Talk:John McCain 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WP:ANI

I have created a thread concerning the above dispute and two of the editors involved on the WP:ANI notice board. I'm just tired of it, that's all. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am too, but it doesn't seem helpful to go to ANI when DR seems to be on the verge of working. I have bent over backwards to make concessions and we agree to everything now except for the one sentence on the Islamist reaction. csloat (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yawn. Wait. I do have an opinion. I think Evb-wiki should get over it already. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You were right to remove the comment; I was going to do it myself. I don't consider apologies useful, whereas prevention and restitution are. Won't be doing it again. Can't think of suitable restitution. But of course there are two sides to it, and I don't see any signs of the Yawn-ing being paid for, or even stopping. Anarchangel (talk)

You didn't read the RFC before making that initial comment, did you? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

World view section

I removed some material about the extremists thinking that McCain could be provoked into a prolonged battle since this was not in the citation. This material seems to be a synthesis of one post article?? Has this recieved coverage else where? --Tom 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To recap, this received coverage worldwide. The first coverage appears to be Washington Post, followed by reports in NYT, the Telegraph (UK), the Times of London, the UPI, AP, the Washington Monthly, and others. AP and UPI carried this as a top story when it occurred. The McCain campaign was severely rattled by the "endorsement" and held a conference call to address it; this too was very public and widely reported (the conference featured former CIA Director James Woolsey along with two McCain advisors, and was carried by Congressional Quarterly as well as the Federal News Service). The summary about McCain being "provoked into a long battle" is not something I am wedded to; in fact, I prefer the simpler language that was actually used by the Washington Post and others who indicate that the al-Qaeda website postings indicated a preference for McCain as President in the US. I am happy to compromise on the wording and would vastly prefer simple and more straightforward language, but the information should stay in the article. It is relevant; it was widely reported in numerous reliable sources, and it had a visible effect on the McCain campaign. csloat (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The McCain campaign was severely rattled by the "endorsement" and held a conference call to address it; this too was very public and widely reported (the conference featured former CIA Director James Woolsey along with two McCain advisors, and was carried by Congressional Quarterly as well as the Federal News Service).

If it's true that they were "severely rattled" then why can you only provide blogs and non-verifiable sources, all of which are overtly biased? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Re-read the above. Click the links. Lookup the Congressional Quarterly or the Federal News Service. For heaven's sake just read the articles in the AP. Certainly "severe rattling" is a subjective judgement, but the fact of their reaction is well documented in reliable sources. I'm not advocating the language "severe rattling" in the article; in fact, I much prefer direct quotations to misleading summaries. csloat (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Both Jihadist & Islamist extremist are offensive to Muslims therefore:

This is a part of the discussion defining the current wording that passed completely unnoticed, so I am reprinting it down here.

-reprint- I can't believe no one noticed this: On 18 Nov, Collect wrote:
"In the cite, "jihadist" appears only as a quote from Raisman. So far, SITE has not sent me any info at all on this person, by the way. Has anyone else gotten any info? In any case, "jihadist" is considered offensive to American Moslems. [1]

The cited article actually decries the use of the adjective Islam to modify extremist, terrorist, etc, more than it does Jihad, in that it mentions the former first, foremost, and at greater length. Although Islam is used, the combination with the words it lists would require making an adjective of Islam to create Islamic. And although it may have only been for space reasons, the article in fact literally says nothing whatsoever about the noun 'Jihadist'. I would expect this would also be objectionable; the point is that the amount of research you apparently have done on this subject would not allow you to be an expert in the opinion of the Muslim community.

"The truth is that when you add the word Islam in front of words like fascist, extremist, terrorist, etc. Or, when you allow criminals like Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda to redefine the words Jihad and Shahed, then you are giving the impression to all the millions of Muslims in the world that you think that OBL and al Qaeda are correct in their attempts to give an Islamic justification for their criminal actions. They are not correct. Terrorism is not Jihad, it is Hirabah. A martyr is a person who dies in the cause of God, most certainly not someone who dies committing an act of terrorism." -The American Muslim, from the cite above

To the extent that the argument for 'Islamic extremists' has thus far been based on the assumption that it isn't offensive and 'Jihadist' is, the argument is, well, you tell me, I would say, 'negated'. Anarchangel (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

-reprint-

To the extent that "Islamic extremist" is a direct categorization, and that "Jihadist" uses a term of specific meaning within Islam, and that the use of "Jihadist" is considered offensive, and that "Islamic extremist" does not use religious terminoology -- the choice is clear. Note, by the way, that I have not used "Islamic terrorist" nor "Islamic fascist" in any posts, and I would consider such to be offensive on their face. There is, however, reason to call some people "extremists" and that does not appear to be a rational issue. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

-new reply- If others are unclear about what I wrote, please say so. I thought it was fairly obvious that, as Collect's objection, that then swayed everyone towards using the word 'Islamic extremist' instead of 'Jihadist', was entirely based on an erroneous assertion that Jihadist was considered offensive and Islamic extremist wasn't, whereas the American Muslim article found them both to be offensive, that the use of these terms would have to be re-evaluated.
Please clarify the last sentence, before "Thanks!"
And, I would appreciate it if you did not use such a glaringly contrasting tone in your closing statements. I personally find it extremely annoying, as I cannot help but believe it is intentional sarcasm, due to its past use on other talk pages in conjunction with accusations and PA, but you of course know the truth of what it signifies, and are the keeper of your own conscience.
I concur that there are other issues involving the two words, but as I noted elsewhere, 'Jihadist' is a term of self-identification, where 'Islamic extremist' is a term of condemnation, and there is a clear case for usage of a subject groups' term for themselves, whereas condemnation is a breach of NPOV; although one is of course entitled to one's own opinion on the matter, it must not enter into the article text.
Extremist is a weak argument with a strong propaganda value. It is extremely subjective, yet pretends to be a measurable valuation. Beliefs of an 'extremist' need merely to be 'other' than the viewer's own for it to seem relevant. It is xenophobic, and the new bigotry. It is a right-wing spinning buzzword that has, ad nauseum and in a climate of fear, caught on. Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A long post which changes nought. "Jihadist" is specifically a RELIGIOUS term. Hence is grossly offensive to most Moslems. "Islamic" is a descriptive term -- not a religious one in itself, hence, while I am sure no one wants to be called an "extremist" it is far less overtly offensive. As for your finding sarcasm where none was intended, I fear that is beyond my power to correct for you. I would, of course, be glad to show others what you consider proper in, say, edit summaries. Collect (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite away. There's the link. Anarchangel Look, you cited the article as an example of Jihadist being offensive and Islamic not, and the article doesn't say that. Do you really think it helps your case to make an unbacked and credibility-stretching assertion that Jihadist is religious and Islamic isn't? You're busted, it's over. You're wasting my time, you're wasting your own time. And before you or anyone else thinks I am being a little hasty with you on this, don't forget I have seen your MO in action already. I won't be running around in circles to pin down your little red herrings anymore, even to expose them. Anarchangel (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh -- why not try WP:EQ. The term "jihad" has specific religious meanings within Islam. Or did you elide that fact? Or are you upset that I am in sync with UN usage, US government usage and EU usage? Collect (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I hate to get involved here, but Anarchangel is quite correct. After all, "Islam," equally, has specific religious meanings within Islam. csloat (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

most recent compromise version

OK, here is another compromise version of this paragraph. I put it in a separate section below "world opinion" but I'm not wedded to it being a separate section. I included the McCain campaign's response, although the cite is to NewsMax. But I thought that was better than quoting the NYT's characterization of the press conference ("The endorsement left the McCain campaign sputtering, and noting helplessly that Hamas appears to prefer Barack Obama. Al Qaeda’s apparent enthusiasm for Mr. McCain is manifestly not reciprocated."). At least this way the McCain campaign gets its fair say. The other sources linked are WP, NYT, AP, UPI, and Times of London. I don't think anyone can complain about those sources. I've also carefully noted that only one analyst described an "emerging consensus" even though it's clear other experts agree on this (and, in fact, if you read the Times of London piece or this piece in Wired, you learn that the web posting on the jihadist site is one of many, that the poster is "a prominent al-Qaeda supporter," and you get more from Raisman's analysis that provides context:

"I'm not going to extrapolate that what one member writes is going to translate into an attack, but some of the members of the forum are active in the field," Raisman said. In addition, though the author of this post and the other members of such forums are not officially affiliated with al-Qaida, its top leaders apparently pay attention to them. Earlier this year, Raisman noted, top al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri answered questions posed to him by one of the members of one of the extremist forums."

