Jump to content

Talk:John McCain/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Cultural and Political Image

This section is a "Controversy/Criticism" section in disguise. It's too long and does not just cover his image. It lists controversial remarks in bullet form, which doesn't even look right. Any suggestions on how to fix this? Paisan30 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree there may be a problem. I'd suggest that, before the section is rewritten, someone ought to go back through the history, and see when this section was written. Was it named something else before its current name? Is there any past discussion about this stuff in the archives? If you wouldn't mind investigating those things, then I'd feel much more comfortable about having the section rewritten. Wasted Time R seems to be the expert and primary author, but unfortunately it looks like he's on sabbatical.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I was getting upset at WP stuff and so I took a few days off. This section has a definite rationale and it is most definitely not a "Controversy/Criticism section in disguise." Instead it's an attempt to describe the intersection of McCain's character, his political persona, and how America views him. It looks at, in turn, the key aspects of McCain's personality that have been described the whole article — the warrior, the straight talk (or sometimes not), the bad temper, the wiseass, and the man who honors family past and present. The controversial remarks, which for most political figures are just accidental blunders that don't deserve attention, are for McCain part of the fabric of his nature, as the AP quote about his mouth being a WMD and McCain's own quote of admission tell us. That's why there in there. I agree that the section could use some work, and the scholarly view of him in the beginning needs some supplementing, but this is why all this is here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As discussed at the FAC page, I've revised this section of the article to make it a bit more understandable, and to also make the list of quotes much more concise. Regarding that list, it seems like a standing invitation to add things, as McCain makes further remarks in the future. There are a couple possible solutions to this problem, neither of which involve removing any content. The first possible solution is to simply remove the bullets and convert it to an ordinary paragraph, which would be much less inviting for people who want to add further quotes. The other possible solution is to put some hidden text at the beginning and the end of the list, saying that normally items should only be added if other items are deleted; that way, the list will not become an endlessly expanding "he said, he said" catalog. Maybe both of these two solutions could be used together; that would be my preference.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with prosifying the list. I don't like fixing the number of comments at some limit, however; the criteria should be whether they illuminate McCain's character or not. For example, I removed the "tar baby" item a couple of days ago because it was a garden variety case of using an expression without meaning harm that had become offensive to some (Mitt Romney and John Kerry have used the same expression, no doubt others). Nothing really "McCain" about it. However, the Fidel-Karl Marx item that someone recently added does belong, because it shows how blunt McCain can be. Publicly wishing another country's leader dead when you're not at some level of actual hostilities with them is unusual; I don't think any U.S. presidential nominee ever publicly wished Brezhnev dead during the Cold War, for example, not even Ronald Reagan. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

McCain's stance on environmental issues

Considering McCain is now a front runner for the '08 elections, not only should his position on issues be expanded (allowing people to easily gain information on him to formulate their opinion), but especially on environmentalism. There is nothing within this article about his stance on environmental issues, and I think it is important considering they differ from those that are traditional of his party. Infected enigma (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The treatment of his positions in this article is only a tiny summary. The full article that this points to is Political positions of John McCain, and if you look at the Political positions of John McCain#Environmental issues section there, you'll find what you seek. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumsfeld Resignation Fallacy

The Washington post innacurately and irresponsibly claimed yesterday that McCain never publically called for Rumsfelds resignation. Instead, the Post says McCain said he had "No Confidence" in Rumsfeld. In fact-- in Parliamentary Democracy-- a vote of "No confidence" is a call for resignation.

The Washington Post's article on this matter therefore is poorly conceived if not outright irresponsible in suggesting that McCain never called for Rumsfelds resignation.

Sean7phil (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia article states:
By November 2003, after a trip to Iraq, McCain was publicly questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq War, saying that "All of the trends are in the wrong direction" and that more U.S. troops were needed to handle the deteriorating situation in the Sunni Triangle.[171] By December 2004, McCain was bluntly announcing that he had lost confidence in Rumsfeld.[172]
What is your quibble with this? Please confine your remarks here to the Wikipedia article, and to the discussion about it, and not whatever you may object to in other media outlets. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A LITTLE MORE INFO WITH SOURCE

In the Naval Register (http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/upd_CD/BUPERS/Register/RegOpenMenu.html) you can look up the Navy's record of Senator McCain's retirement. There you can see: MCCAIN JOHN SIDNEY III has a designator of 1313 (aviator), that he was an unrestricted line officer (URL), that he retired as a CAPT/O-6, that his date of retirement was April 1, 1981, and that he attained the rank of CAPT on August 1, 1979. Not sure if anyone cares, but just in case . . . there you have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.39.2 (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It's definitely useful, and I've added his promotion date and exact retirement date to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Baptist?

I was under the impression that he is an Episcopalian. Was I incorrect, or is the article wrong? SexySeaBass 21:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi SexySeaBass, one of the footnotes covers it: "McCain Identifies Himself as a Baptist", Associated Press for Fox News, 2007-09-16. Retrieved on 2007-12-19." There's also some material in the main text about it (you can use the "find" functionality on your computer to locate the word "Baptist").21:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, didn't see that footnote. Thanks, SexySeaBass 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Southern Baptist?

I heard some speculations that he may be a southern baptist. Does anyone know whether that's true or not?

99.237.73.149 (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Expand Keating Five Section

The parallels between the S&L crisis and the leveraged subprime debt crisis are striking, yet continue to go unreported by the mainstream media. John McCain repeatedly says he is not comfortable with economic issues. I believe there is some further discussion warranted on the Keating Five topic.

Why is it that John McCain does not have to fully explain why he did nothing to prevent the financial industry from essentially repeating the S&L Crisis by securitizing a bunch of high-risk, low-upside real estate investments? Michael Milken was banned from securities trading for life but John McCain, who essentially enabled the entire fiasco, gets to keep his seat and is now running for President?

The economy is too important of an issue to gloss over the parallels in the two crises and it should be highlighted that McCain repeatedly says he is not 'an expert' on the economy and has a tendency to just reference Jack Kemp over and over again when speaking on the topic. I believe some more information on the Savings and Loan Crisis should be added to the Keating Five section, it shouldn't be some glossy entry on his 'straight' talk schpiel. MicrocreditSA (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Keating Five section has to stick with what happened then that involved McCain. Even the Keating Five article itself doesn't delve too deeply into the S&L crisis. However, there is a whole Savings and Loan Crisis article, whose editors are already establishing that a legacy of the government bailout then was the Subprime mortgage crisis now. You may want to contribute there.
Where are sources supporting your assertion that McCain enabled the entire S&L Crisis? That seems an absurd stretch; the seeds of it were in place before McCain ever reached Congress.
Regarding his stance on the subprime mortgage crisis, I've started a section on it in Political positions of John McCain#Subprime mortgage crisis. Feel free to add to it. If you can find sources from his time as Commerce Committee chair that indicate he frowned on government regulation of new financial instruments, for example, that would be an illuminating addition. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Keating Five scandal was an issue where 5 senators in a position of ethics oversight allowed an entire industry to be deregulated in return for money they received. Milken would never have been allowed to approrpiate all of those savings & loans to finance LBOs if McCain and the others involved with the Keating Five scandal had not gotten the legislation passed in the first place. I believe the bill passed in 1983, I will take a look. MicrocreditSA (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

McCain wasn't a senator in 1983, he was a freshman in the House. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1967 USS Forrestal fire

Excuse me my poor English, i am French; The accident in 1967 is a one article : 1967 USS Forrestal fire. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:L%27amateur_d%27aéroplanes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.0.66.234 (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Now fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you can't tag the article, I figured that I would put the tag here to make sure it gets the attention.

Looking at this article and the article on the USS Forrestal the articles significantly contradict each other when it comes to the details of the fire. I tried to tag the McCain article for contradiction, but it is apparently locked. Please correct me if I am doing this incorrectly, as I am new, but this is the contradiction:

In the USS Forrestal article it says the fire, "that burned for hours, killing 134, injuring 161 and costing the Navy $72 million." It references The DC Museum [1] which clearly backs up this claim.

On the John McCain article it states, "The ensuing fire killed 132 sailors, injured 62 others, destroyed at least 20 aircraft, and took 24 hours to control."

It uses McCain's book, Faith of My Fathers [2] as a reference, and the e-copy itself that is linked as the reference contradicts the article by specifying that, " Fires burned below deck for 24 hours. It was a total disaster. 134 men died, dozens were wounded and more than 20 planes were destroyed." I believe it can be agreed that there is a significant difference between "dozens" and 161. Also, the numbers are all different.

