Talk:John McCain

Pronunciation of 'McCain'

Both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin WP articles give guidance on how to pronounce the subject's surname. In Barack Obama's case, we are given the pronunciation for 'Barack', 'Hussein' and 'Obama'. But there is no guidance at all on how to pronounce 'John', 'Sidney' or 'McCain'. Could an IPA expert please enlighten us on how to pronounce 'McCain'? - PJHaseldine (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, are you seriously in doubt? With Biden and Palin, the guide is there to tell you whether the first vowel is long or short (Michael Palin, for example, is pronounced differently). With Obama, it's probably there to tell you where the accent is in his last name. But with McCain, there's only one way it could possibly be said. Unless I'm missing something. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mi-Cain or Mick-Cain (in other words, are both c's pronounced or not) ... I think that's something reasonable that someone might wonder about. --B (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that has more to do with the dialect and diction habits of the speaker than with McCain's name itself, but okay ... Wasted Time R (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's fairly obvious. We don't need the IPA guide for every article's title. Coemgenus 14:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious to some, maybe. But what if it is Mucka-in or even Mack-Ca-In? We have a (constitutional?) right to know!--PJHaseldine (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed an inappropriate comment here. Inseeisyou (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wasted Time here, there is no way to pronounce McCain except as it is, whereas the other candidates mentioned may leave doubt. Inseeisyou (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

health history?

a documentation of mccain's health should be included as it is highly relevant to the upcoming election in light of his running mate choice. [03:11, September 14, 2008 98.163.226.18]

It's interpersed in the article in several sections. "McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and then nearly drowned, when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi.[30] After he regained consciousness, some North Vietnamese pulled him ashore, then others crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt and bayoneted him.[30] ... His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[44]" and then "McCain has addressed concerns about his age and past health concerns, stating in 2005 that his health was "excellent".[205] He has been treated for a type of skin cancer called melanoma, and an operation in 2000 for that condition left a noticeable mark on the left side of his face.[206] McCain's prognosis appears favorable, according to independent experts, especially because he has already survived without a recurrence for more than seven years.[206] In May 2008, McCain's campaign let the press review his medical records, and he was described as appearing cancer-free, having a strong heart and in general good health.[207]" and then "He also carries physical vestiges of his war wounds, as well as his melanoma surgery.[246] When campaigning, he quips: "I am older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein."[247]"

The separate subarticles go into even more detail. "Bailing out upside down at high speed,[94] the force of the ejection fractured McCain's right arm in three places, his left arm, and his right leg, and knocked him unconscious.[94] McCain nearly drowned after making a parachute landing in Trúc Bạch Lake in Hanoi; ... A mob gathered around, spat on him, kicked him, and stripped him of his clothes; his left shoulder was crushed with the butt of a rifle and he was bayoneted in his left foot and abdominal area.[94][91]" ... "Further in 1993, a melanoma was discovered on his shoulder and removed.[74]" ... "McCain's plans to campaign for Bush in fall 2000 were delayed later in August by a recurrence of melanoma.[13] This Stage IIa instance on his temple required extensive surgery that removed the lesion, surrounding lymph nodes, and part of the parotid gland.[77] The final pathology tests showed that the melanoma had not spread, and his prognosis was good, but McCain was left with cosmetic aftereffects including a puffy cheek and a scar down his neck.[77]" ... "McCain's war wounds leave him incapable of raising his arms above his head; he is unable to attend to his own hair and he sometimes requires assistance in dressing, tasks performed by nearby aides.[11] His former communications director has said, "You comb someone's hair once, and you never forget it."[11] McCain has been treated for recurrent skin cancer, including melanoma, in 1993, 2000, and 2002;[22] one of the resulting operations left a noticeable mark on the left side of his face.[23] These medical conditions, combined with his advancing years, led him to repeatedly use a self-deprecating remark during his 2008 presidential campaigning: "I am older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein."[23]"

So McCain's health is covered here.

But what Wikipedia really needs is an index, like real books have. Then you could look up McCain, look up health, and there would be links to the places in the main article and the places in the subarticles where his health is described. Alas, all Wikipedia has is brute-force direct-match text search, which doesn't work too well for cases like this. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain's medical records have not been released to the public, except for a suspiciously private, shortened media session in which no one was allowed to take pictures of the records or take notes. Other than that, the article clarifies everything that has been publicly released about McCain's health. The only thing that is missing is more detail about his fight with melanoma, which has not been released by the McCain camp yet.--MegaKN (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

More on McCain's Foreign Interest Lobbyist's

The topic of John McCain's ties to lobbyist's and the interests they represent receives scant coverage in this article. For example, the Associated Press reported on July 20,2008 in an article headlined "FROM SHIPPING LOBBYIST TO MCCAIN ADVISOR" that(first paragraph) "Playing a dual role as shipping lobbyist and a member of a federal advisory panel, John McCain's Campaign policy coordinator helped shape a controversial homeland security initiative that has taken the government 5 1/2 years to develop." It goes on to state (third paragraph) that "A former chief of staff to McCain, Christopher Koch in 2000 set up the World Shipping Council to lobby on behalf of some 40 foreign-based and U.S. ocean carriers. The companies transport half a trillion dollars worth of exports and imports annually. The group has spent $1.7 milliion to influence the federal government on a range of maritime issues." Then third paragraph... "In May Koch de-registered as a lobbyist, took a leave of absence from the World Shipping Council and joined the McCain campaign. He plans to return to the shipping council after the election." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain, Georgia, and Lobbying

A Washington Post article of August 13, 2008(page A-3) displays the interconnections of foreign political lobbying and policy outcomes in the John McCain campaign. The article headlined "WHILE AIDE ADVISED MCCAIN, HIS FIRM LOBBIED FOR GEORGIA" is by the staff writers Matthew Mosk and Jeffrey Birnbaum. It starts..."Sen. John McCain's top foreign adviser prepped his boss for an April 17 phone call with the president of Georgia and then helped the presumptive presidential nominee prepare a strong statement of support for the fledgling republic.[next paragraph] The day of the call, a lobbying firm partly owned by the adviser, Randy Scheunemann, signed a $200,00 contract to continue providing strategic advice to the Georgian government in Washington." Later in the article it states..."For months while McCain's presidential campaign was gearing up, Scheunemann held dual roles, advising the candidate on foreign policy while working as Georgia's lobbyist." And,providing some context, the article states(paragraph 8)..."As a private lobbyist trying to influence lawmakers and Bush administration staffers, Scheunemann at times relied on his access to McCain in his work for foreign clients on Capitol Hill." The article quotes a lobbying expert James Thurber of American University as raising the ethical issue..."Is the adviser loyal to income from a foreign client ,or is he loyal to the candidate he is working for now?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

old man

he is the oldest person to run for president and hes Bold textOLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.94.226 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The article says, "Also, if inaugurated in 2009 at age 72 years and 144 days, he would be the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency,[204] and the second-oldest president to be inaugurated.[205]" (Footnote 205 tells you Ronald Reagan was older at the start of his second term.) Reagan was being inaugurated for a second term, at the age of 73. McCain would be inaugurated for his first term at 72. Reagan was already in office (he ascended to that office aged 69, the current record) and McCain will not be, thus he would be the oldest president upon ascention while Reagan would still hold the record as the oldest president inaugurated. Bob Dole was also 73 when he was nominated by the Republican party. Happyme22 (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Old flame

An old flame of JM has popped up in the news.Brazilian woman finds fame as McCain's old flame Shambalala (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff! I've added the real name and the cite to Early life and military career of John McCain, where the 'Elena story' was already mentioned. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that I used this Daily News article as the cite, since it was more expansive than the AP one. But don't let one editor around here see it, it would scandalize his notions of McCain and chastity ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Minimum wage

Ferrylodge removed a sketchily sourced statement about McCain and the minimum wage. We can do a better job with this PolitiFact roundup. Accurate would be something like: "McCain voted 19 times against an increase in the minimum wage, although on some of those occasions he supported a smaller increase." JamesMLane t c 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This article only mentions economic matters because the economy is among the top two issues that voters are concerned about. No other specific issues are covered here. The problem with this approach, as we all know from the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence, is that just about anything is related to the economy. I hope we can focus here on aspects of the economy that make it the top issue voters are concerned about, and I'm not sure the minimum wage qualifies in that respect.

Even if we were to get into the minimum wage here, we would have to merely sumarize what the sub-article says, and the sub-article does not say anything right now about how McCain has voted on the matter. The sub-article says, "McCain opposes the federal minimum wage; instead he believes that each state should decide its own minimum wage." I'm not sure that is 100% correct, given that he has "supported a smaller increase" in the federal minimum wage, but in any event we shouldn't go beyond what's in the sub-article.

I also think it's unfair to say he voted against the minimum wage X number of times. Much of that is a function of how long he has been in Congress. All of our other discussion of the economy in this article describes McCain's current position, not how he voted 20 years ago.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Senate committees

His work in Senate committees is interspersed throughout the article, but I was wondering if there is a list somewhere of committees that McCain has served on?

On a semi-related note...he was on the Commerce committee as stated in the article. Does this or the Finance committee (or another committee entirely) have oversight of the issues surrounding Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, etc.? --Kickstart70-T-C 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

List of committee and subcommittee assignments would be a good addition to the House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 and Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present articles, sort of similar to what's in the Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton#Assignments article section. But it would be too much detail for the main article. And no, the Commerce Committee doesn't cover the banking or financial sectors. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

John McCain and Asian/Asian Americans and racial slurs

I'm disturbed by the fact that John McCain's liberal and unapologetic use of the slur gook is not spoken about in the media and is not reflected in his wiki page. its a VERY important issue to Asian American voters. An entire book was dedicated to it: http://www.amazon.com/Gook-John-McCains-Racism-Matters/dp/0967943345

"I hate the gooks, said John McCain, "I will hate them as long as I live." Senator McCain said these words when asked about his continued use of the racial slur, "gook.".

Factchecker1999 (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Already included in John McCain presidential campaign, 2000#On to Super Tuesday and Cultural and political image of John McCain#Controversial remarks. Not important enough for inclusion here in the summary main article, given the context. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

After what they did to him, he's entitled to hate them, and he's entitled to use insulting language about them. It's no more controversial than WW2 veterans using "Kraut" or "Nip". -- Zsero (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that it's discussed in the "Frequently Asked Questions" at the top of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"strongly intelligence"

I wonder why it is stated that he is strongly intelligent. If you fail in math, then you're stupid. All records beside his IQ test don't show any sign that he is strongly intelligent. And there is no scource which garants in any way that this IQ test wasn't baised. It must be deleted because there doesn't exist a source which is reliable. I did for my self an IQ test on the net and it stated that I have an IQ of 168 which of course doesn't tell you anything if I am highly intelligent or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakbrain (talk • contribs) 07:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't know who gave his IQ tests. The second one was in 1984, and may have been part of a POW follow-up study, or maybe not. The first one was probably done in the Navy, seems like the kind of thing the military would do. And many people are very strong in subjects such as English and history and struggle badly in math, or vice versa. Intelligence is not one-dimensional. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protect?