-- I'm not suggesting we quote all this, but I do think it shows why experts take Raisman's claim seriously.) In any case, this new version should answer all the problems that have been raised, but please offer constructive suggestions here. Thanks! csloat (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Far too long. Far too POV. Far too irrelevant to the price of eggs. And "experts" took Eisenstadt seriously. It does not mean we are to be sheep. Collect (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a mere three sentences, and there isn't a hint of POV. It bends over backwards to tell the McCain campaign's side of the story; if anything it errs too much on the side of diminishing the significance of this event. If you have a better proposal, please share it, but sniping without evidence or reasons isn't helpful -- if you think it is "far too long," what word count would you suggest is appropriate? If you think it is "far too POV," tell us why. I'm not sure what the price of eggs has to do with this, and if you have something to add from Eisenstadt, let us know what it is. Happy holidays. csloat (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This story got less press than Salin Palin's wardrobe. There is barely marginal significance to this story. Scheunemann, Hoffman, Nye, and Clarke -- several people that you use to prove "notability" (along with various blogs, but that's not even worth getting into) -- were all clearly giving responses speculating about the Al-Qaeda organization, and not Raisman's conclusion about a single password protected website. Plus I've already definitively pointed out that Clarke's opinion was given weeks before Raisman's conclusion. In addition, there's no proof from the provided source that McCain called a news conference specifically to respond to Raisman's conclusion. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This story was well reported and was a top story on the major wire reports. You can look at the sources yourself if you stop deleting them for a minute; none of them are blogs. This is not about Raisman or his conclusion, but the authors cited were all directly commenting on the same reports that Raisman was commenting on. And yes there is "proof" that McCain called a news conference; the entire conference is transcribed by reliable sources! Or are you suggesting that the Congressional Quarterly is lying? csloat (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you can click all the relevant cites if you re-read my post at the top of this section. Cheers, csloat (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the story was well reported... for a single day. Like I said, Sarah Palin's wardrobe got more press than this. You're still yet to prove that the McCain campaign gave Raisman's conclusion any significant notability. Your evidence of notability is articles from various sources, a news conference, and expert comments. Let's examine all this, shall we?

• I have looked at the sources in the article thoroughly. Some are reliable and some are unreliable. For instance, an Op-ed is not a reliable source, regardless of where it's published. That's why it's called an op-ed, it's not news, peer-reviewed, or fact-checked. So scratch that off the list. Neither are the various blogs that you've used to make points about notability in discussion; it goes without saying that these should be ignored and are a waste of our time. So we're left with a somewhat smaller pool of articles reporting the news related to Raisman's conclusion.
• As for the news conference, which you bring up frequently, it hasn't been proven to be exclusively called to respond to Raisman's conclusion. It's a campaign for the president of the most influential and powerful country on Earth, I'm sure they hold news conferences every day and answer a variety of questions many of which are probably non-notable too. So scratch that off the list. In fact, the one cited source in the article referring to the conference specifically says that Scheunemann was talking about the Washington Post article itself and how it was inaccurate and criticized the media's reporting. So scratch him off the list, too.
• And experts Hoffman, Nye, Woolsey, and Clarke, you've frequently claimed that they're commenting on Raisman's conclusion. Actually reading their quotes easily proves that they're talking about the Al-Qaeda organization, not Raisman's conclusion about a single website. In fact, Clarke's opinion on Al-Qaeda was given weeks before Raisman's conclusion. Scratch ALL THEM off the list too. This is an opinion section, not an Al-Qaeda speculation section. Their comments have no relevance to opinions on the campaign, or even the campaign itself.

All you're left with is some news article reporting a non-notable event for a single day (which is the media's job, not Wikipedia's), and Raisman who is never purported as any kind of expert, has no published work, and zero proof of notability. It is incredibly undue weight to give this guestimate as much significance as a months-long international poll from a reputable pollster.

Oh yeah, and bringing up that a few news outlines had called this an "endorsement" is such blatant POV pushing, especially when the only cite for that contribution which actually uses that terminology is an Op-ed. And also mentioning that there was no official Al-Qaeda statement gives the story even less notability. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's important to add Sarah Palin's clothes here please do but I don't see how it's relevant to the issue at hand. The news conference isn't about Raisman at all; it's about the fact that the media was reporting on an "endorsement" from al Qaeda, and it's pretty obviously a response exclusively to that if you would bother to read it (which you apparently haven't, or you wouldn't bother with such obviously false points). The news conference was in the CQ and the McCain campaign went so far as to hire an external expert, former DCI Woolsey, to speak at it specifically because some people see him as knowledgeable about al Qaeda. Stop acting as if this is about "Raisman's conclusion" or as if you are "scratching" people off of "lists" for some reason. It's a fact this was well reported in reliable sources and commented on by well known experts (Raisman is one of those experts, yes, but this is not some kind of popularity contest for Raisman). You raise a lot of original objections to Raisman which might be interesting to media conspiracy theorists but are totally irrelevant to Wikipedia. And you will find the word "endorsement" not just in an op-ed but also in the Times of London report, and it's a non-issue anyway since AP, UPI, WaPo all use "support" rather than "endorse" and I'm certainly not pushing the use of the word "endorse" in the article, though I have no objection to it either. But I'm happy with the word "support," it's a minor but acceptable change. Please stop censoring the information entirely if your objection is only to a specific word. Thanks! csloat (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the conference is supposedly called not because of Raisman's conclusion is the point. It's about time that you actually acknowledge that. The content of the edit is about Raisman's conclusion, despite your new position that this isn't about Raisman conclusion anymore -- even though the edit specifically mentions a "single analyst" referring to him. (Really, how many different positions can you take on this edit? I know you're trying to be a moving target, but you're just off the course now.) You still are yet to provide any proof that the conference was specifically about the Washington Post article. You claim to have a link to the transcript, it'd be nice to actually see it instead of hear you talk about it, but you're not one to link to sources. This might actually give credence to one of your arguments... for once. Plus, if you think this is supposed to be about various experts' opinions on an endorsement (which none of them actually do; they don't even talk about Raisman, they talk about Al-Qaeda and speculate about what they'd probably prefer), then this proves further that this content has no place in a World opinion section.

