Talk:John McCain

Archive pls ?

This talk page is almost 300KB; can someone pls do some archiving before maindate hits? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, all prior threads archived (I wasn't sure about the most recent thread before this, but I'm pretty sure it had run its course). -- Commdor {Talk} 00:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was very aware that this talk page badly needed archiving, but I didn't want to do it myself lest I be charged with burying the voices of the truth, blah blah (I've gotten that before here and on similar talk pages when I did archiving). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

TFA heads up

FYI - this article is going to be tomorrow's featured article (Nov 4). Per the compromise noted in the log, I've upped the FA protection level to full/cascading, for 25 hours. Raul654 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Template

Please put the correct protection template at the top of the McCain hagiography. Thank you. — Writegeist (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the hagiography, I can't find it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And on November 4 1909 British aviator JTC Moore-Brabazon took a piglet aloft on a stringbag aeroplane. — Writegeist (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection

{{edit protected}}

Please unprotect per policy Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 wrote that policy and he is the one who protected it. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN - how is it relevant who wrote the policy?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Raul is the featured article director. He can do practically whatever he wants to with them. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, thoroughly discussed in advance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And there was a consensus to change policy? Can I have a link? And has someone updated the policy page to reflect it?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with the protection. If someone removed it, I wouldn't be surprised to see it back within an hour. Latics (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This article was set to be full-protected today anyway, regardless of the "main page" business. There was a long discussion about it here and at WP:ANI.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, that discussion did NOT envisage they'd be on the mainpage. The mainpage policy states: "Full protection of the page is generally prohibited." and implies that that exceptions will only be for very short periods. But what's the use - it's a US election and this is (obviously) as US project. Anyone who isn't feeling patriotic enough to ignore all the rules can bugger off to Europe. Special pleading rules here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, Raul is the one who oversees the FA process, and he ultimately makes the decision about which articles go on the Main Page. If you have a problem, you need to take it up on User talk:Raul654, because I can practically guarantee you that there is not an admin on the site who will unprotect this page or Barack Obama. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sadly, I get the message.....power has been wielded.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be an incorrect assumption. This was amply discussed at WP:TFA/R and that discussion was linked to the AN discussion about protection and Raul did not exercise any authority or power here without fully consulting the community and receiving a good deal of feedback. He is the featured article director, with broad discretion in the featured article process, ratified many times over, because he enjoys community support. He wouldn't continue to enjoy that support if he didn't act with consensus, as he did in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The main page policy also states: "Full protection .... is only used in rare situations where semi-protection is ineffective, either because of coordinated vandalism or disruptive edit warring." Welcome to a rare situation.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - IAR also exists for a reason. Even if we dropped this to semi-protection, the vandalism rate would be at least 2/minute. And that's the vandalism we could see. And I would quote the main page policy, but Ferrylodge got it. This is not an endorsement of the perfection of the articles, but rather that the benefits of fully protecting, even if it is on the main page, are outweighted by the negatives. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The policy is supposed to prevent us having mainpage articles protected. Because when people come to a wiki, and try to edit high-profile articles then they should find .... a wiki. We want on the mainpage quality articles (i.e. FA standard) and we want them open to editing. We don't IAR on the quality bit, not should we on the open editing bit. If an article isn't up to either of those, it should not be on the mainpage. If it is agreed that at this time the articles need to be full protected because of the election, then this surely is the least suitable time to make them TFA, as TFA is supposed to be open for editing whenever possible. Sure it is a US election, but that's no reason to suspend all the rules. We've got a "in today's news" section for this purpose.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's "coordinated vandalism" is and always has been non-existent on McCain; ditto "disruptive edit warring". Therefore if this really is a "rare situation" that warrants full protection, the rarity of the situation has nothing to do with the problems invented by Ferrylodge as justification for censorship. — Writegeist (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Scott, you're being quite unreasonable here. As mentioned above, this proposal has been very widely discussed and was very nearly unanimously decided that we would full-protect the articles even if they weren't on the Main Page because of the astronomical amount of vandalism they would face otherwise. Now, up the number of hits they would get anyway by at least a factor of ten and I can't even begin to remotely fathom the amount of vandalism that would result. And I say that even after nearly ten months of vandal fighting and 32000+ reverts. Even Israel when semi-protected was completely nuts. Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Some extrapolation seems to have been involved.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not protesting or arguing the decision, but my guess is that this page could do okay through the election with just the usual semi-protection. The article's done well over the last three days since the last full protection was bumped back down. And Biden's been quiet as usual. Can't speak for Obama and Palin, though. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I can't even get edits in here without ec'ing vandals from TFA exposure, so maybe I'm totally wrong :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've understood it (mainly from comparible discussion on the Barack Obama page) the compromise was that it would only be fully protected if warranted. Barack Obama is currently Semi and seems fine so far. From what I can tell from the McCain edit history, there was a single user making disruptive edits, and they have now been blocked. I'm surprised it went to full protection because of that. wjw0111 (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Watch how a wiki works in real time