Since this is an article about a highly visible, controversial figure, shouldn't it be semi-protected, least for the moment, so that anonymous users can't redirect it to Satan, as I must admit I feel tempted to do (sort of kidding). Aaeamdar (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

John McCain is semi-protected, and has been for a long time. Not sure what you mean. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

POW/MIAs

Hello Everyone:

I would like to include the following in the article on Senator McCain in the "Prisoner of war" section.

New information on the POW/MIA topic and Senator McCain has come to light in an article ref-273 written by a well respected retired editor of a major city newspaper and in an article ref-274 in a national news magazine. This information brings into question aspects of Senator McCain’s past roles and actions on these issues.

Reference 273 Schanberg, Sydney H. “McCain and the POW Cover-up” The Nation Institute, September 18, 2008.

External link: http://www.nationinstitute.org/p/schanberg09182008pt1

Reference 274 Alter, Jonathan “When Ross Perot Calls…” Newsweek, January 16, 2008.

External link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/94827

I am not sure what to do with the formatting and how to link these references to external links. I have gone through the sandbox tutorials.

I am not sure whether this is or is not a minor edit.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks,

Xerxes

Xerxescyrus (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perot's advocacy on the POW/MIA issue and fervent dislike of McCain is well-documented in several Wikipedia articles, including United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs and House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 and Carol McCain. It's nothing new. Schanberg is a once-great reporter who went off the deep end on this issue; there's a reason why no MSM publications would touch his POW/MIA stories. Schanberg's latest Nation piece is just a rehash of the pieces he originally did for Penthouse and later redid for the Village Voice. Schanberg's views on the Kerry committee are also included in our United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs article. None of this is new either. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain attempt to avoid debating Obama sign of a faltering campaign

On Wednesday, September 24, John McCain invoked the current economic crisis as reason for not showing up for the first 2008 presidential debate. Online versions of USA Today and the Boston Globe cite one possible reason being that his campaign had received disastrous poll results on McCain's ability to handle the economy. Is this approprioate to cite, of course with footnotes. A person dressed as a chciken appeard in front of McCain Palin headquarters in Manchester, NH today, this is reported on WCRB. CApitol3 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this would not be appropriate to cite in this article. Another reason for McCain's request to delay the debate might be that McCain actually believes it might be worth taking the next couple days to avert another great depression. Obama would rather debate foreign policy. Maybe Obama's correct that the current economic "crisis" is phony. We'll just have to wait and see. If all of this belongs anywhere at Wikipedia, it would be in a sub-article, rather than this main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain's not afraid of debating Obama about anything (Obama's not a very good debater, Hillary was generally stronger in most of the Dem debates). After the Palin boom wore off, McCain fell behind in the polls again, and then the financial crisis was pushing him even further behind. So now he's looking for another "game changer" to shake up the race, and adopting this "we must lead now, not campaign" posture is what he's come up with. If in fact in results in the debates being delayed (he may also be hoping the veep debate gets scrapped altogether), this article will reflect this happening. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat cynical. There's a major economic crisis going on right now, and I'd much rather have both Obama and McCain working to solve it during the next few days rather than practicing how to pronounce the names of the leaders of Iran, Georgia, and Ukraine.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither Obama nor McCain are the heavy hitters in Congress on banking or finance matters. (If Chris Dodd had become the nominee, or some Republican equivalent, different story.) Obama and McCain do have an important role in this, in that they are quasi-party leaders whose signing off on a deal will make it easier to sell to unhappy members. Whether they have to be physically present in Washington and not campaigning in order to do this is arguable; yes, they can talk to the other members better, but you might just as easily say they'd be better off in the field, talking to voters and local officials about how the deal is playing across the country. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain is good at knocking heads together. It can't be done long-distance, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain is doing this because he thinks it will help him win the election. He, like every other modern presidential candidate, has been running this campaign for two years, with all the effort and money and ups and downs and speeches and funds begging and everything else that entails. This close to the finish line, every single thing he does will be because he thinks it will help him win the election. Same is true of Obama. Same is true of Kerry and Bush and Gore and Dole and Clinton and everybody else who's been this close to the finish. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Cynic!Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, all that being said, his current efforts would ring much truer if he had participated in a single Senate vote since May. He's got more missed votes than any other Senator, including the one being treated for a major brain hemorrhage. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting that none of the missed votes were so close that he would have made a difference. Also, the Dems are in charge of the Senate and therefore are able to schedule votes to conform with the schedules of the Democratic presidential candidates.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Except that making a stand, showing your POV on important votes like the GI bill, those votes are important for regular voters to see what kind of leader you are. To oppose the bill, not vote for it, and to have Bush credit you for the same bill... Being there to vote absolutely matters. One should make the effort, if it is an important legislation known about weeks in advance. Duuude007 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill that would have helped the situation with Freddie and Fannie

Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, introduced 1/26/2005 A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

OxAO (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

THE DESCRIPTION/DOCUMENTATION OF MCCAIN’S IQ TESTS IS SUSPECT.

The source used to document McCain’s IQ testing results is a book by Paul Alexander, a former talk-show-host and fiction writer. However, my recent review of Alexander’s biography of McCain fails to provide any extant copes of Wechsler, Stanford-Binet and/or military psychometic data. In Wikipedia, I believe assertions such as specific IQ test result should be backed up by copies of the testing itself – not simply referenced a somewhat fawning portrayal of the subject. What’s next, citing blogs as references?

The use of the term “strong intelligence” to describe McCain is idiosyncratic usage at best – and biased at worst. Better perhaps to word this description in the more formal language of standard, journalistic reportage, avoiding either euphemistic or pejoritive commentary. This is, after all, not an opinion piece.

Suggestion: “Although McCain graduated 5th from the bottom (not the in the “Lower 20th percentile”) of his NA class, he reportedly scored 133 on the following tests:”

Then, let's see the tests.

Incidentally, IQ scores can change throuhout a person's life, so the time of testing shold also be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyteam (talk • contribs) 08:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The original source is not Alexander, but several news organizations when they were allowed to review McCain's medical/psychological records in December 1999. (Pro-George W. Bush forces were spreading rumors that McCain was nutso from his time as a POW, and showing the records was the McCain campaign's response.) You can see an original, unedited Associated Press report on what they saw in the records at this USA Today page. It says "Scored 128 and 133 in two separates IQ tests over the years, both above-average ratings." You can see Time magazine's account of the records in this story from the time here. It says "Included in the records is a 1984 IQ test. His score, 133, would rank him among the most intelligent Presidents in history." Alexander spent a lot of time covering McCain's 2000 campaign, but I don't know if he saw the records himself or just summarized in his book other news organizations' reporting on them. In any case, what he wrote in his book is consistent with what the news organizations reported. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As for your statement that we need to have a copy of the tests in order to cite this, that is not so. Indeed, WP:SECONDARY tells us that secondary sources (such as the AP, Time, and Alexander) are preferred over primary sources. I agree that the Alexander biography is favorably disposed towards its subject, but it is nonetheless generally well-researched. I agree that it would be good if McCain released his full naval records, which would resolve a number of minor biographical mysteries including whether these tests were given by the Navy and if so of what type they were. I agree that McCain is one of the worst students ever to set foot in Annapolis (for some reason, good students usually don't make national candidates: Biden's and Palin's records are pretty dreadful too, Gore was an underperformer, we know about GWB, etc). If you look at past Talk here, you'll see that I agree that the main article's wording about his Naval Academy rank is somewhat defensive; I too would prefer we say "fifth from the bottom" – hell, McCain used it as a chapter title in his memoir – but Ferrylodge will pitch a fit if we try to use that language. But I don't agree that the documentation of McCain's IQ test scores is suspect. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain was also a one-day winner on Jeopardy!, if that helps convince you of anything. See this AP story and this historical record. (Now added to Early life and military career of John McCain, didn't seem quite important enough to keep here.) Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole phrase about his intelligence should simply be omitted. This passage is about his accomplishments and his actions; the reference to his intelligence is a non sequitur. Sttaylor (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a non sequitur at all. The low class rank may possibly give people the idea that he's a moron, whereas the reference to his intelligence obviously reduces that possibility. They're very closely related, and together they seem to have an NPOV. Just presenting one or the other wuold not have an NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama's not a very good debater

I came across the above statement in a response to one of the edits. What is its attribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyteam (talk • contribs) 09:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It was just a talk page aside, not something anybody is proposing to put in the article. But you can read this NYT story if you want to see others with the same view. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bloat