Aside from the fact that you've conceded that this content isn't about an opinion anymore, you're still yet to prove notability. There are literally hundreds of stories that have a day-long lifespan during a presidential campaign, and this was one of those non-notable hundreds. Concerns about weight and notability have not been address. This story is given way too much weight, there's no proof of notability, and it is misplaced in the article since it is not about opinion. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 07:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This change has nothing to do with Raisman; it has to do with the mass media reporting al Qaeda's support for McCain's campaign, and McCain's campaign reacting to that support. You can whine about Raisman all you want; he is quoted specifically in the mass media and discussed by McCain's campaign. But he is just one of the experts consulted here, as you know. In any case, if you have a change to make to the content, let's see what the change is, but stop deleting it -- notability has been established in spades, and you are just being disruptive now when you censor this material. Good day. csloat (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The section on this story seems to be expressing doubt that it was actually al-Qaeda that made this statement. If so, then what is its relevance? Key question: What effect, if any, did this story have on the election? My guess is, not much, or probably none. At worst, it would have counterbalanced the smears that Obama was a Muslim and/or an al-Qaeda sympathizer. McCain lost because he was closely tied to an unpopular President, and because he did not run a smart campaign - not because some alleged terrorist group claimed they supported McCain. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Bugs above (except I'll add that McCain's cluelessness on the economy was a major factor as well). There's no evidence that this supposed Jihadi "endorsement" had any effect at all in the election, and it was barely a blip in the press. Just remove the reference to it completely. Kelly ^hi! 20:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was figuring on his "sound economy" comment as being part of his poor campaigning, and that also brings to mind Will Rogers' parody of Calvin Coolidge, which sounds oddly familiar: "I am proud to report that the country as a whole is prosperous. I do not mean by that, that the whole country is prosperous, but as a whole it is prosperous. Now a hole is not supposed to be prosperous, and we are certainly in a hole. There's not a whole lot of doubt about that. And in conclusion: Everyone I come in contact with is doing well; they have to be doing well or they don't come in contact with me." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This had no effect on the election. But it had a significant (and verifiable) effect on the campaign, which is the topic of this page. csloat (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Inclusion is just some bizarre POV push, but in which direction, I can't guess at a glance. It's either 'Terrorists supported mccain so it's good he lost' or 'mccain scares terrorists more than Obama, so they lied, and it's bad he lost'. Either way, inclusion is a POV push about something which ultimately was irrelevant to his loss. (Found this through the AN/I report.) ThuranX (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The larger area of interest, if any, would be the rhetorical question raised by commentators on both sides, as to which candidate the terrorists would "want" to win. Not surprisingly at all, each side's commentators said the terrorists would like for the other candidate to win - Obama because he would be soft on them and let them get away with more, and McCain because he would be hard on them, and thus good for creating more polarization. The apparently bogus al-Qaeda announcement could well have been set up as a fake in order to support the latter idea, which is kind of what the GOP guy was saying. News flash: The terrorists couldn't care less who we elected. America will continue to be "the Great Satan" in their eyes. And that's their recruiting tool. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, different terrorists said different things; the al Qaeda sympathizers supported McCain while Hamas supported Obama. But it's a mistake to think that my support of including this paragraph has anything to do with pushing POV -- it's only about documenting the entirely notable and encyclopedic fact that terrorist groups and sympathizers did attempt to make their views known on American elections, and were successful in getting media attention and a reaction from the campaigns themselves. (In that sense I would support including the Obama info on the page for his campaign as well). The key issue is that this was well reported and provoked a reaction from the campaign itself. csloat (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

FINALLY!!! The points that Baseball Bugs, Kelly, and ThuranX brought up are exactly what I've been saying all along. In addition to the inconsequential effects on the campaign regarding this story (notability), it's being shoehorned into the wrong section (relevance) and it is a POV-pushing contribution (neutrality). --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I only looked about 6 lines into the history. Is this one paragraph the only thing you two are fighting about, or is it just one of many? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The entire section entitled *World opinion* (which had expanded to 3 good-size paragraphs) has been controversial. Check out archives 2 & 3 for the extensive uncivil discussions. Most of the threads there are about this. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a clear compromise on that section that both Amwestover and I agreed to. csloat (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I commented here in order to prevent duplicating the conversation in two places. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

At this point any "compromise" about the wording of material must fail if the consensus is that none of the material is germane to the article. Collect (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Page Protected

For 1 day due to the current and ongoing edit war between commodore sloat and amwestover. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_at_John_McCain_presidential_campaign.2C_2008 for a discussion on a proposed topic ban for these two editors. Hopefully by the time the page protection expires, we will have consensus on removing the cause of the protection. SirFozzie (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, just when I think new opinions are finally weighing in on the matter, an admin outta nowhere suggests that I should be topic banned for following the editing process. I have numerous diffs to prove that I have worked to improve this section and address concerns of the other editor. Characterizing this as an "edit war" his very irresponsible, especially when there appears to be no effort to put the dispute into context. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman sues New York Times

I've added a section at John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008#Defamation lawsuit - Iseman has sued the NYT for $27 million, along will Bill Keller, the Washington bureau chief, and the reporters who worked the story. According to her lawyer, she waited until now because she did not want the lawsuit to influence the campaign.[2] Should we make mention of the lawsuit in the section of this article that deals with the controversy? Kelly ^hi! 02:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. If the lawsuit is dismissed as frivolous by the time Congress meets, we can omit it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added it. She may not win the suit, but it's not frivilous; the NYT story was fishily constructed and has come under criticism from many quarters, including if I remember right the NYT public editor. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD on lobbyist controversy article again

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

al-Qaeda "endorsement"

I hate to bring up a sore subject, but there still is no mention in the article of the very well-sourced and well-reported fact that many mainstream sources reported on postings to al Qaeda websites "endorsing" McCain. This was a major event in the campaign and it provoked a press conference at which a former DCI was hired to address the issue. The objections to this material fall into the categories of WP:UNDUE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. According to WP:PRESERVE, Wikipedia policy is to err on the side of preserving information rather than deleting it. Below is the most recent compromise version of the section before it got deleted. If you think these few sentences create an undue weight problem, let's figure out how to resolve the problem without deleting the information. Sound good?

Some purported Islamic extremists weighed in on the campaign. On October 22, 2008, the Washington Post reported on what one analyst called an emerging consensus on extremist websites when a post appeared on a website described as "closely linked to Al-Qaeda." Several news outlets referred to the "endorsement" of McCain by al-Qaeda-affiliated bloggers, but there was no official statement from the terrorist organization.

The McCain campaign held a press conference in response to the news reports, at which former CIA director James Woolsey "said any endorsement by al-Qaida was a ruse designed to thwart McCain’s bid."

I'm interested in constructive changes. There is no justification per Wikipedia policy for excluding this information completely. Complaints about resumes and the SITE institute are just versions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- anything we want to say about the sources cited should also be sourced to reliable sources (which, by the way, would include the McCain campaign;s own staff commentary during the press conference). I realize some think this is my way of slandering McCain -- I assure you this is nothing of the sort and in fact would prefer that the McCain campaign's side of the story is well represented here. I'm just concerned that this important event is being covered up here. Cheers, csloat (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Key person cited is a poster of a message on a website -- a person who is not even associated with al-Qaeda. I might as well cite a comment on a Huffington Post blog asserting that Sarah Palin is Trig's grandmother (and there are a lot more than one such post.) The "analyst" Raisman has no c.v., no published articles etc. and when his "employer" was asked, not a single reply came back. In short -- this is an attempt to place material where the basis is a blog but claiming that if an RS cites a blog, that the blog becomes RS in some mysterious way? Nope -- material from a blog does not become RS because some reporter quotes it. Actually we have been through this before several times, and iterating it does not make it fact. Collect (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect, the fact that something originated from a blog does not mean it can never be included in Wikipedia. The fact that something gets quoted by a reliable source inoculates it against the unreliable-ness of the blog source and means that it can be used on Wikipedia. There is no mention of including an unreliable source of a reliable source in the criteria for inclusion in WP:RS or WP:V. If the story weren't widely covered in the media, you could argue that the inclusion of the "endorsement" would be a violation of WP:UNDUE, but claiming that info from WaPo, UPI, The Times (UK), and AP suddently don't meet WP:RS because their source is a blog is a non-starter. That being said, csloat, I believe you are looking for List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with putting it on that page is that it's not really an endorsement. It's a feeling that was common among al-qaeda supporters that McCain would have fought the war on terror in a way that would have been beneficial to their cause. So it really doesn't belong under endorsements even though some news outlets called it that. (Al-Qaeda never sent money to the McCain campaign, for example). It belongs here in my opinion because it was a major event in the mccain campaign that was covered by multiple well known reliable sources internationally and provoked a significant reaction by the McCain campaign. csloat (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What it does mean is that the material must be inspected carefully. Recall the LATimes "article" which called Palin a believer in dinosaurs living in the past 10,000 years? That a story is "widely covered" but stems from a single source, the "widely covered" becomes irrelevant. The Eisentadt hoax, to give another example was "widely covered" remember? So we have two issues --- can a RS which relies on a totally unreliable source, be regarded as giving authority to the unreliable source? If enough RS's say something which is not so, does that make it so? Clearly your answer is yes to both questions, and my answer is no. [3] "Palin told him that “dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time,” Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said “she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks,” recalled Munger." Enough to show that an error in an RS should not stay in WP? Collect (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; it looks like Collect picked up on what I was going to say, but I'll say it anyway.)

