Talk:US House and Senate career of John McCain (until 2000)

Why Separate?

I'm just wondering why this page is a separate page than the main John McCain page. Not only is this about a secondary career of his, but it doesn't even go through the entirety of that career. I propose that this page be merged back into the main John McCain article.Dcs315 (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that the main article on John McCain became long. When that happens, Wikipedia has a procudure called WP:Summary style. That means that separate articles are spun off, and then only a summary goes in the John McCain article. See the summary here.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-Proliferation Act

The Iran-Iraq Non-Proliferation Act did become law as an amendment to Emergency Powers Act U.S. Code Title 50 Section 1701[1]. The Missile Technology Control Act of 1990 become law as U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 39 Subchapter 7. These laws have been repeatedly applied in the past fifteen years, the former referred to commonly as the Gore-McCain Act. As far as I can tell, the MTCA was passed as an amendment to the Senate version of the appropriations bill on August 3, 1990, eventually being incorporated as part of the final defense appropriations bill H.R. 4739 on November 5, 1990. WastedTime_R, thank you for pointing out that the provided references were inadequate; I'll improve them when I find the proper pages in Thomas that follow the bill's development from start to finish.JoeyCG (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, put these back in when you have cites, preferably some that indicate the "repeatedly applied" part. I should have done more research myself on this; I saw the apparent dead-end in Thomas, couldn't find anything in Worth the Fighting For (which is not comprehensive or indexed), and gave up. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've now restored and expanded a bit the text, and replaced the Thomas cites with several better cites indicating the acts' purpose and use. Feel free to add other cites or further improve the text (or even better, start articles about the acts). Sorry about the initial reversion, I totally screwed up on this one ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

MAJOR ERROR, need administrative help?

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303

He didn't serve in Congress until 1983, not 1982. Need to fix the title. Help! 903M (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the title is correct since the campaign and election were in 1982. He took office in 1983.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is deliberate. The years refer to years of his life, not his years of House/Senate service per se. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some politicians begin their campaign much earlier. So including the date of the start of campaigning is a very imprecise date. Some informally campaign years ahead of time. So the encyclopedic date should be when the term starts, which is 1983. 903M (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As a rule, the year that the election is held is usually the year cited as the campaign, regardless of how long the person has been campaining.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the year of election is reasonable for this article but we must be careful that the main John McCain article doesn't confuse the readers. The year that campaigning starts is not acceptable. 903M (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Entry into politics and 1982 House campaign" is a reasonable phrase and is not confusing at all to those who know how the US Election process works. If they do not, then that is why the campaign is in even years, and the years in office (assuming they fulfill a full term) are in odd number years. Easier to follow if everyone follows the simple rules.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Then if you are going to change the first part on the "House" then please change the second part on the "Senate"--Jojhutton (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a common editorial question in WP political articles: whether to group elections together with the subsequent service or not. There's arguments to be made both ways. But since this is greatly bothering 903M, I have restructured the article's sections as such:

  1 Entry into politics and 1982 House campaign
  2 U.S. Congressman
    * 2.1 House years
    * 2.2 More children
    * 2.3 1986 Senate campaign
  3 U.S. Senator
    * 3.1 Senate career starts
    * 3.2 Keating Five Scandal
    * 3.3 Vietnam redux
    * 3.4 A "maverick" senator

Breaking 1981-1982 material into its own top-level section is actually an improvement, since we (and all of McCain's biographers and journalists) spend a lot of time on this campaign, as it was close and made his political career possible. Putting the 1986 senate campaign into the Congressman section is a bit counter-intuitive, but at least it gets the chronology right regarding elections vs. service. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for new article title

[...] That leaves the question of what this article's title should be. In reality, Early life and military career of John McCain contains all aspects of his life from birth to April 1981, when he retired from the Navy. John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 contains all aspects of his life from about March 1999 to the end of 2000. Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present covers his life from the start of 2001 up to his current presidential campaign, where John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 takes over.

