Talk:Political positions of John McCain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Splitsection.svg This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, John McCain, due to size or style considerations.
This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Discussion at another article named "Political views of ......"

-- Yellowdesk 06:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The section about abortion covers several other issues as well. Someone should rename the title or split them up.

[edit] Gun Control

I am a Ron Paul supporter. But I think the reference to him here was unnecessary. I removed it.Kylebrotherton 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

It appears all the references are gone. The last I see them is here: [1] I don't know how to bring back just the references without reverting all edits since then. Can someone do this? --209.162.40.183 02:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration stance

Does anyone still have problems with this? Can we remove to flag?

[edit] Glitch

Strange... the article is cut off part way through the Immigration section. Aelffin 16:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] evolution vs. creationism?

can we get some references for Mccain's position on that? thanks. ThuranX 14:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe in the first Republican debate, he did not raise his hand to say he did not believe in evolution. I did create a section on his views related to religion and politics, but evolution vs. creation isn't really a political view unless a politician has tried to create laws regarding that belief.--Gloriamarie 03:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well put.Benjamin.s.quigley (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medical marijuana

In New Hampshire, McCain said that medical marijuana did not help patients (he said this to a woman with multiple sclerosis who said it helped her) and the resulting footage of him saying it didn't help the "dead" or something to that effect was replayed in the news media. Here is one article mentioning it. It should be mentioned either under "War on Drugs" or possibly in a new Healthcare section... I'm surprised there isn't one already created.--Gloriamarie 03:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Removing this section. See the First Amendment for reference.Paisan30 (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How political figures interpret the First Amendment, and other issues surrounding the intersection of religion and government, is highly relevant. No reason to remove this section; I've restored it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No other "Political positions of XXX" page that I've seen has a Religion section - not even ordained minister Mike Huckabee. It is not a topic that should be filed under "political positions". Paisan30 (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are sections that deal with the intersection of religion and government, such as Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_religion_in_public_life and Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani#School_prayer. The McCain statements here are a bit more philosophical than those. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess you have a point. I will add a similar section to Huckabee's page. Paisan30 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In the light of the Obama pastor controversy, I think it only fair we should have more info on McCain`s own church attendance. Weekly? Where?Andycjp (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the biographical articles, they describe his slow evolution from Episcopalian to Baptist and the church he attended during that process. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Views on Health Care section?

Health care is a major issue in this election and it has sections in Political positions of Hillary Clinton and Political positions of Mitt Romney, which were the two random candidates I thought of. In this article, health care gets barely a passing mention. I don't know enough about it to write it up, but someone should add a "Health Care" section. Oren0 (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a definite outage. I added a start of a section based on the one cite that was already in the article; others can expand. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone expand this section by summarizing this new article? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9940.html McCain's new position seems to be a lot different from the one cited from last October. I'd summarize it, but there's no way I can directly relate it to the current paragraph, and no way for me to write it without using weasel wording (since I hate McCain). Word to Mother (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can do it, doesn't matter whether you like or dislike the political figure involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like other people were quicker to edit it in (and much more eloquently than I could've summarized). However, I did add the estimated annual cost as well as my reference since nobody else mentioned it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Word to Mother (talk • contribs) 01:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gang of 14

I'm a little concerned about this edit. Seems to me, the Gang of 14 deal made it more likely (not less likely) that Alito and Roberts would be blocked by filibuster, as compared to the situation where the nuclear option had been executed.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Think of three possible outcomes: Dems filibuster any judge they don't like, Dems filibuster only "extraordinarily" bad (from their view) judges, Dems can't filibuster anyone because the judicial filibuster has been nuked. Prior to the G14 deal, #1 was likely unless #3 happened. While Roberts wasn't in peril of #1, Alito certainly was. Would the Repubs have gone to #3 in that case? Who knows. But after the G14 deal, #1 and #3 were both off the table. Thus the Dems wouldn't successfully filibuster Alito unless he was "extraordinarily" bad. In fact, some Dems did try to buster him, but failed 72-25. The actual confirmation vote was much closer, 58-42. Would the filibuster vote have been much closer, and possibly successful, if the G14 deal not happened, and #1 been in effect? We can't know for sure, but that's the argument of G14ers who supported R and A, including McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The article currently says, "The agreement also helped forestall any Democratic attempt to filibuster the subsequent nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court." It could be clarified. Something like: "The agreement made it less likely that a Senate minority would defeat the subsequent nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, although such a defeat by a Senate minority would have been impossible if the so-called 'nuclear option' (also know as the 'constitutional option') had been successful." IMHO, we need to get across the point that the agreement did not necessarily make it easier for Alito; it may well have made it harder for Alito.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm ok with that wording. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For possible future reference, this post gives arguments for G14 protecting Alito, and has pointers to other arguments for and against. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Andrew McCarthy argues that:

