again, the medals being covered in detail in Early life and military career of John McCain). Note that the infobox you added (presuming you are User:Mrg3105) goes into a level of detail that the article itself does not, especially concerning the squadron names. Indeed, the main article deals with military history in a vague way — Operation Rolling Thunder and Operation Linebacker II are described but not under those names — while Early life and military career of John McCain tries to be very precise. So the mil info box may not be seen as appropriate in its context. Finally, your addition mangled its citing — you have a stray </ref> in the box and two of your footnotes don't go anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The convention is to display the info box on the main article of the person, and not the supporting article, hence the purpose of the infobox is to provide a quick reference without requiring extended reading and navigation. As it is presented on the supporting page the decorations are way down the page split from the rest of the infobox record!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Most instances of mil info boxes that I've seen just give brief lists of medals in the info box, and then a longer list, sometimes with the ribbon icons, in a separate section further down. See Bud Day, Richard Bong, and John Glenn for some examples. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
They are being misused in that case. The intention is to include the awards in the template, and the ribbons are a visual way of doing that (reason they are there) because aside from the actual award article there would be no use for them. Probably goes towards presentation of the infobox as intended during the design process consensus--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking through Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide and Template talk:Infobox Military Person, and I don't see anything recommending what you're saying. Indeed, the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Military Person#Priority of awards for that paramter? suggests that the infobox's awards list will often be brief compared to the section in the article that deals with awards. That brevity would seem to preclude the ribbon icons, as well as the more minor campaign medals that you've included. Maybe you should bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history so we can get a project-wide verdict. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WTR that expanding the infobox, or adding an additional infobox, is not called for right now. There's lots of stuff that could conceivably be put into the infobox, but we have purposely tried to reduce infobox bloat, in response to complaints about it. There's a great deal in this article about McCain's time in the military, so it's not as if there's inadequate info. Showing the decorations in this article was deemed unnecessary here, for example. Infobox bloat was criticized here, for example. Right now, there is no consensus to reinsert this stuff that was previously discussed and removed.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll leave it in my sandbox area if it is wanted again. One never knows who the requesting IP was, but if there are senator's staffers or the senator himself who want to use it, they will know where to find it from this discussion. I was privileged to hear him speak the last time he ran, but not on the matters of politics, and was quite impressed although I didn't know all that much about him at the time.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw him speak once, a few months ago, and was quite impressed too.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Degree

Do you get a bachelor's after finishing at the Naval Academy? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a Bachelor of Science. See Early life and military career of John McCain#Naval academy. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surely there's a better way to put this...

This sentence might be intended to improve text flow, but it just makes me laugh: "McCain's father battled alcoholism, and his wife battled addiction to painkillers; their efforts at self-improvement have become part of McCain’s family tradition as well.[242]" The source is an op-ed that does not use the word "family" or "tradition". I think it's cruel to call his whole family a bunch of addicts, even if he's a Republican. ;) Wnt (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the source is an op/ed column, which is good reason to be suspicious. Please feel free to suggest improvements. Here's what the cited source says: "The first clue to McCain's philosophy lies in two seemingly irrelevant items of gossip: His father was a drunk, and his second wife battled addiction to pain pills. Neither would be worth mentioning except for the fact that McCain's books and speeches are shot through with the language and sentiment of 12-step recovery, especially Steps 1 (admitting the problem) and 2 (investing faith in a 'Power greater than ourselves'). Like many alcoholics who haven't quite made it to Step 6 (becoming 'entirely ready' to have these defects removed), McCain is disarmingly talented at admitting his narcissistic flaws. In his 2002 book 'Worth the Fighting For,' the senator is constantly confessing his problems...." So, the idea is that McCain may have been affected by the ordeals of his father and second wife, in such a way as to use "the language and sentiment of 12-step recovery." If this doesn't seem particularly credible, then we could ax the sentence. On the other hand, if it does seem credible, then maybe some rephrasing would be appropriate. I'll remove the sentence until we work it out.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Overuse of alcohol was probably not even recognised as an addiction for most of McCain senior's life, and if his mum battled an addiction to painkillers, she probably had a pain that needed treatment beforehand. I hardly think that qualifies McCain for a hereditary addict, despite probably his share of need for painkillers during therapy after Vietnam. Is there evidence of addictions by other siblings?! Unless someone is able to provide qualified medical statements on the degree of addiction, seem this is a statement that is potentially very problematic in terms of neutrality.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You're not understanding at all. John McCain barely drinks and has no addiction problems of any kind. The point that Welch was making in his book (which this newspaper piece is a brief summary of) is that John McCain's outlook has been informed and colored by the alcohol problems that he witnessed his father having, and the painkiller addiction problems that he belatedly discovered his wife was having. That seems a reasonable point. It would be better if the cites were from Welch's book, not the newspaper piece. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have not read the book. My point is that it could be misinterpreted, and then said, "Wikipedia says...". However, you are of course correct. Always better to got o the original source of statements.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure how important the point is to begin with. It can been seen as serving one of two functions: suggesting that being around those with addictions makes one stronger or suggesting a predisposed tendency towards addiction that hasn't taken hold in the first 76 years of his life but might arise during his presidency. Either way, I don't think the first is measurable or even notable, and I don't find the second plausible. Mrathel (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain's conduct as a POW

Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the “Military service and marriages” Section do not contain all the facts concerning the situation they describe, and should be amended as follows. The apparent footnote numbers are as shown in the Wikipedia bio, and will automatically change as the section is updated. The data to be removed is lined through. The data to be added, together with additional footnotes is underlined

Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information.[36] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care[36] and announce his capture. His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of The New York Times [37] and The Washington Post [38] McCain was badly wounded. Attempts were made to question him which were unsuccessful, in part because he would only give his name, rank, serial number and date of birth, but mostly because he would pass out when he was hit. His captors kept saying, "You will not receive any medical treatment until you talk." After four days of captivity, and after becoming aware of the severity of his injuries, McCain told his captors, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." He was told it was “too late” but, after somehow discovering that McCain’s father was an admiral, McCain was taken to a hospital.[1][2] McCain’s condition was stablilized, but he was told he would not get needed surgery for his injuries unless he provided military information. He then accurately provided the consequential information (identification of his ship, squadron and target on the date of shoot-down) they requested, together with providing some falsified information on issues that were inconsequential. [3] McCain was also required, as a condition for treatment, to participate in a filmed interview. McCain participated in the filmed interview, which included a discussion of both the consequential information referenced above and also a discussion of other matters concerning ships on which he served in the seas around Vietnam.[4]

McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33]After providing the requested information, McCain received one of two required surgeries on his leg. He did not receive the second surgery that had been previously discussed. He was discharged from the hospital in December 1967, having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and in pain. [5] with his hair turned white,[33] McCain was sent to a different camp, which the POWs called “the Plantation, on the outskirts of Hanoi[39] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[40] The Plantation was the “showplace” camp where films, photos and interviews of POWs were staged, and served as the staging point for groups of POWs prior to their release.[6] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41]

Amendments to paragraph 9, “Military service and marriages” Section

In August of 1968, McCain claims that a program of severe torture began on McCain him.[44] McCain claims that he was subjected to repeated beatings and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[44] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession", in which he "admitted" that he was a war criminal. This confession was both written and taped, and was broadcast both in POW camps and to the military personnel serving in the area around Vietnam.[33][7] He claims that has always felt that his statement was dishonorable,[45] but as he would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[46] His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[47] Col. Bui Tin , one of McCain’s interrogators, told people that McCain was never tortured.[8] McCain claims that heHe subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[48] Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements, with many enduring even worse treatment than McCain.[49]

  1. ^ McCain, John. How the POW’s Fought Back, U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973, reprinted as John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account on the US News website on January 28, 2008 at [1]
  2. ^ McCain, Faith of My Fathers, 191)
  3. ^ McCain, Faith of My Fathers, 193-194
  4. ^ McCain, Faith of My Fathers, 194-197.
  5. ^ McCain, Faith of My Fathers, 200
  6. ^ POW Camps in North Vietnam [2]
  7. ^ McCain, John, Faith of My Fathers, 244, 286
  8. ^ O’Meara, Kelly Patricia, Why Vietnam Vets Split on McCain, Insight on the News, March 27, 2000 [3] see paragraphs 6, 7 an d 8 on the first page of the article