One of these articles needs to be changed, but I think that the John McCain article is incorrect and it is locked. I believe the sourcing on the USS Forrestal article needs to be more trusted. Chexmix53 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the casualty count to agree with the other article and the discussion on its talk page. I've also reworked the account of McCain's role in the fire to reflect recent edits and the "DANFS" source. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of article?

Sorry for barging in on the article, but I have the Barack Obama article on my watchlist and we had a drive by complaint about how unfair it was that Barack Obama had six paragraphs for his senate career while McCain only had three.[3] After giving the drive by editor the standard "You can't compare articles" response, I read this article and it's rather obvious the complainant was incorrect as I see several separate sections on McCain's senate career. That being said the current structure of the article could possibly do with some restructuring to reinforce the relationship of certain sections with each other. Don't get me wrong, there is definitely nothing wrong with the chronological order set up, but it doesn't really behoove itself to the creation of child articles. What I'm thinking is that the sections associated with his senate career (Keating Five, A "maverick" Senator, 2001-2004, and 2005-2007) be made subsections of the US Senator section and a new section for "Presidential campaigns" be created and the two campaign sections be made subsections there. This structure would seem to be a good way to calve off the US Senate related sections into a Senate career of John McCain article and leaving a brief summary here of McCain's senate career. Of course, the added benefit is that it might cut down on the complaints about how large this article is. What is everyone else's thoughts? --Bobblehead (rants) 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Short term, I'll see what I can do about changing the section titles to make clear that the initial "U.S. Senate" section isn't the only one. (Although if anyone actually reads the article, they'll obviously see the other material. But no one actually reads these articles. I've learned that by now ;-) There isn't one big Senate section because the House representative and 2000 presidential campaign sections need to be in there as well. The 2000 campaign section needs to be interleaved with the senate sections, not come after, because his experiences in 2000 underlay a lot of his senate stances in the early 2000s. With McCain, the chronology really does matter ... what happened to him at time T affects what he did at time T+1 and T+2.
Moreover, WP:Summary isn't going to fit McCain's senate years well. He's been in the middle of some of the hottest Senate action of all over the last twenty years — McCain-Feingold, the Kerry POW/MIA committee, Keating Five, line-item veto, anti-tobacco crusade, voting against the Bush tax cuts, Gang of 14, comprehensive immigration reform, etc. It's really got to be in the main article, which is one reason why the main article is long. I do plan on spinning off the 2000 presidential campaign into a separate article in the next several days, because there's more that can be said about it and because the current treatment here includes several subplots that can be farmed out . As for summary treatment of the rest, we'll see how it goes. A sad fact is that no one clicks on subarticles, and those that do consider placement there "second class citizen" status. I've had chronic complaints on the Hillary article that this thing or that thing is relegated to the Senate subarticle and really must be in the main article ... and McCain's senate achievements and battles are far more notable than Hillary's. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A summary of John McCain's senate career can easily be done here. The guy has indeed been in the middle of a lot of things but there is no reason why everything he done has to be in the main article in their entirety. This article currently has 83k of readable text and even after you push all of the 2000 campaign off to a sub-article it will have 74k. That's WAY outside of Wikipedia's size guideline. Wikipedia has 1,900 featured articles, many of which are about people that have lead just as storied a life as McCain and yet, somehow, the editors of those articles have managed to get those articles within the size guideline. It's a bit of hubris to say that it can't be done with John McCain's article.--Bobblehead (rants) 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I recently edited the page to reflect a story I just saw break on MSNBC. I'm an "established" editor, I guess, but I don't know how to site the NY Times article in the proper way. So someone more established than I can do this, here's the link: McCain Karatloz (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Feb 21 affair allegations

We have to put something in about this - it's all over the cable news: [4]

Summary: He's been seen all around with this lobbyist that's 31 yrs his junior - both deny romance

I think it needs a little more traction before it's included. Give it at least a few days and see if the story is growing.--Loonymonkey (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
We can include this if it has any impact whatsoever. This has not had the widespread lasting global impact and coverage that his political activities have had. In Australia and UK, the primaries have always been #1 in the news when they have happened. I don't see this on ABC or BBC anywhere? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[5], [6], [7], [8], [9] ∴ Therefore | talk 03:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Here are the latest search results from Google News on "John McCain". This story is way down the list, and the items at the top of the list are not covered in this Wikipedia article. To avoid becoming tabloidish, I suggest we simply convert this new subsection into text in an existing section or subsection. Then we can wait and see how the story develops.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it exploded into a big story overnight. It's the top stories on most of the major news sites. I was in favor of the "wait and see" approach yesterday, but clearly the story now has traction. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Check this out

A one line section out of nowhere...

Someone managed to find a citation.

Until more info is available, I think this topic should be avoided until a non-vandal can at least create a full paragraph. (QUINTIX (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Also, please check out the edit history and the respective users contribs before adding to someones vandalism (QUINTIX (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
And check the talk page of said editors for previous bans. (QUINTIX (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
I added the complete reference plus denial and I'm certainly not a vandal. But if you would prefer that a more regular editor of the page add the information, then I defer. I don't see the original content as vandalism as it is clearly sourced now (or was before your rv'ed it). I think not including *something* with the proper NYT source does a disservice. ∴ Therefore | talk 01:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The user karatloz who created the section has been banned multiple times. I'm not saying this section shouldn't exist. It would be best if it where recreated from scratch by someone who doesn't have a 'criminal record' so to speak. (QUINTIX (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
Sure, I agree with that -- this section needs more meat -- it is a ten year old allegation that involved no direct evidence but statements from aides that apparently tried to isolate the lobbyist for "his sake". If no more arises, then I'm sure this will be a dead issue in a couple of days, I suspect. But I'm horrible at predictions. ∴ Therefore | talk 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Section now has been removed, with justification given that it's not being reported on other networks... untrue. e.g. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/mccain-campaign.html I agree that making it a separate article section was undue weight, but I think mentioning the allegation as well as the denial will be obviously appropriate by the end of this week. Decafdyke (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not on CNN.com of Foxnews.com either. Wait a few days, see if it has traction, before placing it on the article.--Bedford 02:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just not so - I just saw a major segment on Anderson Cooper 360 (CNN) about the allegations; the New York Times is running a major story on it and Cooper said The new Republic has the story too. It should be included in this article - I haven't looked at how it was added previously, so am not commenting on whether it was handled appropriately, but this is a major story in mainstream neutral media (let's not forget the Times endorsed him) - and leaving it out of this article suggests bias. I can't look more into it tonight, but if no one else puts it in, I'll look at it tomorrow. Tvoz |talk 04:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well McCain is basically going to be the GOP candidate, unless he suddenly gets 10% in all of the next few primaries or unless he dies. Thus, he will probably be the main thing in the news almost every day for the next 9 months = 270 days. We don't know whether this will be a lasting distraction that will bother him around. It is only one day. On long election campaigns, gaffes and mishaps happen all the time. There is nothing to suggest that this will be anything more than news, furthermore it is not the biggest McCain news in the world at the moment. I see nothing on BBC, and in Australia, nothing either. The usual circus of election rallies and campaigning is what matters, so it appears, apart from a few outlets. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Binguyen, CNN, The New York Times and ABC have all been mentioned here - and it's neither a gaffe nor a mishap. This is a news story, and it's getting a lot of coverage: Google news is tonight listing 134 news outlets with articles on this ethics matter, including his denials, in places ranging from the Washington Post, USA Today, Fox News, to the Times (of London) and AP. 134 is not "a few outlets", so we're going to have to face it. Tvoz |talk 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In a perfect world we'd wait on every new development for a while to see how it plays out, especially when they are in connection with politics or a political campaign. A useful reminder is that we're writing this, and all our articles, to be read ten or twenty years from now, not tomorrow. That said, WP has developed a culture around breaking news and expects everything to materialize instantly — whenever there's a natural disaster or a terrorist bombing or something like that, a new article appears and edit conflicts fly over under sideways down as everyone tries to update at once. So realistically, this item should be added now, and we'll move it around and fit it in as we see best as it develops. If it turns out to be a nothing, we can always remove it down the road. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(there are 3 sections dealing with this same topic...we should consolidate) Well, it looks like it exploded into a big story overnight. It's the top stories on most of the major news sites. I was in favor of the "wait and see" approach yesterday, but clearly the story now has traction. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Wasted said about the difference between a perfect world and Wikipedia culture, and often think we should wait before posting, but it seems to me that by saying nothing in the article and waiting to see how it develops, we're open to the "whitewash" criticism predictably seen below despite the fact that we're talking about it and the story just broke. So better to add something in a responsible, balanced way than to appear to ignore it. The fact is, many people come here first when they hear about a news story like this to get more information or context or whatever. So leaving it out is a statement too. I also agree with Wasted's point that as time goes on - which in this business can be hours or days, but certainly with an eye to the long run - we will probably end up modifying the placement, wording, etc of this type of item - it may end up gone, or as a footnote in the article, or it may be the lead in a section about the downfall - or elevation - of his campaign. We can't see into the future, so we don't know where to put it or how to characterize it, so the best we can do is try to keep it balanced and be open to moving it as circumstances require. Tvoz |talk 18:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Marital history