So this article is intended to cover all aspects of his life from April 1981, when he moved to Phoenix and began working for his father-in-law and preparing his political career, to March/April 1999, when he began running for president. So the best title might be something like Political career of John McCain, 1981–1999. This includes the Arizona political prep work, the 1982 campaign, the House years and the Senate years. On the other hand, it leaves out 'House' and 'Senate' from the article title, which is kind of unfortunate. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How about Political and congressional career of John McCain, 1981–1999? Wasted Time R (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still puzzling on this, and will return to it after the election, when we know more about the future structure of McCain articles. Another possibility is House and early Senate career of John McCain, and leave off the troublesome dates. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've decided that House and Senate career of John McCain until 2000 is the best title. It omits a start date, which is beneficial because it then clearly allows us to include the 1981 and 1982 material. It omits the dash, which is hard to enter directly into a browser URL box. And the "until 2000" phrase gets across the idea that it runs up until the 2000 presidential campaign article and doesn't leave a Senate 'gap', without being explicit about whether it ends in 1999 or 2000. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Now done, but to House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000, since the comma form seems to be standard in these types of article names. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Pinochet

The material is notable and should not be deleted. A summary needs to go into the main article as pr WP:SUMMARY. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:John McCain, where this has been had out ad nauseam. Jossi and Writegeist are waging a two-person campaign to jam it in, regardless of anything. It's not remarkable for a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to meet a foreign head of state, especially a friend of the USA, and it will never be remarkable. -- Zsero (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't care about what we consider to be notable or not. Notability is asserted by the number and the width of the reporting of facts in published sources. The material is restored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I'm not sure the following material is really notable, but here's a draft paragraph:

In December 1985, McCain visited Chilean government officials such as dictator Augusto Pinochet and Admiral José Toribio Merino, and later recounted to the U.S. Embassy what they said.[1] The media reported at the time that Merino told McCain he opposed Pinochet’s continuance in office.[2] During this period, the Reagan Administration supported restoration of democracy in Chile, and U.S. Ambassador Harry Barnes was reaching out to the opposition.[3] McCain’s meeting with Pinochet was not publicized at the time, nor did McCain reportedly visit with opposition leaders. Both Pinochet and his ministers refused to meet in January 1986 with another U.S. Senator who visited with opposition leaders.[3] In 2008, a McCain spokesperson stated: "There is a huge difference between a junior Congressman meeting a dictator and a President holding unconditional summit meetings with dictators. As the cable describing the meeting recounts, Congressman McCain said meeting with Pinochet was like talking to the head of the John Birch Society. John McCain was a key Republican supporter of Chile's transition to democracy and led on numerous legislative initiatives, including securing U.S. funding for the plebiscite which ended Pinochet's rule."[4]

[1] Cable from U.S. Embassy in Santiago to the U.S. Secretary of State, via Huffington Post (January 1986)

[2] “Chile Officers Said to Favor Ending Pinochet Rule in 1989”, Miami Herald (1986-01-23)

[3] de Onis, Juan. “Chile Military Regime Begins 13th Year in Confrontational Mood”, Los Angeles Times (1986-02-07).

[4] Reinhard, Beth. "Blog: McCain met with Pinochet", Naked Politics, Miami Herald (2008-10-24).

Ferrylodge (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a historical subarticle in chronological sequence. Forget the 2008 aspect. Find a WP:RS for McCain's stances on Pinochet/plebiscite, not what a campaign flack says. More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, make me do all the work! I'll see if I can figure out what legislation it was that helped fund the plebiscite. Of course, Jossi couldn't hold his horses until we get this draft done. Jossi, you're an edit-warrior!Ferrylodge (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The filibustering has to stop, Ferrylodge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose a new draft and instead of commenting on it you ignore it, you jam back in your preferred version, and you insist that consensus is needed to remove your preferred version instead of to insert it in the first place. If anyone is filibustering here, pal, it is yourself. You make editing Wikipedia into a frigging nightmare.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You may need to take a hard look in the mirror. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I'm not the one who revert-warred with you in this article about the Chilean material. You apparently have me confused with someone else.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The draft I have in mind would go something like this (not fully polished):

In December 1985, McCain traveled to Chile to visit military junta dictator Augusto Pinochet and other junta leaders such as Admiral José Toribio Merino. Unlike the U.S. Ambassador and other congressional visitors around that time,[add NYT cite to what you gave] McCain did not publicly or privately criticize the dictatorship or meet with its democratic opponents. Upon his return, McCain publicized Merino's statement to him that the junta would not support a Pinochet bid to remain president. [Then if we find a RS cite:] In years X and Y, McCain was a key Republican supporter of Chile's transition to democracy and in year Z led securing U.S. funding for the plebiscite which ended Pinochet's rule.