It is pure post hoc ergo propter hoc for the Whites to contend that the Gang of 14 deal had anything to do with the confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Supreme Court appointments are of a different dimension than nominations to the lower federal courts, even the Circuit Courts of Appeal. The public is far more engaged in them, and the political price of obstructionism is certain to be markedly higher. As exhibited during their hearings, these two jurists were so patently qualified, it would have been suicidal for Democrats to try to block them by filibuster. They waved the flag for the base by asking nasty questions, raising inane objections, and casting futile votes against confirmation, but there was no way they were going to block a vote. The filibuster strategy, preserved by word and deed in the Gang of 14 deal, has been highly effective in thwarting qualified nominees, but it depends on public apathy. If it had been used it against Roberts and Alito, that would have called great attention to its use against Court of Appeals nominees, which might have cost Democrats dearly. That and the undeniable merit of the two justices involved, not the Gang of 14 deal, is why the high-court nominees were confirmed.

Do you think we need to modify this article's statement that the Deal made filibuster of Roberts and Alito less likely? Maybe we could say "may have made" filibuster of Roberts and Alito less likely. Not that many readers will perceive such a subtle change.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You quoted one side of the argument. The other side, from my original reference, is:

3. Roberts and Alito: You suggest that the G14 deal did nothing to help the Roberts & Alito confirmations. We respectfully disagree: Had the Democrats succeeded in killing the nuclear option in an up-or-down floor vote, they would have asserted themselves much more aggressively on the Supreme Court nominations. Without the protections of the G14 deal, we believe that President Bush would have thought twice before nominating the controversial Alito to the second of two simultaneous vacancies. Instead, he likely would have picked a much less controversial, more-favorable-to-Democrats nominee like Alberto Gonzales (prior to DOJ scandals, of course) or Orrin Hatch. In short: You think that absent the G14 deal, Roberts and Alito would have been nominated and confirmed. We think that absent the G14 deal, Alito probably wouldn't have been nominated at all. (Roberts, though, surely would have succeeded.)

This brings up a point that I didn't make yesterday, that absent the G14 deal, the nuclear option might have failed. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another way of looking at this is, Roberts was a genial guy replacing someone of similar legal outlook, and the Dems didn't put up much of a fight. Alito was a not-so-genial guy replacing someone of a sometimes significantly different legal outlook, whose confirmation would reverse the court's makeup on a range of issues. Yet the Dems never put up the full scale battle royal holy war opposition to him that many expected; what happened? I think G14 was part of why the Dems rolled over. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, and I suspect that you're right. However, some people (e.g. McCarthy) disagree.
I think we may need to modify what the article currently says:

The agreement made it less likely may have affected the likelihood that a Senate minority would defeat the subsequent nominations of John Roberts and and/or Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court., although Such a defeat by a Senate minority would have been impossible if the so-called "nuclear option" (also known as the "constitutional option") had been successful, but such a defeat could have become more likely if the nuclear option had been voted down (or if the nuclear option had never been proposed).

Any thoughts?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, OK I guess. I doubt 10% of readers will be able to follow this ... Wasted Time R (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. And feel free to make it more "followable".Ferrylodge (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For the further record, here is McCain's defense of G14, although it's more focused on the appeals court judges than R and A. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this entire thing is undue speculation and original research on its face. Why not find a source that says which scenarios would be less and more likely and cite accordingly? The situation was adequately covered by the media so it seems unnecessary for us to argue and speculate over the ramifications of various scenarios. I also agree that the current version is fairly muddled and confusing. Oren0 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We can find refs if you like, but it's pretty much common knowledge that filibustering nominees would have been less likely if the nuclear option had been successfully implemented. After all, the whole point of the nuclear option was to completely get rid of judicial filibusters.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow Senate politics closely enough for that to be common knowledge to me, but maybe that's true. It just seems from the talk above that the idea is confusing and thus I think a cite is a good idea. Oren0 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, we'll get a cite for it. Maybe will take a day or two, since my job is beckoning.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of interest groups ratings

User:Grumblepunk has removed all of the interest group ratings from the article, with the edit comment: "Removal of interest group ratings, due to bias and inaccuracy of 3rd party data. If these are to be used, please do so for all candidates."