I read some scurrilous allegations about affairs; they didn't look sourced. I only wanted to review his marital history -- was he married? Did he publically have an affair? Was he divorced? None of that recent scurrilous stuff -- just about the original marriage and affair and divorce -- which are indeed mentioned here. But, it is really hard to find them -- they're buried. Could there be a small section giving his marital history -- without any of the recent lobbyist rumor stuff, only with the public stuff? Pandora98 (talk)

Look in the Table of Contents. See that certain sections include in their title "... first marriage, and children", "... second marriage", and "... more children". Go to those sections and read about it. The reason there isn't a separate "marital history" section is that these events are intertwined with the rest of his bio — his first marriage originated from his time at the Naval Academy, it fell apart following his years away as a POW, his second marriage was a key factor in bootstrapping his political career, and his final adoption was the subject of a famous smear in his 2000 presidential campaign. If you read any biography of McCain (and I've read all of them pretty much), these marital and family events are described intertwined with the rest of his life. When was the last time you read a biography where the subject's personal life was isolated into a chapter of its own? Makes no sense. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
But, I can find pretty talk about him falling in love, but it isn't listed with chronology, so I cannot tell if it is a lovely love story, or a scandalous public affair -- which was it? It says "met and fell in love", but it doesn't say if he was a single guy falling in love, or a married guy committing adultery. I have to admit, I'm suspicious when it done like that with no chronology and no discussion, that maybe it is a whitewashed adultery being displayed as a lovely love story? If it is an adulterous story, then it should only be listed if it is referenced -- but if it is referenced, then it shouldn't be whitewashed/propagandized, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandora97 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the "fell in love" to "began a relationship", which is less problematic (same change was made to the Cindy McCain article a while back, forgot to make it here too). The chronology is clear from the preceding sentence: he was still living with his wife Carol at the time, so yes this was a married guy committing adultery. He doesn't divorce Carol until the next paragraph. Why do you say there is no chronology? We give the date of him meeting her, the date of the divorce, the date of the remarriage, the whole deal. Help me understand what isn't clear to you here. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, now I see a point of confusion, the previous section had described his earlier "extramartial affairs" and this one didn't characterize it is such. I've now changed this description to "began an extramarital relationship", and that should help make things clear. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Typical wikipedia whitewash (alleged affair with Vicki Iseman)

It's in the times and in the washingtonpost but you need to wait to see if it actually has a real source, like Matt Drudge. Please wikipedia, save the planet and grab the next flight off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.27.110.170 (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to include the major details of an individual's life. This supposed relationship was broken by the press just yesterday, and we don't even know where this is going. I say we wait at least a few days before deciding whether it should be included in the article. I think it may be appropriate then. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And no, the issue isn't over the sources. We acknowledge that major newspapers have covered this, but it seems a bit "tabloidish", for lack of a better word. McCain's the Republican frontrunner. Any scandal, whether real or fake, is going to be picked up by almost all media outlets. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe it's actuallity. So sad to see the Republican Party go down in flames so early. I guess Huckabee will get his divine intervention.164.107.111.239 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not there's any substance behind the Times' allegations, it seems to be a major point of the campaign. The fact that the article was published is getting a lot of press coverage (rather than the content itself). This should be included in some form at least in the article on his 2008 campaign. 129.199.159.36 (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the right-wingers around here, of course, are going to do everything they can to keep this story out of this article and off WP generally. Ultimately they will fail, though I certainly don't look forward to any of the edit wars they will start, nor do I intend to participate. It sure is going to be a heck of a lot of fun to watch, though! Qworty (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see any correlation between personal marital troubles and being a good leader. E.G: John F. Kennedey, the worshiped Bill Clinton, the worshiped Reverend Jackson, what Rudy did in NYC, etc, etc, etc... (QUINTIX (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
To offend everyone I might as well add Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich to the list (QUINTIX (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

A true right-winger dislikes McCain more than a true left-winger does. Anyways: Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS.--Bedford 06:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

lol at the notion of a right winger trying to keep McCain's article clean. The right wingers hate him the most because they think he's a traitor. Enigma msg! 06:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, someone did create a Vicki Iseman article.--Bedford 06:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not right wing; in fact, I'm far left. I'm only advocating we keep the details out of the article for now because I want to see how it pans out over the next few days. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on the allegations

I agree that we should wait a few days before including the allegations. One of my main concerns is that the New York Times cited "anonymous sources", which is meaningless. However, if it's going to be included (we should build a consensus on this), it should be noted that both have denied it. I just reverted someone taking out that info. Enigma msg! 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was in favor of "wait and see" yesterday, but the story has clearly exploded overnight. Every news service is leading with it (and McCain's denials). Even if the story died by tomorrow (which isn't very likely at this point) it's still notable as a campaign development. That said, the story, as it is being reported, actually has less to do with the alleged affair (for which there isn't any hard evidence) and more to do with allegations of improper influence (for which there is). I feel that the affair should get less emphasis (but of course, that's the main focus of most stories on the subject since salaciousness sells). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
there has been increasing coverage of the secondary controversy surrounding the allegations, to wit, the NYT's timing of reporting on allegations from eight years ago, and the suggestion that it's more of a hit piece than anything else. i think this should be covered - briefly - in the mention of the allegations themselves. it's an important characterization. Anastrophe (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly a talking point that many of McCain's defenders have been using, but this isn't just about the NYT anymore. WaPo picked it up almost immediately and now the two major news magazines will be leading with it next week. See the Newsweek article which digs deeper. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
i don't much care for having my comments characterized as "talking points". that other news organizations have picked up the story does not in any way change the issues i mentioned. Anastrophe (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No need to be offended. I wasn't characterizing your comments as a talking point, but rather the criticism you were referring to. (After all none of us are including our own comments in the article.) My point was that the initial defense of McCain was to attack the NYT for publishing it, but the story has already moved beyond that one single news outlet.--Loonymonkey (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vickie Iseman issue is about Serious allegations

The so-called affair is the lesser aspect here. The Times article says that Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message (to The Times) that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for use in drafting a letter from McCain to the FCC urging a swift F.C.C. approval for a television deal which one of Iseman's clients wanted. Mr. McCain is said to have complied and sent two such letters to the commission resulting in a rare rebuke for interference from the F.C.C. chairman. This is the more important aspect for the BLP to include. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As it's being reported, it's really more of an ethics scandal than a sexual one. The affair is generally mentioned as an allegation which is denied by both parties and then the details of the lobbying relationship are revealed.That's what this article should focus on as well. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is more his ties to lobbyists which could be viewed as not consistent with his image as a man of integrity and also with his image as a maverick. I've read that he has ties to numerous lobbyists, which I suppose all politicians do but again this is inconsistent it seems to me with his image. The New York Times might be faulted for including the sexual innuendo which is in dispute and not really sourced, as opposed to the other aspects of this story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.131.90 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I copy edited that material to read that McCain sent two letters to the FCC and left out the part about complying with Iseman's request and "such" since that does not appear to be accurate. Thanks, --nyc171 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Careful about posting every single allegation!

I sure hope this site isn't going to take every published allegation against McCain and post it up, because over the next several months there will be numerous. Remember that if you highlight this reckless allegation, you will need to do the same for your candidate, Obama....when this goes mainstream, are you going to include it in Obama's article? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY ya, got you there! double-standards exposed!