Again, stick with what happened then, forgot about 2008-level issues. This whole article only describes what happened in 1981-1999, never later. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I feel that is biased, perhaps unintentionally so. Here are some initial comments....

You have omitted that McCain was working cooperatively with the US Embassy (in my draft, he "later recounted to the U.S. Embassy what they said"), and instead you imply that he was somehow not acting in conformity with the US Ambassador.

You have omitted the fact that other congressional visitors who met with opposition leaders were barred from meeting with Pinochet and his ministers (in my draft, "Both Pinochet and his ministers refused to meet in January 1986 with another U.S. Senator who visited with opposition leaders.[3]"), and instead you imply that McCain could have met with both Pinochet and opposition leaders.

You say that McCain publicized Merino;s statement. But you have no idea who gave the info to the Miami Herald. It could well have been the Reagan Administration.

I have struck through the last part of my draft until I find info about the congressional funding of the plebiscite. Do you have any reasons for disliking the non-struck-through parts of my draft?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Am done for night, will think about/respond more tomorrow... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I still insist that this is not at all notable, and shouldn't be in the article at all. And no, I don't care how interesting the South American press in 2008 find it; I don't know how much they know about US congressmen's function, and what is or isn't normal for one to have done, especially 23 years ago.

Jossi, consensus is needed to insert material, not to remove it. Especially if it's new material, for which there has never been a consensus in the first place. -- Zsero (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, I've rewritten the material so at least it's more neutral and accurate. Let's wait and see what WTR says about it tomorrow. Can we please leave it in the article until then?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started looking at this, and made a couple of edits on it, but am scrunched on time again. On problem is that it's a bit too long, for the weighting it deserves. Another is, I don't understand why you don't say that McCain publicized Merino's statement. That's what the Herald is saying, per your quote from it ("During a visit this month, Rep. John McCain, R-Ariz., met with navy commander Adm. Jose Toribio Merino and quoted him as saying that he would vote against Pinochet's nomination to continue as president. The air force and national police commanders share that position, according to several Chilean political leaders who have spoken with them.") and it speaks to McCain's credit (by publicizing it, he holds Merino's feet to the fire). Another is the notion that you can't meet with both the junta and with opposition leaders. Well, the Ambasssador could do both a number of times, and Kennedy couldn't. That gives us only two data points, not enough to establish this inference here. More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the cited source: "nor did he meet with members of the democratic opposition in Chile, as far as could be determined from a thorough check of U.S. and Chilean newspaper records and interviews with top opposition leaders." So, after 23 years, there is an initial effort to determine if he met with any opposition leaders, and the conclusion is that he did not "as far as could be determined from a thorough check of U.S. and Chilean newspaper records and interviews with top opposition leaders." This latter quote could appropriately be summarized as "apparently." What's the problem with that?

Half the cites in any article could be modified with "apparently" on this basis. I dislike weasally phrasings like that. And the McCain campaign aide didn't claim that McCain had met with any opposition figures. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as who gave the info to the Miami Herald, the Herald does not say that McCain gave it: "During a visit this month, Rep. John McCain, R-Ariz., met with navy commander Adm. Jose Toribio Merino and quoted him as saying that he would vote against Pinochet's nomination to continue as president." Someone in the U.S. State Department could have simply told the Herald what McCain told the State Department, so I don't think we need to say that McCain was the one who publicized the meeting (especially since that would make the paragraph longer). It doesn't matter if the info is to McCain's credit or not. Also, when someone provides information to a reporter, I don't think that's necessarily "publicizing" the information, but rather seems more like "disclosing"; the word "publicizing" sounds self-serving.