I do not understand the objection to this data. These groups assemble a list of votes they care about, then measure and rate how well officeholders meet their desired position on those votes. Of course these interest groups are "biased"; that's the whole point. The resultant rating gives measure of a political figure's positions relative to that group's goals. If an officeholder has a 0% NARAL rating or a 90% LCV rating, that tells you something. The cite that goes along with each rating allows the interested reader to see exactly which votes and which positions are being measured, so there's no "inaccuracy" involved (that is, it's transparent which votes the interest group is measuring). And many of the other candidates' articles do include this information in one place or another. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Interest group ratings are relevant when there is some doubt about a matter - whether McCain is a conservative (or a conservative Republican), for example. (That's not a policy,so it doesn't belong on this page, but it's a good example.) On the other hand, if he has repeatedly declared (I'm making this up) that he's against widget sales and consumption in the U.S., then a rating by the pro-widget group Widgets-For-America-USA is irrelevant and doesn't belong in the article, because it doesn't really add any value: McCain presumably has consistently voted against widgets; a 0% rating just takes up space. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable source?

The article currently has this link used as a source. Does this anonymous, context-free page really meat Wikpedia's WP:RS guidelines? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See this page for this context. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That page doesn't tell me much. If I look at the "About" page, as far as I can tell, the linked reference is just self-published work by Eric M. Appleman. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about it, yank it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It's gone. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead of deleting the whole statement plus cited source, why not keep the statement but cite a better source? Like this.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unions?

John McCaine is widely percieved anti-Union. Nothing about unions on this article. 68.230.64.32 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So research it and add it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol?

How is that information relevant? It is not like it has anything to do with his policies or that it makes any difference whatsoever. Contralya (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but only to the point of the issue itself. If we had a section about his thoughts on alcohol policy then we should include this. However, it should not have undue weight vis a vis other issues I feel that most others feel is more important such as foreign and economic policy. Arnabdas (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be his position on the alcohol not to have a position, so it fits under this article. -- Kendrick7talk 16:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I am ok with the edit as is. Just keep it brief. Arnabdas (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content-free sentence

"McCain's stances on global warming and other environmental issues have put him at odds with the Bush administration and other Republicans.[56] He has also stated ..."

OK, but what *is* his stance on global warming and other environmental issues?  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.170.62 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Research it and add it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is a POLICY Page

The point of this page is to highlight policies put forth by McCain and also write any criticisms of said policies. I think incidents such as Iseman et al are noteworthy, but they have nothing to do with his actual policies, pro or con. These are character questions of him as a person, not his positions. They belong on the John McCain page in one of the sections. The Iseman situation can be on the 2008 Presidential Campaign article too, since it was raised during the campaign. They do not belong in THIS article. Arnabdas (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lobbying is a major political issue, and McCain's work with lobbyists shows his positions on that issue. SteveSims (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what a relationship or relationships with lobbyists has to do with his actual policy position regarding lobbyists. If you said "McCain's position on lobbying is..." and then cite it with a reliable source then that is acceptable. After which, should you choose to throw in the controversy worded accordingly in NPOV then that would work. Just throwing in the controversy without context is just POV pushing. Arnabdas (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Gramm as advisor

RE: McCain's economic policies: Would someone please comment on McCain's reliance on Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican, as his economic advisor? Gramm played a huge role in the current subprime crisis because of his backing of the "shadow economy," pushing through legislation to make some of these rotten "financial instruments" law and not subject to lawsuits. Gramm is just a greedy tool of Wall Street, and if McCain is relying on him, the public should know about it.Ketsitsos (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Budget