COMMENTS ON EDITS

    1. The full story if his capture and treatment requires the addition of the facts concerning his offering and providing military intelligence in return for treatment. If part of the story is to be told, then all the facts should be told.
    2. The information being edited comes directly from McCain’s own words, both in an interview given shortly after his return and in his own autobiography.
    3. The reference to announcements in newspapers of his status as a POW is irrelevant to this paragraph since the cited sources are from December 1967, long after the incidents concerning his receiving medical treatment and the facts of the trade of military intelligence data for medical treatment happened.
    4. From pictures taken of McCain taking part in interviews through the time of his captivity, it is not possible to tell when his hair turned color. The only thing that can be definitively stated is that he had white hair at the time of his release. Therefore I removed the reference to hair color, and cited the matters he described in Faith of My Fathers. I also made the statements more neutral and removed a POV slant to the paragraph.

Utahcarol (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comments and suggestions are a mix of things that are too detailed for this article and things that are incorrect. The article that discusses McCain's POW time in detail is Early life and military career of John McCain. You should read that, and if you still have comments or objections, discuss them at that article's talk page. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding some of your points, however:
The sequence regarding his offering military information in regard for hospitalization is covered in Early life and military career of John McCain. He hoped to fob them off once he got to the hosptial; as it happened he did say a bit too much, but after that just gave them fabrications.
The primary sources that both this article uses and Early life and military career of John McCain uses are not McCain's own writings, but instead the two definitive accounts of all the American POWs in North Vietnam, Hubbell's P.O.W. and Rochester and Kiley's Honor Bound. These are unsparing treatments which name names about how POWs behaved. Both of these substantiate McCain's account.
The newspaper announcements are from October 28, a couple of days after the shootdown, not December as you erroneously state.
Regarding your first added cite, yes "the Plantation" was mostly a showplace camp, but beatings and mistreatments occurred there as well. Early life and military career of John McCain discusses this, with cites to Rochester and Kiley.
Regarding your second added cite, yes this is the usual anti-McCain compendium you can find on the 'net. None of it qualifies as a WP:RS, it's full of mistakes (Bui Tin wasn't one of his interrogators or torturers), and all it originates from the animosity towards McCain on the part of the POW/MIA activist crowd and the fallout from the Kerry committee work in the early 1990s. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medal

The last photo in the article shows McCain on Memorial Day. The caption pointed out that he was wearing a purple heart, but this has been deleted. The photo is meant to accompany the section on his image, which emphasizes his military background. That's why an image of him wearing a medal is shown. People will not notice the purple heart unless it is pointed out in the caption. Is there some concern that mentioning the purple heart will make him look bad, or make him look good? It's unusual to see a photo of a U.S. Senator wearing a purple heart. McCain certainly earned his, so I'm not sure I see the problem with mentioning it --- and medals are surely meant to be seen and noticed.

I very much prefer the current photo in the Image section, compared to the other photos in the subarticle about his image. But if the caption for the current photo in the Image section does not clearly show how it's related to his military background, then I'm concerned that one of the other photos in the subarticle will be used instead.