I think it's more because this junk was in the New York Times, which is a reliable source. A guy posting a YouTube video is not a reliable source. However, the New York Times has as much evidence against McCain as that video guy has against Obama. It's true the New York Times published a story, but that was a reckless and poor decision. They really have next to no evidence, especially to allege that an affair took place. Poor job by the New York Times, but as I said, unfortunately that paper is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Enigma msg! 09:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Enigma, the New York Times apparently has an email from Vickie Iseman, and 2 other sources and additional cooberation which seems to be more than the video guy has. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh I know this guy has only a video now, but if your standards for inclusion are merely "a newspaper" has it in print, look out....this story with this video guy may break out if he passes the lie detector test next thursday. Just having this video guy in a "credible" newspaper is enough to compel you to put it in Obama's article...if you do it for McCain, you will have to do it for Obama. And I know you don't want to do it for Obama! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think all candidates should be treated the same on Wikipedia. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Load times

I have a Cable modem, and the loads times for this article is ridiculously slow. We need to find a way to either cut half the text out, remove some photos, or both.--Bedford 06:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest splitting this article into sections like "John McCain in the Vietnam War" or "Early life of John McCain". Nishkid64 (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I remember some editors did that for Jan Smuts. The article was split into five sections, and as a result, the main article was severely reduced to a size of about ~50KB. I don't expect such a drastic change with McCain, but getting it down to 120KB at least would be nice. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
it has very little to do with the actual size of the article. it has more to do with how many templates are transcluded, is my understanding. meat-axing the article is a crude solution to what really requires a more fundamental change in the underlying structure of WP. because the fact is, the load times are abyssmal. but it's mostly because the WP software is chugging away in the background "creating" the page for display, not the raw amount of data. think about it. 170KB is a trivial amount of actual data to xfer. Anastrophe (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Anastrophe is correct, it's the 280 {{cite}} templates uses for references that are the main culprit. When I was expanding this article, I noticed the load times start to get long when the number of cites passed the mid-100s or so, even when the total article size wasn't near the current level. Barack Obama is slow to load too, and it's a little over 120K with about 185 cite template uses. Hell, even the Mike Gravel article, which is only 89K total, is also slow to load, because it has 135 cite template uses. As Anastrophe states, the MediaWiki software is not up to the task of the "every sentence must be cited" style now demanded of topical BLP articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As for Jan Smuts, it has only 17 footnotes! Imagine trying to get away with that here. You'd have 200 {{citeneeded}} and {{fact}} tags within days. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Creating child articles would help the load time some, though. It's pretty much a given that the templates are huge bandwidth hogs, but if 30k of the 82k of readable text in this article were moved off into child articles, the templates associated with that 30k of readable text would be gone as well. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Not fully. In many cases, the summary section in the main article ends up making a general, vagueish statement which gets challenged ("Smith enacted several initiatives during her first year in office"), and you have to pile back in several of the cites from the subarticle to support it. In other words, the number of cites doesn't decline as rapidly as the readable text does. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are now over 13,000 words of readable prose here. At least 3000 words need to go. WTR, do you have a plan to accomplish this?

Also, does anyone object if I remove all of the cite templates? There's no reason to keep them, and they slow down load time, as discussed above. For example, Tourette syndrome is a featured article, but cite templates are not used. I will get rid of the cite templates in this article, unless there are objections. Speak now, or forever kiss goodbye to the cite templates.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm for just about anything that makes this faster to load. Given what the software can handle, articles like this simply should not be happening. We have to adjust to what we have. Enigma msg! 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a complex topic which I've done a lot of thinking about. Don't do anything until I present some alternatives. Stay tuned. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In particular, don't start getting rid of the cite templates. While they currently suck, they are the "right" way of doing it for the future, and once you undo them, there's no going back. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Okay. And, for your reading pleasure, here is a breakdown of this article's length:
Lead Paragraphs --- 353 words
1 Early life and military career
1.1 Family background and early education ---377 words
1.2 Naval training, early assignments, first marriage, and children --- 690 words
1.3 Vietnam operations --- 547 words
1.4 Prisoner of war --- 1357 words
1.5 Return to United States --- 538 words
1.6 Senate liaison and second marriage --- 430 words
2 Political career 2.1 U.S. Congressman and more children --- 813 words
2.2 U.S. Senate career begins --- 389 words
2.3 Keating Five --- 587 words
2.4 A "maverick" senator --- 1271 words
2.5 2000 presidential campaign --- 1173 words
2.6 2001–2004 --- 1091 words
2.7 2005–2007 --- 696 words
2.8 2008 presidential campaign --- 877 words
3 Political positions Intro--- 180 words
3.1 Assessments by political interest groups --- 302 words
3.2 Positions on specific issues --- 521 words
4 Cultural, political, and family image --- 1305 words

The 2000 campaign section and the Keating scandal section seem especially in need of dramatic reduction.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Disability ?

Does his inability to raise his arms completely, as a result of his war wounds and torture during his imprisonment, count as a disability ? I wonder if he could fit into the "Politicians with physical disabilities" category. Wedineinheck (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

From the Purdum Vanity Fair profile:
McCain's right knee still has limited flexibility. Most of the time this is not too noticeable, but McCain mounts the steps onto planes with a herky-jerky gait. A climb up dozens of steps at the New Hampshire International Speedway, in Loudon, leaves him badly winded and sweating profusely. Because his broken arms were allowed to heal without ever being properly set, to this day McCain cannot raise his arms above his shoulders. He cannot attend to his own hair. An aide is often nearby with a comb and small can of hair spray.
McCain has difficulty putting on his suit jacket unassisted. Once, as we prepared to get out of a cramped airplane cabin in Burlington, Vermont, where McCain would be greeted by the governor, I turned my back for a moment, only to find him struggling. He could sense that his collar was all bunched up, and asked me matter-of-factly to help him straighten it out. I felt the pang that those around McCain feel whenever they realize the extent of his injuries. "You comb someone's hair once," his 2000 communications director, Dan Schnur, says, "and you never forget it."
One of McCain's aides tells me that two years ago, campaigning with McCain, George W. Bush asked him if the senator would like to work out with him. Told that McCain did not, could not, really "work out," Bush replied, "What do you mean?"
On the other hand, he recently hiked down the Grand Canyon and back up, which a lot of people couldn't manage (me due to fear!). You can be the judge. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, I did not know about this disability. It reminds me of how many Americans never knew FDR was in a wheel chair. This should be included in the BLP. (blind people have hiked the Grand Canyon but they're still blind). Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a little bit from the Vanity Fair source. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A little bit of this was already in the POW section. Your addition to that section is too detailed for that context and jumps the chronology too much, but I've added a briefer version of it to the "Political and cultural image" section. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
ok. Yes, that's a better place for it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I work in the income tax field. The IRS defines disability in terms of not being able to do your job. So by that definition McCain (and Stevie Wonder!!!) are not disabled. Stevie, however, does get an extra bonus exemption. (Probably not really since he is in AMT territory. :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems strict, but then again, the IRS has reason to be strict. What's strange is that since nowadays businesses are required to accommodate disabled people, even someone who was wheelchair-bound wouldn't really qualify as disabled. They could still do most desk jobs. Enigma msg! 09:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC

  • The timing of this is rather odd (Vicki Iseman addition by vandal and further replacement with something more substantial); I'm not sure if this should be supported quite yet. (QUINTIX (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Not that I'm saying this article is ready for FAC now, but if Barack Obama can be FA now as a (probably soon-to-be) presumptive presidential nominee, why can't this one? Why can't Wikipedia say, we can produce the highest-quality articles even in this topical, high-visibility subject area? And as a practical matter, little of this article's subject matter will have to change from now until November (and only then if he wins), the current NYT kerfuffle notwithstanding. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wasted, the Barack Obama article is rather stable right now (if you ignore the vandalism as you're supposed to) and has been for quite some time. Even if you ignore the current issue and the edit storm it has produced, the article is currently averaging 20 edits a day since your major rewrite/rework back in December. That doesn't exactly scream stability. It's not really a matter of Wikipedia not being able to have high-quality articles in topical, high-visibility subject areas, it's that this article has not been stable, is not likely to be stable for the near future, and, in my opinion, requires a serious reduction in readable text before it can really be considered for FA. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't file this FAC and I'm not claiming this article is currently ready for it (it would flunk on the style issues of non-breaking spaces, spelled numbers vs numerals, footnote formatting, et al if nothing else). I'm just arguing that articles of this nature shouldn't be ruled out of FA automatically, which I heard a bunch when I tried to take Hillary Clinton FA a few months ago. Implicitly, I'm also arguing that the Obama article should stay FA, so we're in agreement on that. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hell YES !, articles of this nature should be ruled out of FA automatically . The Obama article is not FA in the middle of this fantastic dynamic unstable campaign. Just forgetaboutit. FA is simply 9 months premature; at a minimum . Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting the above comment by Wasted Time R correctly, but I would agree that we shouldn't make Wikipedia look like it is endorsing a particular candidate, even though an article is simply being showcased. If one candidate is featured, then another opposing candidate, even within the same party (say Clinton one day, Obama another) should be featured. In fact, I agree with Bobblehead. It would be best if a liberal candidate's article is featured first before featuring this one. That aside, I might as well admit that like 8thstar, who nominated this article, I have every intention of voting for Mccain in November, even though I have my own grievances against him like many fellow conservatives, so I have some P.O.V. issues here. (QUINTIX (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)) (I just confessed to being a conservative. So this means you should START NAMECALLING.)
No, what I was saying has nothing to do with what you are saying. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, bunch of edit conflicts, this relates to your first comment. I'm probably still wrong though. (QUINTIX (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
What does liberal and conservative have to do with anything? Articles should be promoted when they are ready, not based on the politics of the article's subject. On the other hand, now that I actually understand what Wasted Time R meant, he's right.;) Simply because the subject of the article is topical and highly visible does not mean the article shouldn't be considered for FA. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bobblehead. Judge the article on its content, not whether the subject is liberal or conservative or anything else. It should be considered for FA. Enigma msg! 09:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(Time to really shove my foot into my mouth.) As much as I want to agree with all of you, It still might apear to novices of wikipedia that the WikiFoundation is endorsing a particular candidate. I mean, just look at the nasty comments on wikinews when they tried to do a special on independent candidates. Be it 9 months from now, or a different candidate entirely, we should be careful about such FAC's. The apearance of political leanings should be avoided, intended or not. (24.30.12.171 (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)) (Yeah I neglected to sign in again, but I am making such a fool of myself anyway.)