"The Arizona senator has no proposal for arresting the growth in America's national debt, much of it owed to China and other foreign creditors, which has nearly doubled under President George W. Bush, to almost $9 trillion (U.S.)." [2] This is from the business section of the Toronto Star, a Reliable sources. Please provide a valid reason for not including this material. Thanks, --Dr.enh (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece. The fact that the newspaper is a reliable source is irrelevant. You could not use a Wall Street Journal or NY Times editorial in the way that you are attempting to use the Toronto Star editorial, either. Paisan30 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a business piece, not an editorial. Read the section heading of the source. --Dr.enh (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It is an editorial. Read the last line of the article, in which the author suggests that McCain take his name off the ballot. The author, by the way, is listed as a "Columnist" on the web site. Columnists write their opinions - NOT news stories. Paisan30 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's an opinion piece that runs in the business section, and shouldn't be used. Try to find some more straightforward sources that describe McCain's plan for the deficit, if any. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The business sections of the Toronto Star, U. S. News and World Report, and Reuters are all opinion pieces? That sounds a bit far-fetched. from the business section of the Toronto Star, a Reliable sources. Please provide a valid reason for not including this material. Thanks, --Dr.enh (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The Reuters piece is fine to use. The USN&WR piece is shaky — it's a blog commentary on other press reactions. The Toronto Star piece is an editorial rant — can't you tell the difference in tone and approach between it and the Reuters piece, for example? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Everything in the business section of a newspaper does not constitute a news story. Again, the man is a columnist. Just like Pat Buchanan, Christopher Hitchens, Robert Novak, etc. You could not use any of their pieces as a sole source, and the same holds true for the Toronto Star. And once again, the last line of the story suggests that McCain withdraw from the race. I think that says enough about its POV. Paisan30 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Including this would be ridiculous. This page is about McCain's stated positions, not a criticism page. Only reason why criticism would be valid is if it was for a specific policy already stated by McCain. If we included everything a candidate didnt address, we would have criticism from people saying the candidate has no plan for a defense against an alien invasion from outerspace. Arnabdas (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This page is about McCain's stated positions, not a criticism page.. Please read WP:NPOV. In no way, shape or form does that say that criticisms or negative information should not be in an article, or that criticisms belong in a separate article.
In fact, reactions by experts, as cited in particular in the Reuters news article, which I am putting back into the article, are precisely on point. If a candidate takes a position that experts think is wrong, it's absolutely necessary to cite those experts (and provide the link for readers) in order to present a balanced (NPOV) picture. Also - Paisan30 - please use edit summaries; leaving the summary blank is quite inappropriate when making an edit that you know other editors are likely to disagree with. (Some editors - like me - sometimes simply revert unexplained deletions as quasi-vandalism.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
John, based on Political Positions of John Edwards and Politics of Bill O'Reilly, this is untrue. You are confusing what I said completely. Of course cited and sourced criticism is valid, but my point is it should be on the issue McCain espouses, not on something he hasn't addressed. Saying "he has no plan on x, y and z" would serve no end. See my example on alien invasions I wrote in my last statement. Now, we know McCain has said he feels we should continue the surge in Iraq because he feels that's working. If we had a criticism of McCain's position, then that should be included (as opposed to a criticism of the surge or of general pro-war thought). Arnabdas (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The main purpose of the "political positions" articles is to describe a political figure's views. We do not want to argue the issues here! By definition, whatever position somebody takes, there are arguments against it. That goes for finance policy, Iraq stance, climate change, abortion, you name it. If we introduce all the arguments for and against McCain's views on each of these, the article will be a thousand pages long. We can point out where McCain's positions have changed over time (as is certainly the case with budget/taxation, for example), and we can point out where his positions might be internally inconsistent, but that's about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Valid point about it getting long, but if Mac did say something that was flat out factually untrue, I think it should be noted. You do have a point though about his opinions being challenged. What are other's thoughts? Arnabdas (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting there's a hard-and-fast line here, or that WP rules give clear guidance to this kind of article, because I think they don't. With due respect to John Broughton — who literally wrote a book on all this — I'm leery of this statement of his: "If a candidate takes a position that experts think is wrong, it's absolutely necessary to cite those experts (and provide the link for readers) in order to present a balanced (NPOV) picture." In most cases, there will be experts on both sides of whatever McCain (or any politico) says, and to introduce citations to those experts will end up in us arguing the issue here. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, regarding Saying "he has no plan on x, y and z" would serve no end. See my example on alien invasions I wrote in my last statement. - If the media were discussing why McCain had taken no position on alien invasions, and the Democratic nominee was attacking him for not taking a position, then that would be newsworthy, precisely because it was in the news. On the other hand, if an editor decides that McCain should have a position on (whatever), and it's of no interest to the media and his opponent, then raising the issue without a citation is a WP:NOR problem, and including a discussion when something is not newsworthy is an WP:NPOV problem (space and weight). All I was trying to say (apologies for misinterpretations) is that the article should go where the media goes (to some extent, at least), because that's a big factor in how we should determine what is important and what is not. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Added section on projected 2013 Defict under McCain's economic plans from Think Progress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And you think a site which contains the language "McCain’s 'magic carpet ride' speech ... after McCain’s four years of Bush-style fiscal irresponsibility, tax breaks for corporations, and more tax cuts for the wealthy ... John McCain’s 2013: More of the same, but worse." is a WP:RS because ... ? Wasted Time R (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Because its frequently sourced by even nonpartisan and moderate sites, not to mention its part of the center for American progress action fund, andbases its data off of CBO data, until you prove that its a fringe group or inaccurate, i'm adding it back, just because you don't like that they are attacking McCain's plans, doesn't mean their data is inaccurate. Also I added a link to the .pdf file of the report so you can look at the methodology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Added reference to Washington Post fact checking of McCain's economic plans with citation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Including criticism

I have reverted this edit, which removed criticism. Apparently the critic cited, being "liberal", was not acceptable to the editor. That's wrong - "selective" criticism IS acceptable to Wikipedia - unless there is a policy or guideline (which I'm unaware of) that says that criticism may only be cited if it is from a neutral source. (If the editor is proposing that all comments by members of the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institute, the AEI, and numerous other conservative think tanks be removed from all Wikipedia articles, a good place to start would be at WP:VPPR.)