By the way, Quartermaster, my MOS was 76Y in 1982.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As I explained, it is very unusual to see a United States Senator with a purple heart pinned to his chest. There has been no response to this observation, and so I plan to restore the caption.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Not worth dealing with. That's why there's no response. However, I reserve the right to open the discussion to add to the caption the fact that McCain is not wearing an American flag on his lapel, which is unusual in a Senator and which also isn't clear from the photo. -- Quartermaster (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Since you don't think it's worth dealing with, I assume you won't bother objecting if I reinsert the caption. I've never seen a photo of a US Senator wearing a purple heart, and it's certainly notable. Captions normally describe what is shown, not what is not shown, and therefore I would oppose inserting anything into the caption about what McCain is not wearing. Even if McCain were wearing an Amercian flag on his lapel, it would hardly be notable, since Senators do that all the time.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If the point of this photograph is that he's wearing a purple heart, it's simply a very bad photograph. Pointing this out in a caption seems silly. Yeah, I meant to show the purple heart but sort of forgot to make it visible in the photo. Is it difficult to find a photo that better demonstrates McCain's military background? I really don't understand what's going on here, but it seems virtually indistinguishable from McCain supporters attempting to insert "look, he's a military hero" in as many places as possible. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you click on the image?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Your point is what? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The caption is another way of saying, "click on the image to see more." If the medal were huge, then there would be no use for mentioning it in the caption. We're simply mentioning something interesting that the reader would otherwise not notice.
On the one hand, you urge us to better demonstrate McCain's military background, and on the other hand you criticize people who would say, "look, he's a military hero". I do not understand how better demonstrating McCain's military background would not be considered by you as saying "look, he's a military hero". And I don't think it's really helpful to get into long extended debates about relatively unimportant stuff like this.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I originally put in a picture of John McCain getting a birthday cake from George W. Bush in Arizona, because, you know, I've never seen a picture of a Senator getting a birthday cake from a President - that's very unusual to me. There's also a great photo of John McCain hugging Bush that I've never seen with other Senators. The point? No good reason exists to include that photo. Another point. There are WAY too many photos in this biography (I think about 15). This biography looks like a campaign site for the good Senator. Heck, it used to have TWO versions of the same official picture from his Senate web site.

I still think we need to include in the caption, for the same reasons and using the same logic above, that McCain is not wearing an American flag on his lapel. That way a reader can click on the thumbnail and see for themselves since it's not really clear from the smaller photo. Some people might think that is an absurd proposal, but I'm not the one who set the bar so low. -- Quartermaster (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Some follow-up. The operative quote is We're simply mentioning something interesting that the reader would otherwise not notice. -- Quartermaster (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain

Why does McCain redirect here? Surely the multinational company with $5.8 billion CAD in revenue last year is the better known "McCain", especially they use "McCain" as their primary brand name? I find it fanciful that a politician is considered "more important" than the second largest company in Canada, a company with 20,000 employees -62.172.143.205 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There was previously a long discussion about this, here. It's a matter of convenience. So far this month, there have been over 150,000 hits at Wikipedia for "John McCain."[5] In contrast, there have been less than 100 hits for McCain Foods or McCain Foods Limited.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
By convenience you mean pandering to Wikipedia's systemic bias? -62.172.143.205 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no control over the hit results I just described to you.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You missed my point completely. Well done. -62.172.143.205 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The McCain Foods Limited article is currently awful. I suggest you spend your energies improving it, rather than worrying about what disambig pages point where. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to argue about this. I've changed the redirect notice to directly link to McCain Foods Limited using template:redirect6 rather than simply template:redirect. If anyone mistakenly gets here intending to look up the Canadian company, they're only one click away. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick, what happens when people start asking for redirect notices that specifically link directly to all of the other things that are listed at McCain (disambiguation)? I'll revert for now, because I don't see any way to limit the redirect notices only to McCain Foods.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone claiming that anything else on the disambig page is widely known by the single name "McCain"? McCain Foods owns the domain name www.mccain.com, and has trademarks on "McCain" by itself and in various combinations with other words. Yes, vastly more people hitting this site looking for "McCain" will be looking for "John McCain", but people looking for the company might reasonably be expected to enter simply the company name as it is widely known (i.e. "McCain"). I really don't think there's a slippery slope here. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of international peace and harmony, I have no objection if "McCain" redirects elsewhere. This page will get plenty of readers no matter what. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The point is not to change the redirect, but simply the redirect notice at the top of this page (per this edit). -- Rick Block (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Rick, people have wanted to expand the redirect notices for other reasons, e.g. to link to the Wikipedia articles about John McCain's father and grandfather. I'm concerned that once we start cluttering up the redirect notices, there won't be any end to it.
You are correct that McCain Foods owns a trademark for "McCain", but only for a certain range of products. John McCain owns U.S. Trademark #77081105 for "McCain" when used to promote "awareness of a candidate for election." And a California Company called "McCain, Inc." owns U.S. Trademark #77352962 for promoting "traffic signal and control equipment." So, I really don't think ownership of a trademark is important here.
Likewise, an Asian company owns the URL obama.com, but surely that doesn't mean the Asian company needs to be mentioned at the article on Barack Obama. Nor is there any good reason to install a redirect notice at the top of the Obama article for Barack_(brandy), IMO. The same principles ought to apply here. It trivializes this article to turn it into a free advertisement for McCain Foods.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking in the history, I see a discussion in Talk:John McCain/archive7 and one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation - neither of which seems to include anyone arguing that this article should link to McCain's Jr. or Sr. The difference between McCain Foods and the other potential links you mention (for mccain, obama, and barack) is that it is an internationally known company, with a $5B annual revenue employing 20,000 people. "mccain frozen foods" search on Google yields >150,000 hits. This is not some minor company looking for free publicity (and this is certainly not my agenda here, since I've never heard of them before today). Obama is a city of 30,000 people in Japan which, if it were better known outside of Japan, I would think would warrant a mention in the dablink in the Barack Obama article. I fail to see how adding a navigational aid to one of the top 100 global food manufacturers [6] trivializes this article. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don’t know which sections of those two talk pages you’re referring to, but the idea of putting additional stuff in the redirect notice was most recently discussed above. I think it's a legitimate concern to try to minimize clutter at the top of this article. Also, although I don't doubt that your intentions are perfectly legitimate, putting McCain Foods at the top of this article would amount to a free advertisement, because tens of millions of people will read about McCain Foods who otherwise would not have.
Also, McCain Foods is a relatively small company, compared to a company like Delphi which has 170,000 employees and annual revenue around 23 billion dollars. But click on Delphi and you won't see anything about that company.
I disagree with the idea that large gross annual revenue or large number of employees creates an entitlement to prominent placement at Wikipedia. The purpose of redirects is convenience, and so we need to know how many people typically are looking for a particular Wikipedia article, as compared to another Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The difference is Delphi was presumably named after the place, whereas the food company wasn't named after John McCain -62.172.143.205 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
My goal here was to suggest a change that might appease the original complainant. I don't think the addition of 10 words is a significant amount of clutter. If you're that worried about the "free advertising" then perhaps we should change the redirect so it points to McCain (disambiguation). I suspect the number of people who reach this article from a search for "McCain" within Wikipedia is minuscule compared to the number hitting this page from an external search engine (like Google) that will get them here directly. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that you were trying to appease the original complainant, but I respectfully disagree that there is a need for appeasement in this case. I responded to him/her by pointing to previous discussion on this point, at which time the strong consensus was to set up the redirects as they are now. If the consensus changes, then we can change the redirects. If you would like to advocate for changing the redirects, then I could notify all of the people who participated in the previous discuission. Also, as I mentioned above, there's no need to speculate about the number of people who reach this article via a redirect. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think what we are dealing with here is argument for argument's sake. Do we need to worry about whether or not a 100 people looking for the food company are unduly burdened by being redirected here? Despite the size of McCain Foods, we can gather from the data presented that those who are typing McCain are more than 100x more likely to be intending to view this page. Redirect is not a matter of importance, as the opposition would have us believe so much as a matter of utility. Mrathel (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In May, 520,000 hits on "John McCain", 30,000 hits on "Mccain" (the redirect), and 3,500 hits on "McCain Foods Limited". How many of the 3500 folks who ended up at "McCain Foods Limited" first hit "Mccain" we don't know. Assuming the proportion of users who ultimately ended up at "John McCain" versus "McCain Foods Limited" is the same as those who first entered "mccain" is a completely unwarranted assumption. Even if we assume the same proportions hold (which is probably a best case assumption for the current arrangement), what we're saying is about 10% percent of the people looking for "McCain Foods Limited" are inconvenienced (remember they may not be Americans, they may have never heard of John McCain). Even if this amounts to free advertising, I don't get what the problem is. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplace

Is there a suitable way to reword "McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in Panama"? Of course it's made clear that was in the Canal Zone, but if taken literally, the phrase indicates he was born outside the US, which if true would have made him ineligible to be President. Biruitorul Talk 05:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption is totally incorrect. 1) Mccain WAS born outside the US (the Canal Zone has never been "part of the US" and 2) It does not make him ineligible to be president. The Constitution requires him to be "natural-born." The First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that said , "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." Back to civics class. -- Quartermaster (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility is where the eligibility matter currently has the most coverage. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carousing