Something similar to what we're seeing here happened to the Sarah Palin article. A number of editors tried to assert that Palin was a young-earth creationist citing an article which was printed in the Los Angeles Times. The problem was that the Times article used for its source a thirdhand allegation by a Wasilla resident who for years had run an anti-Palin blog[4]. What we're seeing now, is that we can't cite such a blog as a source directly because, on its face, it is patently unreliable. But some now argue that if an intermediary which is generally considered RS (such as the LA Times) makes note of it, suddenly it's OK to do so. Clearly something is wrong here. I believe that this is a growing problem that WP:RS is going to have to address. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RS already has provisions for this. We cite the article, and we cite the followup article from another reliable source that indicates the first article was a hoax. But what we most certainly do not do is make independent judgments as Wikipedia editors about whether a reliable source is a hoax -- if other reliable sources don't say it's a hoax, we don't have any standing to. It's that simple. If you think this al-Qaeda "endorsement" didn't really happen, and you have evidence of that which isn't published yet in reliable sources, write an article yourself, get it published, and then let's cite it here in Wikipedia. Cheers, csloat (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As the person who posted is not connected to AQ, it is clear that no "endorsement" existed at all. Citing rumors is not a great way to handle encyclopedia articles IMHO. As for your claim that a negative must be "proven" in some way, that is a well-known fallacy. Collect (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Reporting what reliable sources have said about the situation is all that is necessary; there is no need to prove negatives of any sort. But if you're going to claim that the situation is a hoax, it is you who has the burden to prove an affirmative (e.g. that the situation is a hoax); claiming that you are being forced to "prove a negative" when you're the one asserting that this is some sort of hoax is a distortion of the very notion of burden of proof that you are referring to. csloat (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A reliable source is not infallible and there will always be examples where a reliable source will make incorrect statements (*cough* Jayson Blair *cough*). The problem with painting all claims that originated on a blog with the same broad brush is that for every example that you come up with an example where a blog was wrong, someone else is going to point out multiple examples of where a something broke on a blog and got it right. As an example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, former FEMA director Michael Brown's stellar "qualifications" were first reported on a blog[5] and for which Brown blamed his downfall on.[6] So, do we ignore Brown's dismal performance with International Arabian Horse Association and general lack of qualifications for the FEMA job because the story originated from a blog? Also, let's not forget about the Drudge-Fox News-Everyone else newscycle. While Drudge does get it wrong from time to time, he has gotten it right more than he's gotten it wrong. Are we to ignore all reporting that starts off on the Drudge Report just because it is a blog? As far as the young-earther claims, I'm guessing the reason why that story dropped off the face of the planet is because other reliable sources disproved the claim. That's generally how it works. On Wikipedia, if you want to make the claim that an otherwise reliable source is not reliable in this instance, you need to provide evidence from other reliable sources that disprove/contradict the statements. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WP guidelines say not to use blogs. That they are "sometimes" right is akin to saying that we should tell people that dice rolls come up seven just because they "sometimes come up seven." Facts are not rolls of the dice, so a source shown to likely be unreliable is not citable. WP is NOT a newspaper, and has no independent factchecking, so we try to use sources which do use factchecking. Is the NYT sometimes wrong? Yep. Odds of a NYT fact article being right compared with Joe Blog? WAY better. And note that Drudge almost invariably has a RS to back his story (the Lewinsky story broke because it had been spiked after being accepted by factcheckers at a newspaper). As for HP being considered generally reliable - that is not how I read all the archived discussions on it. With the examples I gave, I suggest that on political facts it is generally unreliable. Collect (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Nobody's suggesting using blogs; what we're suggesting is using reliable sources. Not just one, but multiple reliable sources, including NYT, AP, UPI, WP, heck, including the McCain campaign itself! This isn't about drudge or HP or anything else. csloat (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the post to which I replied. It says "The problem with painting all claims that originated on a blog with the same broad brush is that for every example that you come up with an example where a blog was wrong, someone else is going to point out multiple examples of where a something broke on a blog and got it right." Which rather looks like Bobblehead is saying blogs can or ought to be used. In point of fact, sans ESP, it appears to have been what he intended to write. Collect (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's a different discussion then, sorry. Are you ok then with the sentences above as is being added to the article? Thanks. csloat (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I find the issue problematic at best. We do not include every single controversy as a rule, and this particular one seems to have no actual nexus to a serious position held by Al Qaeda at all. If a group makes an "endorsement" (which is not even claimed) with the intent of it being a "non-endorsement" than we are faced with a dilemma. Do we give publicity to that group? Or do we say "that group is trying to play mind games with the public, and this is not a real endorsement of any kind." Under one candidate, I did not find the CPUSA endorsement -- yet that is likely as valid or more valid than this one is (and represents actual voters, to boot!). Would you fight to insert the CPUSA endorsement for candidates who got it? Collect (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is not a page about al Qaeda. The important thing here is not the (non)endorsement; it's the fact that this news event was of significance to the McCain campaign. Like it or not, this is part of the McCain campaign's history. I think you're incorrect on the al Qaeda stuff too but there's no need for us to debate that -- the real point here is the McCain campaign, and this was a moment in that campaign that received significant media attention and provoked a news conference to respond to it; all of this is very well reported in reliable sources. Whether this represents an actual "endorsement" at all is totally irrelevant. csloat (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So everything which the campaign felt warranted a news conference should be in this article. Interesting concept, that. Do you realize how many such news conferences took place? We will have a veritable bookshelf in this article if that us the argument you now use <g>. Collect (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How many such conferences do you think took place? Certainly every one which received significant media attention during the campaign should be included here. Absolutely every one in which a well known former Director of Central Intelligence was asked to deliver the opening statement would have a place here. csloat (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Feb 21 - lobbyist article in NYT. Jun 5 - discussion on wiretapping. Jun 23 - car battery prize. Jul 2 - hostage rescue. May 9 - Obama/Hamas. Actually apparently over a hundred news conferences related to the campaign, and should be included by your apparent standards. All receiving "significant media attention." The question, then, should be relevance and actual importance -- and that has so far not been shown. Collect (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please indicate the significant media attention of those (I count 5, not "over a hundred") conferences with citations -- especially those conferences where a former DCI or figure of similar stature provided the keynote -- and we can discuss which ones to include. The relevance and importance to the campaign has been shown in spades above Collect; your assertion to the contrary really isn't helpful. csloat (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I only listed five -- there were a great many more I could have listed. And there is no need to make any personal comments in the discussion here, I do not use them in my posts. Collect (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, which of the five do you want added to the article, or do you want all five, and where are the sources? I didn't make any personal comments; I simply asked for your sources. None of that is relevant anyway - start a new section on this page if you'd like to discuss adding information about a different conference. Can we now please be done with this discussion and add the al Qaeda paragraph above (4 sentences), or do you have specific changes you'd like to see made to those sentences? Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Thanks. csloat (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do not want the article muddied with tons of material marginally relevant to the campaign. It is, IIRC, you who said that all of them should be in. The point, moreover, is that just because a press conference was held is not sufficient reason to claim that it was an important issue at all needing to be in the corpus of the article. Collect (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then why bring other press conferences up? At stake is this particular one, not any of the others. And I've offered multiple reasons above why this section belongs in the article. You have not suggested any reason to censor it other than that you don't seem to like it. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT on this last point. csloat (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Reread your own posts. YOU were the one who said the fact there was a press confeeence was what made this noteworthy enough to have to be in the article. Not I. Nor is it "censorship" to state that material which is not relevant does not belong in an article. Collect (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That was one reason I gave; it wasn't the only -- I believe this is intrinsically important in itself. The fact that there was a press conference only shows the mccain campaign agreed with me on that point (as did, may I add, every major newspaper and wire service). Censorship is the only reason I can think of that you would want to remove this information from the article. It's quite obviously notable, it's in fact of great significance, it was very well covered in major reliable sources both in the US and internationally. Your objections amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why is this a big issue for you at all? csloat (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, say the other editor is censoring instead of assuming good faith? Sheesh! Try using WP:AGF someday. I consider this whole endorsement/fake-endorsement/non-endorsement/anti-endorsement mudpie to be irrelevant to the campaign article entirely. And so do some others here. And kindly do not assert any ill-motives or impugn my motives. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you are censoring in good faith, but again, your objection amounts to "I don't like it." If the best you can do is call it a "mudpie" or say it's "irrelevant to the campaign" when every reliable source that has mentioned the issue including the campaign itself disagrees with you confirms my point. If that's all you've got, I think we're done here; the material clearly belongs in the article. csloat (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not censoring anything, nor are the other editors here censoring anything. Your iteration of that charge is unwelcome, inaccurate and is contrary to any assumption of good faith. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's see; "censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor." Seems like the right word to me, but if you prefer another, that's fine; either way, you seem to have accepted the arguments against deleting the information so can we please restore the material back to the article and move on? The only other editor expressing any opinion on this is you so I don't think you can blame them for removing this material. csloat (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Censor" is a label that inclusionists frequently like to apply to their opponents, but your argument that Collect is engaging in censorship fails because Collect is questioning the verifiability of these claims. He does not seem to be dismissing them on an argument that they are harmful to McCain. So far, you have insisted that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is Collect's central reason to exclude the material, but as best as I can tell, WP:ILIKEIT ("I believe this is intrinsically important") is your central reason to argue for inclusion. The problem here is the notability of the event. I don't want to start dabbling in WP:WAX, but I think it would appear as a double standard if we were to include this material here when the Obama campaign article makes no mention at all of the much larger Ayers or Wright controversies. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "censorship" aside, the problem is that Collect's question about the verifiability of these claims is a canard. The claims have been reported in numerous verifiable sources including NYT, WP, AP, UPI, the Times of London, the Federal Reporter, and more. They were also included in a conference held by the McCain group. That conference was carried in full by at least two reliable sources. Outside of Wikipedia editors I cannot find a single source anywhere in the world questioning the verifiability of these claims. This is not a case of "ILIKEIT" -- this is a case of pretty clearly substantiated importance from multiple reliable sources. It really doesn't get much more verifiable than that. As for the Obama campaign, I am not editing that article, but I would be surprised if Ayers and Wright were not mentioned. If they are not mentioned they should be -- you're right that would be a double standard. But it may be because there are already two complete -- and ridiculously long -- articles on those topics by themselves (see Bill Ayers presidential election controversy and Jeremiah Wright controversy). I'm certainly not proposing an entire article on The Great McCain-al-Qaeda Scandal of 2008 or some such; we're just talking about a few sentences to document an item that was very much a major piece of election news. If there is a better place for these sentences let me know; this seemed like the most natural place for it. csloat (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I would suggest that, instead of here, such material be placed in United States presidential election, 2008#Election controversies. That's where issues such as Palin's experience and the documented bent in media coverage have been noted. But yes, the Obama campaign article is currently bereft of any mention of Ayers or Wright, so I don't think it would be appropriate to include this here. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't work to improve this page until the Obama page is improved? That seems odd to me. This really isn't an "election controversy" per se; this is a development in the campaign. A pretty big one at that. csloat (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You asked where I thought would be a better place for it than here, and I answered you. There's a section on campaign developments in that article, if you think it a better fit. But yes, since we have established that it would be a double standard to include this material here when no such campaign "development" material is included in the Obama piece, I don't think it should be done. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Kindly show my canard? I stated that the source of one of the claims is not even claimed to be part of al Qaeda, so his post on an extremist blog does not meet WP standards as a source. That is not just invoking WP:V, it is invoking WP:RS for sources. You appear to think that if an RS cites a blog that the blog now becomes reliable. It does not. You also asserted that the incident should be here because "there was a news conference." I pointed out the foolishness of that claim as there were many dozens of news conferences, and dang few are covered in this article. You also make an assertion that WP:PRESERVE in some way mandates that this be included. Per WP:BLP that is false. And the WP:BLP makes it clear that the burden is on those seeking to include material to get a consensus, not the other way around. You also accused me of "censorship" which I regard as a sign of assuming bad faith contrary to WP guidelines. Now do you intend to edit the article, or just filibuster on the talk page? Collect (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The canard is that there is any verifiability or RS issue at stake here. You deny that NYT is a reliable source? You deny that AP is verifiable? I didn't think so. The rest of the issues you raise amount to a wikipedia editor having a dispute with a NYT editor. Sorry, but if the NYT doesn't acknowledge the dispute as credible, Wikipedia cannot do so. As for editing the article, I have been advocating this as an edit all along. csloat (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be mixing up the meaning of "reliable" and "verifiable." Sources can be reliable. Stories, not sources, can be verifiable. The question is, can the claim be verified? Not, is a typically-reliable publication talking about it? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifying the stories has already been done by the journalists involved. Wikipedia is not in the business of raising verifiability issues that have not been raised by other reliable sources. Nobody is suggesting we report that al Qaeda voted for McCain or something preposterous and unverifiable; what is being suggested is that wikipedia document that reliable sources reported what they did. I don't understand your objection to this specific material on the grounds you are citing. csloat (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Extreme claims require careful consideration. I would never have tried pushing Martin Eisenstadt's claims into an article -- and it rather appears thatI was right. When an RS is wrong or likely to be wrong, then it is not a valid argument that since it is RS it belongs in an article. Moreover, that was not my main point. The crucial issue is per BLP that you would need a consensus to INSERT this stuff. A consensus you do not appear to have. Nor have you done more than filibuster here, instead of editing as you would if you really believed you were right, eh? Collect (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing about the claim that is particularly extreme. I don't know who Martin Eisenstadt is or why he is relevant to this. But it is not Wikipedia's job to second guess the claims made by reliable sources. The reason I haven't edited this article is because I have been asked not to due to an edit war in the past. But you're right, if I don't edit it, the edit won't occur unless I convince someone else that the edit is worth making, and I apparently have not yet done so. It doesn't mean I won't keep trying :) The problem is, you haven't raised any real objection to it -- I feel like you're the one filibustering. First it's an RS issue, then it's a WP:V issue, then it's a BLP issue; it seems like one strategy after another designed only to keep this material off the page. csloat (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is properly our task to weigh estraordinary claims, even made by "reliable sources." As for "verification" of Martin Eisenstadt, I fear you have been too far away from reading about RSs being taken in by single source frauds. Which took in multiple RSs. It was proper not to post claims about Palin being Trig's grandmother, for example, even though it was listed in "reliable sources." Secondly, it is out proper position to weigh whether a claim is germane to the article. In the case you have pushed without editing, the position of many here is that it is NOT germane. So far your response seems to be that "everything" belongs in an article. It does not. As to "filibuster" -- try counting the number of lines you post compared to others <g>. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) There is nothing "extraordinary" about this claim. Al Qaeda members and supporters wanted Bush in 2004 for the same reasons they preferred McCain in 2008. (2) There is no evidence of "fraud" here and for Wikipedia editors to claim there is such evidence requires a reliable source -- you are the one making an "extraordinary claim" my friend. (3) Martin eisenstadt has nothing to do with this. (4) You are completely distorting this issue. This is about a phenomenon that was picked up by multiple reliable sources and has never been countered by anyone but a lone Wikipedia editor. (5) How is this not germane to the article? It is about the McCain campaign directly, and the McCain campaign had a specific response to it. Your objections have been dealt with in spades, Collect; you appear to be the one "filibustering" here. As I showed above, your objections keep changing. csloat (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The claim is, indeed, extraordinary. Your assertion that AQ supported Bush in 2004 is unsourced and contitious in itself. And posting 500 lines in a thread is not really more valuable than posting 50. As for RSs being taken in by a fraud -- and the fact that skeptics like me were the ones who uncovered the fraud? Not the vaunted sources? As for being a "lone WP editor" I would point out the long discussion where one editor insisted on using "Jihadist" until consensus was too overwhelming for him to persist? And if you feel this strongly, be bold and make the edit. Collect (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If the claim was extraordinary it would not go unquestioned by a consensus of experts contacted about the story. And it is well-known that al Qaeda members and supporters (like this, there was no "official" AQ statement on the issue) openly backed Bush in 04; even the CIA made a formal assessment of the issue and concluded al Qaeda wanted Bush to win. (Here's a rundown of some of the reporting on the issue from the time). Your claim that the NYT AP UPI WP as well as terrorism experts Joseph Nye and Richard Clarke (not to mention a host of others like the major networks, like al-Jazeera, like Times of London, like the Federal Reporter) were taken in by a fraud is a great little conspiracy theory but it's of little use to us at Wikipedia. Look, if you want to expose this as a fraud, write an article, get it published in a reliable source, and then I'll be among the first to agree that we add a link to it. But stop inventing ridiculous conspiracy theories as an excuse to keep well-sourced information out of the article. (This has nothing to do with discussions about the term "jihadist" and you know it -- there is no need to revisit that battle). And please don't tell me to edit a page you know very well I have been asked by administrators not to edit -- I was asked to confine my input to the talk page, which is what I am doing. csloat (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The NYT did not question Eisenstadt. And your thousand lines here have not actually added much. Collect (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You keep mentioning Eisenstadt. I don't know what he has to do with this. Please quote the relevant portion of Eisenstadt you would like to include, or exclude, and link to the article, and explain its relevance. Otherwise, please quit distracting us from the actual issue here; thanks. csloat (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