Further, the removed information including a link to a Reuters article discussing (see the article title) the views a number of critics, not just a single one. If an editor doesn't like the one that was in the article, he/she is free to select other text that faithfully reflects the tenor of the article but seems more neutral. Wikipedia isn't a game of whack-a-mole - if you don't like something, modify it, don't delete it. That's one of the ways that consensus can be reached. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the critic is from a liberal policy group (as described in the source article) is not the main issue. The main issue is that it is merely the opinion of one economist out of the many who exist. Paisan30 (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
John, you haven't engaged the main question, which is what is the rationale for including criticism in any of the "political positions" articles. By definition, every position a politician takes is opposed and criticized by others (unless it's a completely vacuous motherhood-and-apple-pie sort of thing). If we say that politician X is for the death penalty, do we really want to introduce all the arguments against it? and then for it? Where does that get us? If we say that politician Y supports higher farm subsidies, do we really want to get into a discussion here of all the points of view about whether farm subsidies are beneficial or counterproductive? I think most of the time, it's best just to say what these politicians' views are on these issues and leave it at that. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Right. It seems like we'd be inviting the next person to introduce a source which quotes a conservative economist who agrees with McCain's plan. And then another to refute those opinions... and then... and then... Paisan30 (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Good points. I've been thinking about this. Let me propose some principles for discussion:
(1) This article isn't the place for a to-and-fro debate about a the merits of common political positions. By "common", I mean things like being in favor of or opposed to Net Neutrality, or gun control. Wikipedia articles specifically about those topics are where the merits or lack thereof of such a position should be debated, not here. So it's incumbent upon us, as editors, to clearly link to such Wikipedia articles, and then to remove attempts by either side (arguing for or against McCain's position) to expand the discussion. (To put it more positively, the goal should be to channel the energy of editors interested in such issues into the Wikipedia articles about those issues.)
(2) By contrast, where McCain has proposed something that is much more personal - for example, taxation and deficit reduction - the views of critics are relevant. But the real value to readers comes in providing links to articles that discuss such political positions in depth, so we should be brief (a sentence or two for a given source, plus a link).
(3) Similarly, where McCain has made a contested causal claim (as opposed to expressing a value, as in (2)), then including criticism (and support) is appropriate. By "causal claims", I mean things like "if we reduce taxes, tax revenues for the U.S. government will actually increase, not decrease" - something I don't think McCain has said, but something universally derided by experts.
(4) Where including criticism is appropriate, per (3), citations should be to articles where McCain's views are being discussed, not to articles with generic counterarguments. So, for example, if McCain said "the earth is flat", the article should NOT then note that scientists think it's round; rather, only criticism of McCain specifically, on this point, should be in this Wikipedia article. That again will help keep this article from turning into a debating forum about issues.
(5) To elaborate on (4) - as tempting as it may be to find an article by an expert who is either criticizing or supporting McCain's non-common political positions, or causal claims, and then cite that expert, we should try to minimize that. The preferable source is a newspaper or magazine article about an issue, because this minimizes any arguments here about POV-pushing (do we cite one liberal economist and one conservative economist, or two liberals and one conservative rebuttal, etc.) That doesn't mean just saying "critics have disagreed", plus a cite - including specifics in the article makes it interesting. But it does mean we should try to be concise, which in turn means that linking to pay-for-viewing content, for example, should be avoided, because readers then can't get details easily.
(5) We shouldn't quote opponent's views, including views of Democratic party officials, nor the views of political supporters. If such views are making the news, they belong in the Wikipedia article about the presidential campaign, not this article.
(6) We want to include positions, not platitudes. As a rule of thumb, if no reasonable person is likely to oppose something it's not a position, it's a platitude. ("McCain is in favor of strong families", or "McCain believes that every child is entitled to a good education" - and again, I'm just making these up, without looking at the campaign site - aren't worth an editor's time to cut-and-paste into the article; if nothing else, they make the article boring for readers.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't understand your distinction between "common" and "personal" in 1 and 2. To me, budget/finance/tax policy as just as much a "common" issue as your examples of Net neutrality or gun control. I'm sure you can find WP articles that cover the debates about effects of tax cuts, effects of prolonged budget deficits, etc. So I must be missing what you're getting at. Without understanding this, I can't comment much on the rest. However, I think your blanket assertion in 3 would get challenged — there are probably some economists would support the notion in general (if not many), and more who would say that increases in revenue after tax cuts are possible in certain situations, such as maybe when the top marginal rate is so high (90% has been known in Western countries in the past) as to discourage some kinds of basic investments and behavior. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What I was trying to get to was that that if the pros and cons of a position of McCain's are covered at another page on Wikpedia - as with net neutrality - then we shouldn't replicate the debate here. Which includes criticisms; rather, we want to point the reader to the other Wikipedia article. By contrast, when McCain takes a position or makes an assertion that's unique - such as claims about what his plan for tax cuts and spending cuts would accomplish, then this article is the right place to discuss (at least briefly) the pros and cons of that, assuming that it's not covered somewhere else. That "uniqueness" approach is useful, for example, concerning comments about McCain changing his position on an issue over time - while they might also show up article on McCain's campaigns, they are most relevant to this article, because this article has better context. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem comes when only the pros or only the cons are mentioned. Presenting only one side is POV, by definition. Paisan30 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that if the pros are mentioned in the article, then the cons should be mentioned too, and vice versa. But only if the pros and cons come from Reliable third-party sources. For example, if every reliable source says that McCain's bugdet numbers are $200 billion away from adding up, then Wikipedia should not include unreliable self-pulished sources such as think tanks publishing their own work or McCain's own website in an attempt to "present the other side" that perhaps his numbers do add up. Same thing when all reliable sources say that McCain has reversed his position.--Dr.enh (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of the article