Title of expanded article on Iseman

There is an article that expands on the Iseman issue currently named John McCain lobbyist controversy. It is currently pipe linked in the John McCain article as "'The Times' article'". There is a discussion at Talk:John McCain lobbyist controversy#Article name on whether this is the best name of the article. Are there any suggestions for an improvement so it could be linked directly? Or is there consensus that the current name is adequate? ∴ Therefore | talk 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And since it's not clear.. All discussion on the naming of the other article should take place at Talk:John McCain lobbyist controversy#Article name and not on this article. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 20:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)



More Lobbying Hypocrisy

The Washington Post of Feb. 22, 2008 has another article on John McCain and the lobbying community(page A1). The article points out that when McCain met with advisors last weekend, in Arizona, to plan for the upcoming campaign and that "virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried." It says further that "lobbyist's are essentially running his presidential campaign." One of these is Charles R. Black. The article describes this say one thing do another pattern that McCain clearly has and which is at best skirted in this wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read the article but I don't really see what could be added here from it. Remember, Wikipedia is not news so we don't need to "keep up" with the story on a daily or hourly basis. Further, there is a real risk of this becoming a miniature POV-fork within the article as people rush to add references to any article that attacks or defends McCain. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The article (the existing part, before the Iseman stuff) does mention his anti-lobbying efforts a couple of times, but doesn't put a lot of emphasis on that. And the article does mention when he's acted in concert with lobbyists: In the "maverick" section, "In 1997, McCain became chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee; he was criticized for accepting funds from corporations and businesses under the committee's purview,[98] but responded by saying that, "Literally every business in America falls under the Commerce Committee" and that he restricted those contributions to $1,000 and thus was not part of the big-money nature of the campaign finance problem.[98]" and then in the 2008 presidential campaign section: "McCain was also more willing to ask business and industry for campaign contributions, counting more lobbyists as fundraisers than any other candidate,[207] while maintaining adamantly that such contributions would not affect any senatorial decisions he made.[207]" So I don't think we're quite skirting it, although there is probably more than can be said somewhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Some important points from the Washington Post article: 1) "Lobbyists are essentially running his[McCain's]presidential campaign..." 2) "McCain's reliance on lobbyists for key jobs--both in the Senate and in his presidential campaign--extends beyond his inner circle." 3) McCain has more lobbyist bundlers than any other candidate, according to Public Citizen. This topic was picked up on and reported by FOXNews on Feb.22,2008 and by CBS News the same day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture?

Can we find a more recent photo? The picture we have here is clearly taken a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.83 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the more recent photo from the maverick senator section to the top spot. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
We should definitely change it back, this one's not a professional photograph. --Tenthkarma (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree... fixed :) 8thstar 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've put back the much more recent photo. Please do not reinsert the 20 year old photo because it is misleading. I have no objections to any recent photo so just find a recent one you like or think is professional enough. I personally think this one is just great. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It would help a lot if we had dates on when these three photos we're using were taken:

But I've been unable to figure much out, except that they probably were made in the order given. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The one at the top center of his campaign website seems up to date [10] but might not be professional enough. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well the one that you keep putting at the top certainly isn't formal enough. Look at any other political figure article, we always use "official" (formal and usually somewhat stilted) photos for that spot, even if they are a bit out of date. And since we don't know the dates of any of these photos we're considering, your edit comment of "More recent photo needed for accuracy" is at best a guess. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it's a matter of options. This topic was begun by a reader who noticed the photo being used is obviously quite old. How do you suggest we address that reader's concern? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's so obvious that Image:John McCain official photo portrait-cropped.JPG is "quite old". When was it taken? 2006? 2004? 1998? 1992? It's true that he doesn't look as weathered in it as he does in some other photos, but that could be a matter of studio lighting, makeup, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
ok, then that's a reasonable response for the top comment for this topic section even though I agree with that commentor. I won't revert it again if anyone wants to put back Image:John McCain official photo portrait-cropped.JPG although I personally think the smiling photo is more "real",current and attractive. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New images

A photographer named Dan Raustadt has generously given permission to use these two photos from February of 2008.

McCain in February 2008.
McCain in February 2008.

I think one of these should go at the top of the article. The pic currently at the top of the article is of unknown date, but seems rather old. I am inclined to use the picture on the right.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I always thought that was a lousy pic. Thanks for the change. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added the other one to the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent new picture choice. Thanks to 70.178.97.83 for initiating this topic as well as to those who made it happen, especially Dan Raustadt. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move the "Lobby Controversey" to John McCain presidential Campaign 2008

Seriously, are we really going to include in the main article every accusation the NY Times puts out? This campaign is just getting started, there will be dozens. The media will unload on McCain, and we all know it. Its part of the campaign and this kind of thing belongs here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008.

Barack Obama's plagarism controversy is (SURPRISE!) not in his main article, even though it was widely reported. So how about a little fairness, get McCains negative smear out of his main article and move it to his campaign area. I can't wait to hear the justification some will reply with that attempts to justify leaving it in his main article, yet giving Obama's article immunity to reported controversey. From this point on, *every single negative attack* on McCain will be related to the presidential campaign. It belongs in the other article, not here. Please tell me Wiki isn't going to unload in his main article every smear the NYT or WP puts out. This is going to be sad for wiki if this happens (and, btw, I support not including the plagarism thing in Obama's main article...it belongs in his campaign article, as McCain's controversy belongs in his campaign article) Wikipedia is not a news service, folks. Stop using it as one.

I removed the item from this page after being informed about it on Barack's talk page. People are going to be looking at WP's coverage of the two candidates and we don't want to give a bad impression by seeming to favor one or the other. A trivial event in an election campaign should be in the campaign article, not in the main article which should give the important facts about the person's whole life. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If Obama's article needs fixing then please fix Obama's BLP. Please obtain consensus here before removing the section again. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Don't think it belongs in main article. Various places are attempting smear campaigns, and the only reason is McCain's run for president. Enigma msg! 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please show me where it was agreed to include this in this article. Enigma msg! 03:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, It doesn't belong on the main article. 8thstar 03:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I will remove it then. If you tried to add a trivia item like this to Barack Obama it would be gone in about 60 seconds. (p.s. Barack does not need the "help" of the NYT to win, nor should WP come down to the Time's level.) Borock (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you have read the material being widely published by many reliable sources concerning the FCC commissioner complaining that McCain was using his position to interfere on behalf of the client of the lobbyist? Do you really think that is trivia? Also, please talk about Obama at the Obama talk page. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there is an article just about the issue, as well as it being mentioned on McCain's campaign article. This article is for important facts about the person himself, and this has not yet risen to that level. Borock (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether talk page topics 11,14,15,20 and 21 should/could be merged with this one? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of lobbyist sentence

The entire section concerning the NYT articles has been removed with comments such as "trash from NYT removed please see talk page, WP should not come down to level of NYT" and "trivial item removed, see talk page"

Those are impressive displays of POV characterizations of this section. True that "trash" and "trivia" don't belong. What belongs: verifiable statements from reliable sources written in a neutral tone. There is a difference. This isn't the appropriate forum to debate whether the NYT, Washington Post or Newsweek are reliable sources.

That said, I agree that the section should be shortened. If there is not even a mention on this page, then it does a disservice to it -- readers will wonder why. Therefore, I suggest this abbreviated version.

In February 2008, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported on McCain's connection with a lobbyist in 2000. The Times came under significant criticism for the report. (See John McCain lobbyist controversy).

Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

that seems quite reasonable to me. Anastrophe (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As you say, Therefore, the pov pushing is obvious in those comments by the people who removed the entire section so I don't think that removal should stand. However, as a compromise, it's ok with me if the first sentence addresses the only really important aspect which is the alleged FCC interference and leave out the 2nd. sentence or change it to read "The Times came under significant criticism from McCain supporters for the report." I'd suggest:

In February 2008, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported on McCain's connection with a lobbyist in 2000 and an allegedly related accusation of interference with FCC deliberations.(See John McCain lobbyist controversy).

Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

the times came under significant criticism from across the political spectrum. suggesting it's only mccain supporters who have a problem with breathless, front-page reporting of eight-year-old news, is entirely POV. Anastrophe (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
ok, well since the idea is to be brief here at the main article, let's just leave out the second sentence entirely since the criticism is covered extensively at the referred article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
i'll stick with user Therefore's version, which is sufficiently brief. Anastrophe (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In the form in which it was last removed, the section on the NYT story misrepresented the content of the story. It certainly must not be added back while it makes false claims about what the NYT said. Removal, in its current form, is justified by the Biographies of living persons policy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
But TS, that isn't what is being discussed here so I can't comment on your thoughts. What do you think of the abridged mention? ∴ Therefore | talk 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
To Anastrophe/Therefore: Actually, I suppose it doesn't matter about that (second sentence) but I do think the FCC's chairman's rare rebuke is absolutely important enough to be in this BLP. I don't even care if Vickie Iseman's connection to that (if there is one) is mentioned here at all, but the FCC Chairman's rebuke for interference is, I think, the kernel of importance which absolutely should be here somewhere. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The linked story will provide all necessary details. I'm concerned that absence of a mention is problematic and I suggest that the rewrite solves that problem. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the part I think belongs here : "Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision. Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman." It just seems to important to not include here and there's been no denial of this part of the Times article. But, if the consensus is to put it off to the side, then so be it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Political Issues Layout

I don't like the way this articles political issues are layed out. First it displays the "Assessments by political interest groups" first beneath a section titled "Political Positions". The problem is there is only one assessment from a group and secondly that is not a political position per se. Next the most important part of this section (his stances and voting record on issues) is all amalgamated beneath one bullet point. I'm sure the man has many other positions. Let's reorganize it a bit I say. I think people browsing Wikipedia should be able to browse the issues of the main candidates to make a decision. Any opinions here? --Kibbled bits (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this section in the main article has been terrible all along (but I hope you have also looked at Political positions of John McCain, the full subarticle on this, which hopefully is better as it allows the subject to be explored in more depth). The political interest group ratings are useful compact proxies for political positions, but need to be expanded to include some other majors ones, as well as academic studies that assess his voting record. The positions on specific issues have a lot of redundancies relative to the main bio text as well as slanted writing in places. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to organize the section like the Hillary Rodham Clinton#Political positions one. Just focus on voting record analyses and studies and issue group ratings, and let the subarticle do all the delving into specific issues. That's because (a) in McCain's case, a lot of the specific "maverick" votes have already been covered in the main bio text, there's no sense rehashing them here (campaign finance reform, tax cuts, immigration, torture); (b) trying to boil a political figure's positions into one-sentence or one-clause summaries (which is what would be required for this summary section) is hard to do fairly — any hope of nuance or shading or explaining complex positions or documenting changes of positions is impossible; (c) trying to do the boiling down unfairly is easy, as witness the current article's dropping of the Ted Kennedy bogeyman twice into the discussion of immigration (uhh, President Bush happened to strongly support it too), or witness every 30-second negative campaign ad we're likely to see; (d) the quick summaries become bait for endless edit battles (as has already happened with the one on gun views, for example), whereas the voting studies and issue groups ratings are more obviously factual and result in much less editing churn (the HRC one has been very quiet). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree Wasted time, your edits look good. How about adding his NRA, Gun Owner's of America ratings and National Right to Life. --Kibbled bits (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead, or I'll do them when I get a chance. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also am I the only one that thinks the opening sentence on the issues sounds like it was written by his campaign? "McCain has many traditionally Republican views. He has a strong conservative voting record on pro-life[231] and free trade issues, favors private social security accounts, and opposes an expanded government role in health care. McCain also supports school vouchers, capital punishment, mandatory sentencing, and welfare reform. He is generally regarded as a hawk in foreign policy." I think we need to revise this section and if he has traditional republican views than it will show in the section below. --Kibbled bits (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In part the article, like most things written about McCain, has a problem in that it focuses on the "maverick" aspects and underplays the many places where he isn't a maverick. (Journalists refer to "man bites dog" stories crowding out "dog bites man" stories.) This is an attempt to counteract that. My feeling is that the right interest group ratings would get the same message across, but we'll see. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion never completed. I added a bunch of interest group ratings a while back. The "Positions on specific issues" subsection was getting worse, not better, with a bunch of edits being battled over his recent autism/vaccine remark, which is of debatable important even for the Political positions subarticle and certainly not important enough to be in this main article.

So I've now gone through all of this section and removed items that were slanted, and moved other items that better belonged in the Political positions subarticle or in the Senate 2001-present subarticle. What's left was just some general remarks about McCain's conservatism, and I renamed the subsection title accordingly.

As I stated above, I think trying to enumerate briefly positions on specific issues is counterproductive in this context. If others want to try it, I won't get into an edit battle on it, but you're better off starting from scratch than working with what was here. Another advantage to not trying this is that it has reduced the article size further, a good thing since the load time of the article — the main reason for all this reduction in the first place — still stinks. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the cquote is used

I've "cquoted" the McCain 1982 carpetbagger refutation quote for a reason. It's the central quote of the article, as it ties together his military career with his political career, and illustrates his heritage, his sense of service, and his blunt manner of speaking all at the same time. I think it's the most well-known quote of anything he's ever said, and it's got a third party cited afterward saying it's the most effective counterattack to a political charge that person had ever seen. For all of these reasons, it deserves to be featured via the WP cquote display mechanism. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I like the cquote format, but some frown upon it. Here's a cquote from the Wikipedia Manual of Style discouraging its use:


A pull quote (also known as a lift-out quote or a call-out) typically stands apart from the text and may be in a larger font size. Cquote "should not be used for block quotes in article text." In order to avoid future controversy about this matter in the John McCain article, I would suggest that neither blockquote nor cquote be used for this quote. Instead, I would suggest using Cquotetxt like this:


How's that?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

looks fine to me. Enigma msg! 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The cquote and the cquotetxt look basically the same to me, so it's okay with me. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Placement and phrasing of Keeting Five section

I worry about the placement of the keating five scandal within the lead paragraph of the entry. John Glenn's involvement was similar, but on his page reference to the Keating five scandle is buried in the middle of the page. Also in the Glen page it speaks of both McCain and Glenn being "exonerated" whereas here McCain is characterized as having "survived." I worry this is POV issue. Thoughts? 67.159.86.215 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Enigma msg! 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
McCain was largely exonerated by K5 but his political career was in very real danger of being ended. McCain spends a whole chapter on it in his book Worth the Fighting For; it was a pivotal event for him, as once he did survive he began his efforts towards campaign finance reform and other measures designed to prevent the kind of excessive influence that was at the root of K5. The Arizona Republic multi-part bio that's frequently referenced in this article has a whole part devoted to K5. Thus I think it is warranted to include it in the lead section. But yes, we may need to adjust the wording on it. The John Glenn article has a completely inadequate lead section so I wouldn't use it for comparison; also, he stayed more famous as an astronaut than as a politician, whereas McCain is now more famous as a politician than a naval aviator. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wasted Time. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Article size options

There are basically three different rationales for reducing the article size:

  1. It's too long to hold readers' attention or otherwise be useful to readers
  2. The load time is too long
  3. WP:SIZE says so.

There are basically four different approaches we could take to the article size issue:

  1. Leave it the way it is
  2. Leave it the way it is, but work on the cites (de-cite-template, probably; I have some lesser measures in mind that might make a little difference) to maybe make the load faster
  3. Reduce it down modestly (Ferrylodge suggests 13,000 readable words to 10,000, Bobblehead suggests 82K readable words to 52K), creating maybe two new subarticles to move material into
  4. Reduce it down a lot, say to 50K total article size that just contains the real main bio points nothing else, with maybe 5 to 7 new subarticles, each also pretty small (Heritage/Early life/Education, Military service, House & Senate through K5, Senate 1990s, current 2000 pres campaign, Senate 2000s, current 2008 pres campaign), with a top-level nav template à la Jan Smuts to chain the different subarticles together in a clearly defined biographical sequence.