The section on his political and cultural image was recently edited to refer to “his history of womanising and carousing.” I’m unaware that he has any such history during the past quarter century, so I think this is misleading and undue weight. Stuff like an extramarital affair is already covered in the chronological sections of this article. He currently is not considered a womaniser or a carouser, so this probably shouldn't go in the section on his image.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right about the misleading; the source says the womanising and carousing was during and before his first marriage. I will make that correction. However, "an extra marital affair (with his now-second wife) does not equal "womanizing (with multiple women) and carousing." However, including this info is NPOV, not undue weight. --Dr.enh (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You are saying this is a dominant aspect of his personal character NOW. That is undue weight given that anything closely related to this happened decades ago. Please present your case here before inserting this kind of material. Arzel (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel and Ferrylodge. The information on "womanising and carousing" is undue weight and NOT NPOV. C08040804 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I am saying that womanizing and carousing (as an adult, in his forties, not his youth) is a part of his character (not dominant) and deserves at least one clause in a description of his character in a four-paragraph description of his character. His relationship with his family (including his dead father and grandfather) gets a whole paragraph, so "it happened a long time ago" is irrelelevant. Excluding information on his womanising and carousing is POV censorship. --Dr.enh (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think his relationship with his father and grandfather are substantially more important and relevant to him then a short period of his life at the end of his first marriage. The only POV I see is the attempt to paint him as a womanizer, when it is clear at this point in his life, and indeed for the last few decades, he was not. Arzel (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain's first marriage

Ferrylodge removed some information on this subject with the ES "Rmv new stuff on Carol's weight. Cited source doesn't mention it. Also, it gives undue weight to simplistic idea that weight led to divorce."

The fact is that there are plenty of sources noting that, when McCain returned home, he found his wife looking significantly worse than he'd expected (height, weight, difficulty walking). It's hardly a fringe view to believe that this was a factor in his dumping her. See, for example, "The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind", an article in the Daily Mail. We should not adopt this point of view but we should report it, with attribution. We should also report, on the other side, Carol's opinion that her accident wasn't the reason for the divorce, and any comment McCain himself has made on the subject. I'll try writing up a suitably NPOV discussion of this aspect of McCain's bio, which is underreported in the current version of the article. JamesMLane t c 07:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Early life and military career of John McCain states this: "By the time McCain saw her, she was four inches (ten centimeters) shorter, on crutches, and substantially heavier.[57]" Wasted Time R (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to add the date of their divorce (April 2, 1980) to the bio box, but it won't let me edit. Would someone do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.130.0.50 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We just use years in the infobox for those kind of dates, that's good enough. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If that's "good enough" than you have to cut out any ties to his wife Carol while he was a POW! I agree to some point, that womanising is not a major issue now but the timeline of facts regarding his first marriage, meeting Cindy and shortly after divorsed Carol and married Cindy is an important part of his personal life. --Floridianed (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they are, and the timeline and particular dates should be, and are, given in the main body of text. But giving the full dates of the marriages and divorces in the infobox isn't appropriate visually and isn't going to tell you much anyway — he married soon after his divorce became final, so what, that happens all the time. Most infoboxes I've seen just give years on marriage starts and ends — see Ronald Reagan, Rudy Giuliani, Elizabeth Taylor for some examples. And I don't follow you at all about "Carol while he was a POW". Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