The existing content is a good start, but there is still too much unsourced text, too many footnotes that don't fully follow WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE, and too many cases where sourced text in the article could be better. (For example, I think it's generally better to quote a sentence or two of what McCain has said or wrote, if that is available in the source and gets at the heart of the matter, than to make a personal interpretation.)

This is an article that is getting roughly 1000 page views per day - it would be great if several editors could remove some of the imperfections. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the quality of most or all of these "political positions" articles isn't very good, for similar reasons. I know that while I've worked heavily on the McCain and Hillary main articles and biographical subarticles, I haven't put much time or effort into these articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speeches

I didn't know how to reference this, but according to one of his speeches, McCain opposes ethanol subsidies. He goes on to talk about his opposition to subsidies in general. Link to speech http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/05b932cd-b2e4-4863-a22f-6b84c893121a.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.160.72 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should the article include a paragraph about a single vote?

I again removed the following information: McCain voted in support of the USA PATRIOT Act, as did all but two of the Senators.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313]</ref>.

To quote my edit summary the first time I removed it this text and its source: Removing a sentence about a vote on a bill that passed 98-1-1; per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information; vote was NOT a news story.

The editor who put the sentence back in, said, in the edit summary: Restore; it is a political position, and one he still holds, unlike some of the 98.

I note the following issues:

  • My point about WP:NOT has not been addressed. McCain has made literally thousands of votes in the Senate and House. Editors should not simply add facts to a Wikipedia article because they personally think they are important. (I agree that this is a "political position"; but that isn't the threshold criteria for inclusion in the article.)
  • My point about the lack of a news story about McCain's vote has not been addressed. Clearly it wasn't controversial when it occurred, so there wouldn't have been stories then. If in fact the relevant thing is that McCain still holds this position, and that is controversial or newsworthy, then what is appropriate is to put that information into the story, appropriately sourced to a news story. (A citation for the actual vote, in that case, isn't really relevant - no one is disputing that he in fact cast the vote.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I would include it, and then follow it with his position on the 2006 renewal of it. That's what Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Anti-terrorism_and_domestic_surveillance does. The Patriot Act is a major piece of legislation, so even if he voted with the majority both times, it's still notable. He may have also had a hand in shaping it, either the first time or second time, which would also be notable (I don't know, I'm just saying if). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I originally added the reference to the Patriot Act because I saw it on Mrs. Clinton's page and its absence on Mr. McCain's page struck me as POV. If you want to remove it from both places, that would make me feel a little better. But I do think that it is relevant to reference such a vote on pages related to their political stances, as it would be for any of the senators who voted in favor of it (or against it). Therefore I will be restoring the reference on the act to this page.
The Patriot Act is one of the most polarizing and important pieces of legislation in a generation. Mr. McCain's vote for it put into question his stance on fundamental human rights and civil liberties and his stance on the constitutionality of such issues as warrantless wiretaps or the use of National Security Letters in libraries. His vote for the act also places in question his view of the United States Constitution as some of the Act’s provisions have been struck down as unconstitutional. Mr. McCain has also made a point in his campaign for president out his strong antiterrorist stance. His reaffirmation of the Patriot Act emphasizes this point.
This information is hardly indiscriminant. I certainly acknowledge the political nature of this page, and that calling attention to Mr. McCain's vote may have political repercussions. However, this concern is at least in part alleviated but noting that he was in the vast majority of senators voting in favor of passage. I will also say that whether Mr. McCain's vote was controversial is a particularly poor way of deciding whether or not his vote is relevant to this page, which is meant to inform about facts, not the press' opinion about something.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you miss my objection entirely (I have no idea why "political repercussions" are being mentioned, for example). I mentioned "controversial" as a shorthand way of saying "discussed in the media". I think you need to review WP:NPOV, which makes it quite clear that the space and weight given to an aspect of a topic should be proportional to its importance. And importance is NOT defined as what you or I or any other single editor thinks, but rather - because there is no other way to decide things - the extent to which reliable sources discuss something.
The critical thing is the need to include citations which provide the context you keep mentioning - polarizing legislation, human rights, view of the constitution, etc. My suspicion is that these things show up in blogs and discussion boards, not in news articles. And I again refer you to WP:NOT - if the only thing that the press has reported about McCain's vote is the vote itself, then that is simply an indiscriminate fact. If the press has reported (say) the reaction on blogs and discussion boards, then fine, include both the vote and the discussion of it by the press.
WP:V is relevant: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. You have a strong opinion about that vote (that is, about what the vote really means) - and that's irrelevant to what this article can and cannot include, if policy is followed.
Finally, since there now is a bit of context in the article, I'm not going to delete the mention of the vote, again. But I certainly encourage the addition of more context, if it's available. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Herbert as a source