I'm concerned that we seem to be getting into the habit of expanding this article without cutting anything, and putting in the latest news even though it may not stand the test of time. For example, this was recently inserted: "On September 24, McCain suspended his campaign, and proposed delaying the first of the general election debates, in order to work on the proposed financial system bailout before Congress, which was targeted at addressing the subprime mortgage crisis." I object to inclusion of all this stuff, because the so-called suspension was incredibly brief, and basically amounted to cancellation of an appearance on Letterman. McCain ads continued to play and McCain spokespersons continued giving statements criticizing Obama, while McCain himself continued to make speeches and give interviews. While I agree that the financial crisis is generally a notable event, it is not yet notable in connection with McCain; we don't yet know if he has done anything that will ultimately turn out to solve or exacerbate that crisis, and when we learn that then maybe it can go into this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain made a big play of suspending his campaign, going to Washington to fix the grave national financial crisis, putting the country above politics, etc. When was the last time you saw any candidate suspend their campaign in the presidential general election? That is surely notable. And the financial crisis is the signature event of the post-convention period. That McCain didn't really suspend his campaign is also interesting, but we need better cites than JaneGrey (a known vandal masquerading as an editor) provided and that's perhaps better left for the campaign article. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's my point: he didn't really suspend it. You could just as easily say that candidates "suspend" their campaigns whenever they visit wounded troops without cameras.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no comparison with the wounded troops case. You seem to be making a claim that McCain was just engaged in a massive BS operation. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it was a massive BS operation, also known as gaining control of the news cycle. I don't doubt that McCain was sincere in wanting to participate in the negotiations to solve the crisis, but the bit about suspending his campaign was total BS. And bully for him! See here and here.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, then find a non-Youtube cite that says the suspension was false. But you can't excise the financial crisis from the article; it is the campaign issue of this time, and unlike how many houses does he own, lipstick on a pig, and all the other nonsense that has gone back and forth between them, this issue is real and important. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "Make no mistake. John McCain did not 'suspend' his campaign." For us to say that he did adopts McCain's POV and denies Obama's POV. Various commentators say the same thing as Obama about the alleged "suspension".[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, we can tersely describe what happened. But this whole episode is doubly important because it illustrates McCain's campaign and political style: big, gambling moves. Same as the Palin pick. So even moreso it deserves to be in here. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If McCain said he was "suspending" his campaign to visit wounded troops, or "suspending" his campaign to go to the bathroom, it wouldn't be notable. WTR, please try to get beyond what McCain said here, and look at what he actually did. He merely cancelled a gig on Letterman. Letterman may consider that a major element of the McCain biography, but we shouldn't.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the same at all. This was a suspension announced with much ballyhoo. Yes, I know it was a crock, if you look at the campaign talk page you'll see me saying it yesterday. That's not the point. It is a major point of McCain's biography because it illustrates his big-gesture, big-gamble style. I've changed the language to say 'nominally suspended'. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with "nominally suspended" either, because it implies that he did so in name only. This adopts the Obama POV, and contradicts the McCain POV. It may be that McCain was sincere, but thought better of it soon after. I think you're just looking for things to illustrate and buttress what you consider to be themes of his biography. Call me a cynic! This whole "suspension" thing will soon be forgotten. (Except by Letterman.)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As you pointed out, it's a fact that most of McCain's campaign operations continued. That's independent of what McCain or Obama say. So 'nominally suspended' is reasonably accurate. And the effect of the financial crisis and the bailout plan on the campaign won't be forgotten, especially if the boosted lead that Obama's gotten as a result of it holds up. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The boosted lead that Obama's gotten is not what you put into the article. If McCain had not uttered the word "suspended" but had done everything else exactly the same, you apparently would not have put anything into this article about any suspension or about the financial crisis. Indeed, it is premature to describe McCain's role in resolving or exacerbating that crisis. Obsessing about this word "suspension" does not make it a major feature of his biography, IMHO. Additionally, if McCain intended to cancel all campaign appearances until the bailout legislation passed, then saying he "nominally" suspended his campaign is plain false.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't put in polling stuff until there's a clear, established trend change, and it's too soon for that. I started putting in the financial crisis stuff into the campaign article several days ago, well before the suspension, you can see my discussion with Happy on the talk page there. The financial crisis is important. I am not claiming that McCain has resolved or exacerbated that crisis, just the opposite -- the crisis is tangling up his campaign. The suspension and the debate postponement was a big gesture attempt by him to avoid getting pulled under by a shift to economic themes where Obama would have the advantage. You are the only political observer in the country who doesn't think the financial crisis is going to have a big impact on McCain's chances. As for "nominally", I'm willing to come up with an alternate but still terse construct for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said it's not going to have a big impact on his chances. However, see WP:Crystal.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If you're looking for things to cut, the biographical tour, the town hall debates proposal, and the broad theme of the campaign (which was changed post-Palin into a reform message, so it's not fully accurate anymore) are all less important than the developments around the financial crisis. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that the campaign "suspension" is now back in the article, this time merely as something McCain "said" rather than as something he "did". I disagree with this, because it's confusing and potentially misleading.

According to reliable sources, McCain did actually suspend his campaign earlier this month: "Barely a week ago, both men had suspended activities to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001." See "Financial Crisis Upends Campaign", Wall Street Journal. (2008-09-25). That was an actual suspension, rather than merely talk of suspension. Neither that actual suspension nor the more recent talk of suspension are notable enough for this article. The way it's phrased now in this article makes it sound a bit like McCain was throwing in the towel and then changed his mind, which of course did not happen.

I've tried to be agreeable to a compromise here, so that we can mention the big financial crisis and whatnot, even though it's not yet clear that McCain will have had any significant role in solving or exacerbating it. But I still do not agree with including talk about a "suspension" given that commentators disagree about whether a suspension actually occurred.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether commentators agree that there was a suspension, the McCain campaign made a big deal of him suspending his campaign. Was it a huge political stunt? Highly likely. But the fact that he still had ads running is not necessarily evidence that he didn't suspend his campaign. McCain's campaign did notify the television stations that they wanted their ads off the air, it's just that just because you tell them to take the ads off the air, doesn't mean it happens immediately. Just think of it as a hotel reservation. When was the last time you were able to cancel a hotel reservation with less than 24 hour notice. Pretending that the "suspension" didn't happen is not the best course of action, the best course of action would be to include something that mentions the reaction to the suspension, be that "It wasn't really a suspension!" or "It's another example of McCain putting country first." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, yes, in there past there have been mutual suspensions of campaigns for sudden tragedies, or national remembrances, or when a former president dies, things like that. But this is a different beast -- it was a unilateral suspension by one candidate, urging the other candidate to do the same, on the grounds that their 'day jobs' were suddenly more important at that time than the campaign. I can't recall ever having seen or heard of something similar. I've just included a brief statement about McCain's involvement in the Thursday breakdown of the bailout plan, and the WaPo cite includes the assessment "In truth, McCain's dramatic announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign and come to Washington for the bailout talks had wide repercussions." Nobody would have written the same about the other, proforma kind of suspensions you're mentioning. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to invasion of Lebanon, Haiti, and Somalia

McCain bucked the administration and opposed invasions of these 3 countries. A few months after the Lebanon invasion, the largest attack on the Marines since World War II occured killing more than 200 Marines.

McCain mentioned it in the debates but Wikipedia omits this. I fixed it with a one sentence addition. Several reliable sources, including USA Today confirm the accuracy of the report. 903M (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that they were not included in this article, and that was probably due to summary style. However, I am willing to bet money that they are in the House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 article. Happyme22 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon was in the sub-article, but not Somalia, so I inserted Somalia into the sub-article. Haiti may not be notable enough, since there never was an invasion. Clinton threatened an invasion if certain conditions were not met, but the conditions were met.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If we're including Lebanon and Somolia in the main article, then we've got to include McCain's position on all the other interventions too. He was very visible in supporting action on Kosovo, including possibly the use of ground troops, so I've added that. But his stance on Panama and Bosnia should go in too. And what about his positions on Iran and North Korea, two of the dominant negotiations vs. sanctions vs. intervention issues of the last two decades? Neither of them are mentioned once in this article. You've got to be very careful when adding things to the main article, there's frequently a cascade effect in order to address topics consistently. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The other kind of consistency we need is to be careful about overweighting exceptions. The 1983 Lebanon stance was a real outlier; on the whole in that era he was a very solid supporter of Reagan policies. I've added that briefly to the article, indicating that he supported Reagonomics and the Reagan policies towards the Soviet Union and Central America (both of which were more significant than the Lebanon position, in the case of the Soviet Union hugely more). Note that inclusion of Lebanon has been discussed here in Talk in the past, and we've always said that pulling it in would involve pulling in some other stuff too. I'm not sure McCain mentioning it in a debate should be the causative factor for us to change our minds on this, but I understand that pragmatically, people here something in a debate and they expect to see it here too. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"If we're including Lebanon and Somolia in the main article, then we've got to include McCain's position on all the other interventions too." That is incorrect. It is easy to say that McCain generally supported miltary actions proposed by U.S. presidents, and here are the exceptions: X, Y, and Z. That easily avoids having to go through the rest of the alphabet, and prevents this article from becoming unwieldy and verbose.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the flaw of overweighting exceptions. It leaves the reader with the vague sense that the person did A, but with specific, tangible associations to the times that the person did Not-A. It's like writing, "The Green Bay Packers were the dominant team of the early-to-mid-1960s, except for 1963 in which the team suffered key injuries and 1964 in which Bart Starr didn't play well in crucial games." You're left thinking about injuries and hey maybe this guy Starr isn't all he's made out to be, when you should be thinking about the 5 NFL championships they won during that period. This is a common flaw in Wikipedia writing all over the place, I see it all the time in music articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC) [Note to football fans, I made up the reasons why the Packers lost those two years, I don't remember them offhand.]

I have no problem with this article giving examples of his general support, alongside examples of exceptions. What I would object to is bloating up this article with every instance of general support, when it would do just as well to say that he was generally supportive (while providing an example or two).Ferrylodge (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the wording of the Lebanon sentence. There aren't any sources that say he opposed Reagan deploying the Marines to Lebanon, just that he opposed keeping them deployed there. It could be true that he opposed the initial deployment, but a source would be needed for that. Additionally, the wording of the sentence seemed to imply that McCain was prescient of the barracks bombing when his opposition wasn't that there were going to be attacks upon the US troops, but that there weren't any obtainable objectives. Basically, violence would happen in Lebanon regardless of the US being there and that it was unlikely that the presence of the troops would decrease the violence any. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add back in that hundreds of marines got killed. McCain may not have specifically predicted that, but it would have been avoided if he had had his way. This is not puffing up McCain, any more than it's piling on McCain to say, for example, that the line-item-veto legislation that he supported was subsequently ruled unconstitutional.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in this article and don't have extensive plans to edit the John McCain article. Since I did bring up the reference to this fact, I'll weigh in on it. Ask 100 Americans and 100 non-Americans about the history of the period in Lebanon and many will not know about it. So inclusion of the killed Marines helps article quality and understanding of facts. Undue weight considerations should limit it to 2-3 sentences at most. 903M (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing if the bombing would or would not have happened if the WPA had failed. Even if it had failed it is unlikely that the Marines would have been out of Lebanon by the time the bombing occurred. As far as what happened in Lebanon, there is a convenient link for anyone that is interested in more information can follow. The article doesn't mention the results of McCain supporting Reagan's support of the contras, what happened in Somalia after he opposed US involvement, how many US troops have died since he supported the Iraq War resolution, etc. Leaving out unrelated information that isn't important to the general telling of a person's bio is not uncommon within Wikipedia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've merely reinserted that it was an ill-fated mission, and supplied a wikilink. That way people can brush up on their history.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Ferrylodge. It doesn't work that way and you know that. Besides, Multinational Force in Lebanon already includes a whole section on the bombing. Are you proposing that we wikilink Battle of Mogadishu in McCain's opposition to Somalia? Or perhaps Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse in reference to his support of Iraq or Iran-Contra scandal in reference to his support for US's involvement with the Contras... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is supposed to summarize the sub-article. See WP:Summary Style. I don't recollect that I had any part in writing the relevant section of the sub-article, but that section of the sub-article does discuss the bombing of the barracks in Lebanon. If you would like to go and delete that, then go ahead and try. I think it's useful context. I mean, McCain has made a lot of decisions and cast a lot of votes in his career. Are we supposed to completely ignore whether history proved him right or wrong? If you're so excited to do so, Bobblehead, then why not delete from this article that the line-item veto legislation that he suported was later struck down by the Supreme Court?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, this is starting to look a bit heated. Earlier there was a comment that there's no mention if McCain opposed the original deployment. He was not a Congressman when the Marines were deployed to Lebanon. The edit by Ferrylodge seems like a reasonable balance between context/education and assuming the audience knows everything. This is not blanket support of Ferrylodge as he changed my edit but not to the degree that requires a revert. 903M (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