The article reads as more of an advertisement than an informative piece. The pupose of an encylopedia is not to reflect one in a positive light, it is to create a factual representation of the topic covered. This piece in some cases lacks valid criticisms and in others glosses over or minimizes critiques. Misrepresentation of any candidate in a medium which is meant to be an informational forum is a disservice to the project as a whole. There have been many situations in which McCain has placed himself in situations where the impression of inproprieties were present and that pattern of behaviour is a valid piece of information. The downfall of his first marriage is also a valid topic for expansion considering the moral stance of the GOP. Further, while the alleged affair with the lobbyist for Paxon communications is not relevant, the fact that McCain petitioned the FCC on his behalf as well as accepting the use of their jet in spite of the lessons from Keating constitute a valid criticism of his judgment. These and other topics are necessary to present a factual picture of the man as opposed to a campaign advertisement. A Criticisms/Controversies section should be added and include the previously mentioned topics as well as issues with his own party over his partisanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.224.67 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"The downfall of his first marriage is also a valid topic for expansion considering the moral stance of the GOP." Maybe it should be expanded and maybe not, but what has the "moral stance of the GOP" got to do with it? You're saying that if Obama had the exact type of personal event in his personal history, then it should not get much coverage in Wikipedia because of the moral stance of the Democratic party? And what does "issues with his own party over his partisanship" mean? And please provide reliable sources regarding any impoper use of a Paxon communications jet.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree-- this is a horribly partisan argument that has been used far too often to justify biased reporting from media sources. You can not approach scandals, sexual or non, differently when regarding members of different political parties. If wikipedia, or any other publishing body, decides that affairs and sexual conquests are not news for one individual, it can not change that stance just because the person in question has fought for "family values" unless it contradicts statements the politician has made on the issue (ie William Jeferson Clinton). Likewise, as far as I know, I have not heard John McCain speak out against divorce or sexual infidelity, and you can't call for increased coverage of his marriages based on a vague idea of the "moral stance of the GOP". As for the allegations of an affair, I would like to see an actual named source. On this issue, I would hate to see any WP article follow in line with the NYT. Mrathel (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No "Criticisms/Controversies section", no, no. See the article FAQ above. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Physical Attributes?

How about some physical attributes, e.g. how tall is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.7.121 (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That kind of information is usually only included in articles about athletes or other articles where it is important information (ie, people noted for being unusually tall). --B (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
And physical attributes are not important for Presidential candidates? You don't think Britanica would have physical characteristics?
I Googled and found an entry at Answers.com that says he is 5 ft. 7in. Don't know if it is accurate. Here is the link if anyone is interested: How_tall_is_John_McCain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.7.121 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see how tall he was 20 years ago (ha). But seriously, I do think it is odd that we don't record height in entries such as this, but I also think it would be strange to see his height stuck into the article. In general though, it is almost tradition for politicians not to have their physical characteristics published unless they are abnormal (Lincoln's height/ Taft's weight, etc.).Mrathel (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Early life and military career of John McCain#Naval Academy gives his height and weight at the time, apropos his activity as a boxer. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Separation

What is wrong with mentioning that McCain was separated in 1979, prior to his 1980 divorce?[7] Does anyone dispute that he was separated in 1979?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll save yourself some grief if the main article just spells out the basic sequence that several other articles give: during Jacksonville, McCain has extramarital affairs; early in D.C., he and Carol separate briefly, then get back together; in April 1979, McCain meets and starts up with Cindy; in late 1979, he and Carol separate; then the divorce and remarriage in 1980. The main article used to say this before the WP:SUMMARY dismantlement. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent)WTR, much of the material you refer to is already in this main article. This main article currently says:

During this period [i.e. 1976-1977], the McCains' marriage began to falter;[58] he would later accept blame[58]….In 1979,[56] McCain met and began an extramarital relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[58] His wife Carol Shepp McCain accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[56] effective in April of 1980.[20] ….McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980.[11]

We can certainly consider including additional material if you would like to suggest it (which you haven't done as best I can recall), but I do not think your current (and uncharacteristic!) tit-for-tat approach is the best way to edit articles. And, weren't you the one who wanted to remove material in the first place regarding affairs in Jacksonville and a two-week separation upon moving to D.C.?

You drafted the present abbreviated language in this article: “During this period [i.e. 1976-1977], the McCains' marriage began to falter”,[8] and you subsequently advised me to insert it into this article.[9] Since you are apparently the person who requested deletion of explicit discussion in this article about dalliances in Jacksonville, as well as the McCain's two-week separation upon moving to DC, I am more than a little bit perplexed about your present position.

If you want to suggest language about Jacksonville, or about a two-week separation upon moving to DC, then please go ahead. You seem to be the one who wanted that removed in the first place, and I don't recall that I ever objected to reinsertion. Why are you preemptively threatening me with "grief", and blocking an otherwise unobjectionable edit, when you haven't even suggested reinserting the material that you yourself caused to be removed?