By this edit, Wasted Time R removed a link to a column by Bob Herbert, commenting, "an op-ed columnist is not a reliable or neutral source".

Not reliable? He has a regular op-ed column in The New York Times. He's had it for years. Do you think that, just because it's op-ed, he could or would simply make stuff up? He wouldn't still have the column if he did things like that. Your comment suggests that it would be reliable if some cub reporter for a small-circulation weekly heard McCain speak at the local high school, misunderstood something he said, and reported it in a news story. As between these two sources, I would consider Herbert far more reliable.

Not neutral? It doesn't have to be. We frequently cite publications like The Wall Street Journal that have a pronounced agenda. Indeed, I see at least one such citation in this very article. An opinion shouldn't be presented as fact, but the particular passage for which I cited Herbert doesn't include his derogatory opinions about McCain.

Of course, Herbert is a prominent spokesperson, so it would be consistent with WP:NPOV to include a passage like, "McCain has been criticized (for example, by op-ed columnist Bob Herbert) for his opposition to the Webb bill...." For the mere factual report, though, no such attribution is necessary. JamesMLane t c 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Historically, opinion columnists don't get fact-checked the same way that regular newspaper reporters do. In recent years this has changed a bit, but not enough. Nor of course do they edited for fairness and balance the same way that regular newspaper reporters do. The same goes for the op-ed pieces at the WSJ, which are often slanted and biased up the kazoo. Regular news section stories from both publications, yes; op-ed pieces from both publications, no. And as a practical matter, if McCain has done what Herbert says he has done, you should have no trouble finding regular news sources to use as a cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's say you read a news article in a regular newspaper, albeit a local one, and the reporter, whose name you don't recognize, reports that McCain spoke in town on Monday and supported the Webb bill. Then you read Herbert's column in the Times saying McCain opposes the bill. If it is given that McCain for once hasn't flip-flopped, but has been consistent about the bill, and that one of these two sources is therefore incorrect on a matter of objective fact, which one would you consider to be more reliable?
In a case like this, I'd try to find a third source, and a fourth source, and figure out what was going on. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that intoning "op-ed" doesn't resolve the point. Some op-ed columns are more reliable than some regular newspaper stories by regular newspaper reporters. The point is actual reliability, not fitting a story into a predetermined category.
I thought of a right-wing analogy to Herbert's column: National Review magazine. No one would call it objective. It's even more slanted and biased than the Wall Street Journal. So I went to our National Review article, clicked on "What links here", skimmed the list for a political figure, and found Dan Quayle. National Review is the sole source for this sentence in our article: "While the Quayle family was very wealthy, Dan Quayle was less so; his total net worth by the time of his election in 1988 was less than a million dollars." Does your standard mean that the NR link should be removed and replaced with a demand for a citation?
NR sometimes publishes straight pieces of political reporting, which could be used ... this piece on Quayle veers back and forth between that and opinion, and I'd be queasy about using it as a source. The statement being cited is "While Newsweek in 1988 reported that Quayle had more than $50 million, his true net worth at the time was around $859,000, most of it in his house." I don't think this is new reporting from Ponnuru, the author; I'd try to find more sources on this, including the ones who originally reported it, and try to resolve the discrepancy. Does everyone agree that Newsweek was wrong at the time? Is there still disagreement about how to measure his net worth? Etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not accusing you of playing favorites. You don't edit the Quayle article, and you're not required to run around excising every substandard citation everywhere in Wikipedia. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. Note that I didn't have to hunt high and low for an example. I thought of a journal of conservative opinion, checked the links list, picked the first prominent politician on the list, and boom, I had my example. Wikipedia is rife with them. I don't edit Dan Quayle either, but if I did, and someone deleted that citation and replaced it with a "fact" tag, as you did here, I would revert. I consider that citation and this one to be proper under Wikipedia standards. JamesMLane t c 05:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Getting back to the Herbert column, there are straight news pieces on this issue out there that cover the same territory. This one from the Daily Press looks good for starters. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course there are news stories. When I read Herbert's column, it merely reminded me that I'd seen the information in several other places. By contrast, you're right about the Quayle example; I didn't read the entire National Review article so I didn't notice that there was a genuine dispute. In the case of such a dispute, we have to be more careful about sources. If no other information could be found, we'd probably do best to say something like "Newsweek says X and National Review says Y."
I didn't get around to adding other articles about the Webb bill because I wanted to address the more general issue of sources. When a columnist like Herbert makes an assertion about a matter of fact (not opinion), as to which he could readily be called out for any error, I consider it reliable. The assertion and the sourcing should stand unless and until someone else demonstrates that there is such a dispute. JamesMLane t c 12:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The Times has in recent years tried to base its opinions on mistruths. There was a recent story about an INS raid in Bedford, MA where the paper said babies were "forcibly weaned away from his mother's breast" and alleged that caused dehydration of the baby. Interestingly enough, Bill O'Reilly investigated and found that there were only two babies admitted in the local hospitals due to dehydration, and they were both due to pneumonia...not the "forcible weaning" the editorial page claimed.
Still, with that said, I think including a piece by Herbert is fine as long as it is attributed to him. We should make clear who it is giving the criticism. Arnabdas (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration Issue