I am against approach 3. It will make the load time problem a little better, but not much. It will cause a loss of the best part of this article (IMO), the character material, which is surely what will get chopped out. And it will all have to be redone again if McCain wins in November.

I would most prefer approach 1; I've dealt with the load time the most of anyone, and have made my peace with it. Most of the FAC comments so far haven't complained about the load time and none have complained about the article size in terms of rationale 1 above. This article was written to be a shorter version of a real biography like get published in the real world, and I'd really like to preserve that. But I do realize a good number of people having complained about the article size here and I don't like the idea that all the slow connection people in the world can't read it.

I would next prefer approach 4. This keeps the cite templates, because the main article and all of the subarticles will all be short. The cite template is the "right" way to do it from a software engineering perspective (my day job), because it gives us a common way of presenting cites now and in the future. Once you undo the cite template, you're left with something much harder to maintain. That's why we use templates in many other contexts. Approach 4 also makes the subarticles more visible than approach 3, because it's more clear that the bulk of the article is somewhere else; the top-of-page nav template will help too. And if McCain does win in November, approach 4 is what will have to be done, because most of the main article space has to be cleared to deal with his presidency.

Comments welcome. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support Approach #4, sort of. For now, I don't think we need more than two new articles. One could be "Military service of John McCain" and the other could be "Congressional service of John McCain." I'm against Approach #1, e.g. because the powers-that-be have made it clear that the route to FA status does not pass through Approach #1, and also because I do agree that we need a shorter article to reduce load times and accommodate the ADD people.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, your proposal is to reduce readable words from 13,000 to 10,000, which would reduce the total article size roughly from the current 177K to about 136K. If you load this back version of the article when it was 136K a few weeks ago, you'll find it still takes a long time to load. You can keep going back through the history as the article grew, to see when you (or others) think it was a fast load. See what you think of this version at 70K ... for me it's not lickity-split, and that was in early November, right before the whole expansion/rewrite I did began. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I think we can reduce way below 10,000 words, as you described in your Approach 4. Note that there are already separate articles on his 2000 campaign, and his 2008 campaign, and his political positions. If we add two more separate articles (on his congressional career and on his military career) then it seems like that should allow a tremendous reduction in size here, wouldn't it?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with just one congressional career subarticle is that it comes both before and after the 2000 presidential campaign article, which is messy to structure for easy natigation. And the sequence is important; a lot of what happened in the early 2000s is because the 2000 campaign left him unhappy with how he was treated by his own party. Sequence is always important! Also, there's a lot of material that can be added to his congressional career once it's in subarticles (the current main article barely touches on what he went through with McCain-Feingold, for instance, and doesn't mention at all his role in pursuing the Abrahamoff affair, or the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, or several other things). Once I'm through with it, a single congressional career article would be very slow loading too ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, that makes good sense. So, instead of two new articles, how about three? Such as: "Military service of John McCain" and "Congressional career of John McCain to 2000" and "Congressional career of John McCain from 2000."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The titles could be

  • Early life and military career of John McCain
  • House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999
  • Senate career of John McCain, 2000–present
  • Cultural and political image of John McCain (this will need to be split off too)

(Since McCain is so closely identified with being a senator, I'd like to keep that in the subarticle titles.) We can see how it goes. Decisions aren't set in stone, more or fewer subarticles can be made as we go along. But we can't do anything until we hear more feedback, if any. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could go with that. But I hope you will leave enough good, first-class stuff in the main article so that the main article will easily become featured, okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It's the subarticles that can easily be featured; all those FAC stability freaks will have a hard time knocking something that ends in 1981! Seriously, I haven't thought much about what exactly would be left in the main article, it's too depressing to consider. I basically hate WP:Summary form; it's like sending material to Siberia. Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton has existed for four months now and still has a red Talk page! Meanwhile the main article Talk page is ready for archives 11 and 12 and would be twice as big if all the rants and obscenities were left in. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well how about this: let's create the new articles right away, without removing stuff from the main article. Then we can go pruning one section at a time through the main article. If you want, I can initially take the lead on that, or you can initially take the lead; it's up to you. In any event, I don't think you should be depressed about it. Just imagine that some excellent biographer has given you lots of material on a silver platter, and now you have the luxury of selecting the very best stuff to remain in the article. And instead of imagining that you're dumbing down the article, perhaps you could imagine that you're writing an executive summary for someone who has less time available than you initially thought they had.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
We still need to wait a day or two for other opinions. There's no immediate rush; the current FAC will have to be shut down, because the revised main article won't look much like what people have been commenting on. Once started, the first thing I'll do is create the subarticles and the nav template that chains them together. Then we should construct a test version of the reduced main article in a sandbox somewhere, and measure it for size, load speed, and of course judge its content. I'll take the first crack at it, but if I get stuck or hate doing it, I'll turn it over to you. Or we can each make a sandbox version, if we have different ideas about the approach it should take or the content that should go in, and ask others for opinions about which works best. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I just took a look at the Obama article. It's 128 KB. This one is 173 KB. For whatever it's worth.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't really look at total sizes, it's the readable text that is important. An article that doesn't use the cite templates, but has 80k of readable text, will be smaller (and load faster) than both the Obama and this article, but still be over the size guideline. In response to Waste Time R's comment above about Hillary's Senate article still having a red discussion link.. Well, not a lot has happened in Hillary's Senate career since you calved off her Senate article. I wouldn't be surprised if there haven't been any discussion on that article. Most of the comments on her main article's talk page haven't had anything to do with her Senate career. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, that's why I said, "for whatever it's worth." As far as words of readable text, Obama's got about 6,000 and McCain's got about 13,500.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've started on all this work. Won't have anything to look at until tomorrow. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Wasted Time R/Sandbox/mcc-new-main in my sandbox shows a rough first cut at reducing the first part of the article, "Early life and military career". No changes yet to the second, "Political career" part. By my word count, "Early life and military career" has been reduced by about half. The total byte size probably isn't as much, because there are some cites still left in (some of which are busted) that can be taken out or coalesced or amortized across the entire article. Anyway, comments welcome on how the reduction has been done — too much, too little, right things left in, wrong things left in, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To all, the new reduced "Early life and military career" section is now in place in the actual article. All of the former material is now in the new subarticle, Early life and military career of John McCain. Reduction and new organization work done by both myself and Ferrylodge. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we're down to 151 KB from 173 KB. This is mostly due to Wasted Time R's slimming and trimming, which will hopefully continue a bit more.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
We're down to 135 KB now. Hats off to Wasted Time R for continuing to do most of the work here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Panama Canal Zone a 'U.S. territory?'

In the event of his victory in 2008, he would also become the first President of the United States to be born in a U.S. territory outside of the current 50 states (see natural-born citizens)

I don't think the Panama Canal is considered to be a U.S. territory or possession? The Panama Canal Zone is leased by the U.S. government from the Panamanian government (as per the 1903 Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty), but this presumably makes it in the same legal position as Guantanamo Bay (as per the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty), it being leased by the U.S. government from the Cuban government. No one will say that is a possession or territory, the Attorney General preferring to believe it is in a class all on its own.

We should not include the phrase "U.S. territory" so as to avoid confusion and possible pov judgements over whether or not the PCZ is a U.S. territory.--24.57.151.98 (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It should say

In the event of his victory in 2008, he would also become the first President of the United States to be born abroad (see natural-born citizens) --24.57.151.98 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, there is now a detailed and substantive analysis which supports that the PCZ was never a "U.S. Territory" and demonstrating from language in both Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903 and the Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977 that Panama was the "territorial sovereign" over the land and water in question. Leaseholds like this have never been considered "U.S. Territory" for purposes of the U.S. Constitution or the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. In addition, State Department Regulations at 7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States" specifically exclude children born on U.S. Military Bases outside the United States - even when born to parents who are U.S. citizens - from being considered "natural born citizens" for purposes of satisfying the U.S. Constitutional requirement at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 [although such persons are certainly U.S. citizens for most other purposes such as for 8 USC 1403(a) i.e., INA 1952 purposes. The critical distinction and point of contention by some is that while Senator McCain is clearly a U.S. citizen via naturalization when he was 16 years old, he is ineligible to run for President of the United States of America under the requirement that he be a "natural born citizen" of the United States under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Mr. McCain when questioned about this always refers to INA of 1952 section 1400 but again, that only proves that he is a valid "naturalized citizen", not a "natural born citizen". The article should in fairness at least make some reference to this matter, which many consider to be a rather strong argument in favor of disqualification, notwithstanding Senator McCain's other fine achievements. See detailed analysis at: http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html -- JOMO59 03:20, 29 February 2008