← The point I'm trying to make is that there is always extraneous information that can potentially be included in the article and thanks to the wonders of wikilinks it isn't necessary to include it. The fact that McCain voted against the WPA and the bombing occurred the next month doesn't mean history proved McCain right, just like Iran-Contra doesn't prove that his support of Reagan's policies in Latin America were wrong... If we want to go the route of WP:SS, then the removal of extraneous information that is not related to McCain's opposition to the US's involvement in Lebanon is more in line with the guideline than the inclusion of that information. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Somehow the fate of the Line Item Veto Act got caught up in this matter. If it's notable to say that a legislator pushed through some law, and if that law was very quickly ruled unconstitutional, then surely it's notable to say that too. This doesn't constitute "piling on" the legislator: many lawmakers are proud of passing such bills and believe that the courts got it wrong. I've restored the text in question. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead deleted that, not me. Bobblehead has a theory that the results of McCain's decisions (or the aftermath), should not be included in this article, and on that basis he removed the fact that the Marines got bombed in Lebanon. Why, WTR, did you reinsert the line-ietm veto stuff but not the Lebanon bombing stuff? Obviously, the former makes McCain look bad and ineffectual, whereas the latter makes him look wise and un-bellicose. Why do you restore the former but not the latter?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the original text, so I certainly thought it was correct at the time. The subarticle still contains my text too: "However, his vote against a resolution allowing President Reagan to keep U.S. Marines deployed as part of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, on the grounds that he "[did] not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon," would seem prescient after the catastrophic Beirut barracks bombing a month later;[1] this vote would also gain him national media exposure and start his reputation as a political maverick.[1]" Bobblehead has raised objections to the 'prescient' link, which I am mulling over and need to do a bit a research on. As noted below, I'm also trying to find the general WP guideline for this kind of context-providing. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, and in the mean time while you look for that guideline you restore context that makes McCain look bad, and keep out context that makes him look good. And an inflammatory edit summary to boot![2] Well done, pal. The top of this talk page says, "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here." Please try, else I may get paranoid.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Line Item Veto Act getting ruled unconstitutional doesn't make McCain look bad! It's a fine idea, I can't help it if the Supreme Court doesn't agree! Every poll I've ever seen says the public is in favor of line item vetoes! Come on ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same subject here? There has been no disagreement that the line-item veto should be mentioned in this article. The disagreement has been about mentioning the subsequent SCOTUS action. Please look at your own revert! You were not restoring mention of the line item veto, but rather were only restoring mention about the subsequent overturning by SCOTUS. Why do you insist on reverting Bobblehead by restoring the subsequent SCOTUS action, but not reverting Bobblehead on the Lebanon explosion? Bobblehead used the same exact rationale for both cases, and yet you are only restoring the material that makes McCain look bad. Why is that, WTR?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what I reverted. (a) I do not believe that the Line Item Veto Act getting ruled unconsitutional makes McCain look bad. Maybe it makes SCOTUS look bad, or maybe it makes the Constitution look bad, but not McCain. (b) I don't know whether you or Bobblehead established the linkage between this item and the Lebanon item, but I consider the linkage entirely bogus. One has nothing to do with the other. It's a no-brainer to include the SCOTUS ruling on the Line Item Veto Act, since it happened right away and since (without the reader linking through, which I do not believe we can assume, see side discussion below) the article would be misleading. I'm trying to research the Lebanon matter even as we type. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I admit it you're right. The fact that the SCOTUS decision made McCain look ineffectual and disrespectful of the Constitution was a definite plus for him. He probably thanked SCOTUS, instead of saying that it was a "defeat for the American people" and comparing the SCOTUS decision to his last interrogation in Hanoi.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See this NYT story during the legal process on the Line Item Veto Act. McCain and Bill Clinton (and I, for whatever that's worth) all thought it was a good idea and hoped the Supreme Court would okay it. It didn't. That's life, that's nothing to be ashamed of. The ruling doesn't make anyone look "ineffectual and disrespectful" of the Constitution, it just means that reasonable people can disagree and the makeup of the SCOTUS at that time had a different view. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There was only one dissenter, so McCain pretty well got wiped out. (I would also be remiss if I did not mention that, before the Supreme Court decided to take over the country and usurp legislative power, SCOTUS would let stand legislation if it thought reasonable people could differ about its constitutionality, and would only strike down legilstion that was clearly unconstitutional.) In any event, as you know, I would have no objection to including this SCOTUS material if we can also include the Lebanon bombing. I can't see any rationale for including one but excluding the other.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument defeats itself. If McCain was valiantly combating the appointed-for-life-accountable-to-no-one, from-the-bench-legislating, constitution-shredding, our-essential-liberties-depriving Supreme Court, then surely no number of these hideous creatures opposing him would make him look bad. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your logic escapes me, if indeed it was intended to be logic. You can wiggle all you want, but having legislation struck down is generally considered a defeat for a legislator, not a victory. That's extremely obvious, and I don't wish to quibble with you about it further. Incidentally, I never said that the Court's decision in this case was right or wrong, but rather was responding to your remark that reasonable people could disagree; I'm not sure you're right that the unconstitutionality was unclear in this case, and I don't have time to look into it right now. What I do know is that it was a big defeat for McCain, and defeats generally don't make a politician look good. End of story.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the results of McCain's decisions can not be included. What I'm saying is that unrelated events that do not have anything to do with McCain's decisions should not be included in the article as if there is a relationship. The bombing of the barracks does not mean that McCain was right or that those that voted for the WPA were wrong. The passage of the WPA certainly did not cause the bombing and it's unlikely that failure of the WPA would have prevented the attack. Attacks of this nature take quite a bit of time to plan out, so it is likely that planning began well before the attack took place. Additionally, removing troops from a combat zone takes longer than a month, particularly since the move wouldn't have had the support of the administration. Just as an example, it took almost two months for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq once Zapatero ordered the withdrawal of their 1,300 troops and they had six months warning that it was going to happen.[3] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, per the below I'm trying to research this better. If McCain believed that the U.S. forces were badly vulnerable and that the U.S. should rapidly withdraw, and if the attack happened, then he should get credit for having voiced this prescient view (even if the rejection of the authorization wouldn't have made a difference in the time span given). What I'm trying to establish was whether he ever publicly stated his force protection worry. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a WP guideline about this general subject, but now I can't find it. Anyway, I believe it said something to the effect that an article must be intelligible and coherent even if the reader never clicks on a single link (which is the forced case when the article is printed out or included in a printed volume). So imagine you're reading a real biography, or a long magazine or newspaper piece, and imagine how those writers would introduce contexts of events. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PAPER and m:Wiki is not paper seem to encourage leaving out extraneous information, but there is definitely a need to make sure the article is readable without having to click on links. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

On the substance of this whole dispute, McCain's account in Worth the Fighting For in fact does claim that he feared that the Marines were significantly endangered by the continuing deployment, due to the restricted rules of engagement (pp. 90-91) and to their being an undersized force (p. 93). Let me keep looking at this ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, that McCain's 28 September 1983 House floor statement opposing the authorization measure didn't mention vulnerability of U.S. forces, and just focused on the 'no achievable objectives, we'll just be trapped there politically' arguments. I need to find a source from the time that has McCain worried about force protection, in order to establish prescience. Will keep looking. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Worth the Fighting For was written almost twenty years after the bombings... I'd find it more convincing if there was some public record or someone unrelated to McCain supporting his fear for their safety rather than him applying 20/20 hindsight. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, that's what I'm looking for. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an edit conflicted response. I didn't actually read your comment until after reposting my comment. Keep up the good work.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't found much yet. This NYT story from 1987 has McCain saying " ... But I knew that 1,500 marines at the airport were not going to affect the outcome of events in Lebanon and, unfortunately, that some young Americans were going to die needlessly." But that's still hindsight, just from 4 years forward not 19. The 1983 newspaper articles I've seen (including one from NYT) are after the authorization vote, and just quote a line or two from McCain's floor speech. Unfortunately I can't find Arizona Republic archives from before 1999 (a problem I've had with other topics too), that's perhaps the most likely place for him to have said something publicly. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, you guys are nitpicking this to death. Of course McCain didn't foresee the precise barracks bombing. What he obviously foresaw is death of Americans. The bombing is what the whole episode is remembered for, so it's ridiculous to leave it out. Moreover, the bombing may well have saved him from electoral defeat. Timberg writes: "He created a mild furor in the district with his September 1983 vote on Lebanon. The criticism lasted a month, until October when the Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed...." Do you think Timberg was violating some rule of biography-writing to say so?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, there is always going to be deaths in combat operations that involve ground troops and McCain knows that. McCain has never supported or opposed operations based on whether or not there would be American deaths, it is based on whether or not there are obtainable objectives. As far as whether or not Timberg is violating a rule of biography. In the context Timberg uses it, the bombing does have an impact upon McCain's biography, but that isn't how it was being used in this article. As you have already admitted, the bombing was being used to show that McCain was right in his opposition to WPA and that isn't what it shows. The bombing changed public opinion on whether the US should be in Lebanon, it didn't prove that anyone was right or wrong. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, McCain would not have objected to the deployment if there was no risk of death. Why else prefer that troops be stationed in Frankfurt instead of Beirut? He said: "I believe the circumstances of our original involvement have changed, and I know four American families who share this view." He wanted to stop the pointless deaths. I'll reinsert the bombing in the context Timberg uses it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

← There is a sub-article that this kind of information can and should be included in. The criticism that he received was "mild" by Timberg's wording and it certainly doesn't say that the bombings saved his re-election as you claim. McCain got 78% of the vote, it is unlikely a "mild furor" would have cost him 29% of the vote. It's also not like the bombings were the first American casualties in Beirut, seventeen Americans died when the embassy was bombed in April of that year. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here. This thing won't ring a bell for many readers unless we mention that this was the incident where all those Marines got bombed. Anyway, the way it's worded now in the article seems unobjectionable by any measure.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to ring a bell, there's a link they can follow if they want to find out more about MNF. Additionally, the important part of McCain's opposition to the WPA is not that it started a mild furor in his home district, it's that it was the start of his regular appearances on the Sunday shows and his reputation as a maverick. You're still conflating his vote and the bombings when the two are not related. The mild furor and subsequent bombings are minor in comparison to that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is so unfortunate as to be perusing this talk page, it might help if you would spell out terms instead of using acronyms that only you and I will understand. As far as conflating anyting, I've tracked Timberg as closely as humanly possible without plagiarizing.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think anyone reading this talk page for the first time will get the point, since it's unlikely that I'm talking about Monday Night Football. :) But, the point I'm making is that the mild furor is not the defining point of McCain's vote against keeping the troops in Lebanon. The defining point of the vote is that it is the first time that McCain bucked his fellow Republicans in such a visible manner and that bucking, plus his history as a POW, attracted the national media who for the first time began seeking his opinion on matters of national importance. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure people will understand that you are not talking about Monday Night Football, but at the same time they will not know what you are talking about. What the defining point of his vote was is a matter of interpretation. If he voted as he did primarily to be contrarian, and to seek publicity, then I would agree with you about the defining point, but I don't.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, having pondered this overnight, I still stand by what I wrote originally here, that's now in the subarticle: "However, his vote against a resolution allowing President Reagan to keep U.S. Marines deployed as part of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, on the grounds that he "[did] not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon," would seem prescient after the catastrophic Beirut barracks bombing a month later; this vote would also gain him national media exposure and start his reputation as a political maverick." McCain's public House floor speech was short, and likely didn't include all his reasons against extending the deployment. I can't yet directly prove it with contemporaneous documents, but I do believe that force protection was one of his concerns, based on both his statements after the fact and the general nature of the debate at the time, about which the dangers posed to the Marine deployment was constantly being discussed. (See this NYT story or this NYT op-ed from a former Senator, both published earlier in September 1983, just as a couple of examples.) I think the 'Marines as sitting ducks' context was implicit in what McCain was saying, and that the 'no forseeable objectives' conclusion meant that casualties weren't worth taking (of course, no one expected the extent to which the casualties would disastrously occur).