OK, I get it now. I've revised it again. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding whether it was possible to meet with both the junta and with opposition leaders, the article does not currently say that it was impossible, but rather merely says that it did not work for another Senator. Why can't we let readers draw their own conclusions? It certainly would not be appropriate to take the exact opposite approach that you suggested, by mentioning that Kennedy saw opposition leaders but not mentioning that Kennedy was barred from seeing Pinochet. Also, Kennedy was in a more comparable position to McCain than the Ambassador was; if Pinochet had refused to keep meeting with the Ambassador then it would have been tantamount to breaking off diplomatic relations. So let's try to compare apples to apples here.

That's okay if it deserved all this complexity. But if we're getting into this much detail on this, the section on restoring relations with Vietnam should be doubled in size, because there McCain really was one of the major players. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to shorten this paragraph, I would suggest that we simply delete that "McCain did not visit opposition leaders during the 1985 trip;[46] both Pinochet and his ministers refused to meet in January 1986 with another U.S. Senator who visited opposition leaders." After all, the cited sources emphasize that they're trying to reconstruct what happened 23 years ago and therefore they do not say unequivocally that McCain did not meet with any opposition figures, and deleting the reference to Kennedy would address your other concern.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with taking this out completely, because then we lose the critical context of the times, that U.S. policy towards Chile had begun changing. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We could address that by simply saying that "During this period, the Reagan Administration supported restoration of democracy in Chile", citing the Juan de Onis article in the LA Times.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree strongly with that, and with your change just made. You've replaced specifics of tangible diplomatic actions (a new ambassador conducting frequent meetings with opposition leaders and criticizing the regime and ticking off the junta leaders) with vague apple pie generalities (I'm sure the Reagan admin always paid some kind of lip service to democracy there, the question was what was it willing to do about it, which is key). Wasted Time R (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Anyway, off again, back later. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're trying to have it both ways; you say the paragraph's too long, but then when I substitute some specifics with a generality you say we need the specifics. I would be willing to go along with your specifics if they were fairly balanced, but they're not. The Reagan administration was doing many things to promote democracy in Chile besides increasing contacts with the opposition. And as I said, comparing McCain to Kennedy would be much more fair than comparing McCain to the Ambassador; if Pinochet had refused to meet with the Ambassador due to the Ambassador's contacts with the opposition, then that would have been tantamount to breaking off diplomatic relations with the United States. Anyway, I'll try to tweak the paragraph to address your concern.

Incidentally, are you aware that one very possible reason why McCain's meeting with Pinochet was kept quiet was to avoid discouraging opposition leaders with whom McCain could not meet? Anyway, 99% of the U.S. Congress did not meet with Chilean opposition leaders, so I don't see why it's important to mention here that McCain did not meet with them either. The fact that he did not meet with them tells us very very little about McCain's feelings toward them, and is potentially very misleading.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Most members of Congress didn't visit Chile at all then. But of those who did, our sources indicate that many spoke out against the junta and met with the opposition. We need to focus on the circumstances of the visit, and not introduce further generalities about Reagan. I agree that making this short will be difficult, especially after several editors have invested so much time in it. You can always tell in reading a WP political article where the hacked-up compromises are! So I'd rather include the Kennedy bit, against my other inclinations, than back off of this aspect of the visit. Thus I've restored the previous text in this spot, including Kennedy. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The summary looks is looking good, but for some reason the material about he reception of the declassification of these documents in the Latin American press were deleted. I have restored these. I would welcome tweaks to the sentence, but not its outright deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition of the following sentence: "Upon the declassification of of documents that describe the meeting with Pinochet, it was widely reported and described in the Latin American press in various terms such as a 'friendly and warm meeting' with the dictator, as a 'secret visit' and as a an unknown fact or 'dark secret'." It is simply a copy and paste job that does not take into account any subsequent criticisms (e.g. it still has the error "of of" and the error "a an"). This article is chronological, so details about events of 2008 are out of sequence. Moreover, it's redundant, since the meetings are already described previously in the paragraph. Additionally, why shouldn't we include the 2008 reaction of the North American press? Or the 2008 reaction of the McCain campaign? It also makes the paragraph too long, contrary to all of the undue weight concerns described by other editors.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Then summarize instead of deleting. Again, for the nth time, the Latin American press wide coverage of this is notable and needs to be included for NPOV. Rather than delete, write for the enemy and summarize the material. If you are unable to do so, let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Are those Latin American reports editorials or news reporting? I don't speak Spanish, so I can't tell.