If you have to submit a lengthy thesis in an effort to prove that the Canal Zone wasn't a U.S. territory, that itself is a problem with your argument, even if you offer a blog as "proof" of your position. The Canal Zone is universally recognized as a past U.S. territory, even if you don't see it that way. It certainly is not accurate to say that McCain is "Panamanian-born." If you want to argue territorial sovereignty, you could just as easily claim that Barack Obama isn't eligible for the presidency because many believe that Hawaii's annexation and its eventual incorporation in the U.S. were illegal. I could find all sorts of "detailed and substantive" blogs and other Web sites to support that position too. Kirchherr (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting and encyclopedic. Perhaps there are reliable sources addressing the issue. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The term "U.S. territory" has specific legal meaning and specific legal context. Referring to the PCZ as a "U.S. territory" is misleading when it comes to the legal issues surrounding McCain's citizenship. These issues rest on legal terms like "U.S. territory" Regardless of whether or not the issues are frivolous, the context demands respect for the legal term. With that in mind, do you have scholarly sources which say PCZ was legally considered a "U.S. territory" at the time? That's what you need if you want to use the term. --24.57.151.98 (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, after a little thought and research JOMO59's and 24.57.151.98's comments have the elements of scientific logic (i.e. foreign versus domestic soil) and reliable sourcing as a foundation. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Panama Canal Zone was handed back to Panama in 1979 at which point it CEASED TO EXIST, it was a FORMER US territory. Will edit the article to reflect this. YourPTR! (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionally Ineligible to be President of the United States

John McCain was born in Panama in 1936.

According to Article II Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution: Qualifications for office No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

Until the U.S. Constitution is amended, John McCain will be ineligible to take the office of President of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.102.214 (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the entire Republican Party is really making a terrible mistake. You'd better tell them! Here is their contact info: Republican National Committee, 310 First Street, Washington, D.C. 20003. Phone 202-863-8500. Don't delay! Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed before McCain first ran for president in 1999 and he was deemed eligible. He was born on a military base because his father was serving in the military. The US has no choice but to recognize it. The only reason this is coming to light now is because the New York Slimes realized their claim of an affair didn't really get anywhere, so they decided to run an article about how McCain should not be allowed to be president. I don't know who is running that rag now, but whomever it is, they have a severe bias against John McCain. Enigma msg! 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the NYT article from today on it. Interesting, although you mischaracterize its conclusions. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
They have no choice but to cite people that say McCain is eligible, but the way they wrote the article is indicative of a bias. I believe that the article was written to put the question in people's minds. It's a nonissue. Enigma msg! 16:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's a nonissue. He was born to American parents, so his place of birth is irrelevant. If you're born to American parents, you're a natural-born citizen. Period. Kirchherr (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. It is very much a central issue since it is the very requirement for eligibility to the presidency. And one is incorrect to say that if you're "born to American parents, you're a natural-born citizen". That's what many people may believe or hope but that is not the law in this area. The first naturalization law of March 26, 1790 which provided for this automatic "natural born status" for children born abroad of U S citizens was later nullified by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. (See Wikipedia natural-born citizen article, et al.) On may certainly be "declared" a citizen "at birth" via retroactive naturalization but that is wholly different from being a citizen "by birth". The presidential Constitutional standard requires citizenship "by" birth not merely "at" birth via some other operation of law or declaration. Thus, there is no such thing as being made to be "as if" one were natural born i.e., the "by birth" standard. In the vernacular: you is what you is physically born on U S territory and thus instantaneously a U S citizen "by" birth , or, not born on U S territory but made a citizen "at" birth by naturalization. The two are mutually exclusive. Both may be citizens but via different routes. The one qualifies you for president, the other disqualifies you from the start. Moreover, some historical perspective is required: "natural born" is a specific legal term that John Jay incorporated into the Constitutional requirement and he did so quite deliberately for very specific reasons. Recall that at that volatile time our Colonial government did not have standing armies, was fighting against not promoting latter-day imperialistic agendas, and cared to protect the leadership of the nation from Foreign invasion. [A rather radical concept indeed given our modern day sensibilities. Ah, but alas, our Founding Fathers were not so much politicians as true statesmen.] It was quite different from our present day empire-building, NAFTA oriented, "come as you are" policies. At the time of our founding, the intent of the Constitutional Framers was not to have military bases around the world such that the citizenship status of a child born to parents on a foreign base would ever need be determined. I agree that aspects of this may seem or actually be unfair and an unintended consequence. [Do I hear the word "blowback"?] However, there are many such inconsistencies in other areas too. The way to cure these is by way of a Constitutional amendment, not by hiring lawyers to write law by way of popular opinion in newspaper articles or blogs. And PS/ the reason for the "lengthy thesis" to prove PCZ is not U.S. territory is only to show that the issue is actually quite clear from every angle. If I had simply made a bold statement that it was not so without providing detailed lengthy evidence you surely might have equally accused me of being merely opinionated, frivolous, and providing an unsupported position. One cannot have it both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.153.89 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Title 8, Section 1403 of the United States Code grants citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone with at least one parent who is a United States citizen. This differs from the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment which grants citizenship to all born in the United States, regardless of parental nationality.

Source: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone

Jogershok (talk) 10:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Between this section and the one above, something tells me that before the election is done we're going to have a John McCain presidential eligibility controversy article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason most of the comments are downright incorrect or off-topic (as they pertain to whether or not he is a citizen or whether or not it makes sense for him to be excluded). Obviously this is a legal issue and will eventually be settled by a court so all of our opinions are moot. An encyclopedia is obliged to cover the issue,however, I'd say. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the courts would not necessarily settle it. There are a class of legal issues called political questions that the courts don't touch.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not an authority on the topic, but I do know that matters which depend upon interpreting the constitution can end up in the Supreme Court from a variety of plaintiffs including the ACLU or even just 1 citizen. Some may think and say this is a political question but I think it is clearly more a matter of constitutional interpretation. There is little doubt that McCain was born on foreign soil (albeit foreign soil controlled by USA as tenants) and there seems to be thusfar no established case-law saying that such a birth =s "natural born" and in fact long established British common-law regarding tenants' rights would likely preclude an interpretation that rented land should be seen by a tenant as in any way equating with the status of one's own land. After all, "This land" by Guthrie does not include Guantanamo Bay. If I were to speculate as to why this matter has not been delt with by the Supreme Court before, I'd guess it was because we have never been this close to electing a President who was not born on domestic soil. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see that you're not an authority. The political questions doctrine means that the judicial branch stays out of matters that are the exclusive business of the political branches. For instance, the meaning of the "republican guarantee" clause is up to the political branches, and the Courts will not touch it.
In any case, this is in fact black-letter law back to the 18th century. Children born to "the king's embassadors" in foreign countries were natural born English citizens, and this was taken as obvious. -- Zsero (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This part of Natural-born citizen reads "One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized."[5] Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[6]" and there are many reliable sources in addition to the New York Times which see this as an important and unresoved issue. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well from that same article: "Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And 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."" That certaintly applies to John McCain. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The matter sits unresolved right now. Should it be in the article as an important issue yet to be resolved? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is Coco Solo Naval Air Station.

Family background and early education Three generations of John McCains — an infant McCain with his father and grandfather, both Navy Admirals.

McCain was born on August 29, 1936, at the Coco Solo Air Base in the then-American-controlled Panama Canal Zone[2] to Navy officer John S. "Jack" McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912).

There is also a runway there known as France Field. My son, Lee, was born at US Naval Hospital Coco Solo.

A photo of the hospital is available at: http://www.czbrats.com/Photos/PO/POcocosolo2.jpg
Joseph OGERSHOKJogershok (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What is it that you want changed in the article? Not clear to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He was born at US Naval Hospital Coco Solo. Coco Solo was a Naval Air Station.

OK, I get it. The Coco Solo base nomenclature is confusing ... per this website it was sometimes just a Naval Station (since it originally housed submarines), and our Coco Solo article really needs to trace the different names better, but the Timberg book uses 'Naval Air Station' for the time of his birth and this is what the article now uses too. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Too long

This article curently stands at 173MB. This is insane, and at the moment, we're experiencing article size creep all over Wiki, it would seem. It takes ages for the page just to load due to parsing issues (this occurs after any page changes), not to mention half this stuff ought to be in subarticles. We need to trim a lot of this: this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a novel. As it stands, if someone wants all these details, they can reference subarticles. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the #Article size options discussion above. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_McCain/Archive_4&oldid=1136266493"