The larger point is that opponents of ill-advised military involvements rarely foresee all of what will go wrong or exactly what shape the wrong will take, but they still usually get credit for recognizing that the involvement is misguided. This is true of early critics of the Vietnam War, for example. Or take Iraq: during the Democratic primaries, Obama got much of his base support for having opposed the war initially while Hillary supported it, yet when you look at Obama's famous 2002 speech, you'll see there's really only one sentence in it warning about the occupation -- "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." It's not like he was predicting, say, the depths to which the occupation would reach in the 2006 period. But he still got credit for his opposition to the war (from those opposed to the war), and rightly so.

So, in sum, if we include Lebanon, I favor the inclusion of as much of the above subarticle text in the main article as Ferrylodge's thou-shalt-grow-no-larger commandment allows. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article now says: "he opposed keeping U.S. Marines deployed in Lebanon citing a lack of obtainable objectives, and his opposition created a mild furor in his congressional district until a month later when a Marine barracks was bombed." This seems adequate, and well-supported by the cited sources.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about including the "mild furor" bit. Worth the Fighting For doesn't mention this. I'd like to find Timberg's original (presumably newspaper) source on this, and see what the magnitude was. Because if we're going to include Arizona dissatisfaction with McCain in the main article, we also need to include the recall efforts of the spring and summer of 2001. These didn't get too far, and ended with 9/11, but there was a groundswell of core Republican/conservative upset with McCain due to his many oppositions to Bush early in Bush's term. The recall efforts were reported on by the Arizona Republic, NY Times, and others, and are already mentioned in the corresponding subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took out the mild furor, and instead wrote this: "he opposed keeping U.S. Marines deployed in Lebanon citing unattainable objectives, and McCain later criticized President Reagan for pulling out the troops too late; in the interim, a Marine barracks was bombed killing hundreds."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's proposal is actually a moderate compromise. The right wing version would go beyond that. It would go on to explain that Osama bin Laden cites the Marine barracks bombing as encouragement that the U.S. is spineless and can be chased to hell. I do not share the right wing edit so Ferrylodge is actually the moderate, Wikipedia-neutral edit. Some backstory information that Ferrylodge presents is necessary for understanding. If one cites "you can always click a link or learn elsewhere" then Wikipedia should close down because most of Wikipedia's sources are online and anyone can look it up. I disagree with Ferrylodge often but not this time. 903M (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's make sure we get the dates accurate

Resolved

Looks ok to me.

We are making Wikipedia look sloppy and/or stupid. Let's nail down the facts. I am not so interested in the man but with a lot of people reading the article, we must get it right.

It says "House and Senate career...1982-2000" in the section title. No. He was sworn in as a Congressman in January 1983. So his congressional career started in 1983. True, the election was in late 1982 but one cannot have a career if they are not yet on the job. If one says that he was preparing for the job, he was preparing in 1952 when he was attending the Naval Academy but it's wrong to say "House and Senate career 1952-2000"

903M (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some children use Wikipedia for writing school reports. Using my new section heading, it becomes clear that he was Congressman from 1983-1987. Without it, the text of the section doesn't make it clear. Let's do this for the childrens' sake and not oppose it. 903M (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the heading to "House and Senate elections and career, 1982-2000". No way can anyone say that's inaccurate.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restructured the internal sections of House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 to deal with the election-vs-service complaint; see the Talk page there. However, that still leaves open the question of that article's title; see Talk:House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000#Proposals for new article title for discussion and possibilities. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Article size

Apologies, for the possibly awkward location of this comment, there doesn't seem to be an ideal location for a comment of this type. I appreciate the importance of having the most complete information on this subject (John McCain), for obvious reasons. But the overwhelming issue faced for any and all accessing this page is that it's become MUCH to thorough, best of Wikipedia or not. If I only had the necessary knowledge, I'd split it myself into multiple pages. Please fix this, anybody who is able. It has fallen victim to what may well be vanity-run-amok. Thank you. EnglishHornDude EnglishHornDude (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is already a summary of multiple other articles about John McCain. If you'll notice, the majority of the sections in the article contain a link to a main article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Like he said. Also, this article has been through numerous reviews, including GAC, peer review, a non-trivial GAR, and two FACs leading to FA. So for inexperienced users to come in and say the article is "sloppy and/or stupid" (903M) or "much too thorough" (EnglishHornDude) is kind of ... searching for an AGF-compliant word that means "annoying" ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

But, and I can't tell if it's related to this comment or not, Ferrylodge has made this long edit with the summary "Cutting and reducing. Glad to discuss if there are any objections." What is the motivation for this? The article is not too long in WP:SIZE terms: our 46 kB (7483 words) readable prose size fits well within the guideline boundaries of 60 kB and 10,000 words. Nor do I think the article is too long in terms of readability, usefulness, and similar characteristics. So why make a bunch of trimming edits, that in a number of places resulted in lost content and/or lost meaning? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WTR, this article has long had size issues. Between the first (failed) FAC and the second (succsessful) FAC, we cut out about 6000 words. It's started to grow back.

If you go to the article and click "edit this page", it says "This page is 133 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." That includes both readable and non-readable prose. When this article became featured, the message said, "This page is 118 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." So, it's obviously grown considerably in the last few weeks. The readable prose was only 42 kB (6833 words) when it passed FAC.

Wikipedia guidelines say: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles...." So, when the article passed FAC, we were already at the point where readers may become tired.

The article is 7,483 words. If readers tire of reading a page "much longer" than an average of 8,000 words, I don't think we've reached the tiredom point yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so we're headed to 8000 words now? WTR, didn't we agree previously that new stuff should be conterbalanced by removing old stuff that is less important? I don't want to go rummaging around for the diff, but wasn't it clear that our goal should be to try to keep the article to the FAC size?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't remember any such discussion or agreement, although maybe we said something and I've forgotten it, it's certainly possible. We obviously have differing views on article length, then and now, but rest assured I'm not trying to bring the article back to its pre-split-out size or anything close to that. Indeed, if I had my way, I'd take Lebanon, Somolia, and Kosovo all back out of the article, but two of them got mentioned in a debate the other night, so now all of a sudden it seems intervention material has to come in and existing stuff has to get thrown out. It's that rationale I don't agree with. If we made a mistake in leaving out this intervention material, then just put it in, don't sacrifice legitimate existing material just because of that mistake. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the material that you restored, you reinserted this regarding Kosovo: "McCain soon urged that use of ground troops in the intervention not be ruled out." We already describe his support for Cinton's bombing campaign, and this extra bit is a detail that belongs in the sub-article. It's not a statement of support for ground troops; it's merely a statement that they should not be ruled out. Geez, in a war you never rule anything out. This is barely notable for the sub-article, much less this one. I'm trying to cut some bloat here, and this is a prime example.

The ruling out of ground troops was actually a big issue at the time; the Clinton administration was heavily criticized by some Republicans and conservative commentators for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Clinton said that he did not rule out ground troops in Kosovo.[4][5] The way you have it phrased in this article makes it sound like McCain was calling for ground troops, which he was not doing. At least Timberg spelled it out: "He did not call for the deployment of ground troops but argued that the President and NATO should not unilaterally foreclose that option...." I continue to believe that this relatively minor detail should go. It's not one of those very precious things that has been in this article through FAC, after all. It's worded poorly, without any context, and will likely be confusing. The main thing is that McCain supported the bombing campaign. This article is for main things, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding cigarette taxes, I shortened "McCain took on the tobacco industry in 1998, proposing legislation that would increase cigarette taxes in order to fund anti-smoking campaigns, discourage teenage smokers, increase money for health research studies, and help states pay for smoking-related health care costs" to "McCain took on the tobacco industry in 1998, proposing legislation that would increase cigarette taxes in order to discourage teenage smokers, and fund efforts to grapple with smoking-related issues." Yes, of course the shorter version is more vague. Summaries are always more vague. That's why we have sub-articles.

McCain's a legislator. Saying what the laws he proposed or got passed would actually do is kind of important! "efforts to grapple with smoking-related issues" is the most vacuous, empty phrase I've heard in a while. It tells the reader nothing of what McCain was aiming for. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

He helped raise cigarette taxes. And doing so was to deter smokers. And instead of putting the revenue into the general treasury it was used specifically for smoking matters. The last point is not trivial or vacuous at all. There is a huge difference between putting tax revenue into the general treasury funds, versus targeting specifically on smoking. The little trivial details about how that revenue was distributed belong in a sub-article, not here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is at a size where it becomes worse as it becomes longer. I know that you wish longer articles could become featured. However, I hope you did not agree to shorten this article, intending to re-lengthen later.

BLP guidelines say that there should be consensus to reinsert or add material, not consensus to remove material. We're getting pretty close to the point where I'd like to start insisting on it. People come here for a relatively short read, not War and Peace.