Also, please note that the meetings are already described in the paragraph as "warm" and "friendly". Why would we have to repeat this over and over? Shall we say the press in Ecuador thinks the meetings were warm and friendly, and the press in Brazil thinks they were warm and friendly, and the press in Argentina thinks they were warm and friendly, et cetera? Why can't we just say they were warm and friendly? Thus, the "warm and friendly" stuff is already summarized in the present article. Likewise, the fact that the meeting was secret is already summarized in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You can use Google Translate to read these (http://translate.google.com/translate_t) It is a pretty good machine translation service. These are news reporting. As for the duplicated content, you are welcome to improve the sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Thanks for the translator. The material that I have recently inserted into the article was intended to summarize the sentence you added. As I said, the "warm and friendly" and the "secret" stuff is already summarized in the present article. I think that the news sources currently cited in the article cover everything that you want. Here is what the article currently says:

In December 1985, McCain visited Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and junta member Admiral José Toribio Merino.[42][43] McCain told the U.S. Embassy in Santiago that both meetings were friendly and warm, but described Pinochet as obsessed about the dangers of communism and likened him to the John Birch Society.[44] Merino's statement to McCain that the junta would not support a Pinochet bid to remain president was made publicly known,[45] but McCain’s meeting with Pinochet was not declassified until 2008.[42][46] During that period when McCain visited Chile, the Reagan Administration was supporting restoration of democracy in Chile, for example by trying to persuade Pinochet to step aside.[47] McCain later called upon the Chilean government to respect the upcoming Chilean national plebiscite of 1988.[48]

The current footnotes include "CIPER Chile » Blog Archive » La desconocida cita entre John McCain y Pinochet" (in Spanish). Centro de Investigación e Información Periodística" and also include "Revelan inédita cita entre McCain y Pinochet en 1985, Los Tiempos".Ferrylodge (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What is missing is the addition of the fact of the wide reporting in the Latin American mainstream press, and the addition of the sources provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have re-read the paragraph and still feel that it does not present the controversial meeting in the proper way. It needs work, and I will attempt to add some more text for NPOV later on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I've made changes to it since, so go by the fresh version in the article, not the above. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the first two of Jossi's newer cites from this edit, to the 'widely reported' part. We can add more of them if you want — we always have a tradeoff in our articles when we are stressing how much media attention something got, between readability versus giving a long string of footnotes to prove the amount of attention. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is generally the function of footnotes to cite where information has been reported so that the information can be verified; if the main text is to describe where all of the information in this article has been reported, then the main text would be at least twice as long as it is now. Furthermore, I fail to see the relvance of the fact that the Ambassador had been meeting with opposition figures; this article is about McCain, rather than about the Ambassador. The only relevance of the Ambassador's meetings with opposition figures seems to be to insinuate that McCain could have done likewise, and this is a POV insinuation. If Pinochet did not like the Ambassador's meetings with opposition figures then he could only shut out the Ambassador by cutting off diplomatic relations with the United States; in contrast, he could simply have cancelled the McCain meeting without consequence. Thus, McCain's position was much more analogous to Kennedy's position, than to the Ambassador's, and comparing McCain to the Ambassador is like comparing apples to oranges. And obviously we do not have to mention the Ambassador's meetings with opposition figures to illustrate what the Reagan administartion was doing to ease out Pinochet; a far more pertinent example would be to mention that the Reagan administartion was trying to persuade Pinochet to step aside.

Having said all that, the paragraph is much better than it used to be.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I renew my objection to any mention of this at all, but the consensus is clearly against me. I still don't see, though, why the mere fact that it was widely reported in the South American press 23 years later is at all relevant to this article. As FL says, the purpose of footnotes is so readers can verify that the article's claims are true, not to list every source that has the same information. -- Zsero (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United States Senate career of Huey Long which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)