Talk:John McCain 2008 presidential campaign

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)

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. [1] "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[2]. 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[3] and for which Brown blamed his downfall on.[4] 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)