We're also pretty close to the point, WTR, where I am going to conclude that you're reverting my edits reflexively, without any plausible reason. I changed "McCain attacked what he saw as the corrupting influence of large political contributions – from corporations, labor unions, other organizations, and wealthy individuals – and he made this his signature issue" to "McCain attacked what he saw as the corrupting influence of large political contributions, and he made this his signature issue." What on Earth is wrong with that edit of mine? McCain opposes large political contributions from virtually any person or group. What is the purpose of listing the different types? Can't that be done in the sub-article? This kind of excess verbiage is exactly what makes this article unpleasant and overly time-consuming for some people to read.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your removal here was that the later phrase "were opposed by some of the moneyed interests targeted" loses its antecedant. What moneyed interests? It's also worth listing both corporations and labor unions to show that McCain wasn't playing partisan favorites. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)-

Please give me one example of a moneyed interest that McCain thought should be able to give large political donations.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. If we just say "moneyed interests", every reader will form an image of who they think that might be. One person might think McCain was aiming at traditional political fat cats, and not big impersonal corporations. Another reader might think McCain was aiming at corporations, and never imagine McCain was target labor union contributions too. By enumerating them, we force readers to realize the breadth of McCain's goal, and help the reader better understand why there was so much opposition and it look so long to pass. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not reverting your edits reflexively, that's absurd. You suddenly, without warning or talk page explanation, decided to start eliminating material out of the article, that's been in for a long time and went through GA and FA. You think that isn't going to get a reaction? And I didn't revert all your cut-downs, just some of them. Geez, don't start getting paranoid on us. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and restored the ones where I thought the cutting degraded the article, and have given my reasons in the edit summaries. Ferrylodge, when you're doing a series of discrete reductions like that, it's usually best to do them as individual edits rather than all in one edit, so that others can more easily revert or modify ones they disagree with. I've done each of my restores as an individual edit, on this basis. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If I thought there was anything remotely controversial or problematic about them, then I would have done them as separate edits. See my previous comment.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird redirections

Why does searching for (redacted) get you redirected to John McCain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.60.122 (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Graduation rank

The article (like most of teh intertubes) claims that McCain graduated 894th of 899. The sources, however, say only "fifth from the bottom". Now, wouldn't this make him 895th? (Count on your fingers if you need; I haven't been able to find any mention of this phenomenon in articles like ordinal number except perhaps a mention at zero.) --Kalupinka (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For a source, see this excerpt from the Timberg biography. Clearly states 899 students, McCain ranked 894. The counting is done 899 bottom, 898 next to (or first from) the bottom, 897 second from the bottom, 896 third from, 895 fourth from, 894 fifth from the bottom. Timberg uses that exact phrase, "fifth from the bottom". McCain uses the same phrase as a chapter title in his memoir. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not being a native speaker of English, I was not aware of this way of counting; I am used to "second from the bottom" (or "the end", actually) being the second you count starting with the bottommost, in symetry with going from the top. Thanks.
I didn't know of this excerpt (shouldn't the reference include a link to it?) and all reliable sources I found used just the "fifth from the bottom" form and not the absolute rank. --Kalupinka (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

U.S. citizenship and the Presidency

John McCain may not be qualified to run for the Presidency. See this. All significant views should be represented in this article per NPOV.

• Gabriel J. Chin, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship" July 9, 2008 Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No 08-14
• Liptak, Adam. “A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue”, The New York Times (2008-07-11).

See John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility for details. A brief mention in this article will satisfy NPOV. QuackGuru 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This has come up a number of times here in WP over the past year. It's basically a question of weighting. While McCain's eligibility is an interesting legal theory exercise, in practice both the legal establishment and the political establishment have concluded he's completely eligible. If he wins the election, he's going to become president, no ifs ands or buts. In all the blather about the campaign that you watch on the news, for example, no one blathers about this. So plonking this into the first section of this article, like you want, really gives it more emphasis and attention than it deserves. Making it a section in the middle of the separate campaign article seems about the right level of attention to give it. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

... Belated correction to what I wrote, this matter obviously is included in the main article (midway through the campaign section), just as it is in the campaign article itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This article presently says: "If he wins the presidency, John McCain's birth (in Panama) would be the first presidential birth outside the current 50 states. A bipartisan legal review[206] as well as a unanimous Senate resolution[207] indicate that he is nevertheless a natural-born citizen of the United States, which is a constitutional requirement to become president, although the matter is still a subject of some legal controversy.[208]" That's more than enough.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

903M (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't McCain Born in Panama, was he born on a naval base or in a Panama hospital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.22.22 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain was born on a US military base which, by federal code, is US territory. Thousands of Americans have been born on US military bases. They have US birth certificates. --66.60.137.134 (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ackward statement

In the section on McCain's POW experience the following is stated... "Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973.[53]"

The "Although" is unnecessary and very ackward. Recommend removing the "Although" to read as... "McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973."--RobertGary1 (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'altogether' is because several different segments of his captivity were described previously, and this is summing up. It doesn't seem awkward to me. Or ackward either. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Huge contradiction, help needed

The contradiction happens in the paragraph which mentions his "strong intelligence", I have some points here. First, a high IQ doesn't mean a high intelligence, so that part should be rephrased asap, after all, it sounds extremely POV. Second, the point that is in fact very contradictory: it is claimed that McCain's IQ is very high yet it's said that he was bad in maths. If anyone has ever done an IQ test here they can see that it measures logical-mathematical thinking more than other abilities such as verbal (which is one of its criticisms as a measurement of intelligence), so what the article basically says is the following, McCain is a very smart guy because he scored high in a test which measures mathematical abilities and then later he was awful at that subject at school. Do you see my point now? It needs complete rephrasing or removal.--Cancerbero 8 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write this stuff about intelligence, but I don't see a problem with it. It's supported by two different footnotes. Have you read the footnoted material? One of the two footnotes mentions: "McCain scored 128 and then 133 on IQ tests." That doesn't mean that the two cited sources say nothing more about his intelligence. And certainly the fact that he got those IQ scores is persuasive evidence that he was probably not a blithering idiot!  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? About IQ=/=Intelligence? --Cancerbero 8 (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. The mere fact that someone does not like mathematics does not mean they cannot get a high IQ score. Additionally, the notion that McCain had a strong intelligence is supported by two footnotes, rather than merely supported by an IQ score. I agree with you that an IQ test may not be a good measure of intelligence, but it is only one of a plurality of sources that this Wikipedia article is relying on.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Our description of the Stanford-Binet test says: "It features Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory as the five factors tested. Each of these factors is tested in two separate domains, verbal and nonverbal, in order to accurately assess individuals with deafness, limited English, or communication disorders. Examples of test items include verbal analogies to test Verbal Fluid Reasoning and picture absurdities to test Nonverbal Knowledge." This does not seem to be a logic-math-dominated regime, as Cancerbero 8 claims. (Indeed, I remember a lot of verbal/vocabulary content the one time I took it.) In particular, assuming the 1984 edition of the test was similar in structure, I think you could do well on this test and still do badly in college-level math and engineering courses. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, how did you do? :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be telling. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)To go to Cancerbero 8's other point, I too agree that IQ /= intelligence. But to give the full measure of this person, we can't just begin and end with his stupendously dreadful class rank. If you read the more detailed Early life and military career of John McCain article, you'll find out that he also did well in his Naval Academy entrance exams and was later a one-time champion on Jeopardy!. So these, together with the IQ scores, and however you interpret his ability to have a successful, 26-year political and legislative career, combine to tell us that 894/899 was not the full story. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When I did the Mensa IQ test it was all just about logical knowledge. I know there are other tests which also measure verbal skills, yet I believe the version I solved did not include this so that non-native English speakers such as myself could be measured in a more correct way. I'm a little curious about the tests McCain did, many professional IQ test results remain extremely confidential, meaning not even the person who solved it knows his score (for example, in the Mensa IQ test they only tell you if you are in the 98th percentile or if you're not, but no numerical score whatsoever). So if anyone knows when and why he did these tests, it could clear things up a little bit more. Perhaps they were done as a requisite in the Navy and the results were published rather than remaining as classified information. I'm not saying he's not intelligent or anything, I'm just saying that I don't like the way that part of the article was written. And just for the record, I got accepted into Mensa, so don't say I think IQ and intelligence are not the same because I'm sore or something =P --Cancerbero 8 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you're a genius-level person, try reading the talk item a few sections above this, #THE DESCRIPTION/DOCUMENTATION OF MCCAIN’S IQ TESTS IS SUSPECT., where what is known about the circumstances of the tests and why they were made public are described. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I was away from the computer these days. Do believe me, I read that! I read it when I was looking if someone had already started a discussion about his IQ and I was, in fact, going to reply there but I decided to open a new section since, after I had read it, I still had doubts and believed it hadn't completely cleared up things, at least not for me--Cancerbero 8 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain's Lobbyist Connections not mentioned

Though the article mentions several times that McCain vows to fight special interests and lobbyists, nowhere does it mention the numerous registered lobbyists who work or have worked on his campaign in prominent positions.PonileExpress (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This article states: "After facing criticism about lobbyists in its midst, the McCain campaign issued new rules in May to avoid conflicts of interest, causing several top staffers to leave." And readers are provided with relevant links in the footnotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, we've got a logical fallacy on our hands. In one statement above, we find that registered lobbyists worked on McCain's campaign. In the other statement, we find that some workers have left after rule changes. In none of this do we determine that all the lobbyists left, nor any of the lobbyists left, nor workers who stayed were or were not lobbyists. Any edit of this section should work to determine that. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a detailed analysis like that would belong in the sub-article, if at all.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The text used to read: "The McCain campaign faced criticism about lobbyists in its midst,[202] and issued new rules in May 2008 calling for campaign staff to either cut lobbying ties or leave, so as to avoid any potential conflict of interest; five top aides left.[202][203]" I thought that was clearer, but it got reduced to the current form in one of Ferrylodge's shortening purges. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's pretty concise already, and was very non-partisan IMO. I'm curious as to why it was removed. Again, I'm trying to avoid accusations of bias, so an explanation would be helpful. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)BEFORE: "The McCain campaign faced criticism about lobbyists in its midst, and issued new rules in May 2008 calling for campaign staff to either cut lobbying ties or leave, so as to avoid any potential conflict of interest; five top aides left."

AFTER: "After facing criticism about lobbyists in its midst, the McCain campaign issued new rules in May to avoid conflicts of interest, causing several top staffers to leave."