The Washington Times reported on May 6, 2008 (in a front page article) that "Sen. John McCain said yesterday that Republicans have shed support among Hispanic voters because of the party's get-tough approach to illegal immigration..." And that "Using a Mexican holiday,Cinco de Mayo, as a launching point, Mr. McCain's presidential campaign announced a Spanish-language Web site... and said the senator will speak to this year's National Council of La Raza convention in San Diego in July to try to court Hispanic voters." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Including "liberal think tank" analysis and similar?

Since I've already made two reverts in a similar vein, I wanted to take this issue here, even though I think some of the above talk already makes the point I'm trying to make, specifically in the "Including criticism" section. The article currently quotes two different taxation estimates from a "liberal think tank" to counter McCain's economic policy. Is this warranted in a page about McCain's positions? I say no. From above:

  • "I think most of the time, it's best just to say what these politicians' views are on these issues and leave it at that."
  • "We shouldn't quote opponent's views, including views of Democratic party officials, nor the views of political supporters. If such views are making the news, they belong in the Wikipedia article about the presidential campaign, not this article." - I'd say that a "liberal think tank" is an opponent of McCain and we can treat this as if it's the Democratic party making these claims.

Therefore I think this material should go. Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Without accurate analysis of the consequences of McCain's positions, quotation of McCain's political positions amounts to regurgition of the POV spin more comprehensively found on McCains's website. Example: If McCain were to say he would not raise taxes, then he is taking the positions that (1) he will not raise taxes, and (2) he will either reduce spending or run a deficit. Since McCain is running a campaign, he talks a lot about (1) but not a lot about (2). Wikipedia, as a NPOV site, should include all his positions, not just the ones he likes to talk about a lot.
Wikipedia also has an obligation to use reliable sources in an attempt to state the facts. Will his proposed spending cuts cover the cost of his proposed tax cuts? Neither McCain nor self-pulished sources (be they liberal or conservative) are reliable sources. The best Wikipedia can do, then, is to cite analyses by reliable sources, or (if no such analyses are available) then to cite reliable sources that report the statements of biased sources, and to include wikilinks or information on the biases of these sources. --Dr.enh (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this addresses the issue. One could produce criticisms in reliable sources of any position anybody in this race takes. But that's not what this article is for. This article is supposed to explicate McCain's positions, not reactions or analyses to them. Oren0 (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is about McCain's real positions (according to reliable sources), not his campaign's POV spin on his positions. --Dr.enh (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
McCain's positions are what he says they are, not what a liberal think tank says they are. And his positions certainly aren't analyses of his positions by liberal think tanks. Oren0 (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)