'Country First'

The slogan 'Country First' redirects here. This is now, however, the name of McCain's new PAC. Should that slogan link to a page about that committee, or to a disambiguation page? Quark1005 (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably to a page about that committee with an explanation somewhere on the page of the phrase's origin. csloat (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no article for that PAC, although with about 50 articles in Category:United States political action committees, I guess it could be justified. Then yes, the redirect should go there. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

This is a notification that articles related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) have been placed by the community on article probation. See Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation‎ for details. Thanks - Kelly ^hi! 17:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If only the probation were extended to all this worldview/endorsement arguing that never ends. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

new information on al Qaeda endorsement

“ Al-Qaeda's rhetorical swipes at Obama date to the weeks before the election, when commentators on Web sites associated with the group debated which of the two major presidential candidates would be better for the jihadist movement. While opinions differed, a consensus view supported Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the man most likely to continue Bush administration policies and, it was hoped, drive the United States more deeply into a prolonged guerrilla war. ”

From today's Washington Post; much more in that excellent article. csloat (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

An article with few facts and many opinions -- including that jihadists welcomed Obama's election as well. "Other jihadist groups appear less threatened, or perhaps more accepting of an American commander who appears more open to peaceful accommodation, Katz said. A publication known as Al-Samoud, linked to the Taliban in Afghanistan, viewed Obama's election as a welcome sign that Americans are "very much tired from the bitter war" and do not wish to prolong a conflict "ignited by Bush's insanity and his satanic policy." " In short, not an article grounded in new information, but in an editorial interpretation of unnemed "experts." Collect (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not an editorial. You can interpret it as you please, but it is solid reporting and analysis. The information about Obama is interesting but not relevant here as we are talking about the McCain presidential campaign. Do you have any actual objections to this material? csloat (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It does not assert any new information has been found, it iterates previously questioned material here which, by consensus, was not allowed in. It is clearly not NPOV, hence it has an editorial component. And your use would appear not to note that the groups were opposed to Bush, hence the word "endorsement" is fatuous. Collect (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making completely bogus claims. The claim that this article is "editorial" is complete nonsense. The Post, like most other reliable newspapers, has a separate section for editorials. The word "endorsement" needs to be in quotation marks to indicate that it is not "fatuous" but used in a manner very distinct from a traditional endorsement, as I have said all along. See red herring. Cheers, csloat (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect is right. There is no new information. Alio The Fool 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Try being civil. The article is an "analysis" and presents no news. Insulting me does not strengthen your SPA devoted to election articles (moret than 40% of your recent edits are devoted to election related articles and talk pages). Collect (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So 40% of recent posts (for an account that is about 4 yrs old) makes up a "single-purpose account" now? Nothing uncivil about calling your claims completely bogus when they are, in fact, laughably so. Get a grip. csloat (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It does tend to diminish any sense of actual umbrage on your part when you decry SPAs anywgere, to be sure. BTW, my acount is about 3 years old as far as being "registered" is concerned. Back then, no one was quite as concerned as they are now, to be sure. Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making ludicrous non sequiturs; you're only embarrassing yourself. I never suggested that your three-year old account is a single-purpose account. You suggested my account is, even though the mere thought is complete nonsense -- I have 700 pages on my watchlist. Since you've conceded the arguments that actually have anything to do with the material about the al-Qaeda endorsement, I trust that you will restore it to the article - thanks! csloat (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting tactic -- when a person asserts that an article is totally unuable in a BLP, simply assert that the other editor has conceded on its accuracy <g>. I did not, and do not, feel aQ had anything whatever to do with any "endorsement" of any kind in the campaign. Period. Collect (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Even more interesting of a tactic -- concede or ignore every argument and then make a pronouncement that black is white. I feel like I've seen this somewhere before. Cheers, csloat (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Goldfarb interview

Just wanted to post a link for anyone who may be interested to an interview with Michael Goldfarb, deputy communications director, with some info I hadn't seen elsewhere about the Palin selection and the campaign's relationship with the media. Kelly ^hi! 16:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it, it's amusing. It's sort of a sequel to this interview Mark Salter gave near the end of the campaign. Like the reference to Andrew Sullivan, Salter was certainly right on that one. But overall, any treatment of "McCain and the press 2008" would have to address how McCain managed to turn his ally that he had had on his side from 1991 through January 2008, into an enemy in so short a time. The NYT Iseman story seems to have been the catalyst, but that piece was poorly received everywhere, so there must be more to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good take from Roger Simon of The Politico on it: "Why attacking the press never works". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility to be President

Under "Eligibility", the article currently states:

Although McCain was not born within a state of the United States, his status as a natural-born citizen (and future eligibility to be elected to the presidency) may have been assured at birth by either jus sanguinis, since his parents were U.S. citizens, or jus soli, as the Panama Canal Zone was at that time (1936) a United States possession (1903–1979), or both.