That's 41 words versus 27 words. If we want to make this article more than 50% longer, then of course the BEFORE version is fine. Other than that, I see hardly any difference of meaning.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

SUGGEST: "After facing criticism about lobbyists on staff, the McCain campaign issued new rules in May 2008 to avoid conflicts of interest, causing 5 aides to leave." ... One word shorter than that, keeps the number of people who left, and adds a year to the month (this page will be around long after 2008). --Kickstart70-T-C 15:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's really much difference, but I have no objection, except that you should write out "five" instead of "5".Ferrylodge (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To me this change has made this worse, because where before we had either "five top aides" or "several top staffers", now we have just "five aides". Why was the "top" dropped? Presidential campaigns are large organizations, and five middle- or low-level aides leaving would be insignificant. I've restored the "top". Wasted Time R (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron Kovic in See also section

I'm out of reversions on User:Salimi's persistent efforts to add Ron Kovic to the "See also" section. Salimi's many edit summary rationales for this are, to my mind, unpersuasive. Yes, Kovic and McCain represent two differing stories and perspectives coming out of Vietnam. So too do Bob Kerrey and Max Cleland and Tim O'Brien (author) and a dozen others. We have over 800 articles in Category:American military personnel of the Vietnam War and books have been written, and I'm sure we could write a good article in Wikipedia, about all the different paths that Vietnam veterans have taken and all the different ways that they have been affected by their Vietnam experiences and all the different ways that has manifested itself on the American political and cultural and psychological landscape. But the "See also" section of the John McCain article is not the place to do this. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"My friends..."

This is a stupid concern, but WP:BLP and all that. Granted, there's 1.8megGhits on "john mccain" plus "my friends", but is this in My Friends a bit much? I mean, I'd hate to see us have to grow List of people who use "I mean...", List of people who use "My friends...", and List of people who use "ya'know?", ya'know? Shenme (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's gone. Thanks. -- Zsero (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Description of torture

I fully understand that detractors of Senator McCain want to minimize his struggles as a POW. However, the statement "Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements,[47] with many enduring even longer and worse treatment" does not seem appropriate in an article about the Senator. If this article were about POWs in general, or about Senator McCain as a member of a specific group of POWs, it could be appropriate. However, an article about one individual should not include a statement that does not include that individual.Kingsley911 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not at all to minimize his POW experience, but simply to place it in historical context. (For a similar reason we give the casualty numbers for the Forrestal fire.) It shows that McCain's POW experience was part of a larger experience that many others suffered under too. Indeed, this is a constant theme in McCain's writing on the subject, from his USN&WR account in 1973 to Faith of My Fathers in 1999 to his acceptance speech ("A lot of prisoners had it worse than I did") a month ago. And the following sentence in our article, "Virtually all of the POWs who were tortured eventually yielded something to their captors.[48]", is important too, as it puts McCain's "confession" is proper context as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this context is fine, except for this: "with many enduring even longer and worse treatment." We can say that many others were tortured, without getting into a comparison. The comparison may be correct, but it's not necessary here. McCain has often made self-deprecating remarks, as well as remarks that show considerable humility; such remarks sound very different coming from him than they do from anyone else, and I think we're on much firmer ground relying on secondary sources than his own words.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is asinine. The comparison is correct per every secondary source, including the Hubbell and Rochester & Kiley standard works. This in no effing way detracts from anything McCain went through. Someday after McCain's campaign is long over and there's not all this idiocy going on, I'll come back and fix this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WTR, you said in your previous comment that "this is a constant theme in McCain's writing on the subject". Now you say it's dealt with in a bunch of secondary sources. Why does it matter how many were tortured worse, and how many were tortured less severely? Don't expect us to read your mind. It should go without saying that for virtually every American soldier who was tortured, another American soldier was tortured worse, and another was tortured less severely. I don't see what this adds to the article. Ferrylodge (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already discussed why it matters several times on past talk pages. I will come back and fix this someday when the criteria is history and not current politics. I've got a long memory; just recently, on a completely different article, I restored something that had been unfairly removed 10 months ago. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you should attribute the basest partisan motives to Kingsley911, and refuse to even point him to the relevant talk page discussion. Additionally, I do not recall why it might be important to say that some soldiers were tortured more severely, without mentioning that some other soldiers were tortured less severely. Why is the former important, but the latter not? I honestly do not recall a reason.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I disapprove of both candidates, and so will be choosing not to vote for President (although I will vote for local offices and issues). So, I'm not defending Senator McCain as much as I am hoping to see the article remain as unbiased as it can during an election. I think the way it is now, with mention of the Senator and POWs going through this type of treatment, is far more fair a treatment than to throw in what sounds like a McCain-minimizing comment about others being worse off. Whether he chooses to use that language in speeches or not, the article is about the Senator and not the treatment of other POWs during that war.Kingsley911 (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Was Carol Swanson still married when she began seeing McCain?

I have seen two timelines of Carol Shepp McCain's involvement with McCain. One shows her still married to Alasdair Swanson when she began seeing McCain (though she sued him for infidelity). Is there a definitive source on this as several liberal political blogs claim a 527 group is about to unleash radio and TV ads accusing McCain of coveting another man's wife, and suggesting that later he committed adultery with Cindy McCain. CApitol3 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As it's by liberal blogs? it shouldn't be added to the article. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Two issues here. a) Was McCain involved with Carol when she was still married? I've seen intimations of this, but the only WP:RS don't say so, and in fact as you note she sued her first husband for infidelity. b) Did McCain commit adultery with Cindy while still married to Carol? Everyone on earth believes so, except for one editor here. You can find reams of discussion in the talk archives here and in the Elmc talk page and maybe a few others. The wording we have now in the various articles is what we were left with after all that. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he did commit adultery with Cindy. Sorry, I missed the 2nd question. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Soon after I wrote my previous response, I saw this Washington Post story about Carol from today. It explicitly states no on the first question: "After divorcing Swanson, Carol began seeing McCain." I've updated the Carol McCain article to state this (the John McCain article doesn't mention her first marriage, so nothing to do here). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What about McCain infedility with Carol? It might be time to reinsert it, or at least revisit this. Would not a quote by a naval officer, published in USA Today, claiming that McCain spent the night with Cindy in his room during the conference he met her at be allowable? CApitol3 (talk)

McCain turning down admiral

Doodlebug1967 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)I take issue with the assertion that Sen. McCain "turned down" the rank of Rear Admiral (which he would have to obtain before working up through the ranks to full admiral). Nobody in the military turns down this high a rank, most certainly not someone who's father and grandfather both attained admiral rank. The NYT article referring to this is apparently the only one alleging McCain refused the rank. I'm from a military family--some of my family served with all three generations of McCains, and I can assure you, John McCain did NOT turn down this rank. This reference should be omitted or at least amended to say "reportedly turned it down." Doodlebug1967 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as he wasn't offered the promotion, how could he turn it down? GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This article currently says: "McCain decided to leave the Navy. It was doubtful whether he would ever be promoted to the rank of full admiral, as he had poor annual physicals and had been given no major sea command.[66] His chances of being promoted to rear admiral were better, but McCain declined that prospect, as he had already made plans to run for Congress and said he could "do more good there."[67]" So we're not saying he declined a promotion, just the prospect of a promotion. This wording is designed to reflect several sources that aren't in full agreement. Until and unless McCain's full naval records are released, or some other new facts come out, it's probably the best we can do. And I think it's reasonable to believe that if McCain couldn't make four-star like his f and gf, that he'd try to make his mark in politics, especially given his interest in politics since his return from POW and his years spent as Senate liaison. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better, myself. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Non auto-formatted dates

Why aren't they wikified like they are in almost ever other article on Wikipedia? I find that odd and distracting. J'onn J'onzz (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Autoformatted dates have been deprecated throughout Wikipedia. See MOS:SYL and a jillion talk pages that discuss this. Many of the highest-profile articles were cleansed of them first, so that's why they disappeared from here quickly. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

LAT story on early 1960s aircraft incidents

A lot from the good LAT story on McCain's early 1960s crashes and collisions has been introduced here. I don't think much if any of it belongs here, other than replacing the old cite with the LAT one. I started this morning adding this material to Early life and military career of John McCain this morning, and I'll continue this evening. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone came along and added the LAT cite to this article, with a bunch of new material. I tried to amend the new material to conform with what you're doing at the sub-article. I hope you'll feel free to rmv from this article if you think it's appropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've finished (for now, at least) updating Early life and military career of John McCain with information from the LAT story, which is now cited there in 10 different places. (When it comes to finding the specifics of McCain's life that other biographers have run through more vaguely, Vartabedian and the other LAT guy are the best!) However, for this the main article ... I don't think the prior text ("The planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines, but he received no major injuries.") needs changing at all. And certainly the amount of text that was introduced earlier today on this is inappropriate. That's because this summary article's approach is to gloss over most aspects of McCain's military career. There is no detail on any his first 22 missions over North Vietnam, for example, nor much on his shootdown, nor on this flying style, nor much on anything pre- or post-POW. So launching into a description of each of these incidents is out of place. The Elmc article is the go-to place for all things McCain and military, and the sooner interested readers discover that and go there the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

three plane crashes deserve a little more description other than 'he was not hurt'

as the LA times article writes

The 23-year-old junior lieutenant wasn't paying attention and erred in using "a power setting too low to maintain level flight in a turn," investigators concluded.

The crash was one of three early in McCain's aviation career in which his flying skills and judgment were faulted or questioned by Navy officials.

In his most serious lapse, McCain was "clowning" around in a Skyraider over southern Spain about December 1961 and flew into electrical wires, causing a blackout, according to McCain's own account as well as those of naval officers and enlistees aboard the carrier Intrepid. In another incident, in 1965, McCain crashed a T-2 trainer jet in Virginia.--Stephen.walker 7 October 2008.