If you want to now elaborate in this article about affairs from the 1970s, and/or about a two-week separation (that is relatively trivial compared to the permanent separation in 1979), then there may be other material from Early life and military career of John McCain that also should be included in this main article for context, such as a quote from John McCain's biographer, Robert Timberg ("Vietnam did play a part, perhaps not the major part, but more than a walk-on") and from McCain himself ("I had changed, she had changed....People who have been apart that much change"). And if we do include all of that, then we would have to consider whether it creates an undue weight problem, which is doubtless why you removed this stuff in the first place. But I'm glad to consider it if you suggest it---you haven't. Instead of warning me about "grief" and blocking an otherwise unobjectionable edit, maybe a different approach would be better?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, calm down, or go to sleep earlier, or something! I'm not intending on giving you any grief on this, I'm saying others will. I don't care; I already know this material backwards and forwards. I'm just saying in practice, it's clear that what's there now is going to attract persistent criticism from other editors, and I think a change would make things easier. (And if this was my first cut during the split-up, I take responsibility; I hated everything about that split-up, and this is part of the reason why.) In any case, I don't want to get into this kind of conflict, so I won't say any more on the matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I was a little harsh on you. I was fresh out of a stupid controversy at the Professor Obama article. You might recognize some of the other participants.[10] I'm trying NyQuil tonight.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're trying to edit at the Obama article, you need a psychiatrist, not a sleeping pill ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You said it :) Happyme22 (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Then just do the research, put it on the talk page first and after consensus you can change it without problems. But a little reminder: Someone is working on Carols biography (see above:"McCain's first marriage"). --Floridianed (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Floridianed, as I asked above, what is wrong with mentioning that McCain was separated in 1979, prior to his 1980 divorce? Do you dispute that he was separated in 1979?[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
As for the 1st citation: I won't pay for getting that information and the link should be taken out. Further: Quote:"Late that year, the McCains finally separated, and Mrs. McCain accepted a divorce the next February. Mr. McCain promptly married Miss Hensley, his present wife."
So it was late that year (after he had connected with Cindy). The divorse was "ccepted" by Carol in February and the same year (1980) he married Cindy. So again, wait what others have to say about this before you make changes. Isn't it your own policy to build consensus first? --Floridianed (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: Be more patience. You saw what happened after yesterday, remember? (told you so). I don't mean to be a smartass so please don't take it personal. --Floridianed (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I withdraw the proposed edit.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chart trend

The caption on the McCain voting history image under the Political positions section seems out of place. The caption currently reads

John McCain's voting scores during his time in Congress, as given by the American Conservative :Union (pink line; 100 is most conservative) and Americans for Democratic Action (dark blue line; :100 is most liberal), trace the course of his political evolution.

The trace the course line seams unencyclopedic. I have removed it and the parenthetic "see chart for the progression" but am happy to discuss this with anyone who thinks it should be there Vantar (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The "see chart" was so people could associate the text with the chart. The "trace the course of his political evolution" was so people could see why I spent hours fighting MS Excel on some stupid graphing feature, but now that that memory is fading I'm okay with removing that text ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign policies

If you read McCain's "An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom" [12] especially pointing out page four, would it be fair to say that his orientation to (western) Europe (giving them more importance?!) is stronger than W. Bush's and all presidential candidates (also the ones that already dropped out) from both major parties? Would there be consensus to include some words about it in the article? --Floridianed (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You could include McCain's views and proposal regarding U.S.-Western Europe relations in the appropriate section of Political positions of John McCain, citing the Foreign Affairs article. But to make a claim vis a vis other candidates would require a strong source to that effect, not just your own conclusions. And to include it here in the main article would require a strong source as to the issue's importance. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I recently had an argument about that issue and needed a NPOV. --Floridianed (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Everglades Restoration

I'm hoping someone here fallows McCain's activities much more closely than I. McCain has opposed $2 billion of Congressional funds for Restoration of the Everglades, claiming he was rejecting pork barrel riders on a bill for Everglades restoration, but not the actual restoration itself. He's getting some bad press in the Miami Herald, but I would like to know specifics. Does anyone know specifically what projects he was referring to? I appreciate it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Probably you'd get more response at Political positions of John McCain‎.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)