Reference list for convenience:

The cited sources do not support, and in fact contradict, the implication that McCain might have been eligible by virtue of jus soli. The first source, the Rudin article, correctly states that McCain is a natural-born citizen because, at the time of his birth, his parents were both citizens. The second source, the Crewdson piece, agrees with that point, and says:

McCain was born in the large U.S. Navy hospital in the canal zone, and the issue has been confused, in part, because of the Pentagon's dictum that "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."

. . . .

But the dictum says nothing about the children of U.S. citizens, and it has no bearing on McCain's case.

I'm not aware of any reputable source that suggests that birth in the Canal Zone, by itself, would make someone a U.S. citizen. The current wording of our article is misleading on that point. JamesMLane t c 18:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The wording in the legal review by Olson and Tribe would seem to suggest it was a factor: "Based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers' intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain's birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a 'natural born citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution." This NYT story also contains several scenarios where it may make a difference. If you want to go back through it all, almost every Talk:John McCain archive has something on this, just search for "panama". Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I interpret the Olson/Tribe wording as rejecting the argument later made by Donofrio. Donofrio contended, IIRC, that a natural-born citizen is only someone who was born to two U.S. citizen parents AND was born in the United States. Olson and Tribe reject that view, stating that having two citizen parents makes McCain a citizen even though he was born in the Canal Zone. They may also have been anticipating the argument later made by Chin, that the Canal Zone fell into a gap in the law. In Chin's interpretation, McCain would've been a natural-born citizen if, instead of doing military service in the Canal Zone, his father had been running a brothel in Germany. Nevertheless, none of these sources contend that a Panamanian couple who came into the Zone to have their kid would thereby have a new U.S. citizen in the family, which is what someone might easily infer from reading the current text of our article. I wouldn't accept that Tribe and Olson endorse the latter view without a much clearer statement of their conclusion; such a radical view shouldn't be imputed to them by inference.

At a minimum, we should change our article to quote the Pentagon statement that a U.S. military hospital isn't part of the U.S. for this purpose. It might also be worth including a link to the New York Times article you cite. We can't link to everything on this subject, but I think that article is very informative. JamesMLane t c 22:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the case for jus soli as a standalone reason seems weak, as you point out re the Panamanian couple. But I think some believe that it strengthens the jus sanguinis case. It certainly does politically ("He's part of generations of McCains who served our country under fire in battle, and you're telling me he can't be president because his father happened to be serving his country outside its borders when he was born?", that sort of thing), and presidential eligibility is ultimately a political matter more than a legal one. You may also want to look at Natural-born_citizen#Presidential_candidates_whose_eligibility_was_questioned to see if there's anything there that sheds further light on this or that should be here in this article as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Palin clothing controversy

Here's what the article has on the Palin clothing controversy:

• RNC campaign expenditures
• The Republican National Committee's monthly financial disclosure report for September 2008 showed that US$150,000 had been spent on Palin's wardrobe, hair and makeup as well as clothing and accessories for her family. Campaign finance experts expressed concern about the legality of the spending and the tax implications to Palin. A campaign spokesperson responded saying that the clothing will be donated to charity following the election.

While the three sentences are fine as far as they go, the material gives no indication that this became a significant issue. I suggest giving it a more direct heading, like "Palin clothing controvsersy", and adding at least another line or two about how the revelation was covered in the media.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it needs more. Fairly or not, it definitely was a campaign issue and was a factor in undercutting Palin's everywoman image. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's family

Why (or for that matter, how) is there no mention of Bristol Palin's pregnancy and its effect on the campaign/campaign image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.229.226 (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it had much of an effect on the campaign. Voters were willing to give the Palin family slack on that, as it happens all the time everywhere in America. The Bristol-Levi-Sarah media circus trash talking stuff didn't happen until after the election was over. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Potential offensive statements

I don't want anyone to think I'm republican but I think there may be some highly biased material here that could offend some republicans who voted for McCain/Palin. NormiAd (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Some specific examples are needed for comments like these to do any good. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Country First

"Country First" redirects here because it was a campaign slogan, but it's also the name of his Political Action Committee which is still active and might deserve its own article.

Coupdeforce (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

PACs generally do not get their own articles. But it is named in List of political action committees along with many others. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Jus soli citizenship

I've removed the assertion in the Eligibility subsection that John McCain might be a jus soli U.S. citizen because the Panama Canal Zone was a (so-called ) "U.S. possession" at the time of his birth there. That assertion has been in this article since this March 3, 2008 edit (!!), which added it in a footnote along with the cite of a supporting source which does not seem to support the assertion. I don't know what a "U.S. possession" might be, but the Canal Zone was not a U.S. territory. My understanding is that on February 26, 1904, the Republic of Panama granted in the Isthmian Canal Convention to the United States rights in perpetuity for the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the canal, and that persons born in the Zone did not acquire birthright U.S. citizenship as a consequence of their birth in the Zone. One source currently cited in the article says, "We have never had sovereignty over it. We have only had the right to use it. The US Supreme Court and previous American presidents have repeatedly acknowledged the sovereignty of Panama over the Canal Zone." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There are sources that indicate his birth in a U.S. military hospital in the PCZ, and the amount of U.S. sovereignty over the PCZ, is relevant here. See this WaPo story, for example, the cite for which I've added to the restored assertion. The language used in the article is only "may have been", and as long as there are mainstream sources arguing for it, it's good enough. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

AFAICS, the source you've cited doesn't support the assertion that his citizenship status may have been assured at birth by jus sanguinisjus soli; it would support an assertion that some jurists have argued that he is a natural-born citizen because the United States held sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone at the time of his birth (intermixing, there, the issues of citizenship and of eligibility) because he was born on a U.S. military base; and because his parents were U.S. citizens. I find no support in that article, and have found no credible support elsewhere, for an assertion that birth on a U.S. military base abroad confers (or might confer) jus soli U.S. citizenship. Note that I am making no assertion re McCain's eligibility; my concern is that the assertions you've restored further confuse the issue of McCain's birthright U.S. citizenship. I won't push the issue, but I think that it is a weakness in the article. Wtmitchell Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Why is he hiding his birth certificate? 24.177.123.74 (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Because you don't have to be a natural born citizen to be a Senator? Because no one disputes that his parents were both U.S. citizens? Because it was already made public in the Hollister litigation? There are many possible reasons. Pick one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Letterman?

Should there be something in here about McCain canceling his appearance on David Letterman a few months before the election? Letterman infamously ranted on-air about it and then cut to footage of McCain being made up for an interview with Katie Couric, belying McCain's stated claim that he was flying to Washington to aid the economic crisis. It was talked about quite a bit at the time, with one blogger even claiming that Letterman had cost McCain the election. Kyeo77 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Find a political scientist who says it cost him the election, then you'll have a case. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Qworty