I agree with Wasted Time R about this. All of the detail is in the sub-article, and we only summarize here. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that Early life and military career of John McCain is a Featured Article in itself. It's the place to be for military McCain ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree...it is evidence of the man's growth as a person...his transition from a somewhat inattentive fly-boy to a mature but daring warrior. It's central to his character. I am going to restore it. Now, if you want to discuss modifications, that's fine, but I regard simple reverts of relevant and cited material to be vandalism. I do not simply revert your writing because I personally do not line up with some of it; I would appreciate the same respect in return. Raryel (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Raryel, first of all, this is called an editorial disagreement about which level of article in a WP:Summary style structure to include material into. This is not called vandalism. If you fail to understand the distinction, your time here will not be very successful. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is vandalism. Repeated "reverts" of cited relevant material is vandalism, not editorial disagreement. It is laziness and closed-mindedness. Perhaps it is you who needs to review a few things. As proof, please look at the latest edits. This morning, Wednesday, October 8, I read a constructive edit that both served the summary role and took advantage of the material I added. Perhaps one sentence could be improved still: McCain was a good flier, albeit one who pushed the envwelope. Does this imply that pushing the envelope is a bad thing? In 1969, the Navy decided that perhaps airline-style flying was not what it was looking for from its combat pilots, and introduced the Top Gun school. From what I read, the first class was not well supported by squadron commanders; but they changed their attitudes after 1970, when Top Gun graduates began, routinely, eating North Vietnamese pilots for breakfast. This program was for fighter pilots, not attack squadron pilots, but the attitude was relevant to everyone. F-105 pilots returning from their bombing runs shot down 22 North Vietnamese planes. Raryel (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, the "constructive edit" you mention was made by me! I am not lazy – I wrote the entire Early life and military career of John McCain article, and have spent more hours on this subject than I would care to admit. And I don't think of myself as close-minded either. If you look at the entire series of McCain biographical subarticles here, you'll find many, many cited facts that are not included in the main article; it's all editorial judgment about what belongs and what doesn't. As for the sentence still in question, I was searching for wording that would not imply that his pushing the envelope was either a good or a bad thing. It is indeed likely a good thing for air superiority fighter pilots, and is obviously a bad thing for routine peacetime flights over Spain. Where it stands for attack pilots is an interesting question to explore in the Top Gun School article, but not one we need to get into here in the McCain main article. But if you have alternate wording for that sentence, I'm certainly open-minded to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, one can make a legitimate argument that some description of McCain's flying record and flying style belongs in the main article. It can't include all the detail that Raryel wants, such as "too little throttle while turning the airplane low over the water" -- that's way more excessively detailed than anything else in this article, military or otherwise. But we can state that he started out as a sub-par pilot (Timberg) who was reckless and careless at times (LAT) and that he improved over time (Timberg, LAT) but still tended to push the envelope (LAT). So I've modified the article to reflect that. Next, I don't like the language "However, later, once given combat assignments in Vietnam, other naval pilots credited McCain with courage and daring, flying his aircraft to the edge of its performance envelope; this was in contrast to many other pilots who, comparatively, played it safe." This doesn't track the source that well (mixes pre-Vietnam with Vietnam) and sets up too simplistic a comparison of flying styles that's really off-topic here and feels like Top Gun-style drama (another "Maverick"!). Instead, I've just added the two medals he won for successful missions over North Vietnam before his shootdown. Finally, as for the Gene Furr celebrity on Enterprise bit, like everything else a mention of that has been added to Early life and military career of John McCain, but it's too minor a point to include here and it inflates the source's two incidents into "often". Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that I yanked Raryel's "While training as a pilot, McCain attracted the attention and concern of flight instructors for carelessness, as well as an unwillingness to accept responsibility for mistakes." This is inflammatory and goes beyond what the LAT source states as fact. LAT says "Naval aviation experts say the three accidents before McCain's deployment to Vietnam probably triggered a review to determine whether he should be allowed to continue flying. The results of the review would have been confidential." But the key word there is "probably". Until and unless McCain releases his full naval records (I wish he would, it would help resolve some other biographical mysteries as well), we don't know if this happened, and we can't say here that it did. If someday we find out there really was a review, yes we could include that. Regarding the conflicting accounts of the first incident, we don't know what McCain said at the time, just what he later said in his memoir. McCain may have honestly though his engine failed on him, or he may have been a just-beginning pilot trying to concoct an excuse for a crash, he wouldn't be the first. On the second incident, the LAT didn't have any incident report, so we don't know who said what. On the third incident, the whole sequence of reports and criticisms and testimonies and revisions is confusing enough that we can't safely draw any conclusions. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

US Council for World Freedom

Added material about McCain being in their board in the 1980s. As this is a highly contentious issue, it may need tweaking and additional sources, rebuttals and such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll get started on it.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that the year of resignation is disputed as per the source you added. Also note that the source mentions the McCain campaign and not McCain himself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not disputed that McCain says he resigned in 1984. Nor is it disputed that "McCain's office produced two letters from 1984 and 1986 to back his account."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of this thing until just now, and I've read a lot about McCain's life. Why does this warrant mention in the main article? Just because the AP published a story on it today? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, WTR. Thanks for pointing that out. I assume that the main motivation for including it here in this article is something like: "Since the Obama article does not mention Bill Ayers, therefore the McCain article should mention the Council for World Freedom." Or something like that. But I'm guessing, and maybe Jossi will correct me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not tit-for-tat. If you want to argue for the inclusion of that material on Obama's article, that article's talk page is the place to do so, and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want to argue about that one way or the other.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

which was an international group that, among other things, aided the rebels in Nicaragua; is incompatible with what the US Council for World Freedom article says. It needs to be expanded to provide the necessary context and as to not deviate from the sources used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

From that article:

The U.S. chapter of WACL, the United States Council for World Freedom (USCWF), has been one of the most active branches. USCWF was founded in 1981 by Major General John K. Singlaub. This branch has generated controversy, as it has been found to have illegally supplied firearms to guerillas in the Iran-Contra Affair and, in 1981, the USCWF was placed under watch by the Anti-Defamation League, which noted the organization had increasingly become a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.[1]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to recall someone once saying that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Additionally, what about WTR's questions? Why does this warrant mention in the main article? Just because the AP published a story on it today?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a reliable source, but the sources used in that article are. Also, from The Guardian:

The CWF was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League, whose chairman was forced to resign in 1980 after he was linked to the neo-Nazi movement. McCain joined the CWF the following year after meeting with its chief, former US army major general John Singlaub."US election: Democrats threaten to hit McCain on Iran-Contra link". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-10-07. {{cite web}}: Text "World news" ignored (help); Text "guardian.co.uk" ignored (help)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, this definitely belongs in House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, but not here. McCain was only on the advisory board, which in D.C.-land often means not much, and I don't see an indication that he did much in this case. If he were the chair of the organization, like he is of International Republican Institute, it would merit inclusion here (and the IRI is included here). But John Singlaub was the chair (and his article does mention this). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WTR yet again. For two years in the early 1980s, McCain was an inactive advisory board member of an organization that was affilated with another organization that had the very good sense to force out a leader linked to neo-nazis, which occurred before McCain even became a board member of the affiliated organization. Not notable enough for this main article, IMHO. Jossi, why do you think this warrants mention in this main article? Just because the AP or the Guardian published a story on it today? Or just because the article will get a lot of hits tonight due to the debate?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A short summary of that can be included, and a longer version of it with sufficient historical context can be added to House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is notable enough to warrant a mention. Why is being deleted? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of disagreement as to whether it's notable enough to warrant a mention. If you look at House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, there are a bunch of other things there that are notable, but never mentioned here in the main article. Here are five that I picked out on a quick read-through, there are others:

• "Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, the state's most powerful political figure, was officially neutral in the race,[12] but many of his aides were working for McCain's opponents and Goldwater was said to view McCain as an opportunist.[12] Late in the race, Goldwater made a public statement critical of McCain, but Tower was able to limit damage from it.[10]"
• "In 1989, he became a staunch defender of his friend John Tower's doomed nomination for U.S. Secretary of Defense; McCain butted heads with Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich, who was challenging Tower regarding alleged heavy drinking and extramarital affairs.[45] Thus began McCain's difficult relationship with the Christian right, as he would later write that Weyrich was "a pompous self-serving son of a bitch."[45]"
• "McCain was one of only four Republicans in Congress to vote against the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995,[98]"
• "He was one of only five senators to vote against the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[100]"
• "At the start of the 1996 presidential election, McCain served as national campaign chairman for the highly unsuccessful Republican nomination effort of Texas Senator Phil Gramm.[103]"

You can argue that each of these is more important than the US Council for World Freedom bit. The Goldwater lack of support presages McCain's career-long alienation from both the movement conservative and quasilibertarian branches of the GOP. The Tower/Weyrich episode left a deep impression on McCain; he devotes a long chapter to Tower in his second memoir. The Telecommunications Act has had a large impact on the American media ownership scene and other aspects of telecomm. And the teaming with Gramm began a long alliance and also foreshadowed McCain's career-long difficulties with economic policies and perceptions, all the way up to this year's disastrous Gramm "mental recession/nation of whiners" clunker. So the bottom line is, the way the McCain articles are structured, not every notable thing percolates up to the top. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Panamanian Born?

Should the first line in Senator McCain's entry reflect that he was born in Panama? Kind of like how Jackson Browne's (also a military brat) article refers to him as a "German-born American singer"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.148.23.172 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Browne article is off-base, not this one. In fact the whole Browne lead section is bad. ... In fact the whole Browne article needs a lot of work, except for the "Classic personal period" section, which I did a fair amount of the writing on ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain and his education affects my (wish I could vote) vote.

McCain as we all know was in the military and so far that was all taht we focused on but did we stop to ask him what kind of education he had? A small pigeon with an email told me a little about McCain. What did it say you ask? Well it said that of course he joined the military and he went to school there. He graduated bottom of his class. Yes he fought all these battles but what do they mean. It's all about the education now. It's election time and he's running what do you think I should do? Concerned at 12 (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's some advice: Nothing you do at school will matter in the least 30 years from now. The one time when you'll need a good school record is when you're applying for your first job. Once you've got some real achievements under your belt, nobody will care where you learned it. They'll look at what you've done, not what pieces of paper you've got on the wall. And that's a crucial difference between the two candidates. McCain has real achievements; Obama has qualifications, but hasn't actually done anything. -- Zsero (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving this in, because it's obviously from a youngster. Concerned at 12, I take issue with what Zsero said. Everything you do in your life is worth doing well, and that includes school. As it happens, I'm using skills and knowledge in my Wikipedia writing on historical and political articles that in some cases I haven't used in the 30 years since I was in school. That said, yes it's true that accomplishments later in life can render a poor school record unimportant. That's partly why we have had weighting disagreements with 894/899 here in this article. But you don't want to put yourself in a hole like that to begin with! Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Klan?

Um, it says John McCain was a member of the KKK in the opening section. Something I'm 99% sure isn't true. 216.223.155.40 (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted. --Allen3 ^talk 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Question...

I may be wrong about this; and if I am please forgive me. I am currently reading this article for my school. I was reading the First two terms in U.S. Senate section. It says, "...after he defeated his Democratic opponent, former state legislator Richard Kimball, by 20 percentage points in the 1986 election." Like I said, I may be wrong about this. But shouldn't it say, "after he defeated his Democratic opponent, former state legislator Richard Kimball, by 20 percent in the 1986 election.'"? Shouldn't it say percent rather that percentage points? Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't say "20 percent". The election result was, rounded off, 60%-40%. Imagine there were only 100 voters, so the actual vote totals were 60 to 40. To say he won by 20 percent would imply he got 20 percent more votes than his opponent. But in this case, that would imply he got 48 votes, which is incorrect. That's why a margin like this is expressed as "20 percentage points" or sometimes just "20 points". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

O I see! Haha. I'm supposed to be a math guy. I don't know how I missed that! Thank you for showing me my error. Goodness gracious! Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ties to G. Gordon Lilly

My input on the Chicago Tribune article on McCain's ties to G. Gordon Liddy was deleted by User: B. I don't see why, isn't it a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bopter (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Material from an opinion piece on an editorial page is not generally a reliable source. Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, not a news reporter. So, I've reverted your edit. See WP:RS. Also, info about Liddy belongs in the Liddy article. See WP:Coatrack.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply.Bopter (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)