User:Qworty, who has been banned, edited this article, starting John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#New_York_Times_article_on_lobbyist. I think the whole section needs to be trimmed down and cleaned up. Can some help clean up these edits? Bearian (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the Qworty saga and know that you and others are trying to undo the damage, but I think this article is okay. Qworty may have started this section but many other editors including myself (I'm the lead editor on almost all McCain articles) looked at this section at the time and I believe it is a succinct and fair recap of the whole episode, which still has importance in terms of journalistic practices. It's only 500 words in a very comprehensive 14,000 word article. (Whether we really need the separate John McCain lobbyist controversy article is another matter, but it has survived two AfD's.) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 21 external links on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/News/NewsReleases/b1b85afb-cd0c-4a74-997d-dfee1a3f8098.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071025204438/http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6783011,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6783011,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090111004644/http://www.nationalpost.com:80/news/world/story.html?id=191134 to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=191134
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080119064910/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD8U5UIIO1 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD8U5UIIO1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080120124249/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5h-I8TcXNEejVCpT_nWw4XkaKBKYQD8U78HHG1 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-I8TcXNEejVCpT_nWw4XkaKBKYQD8U78HHG1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080121001801/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5ix3wY_xrhLVrEEsL-_VQsAFabINgD8U78QP00 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix3wY_xrhLVrEEsL-_VQsAFabINgD8U78QP00
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080131155530/http://www.mittromney.com:80/News/Press-Releases/McCainonomics_1.27 to http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/McCainonomics_1.27
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090105043018/http://www.valawyersweekly.com:80/weeklyedition/2008/12/30/lobbyist-vicki-iseman-files-27m-suit-against-new-york-times/ to http://www.valawyersweekly.com/weeklyedition/2008/12/30/lobbyist-vicki-iseman-files-27m-suit-against-new-york-times/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080604101900/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5isA8k_ixGbCYfRef-s5Bec7H_MngD90MB7CG0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isA8k_ixGbCYfRef-s5Bec7H_MngD90MB7CG0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080617230556/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gXCJ5_8sT62W945_nP15sEkGmiwgD919ATM01 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXCJ5_8sT62W945_nP15sEkGmiwgD919ATM01
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081123014338/http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/07/19/gramm_quits_mccain_campaign to http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/07/19/gramm_quits_mccain_campaign/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081020053443/http://www.wfaa.com:80/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-perry_13tex.ART0.North.Edition2.1889cce8.html to http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-perry_13tex.ART0.North.Edition2.1889cce8.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080906053604/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010231901/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/bloomberg/20081006/pl_bloomberg/aj7yeq09er4q_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081006/pl_bloomberg/aj7yeq09er4q_1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081026190057/http://www.kansascity.com:80/449/story/854330.html to http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/854330.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081030035634/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/LAC.20081027.PALIN27/TPStory/International to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081027.PALIN27/TPStory/International
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081025165715/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gN2UuEbyF64GtuHQfJzWDqDg7PqgD93VP3RG0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gN2UuEbyF64GtuHQfJzWDqDg7PqgD93VP3RG0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081027202735/http://elections.foxnews.com:80/2008/10/16/joe-plumber-represents-hopes-dreams-political-football/ to http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/16/joe-plumber-represents-hopes-dreams-political-football/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081028154145/http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com:80/2008/10/27/tito-the-builder-joins-palin-on-the-stump/ to http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/tito-the-builder-joins-palin-on-the-stump/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081027061615/http://www.ifc.com:80/video/News/Politics/1873142351 to http://www.ifc.com/video/News/Politics/1873142351
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081012200051/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5ijiz8FLBuKSENDLUMSHsyxjpxKEAD93MLV400 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijiz8FLBuKSENDLUMSHsyxjpxKEAD93MLV400

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071025204438/http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6783011,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6783011,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150128113641/http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Romney.html to http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Romney.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081029033727/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD8TTDOJ00 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD8TTDOJ00
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080116095440/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gopmoney13jan13,1,7362218.story? to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gopmoney13jan13,1,7362218.story
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080131155530/http://www.mittromney.com:80/News/Press-Releases/McCainonomics_1.27 to http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/McCainonomics_1.27
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080306094050/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/22887253/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22887253/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080920125430/http://news.yahoo.com:80/story//politico/20080906/pl_politico/13208 to http://news.yahoo.com/story//politico/20080906/pl_politico/13208
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140514181335/http://blog.cmt.com/September%205,%202008/gops-song-selections-please-john-rich-anger-heart/ to http://blog.cmt.com/September%205,%202008/gops-song-selections-please-john-rich-anger-heart/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071025204438/http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6783011,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6783011,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080131155530/http://www.mittromney.com:80/News/Press-Releases/McCainonomics_1.27 to http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/McCainonomics_1.27

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ny1.com/content/features/86538/senate-passes-economic-rescue-package/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226204351/http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/fb03c61c-89ab-4ef3-9cea-1329f07b923a.htm to http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/fb03c61c-89ab-4ef3-9cea-1329f07b923a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121115217/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q=YjFiOWRjNmUwMDczODFlOWI3N2U1NmIwZWE1Njc0NjM=&w=MA== to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjFiOWRjNmUwMDczODFlOWI3N2U1NmIwZWE1Njc0NjM=&w=MA==
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706003725/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/citizen_mccain.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/citizen_mccain.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330060245/http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/25/nancy-reagan-to-endorse-mccain/ to http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/25/nancy-reagan-to-endorse-mccain/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830201600/http://frum.nationalreview.com:80/post/?q=M2VhOWE0N2VkOWI3MDdlODRlZWE4ODljMDc2NjliZDk= to http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2VhOWE0N2VkOWI3MDdlODRlZWE4ODljMDc2NjliZDk=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511034034/http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct03/0,4670,VicePresidentialDebate,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct03/0,4670,VicePresidentialDebate,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008223315/http://fightthesmears.com/articles/22/AyersSmear to http://fightthesmears.com/articles/22/AyersSmear
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007123133/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html#more
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030221902/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2008/10/27/1597817.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/27/1597817.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025185405/http://corner.nationalreview.com:80/post/?q=NzIwMmZkM2M4MjEzZWVmOGQ1MzBkYzY2NjgyYWZmMDA= to http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzIwMmZkM2M4MjEzZWVmOGQ1MzBkYzY2NjgyYWZmMDA=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208175306/http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/ to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624092238/http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/24280 to http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/24280
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630162747/http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/sprengelmeyer/archives/2007/06/_allpoints_bulletin.html to http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/sprengelmeyer/archives/2007/06/_allpoints_bulletin.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223618/http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070611-apjc-mccaindefends.39388aac.html to http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070611-apjc-mccaindefends.39388aac.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0%2C%2C-6783011%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080115053605/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPFAuG2yf8VM-ySCjoWhB-p9AfUw to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPFAuG2yf8VM-ySCjoWhB-p9AfUw
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gopmoney13jan13%2C1%2C7362218.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117111727/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/14/576554.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/14/576554.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjFiOWRjNmUwMDczODFlOWI3N2U1NmIwZWE1Njc0NjM%3D&w=MA%3D%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725131435/http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors to http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080321083219/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll to http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111012423/http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26291%2F to http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26291%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913234332/http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson083008.html to http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson083008.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902042559/http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-palinreax0830.artaug30%2C0%2C5378822.story to http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-palinreax0830.artaug30%2C0%2C5378822.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2VhOWE0N2VkOWI3MDdlODRlZWE4ODljMDc2NjliZDk%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911230842/http://newsminer.com/news/2008/sep/03/alaska-delegates-see-more-republican-convention-at/ to http://newsminer.com/news/2008/sep/03/alaska-delegates-see-more-republican-convention-at/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918202145/http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view/2008_09_03_Giuliani_says_Palin_ready_to_handle_9_11_crisis/ to http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view/2008_09_03_Giuliani_says_Palin_ready_to_handle_9_11_crisis/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114115729/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080912.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080912.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911232224/http://www.adn.com/politics/story/511471.html to http://www.adn.com/politics/story/511471.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908023036/http://portal.gopconvention2008.com/speech/details.aspx?id=38 to http://portal.gopconvention2008.com/speech/details.aspx?id=38
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910040255/http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/08/politics-of-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx to http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/08/politics-of-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002022809/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=3d17bbf2-556a-480a-9dce-21b958a89663 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=3d17bbf2-556a-480a-9dce-21b958a89663
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct03/0%2C4670%2CVicePresidentialDebate%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080927205109/http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=723483 to http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=723483
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/27/1597817.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzIwMmZkM2M4MjEzZWVmOGQ1MzBkYzY2NjgyYWZmMDA%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080927205109/http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=723483 to http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=723483
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906082646/http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/data_Pres08.html to http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/data_Pres08.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)