Here is an opportunity for people new to Wikipedia to see how editors constantly strive to improve our content. Discussions about how to improve the brief paragraphs that appear on Wikipedia's main page can be found at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008 (just click the link). As well, you can see a history of the changes that have already been made here on the article history. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please feel free to edit this talk page, and offer your suggestions on how this article can be improved. Risker (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry

A short time before the full protection, the article was changed from McCain having Scots-Irish ancestry to just Scots (in addition to English). Why? When we went through FAC of this and Elmc, we were told NEHGS was the most reliable source for geneology. Their report on McCain says (second paragraph) "The Senator’s male-line immigrant ancestor was a Scots-Irish Hugh McCain who came to Caswell County, N.C., about 1778 ..." Am I missing something here? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Here's the diff from earlier today (I subsequently fixed some of it but not all). This article used to say: "McCain has Scots-Irish, Anglo-Irish and English ancestry." This was changed today to say: "McCain is of Scottish and English ancestry." We've got only one cited reliable source. The reliable source says:

One great-grandmother, Mrs. Margaret Garside Vaulx (mother of Mrs. John Sidney McCain, Jr.), was baptized March 4, 1849 at St. Michael’s Church, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, England. The Senator’s male-line immigrant ancestor was a Scots-Irish Hugh McCain who came to Caswell County, N.C., about 1778 (Hugh’s son Joseph McCain had a son William Alexander McCain, father of the first John Sidney McCain).

So, the source says his ancestry includes English and Scots-Irish. Therefore, I would support changing the sentence to read: "McCain's family tree includes Scots-Irish and English ancestors."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's what I've reverted Early life and military career of John McCain back to saying. So can an admin change this, please? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editrequested}} Please change "McCain is of Scottish and English ancestry" to "McCain's family tree includes Scots-Irish and English ancestors."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done Risker (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks very much. I always want to insert "African" into sentences like this, given our common ancestry way back in the very olden days. But I always run into trouble when I suggest that, so I won't.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! Nice! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

End of campaign section is lacking

One regret – We didn't really try to capture the final stages of the general election here. We don't have the Palin reactions (base Republicans thrilled, others apparently less so). We don't have McCain going ahead in the polls after the convention, then falling behind, then possibly tightening near the end. We don't have the last debate's 'winner'. We don't have McCain staying away from Wright and only sporadically attacking on Ayers. We don't have McCain focusing the campaign against the alleged Obama the Redistributionist. We don't even have Joe the Plumber! (whose article is now in lockdown, and whose talk page now has more archives than Biden's – go figure). Yes, it would have been tough getting agreed language on some of these items, and yes we can add all this after the fact, but it would have been nice to be a little more up-to-date for TFA day. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected, and may be edited by autoconfirmed editors; if vandalism or edit-warring occurs, the article will be locked down again. Perhaps drafting up some additional sections/paragraphs here would be worthwhile. Not only will it help the article, it would be an excellent demonstration of how consensus-based, collaborative editing can work. Risker (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that I don't think we need all that stuff. There will be plenty to add a paragraph about tomorrow.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of what WTR is mentioning is more appropriate to the election article, not the bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All I'm suggesting is a level of description for the closing phase of the campaign consistent with the existing descriptions of the previous phases of the campaign. It can be very succinct. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Working up new text on talk and having an admin insert it was probably doable when the article was fully protected, but since someone lobbied Raul to unprotect the pages (not my understanding when we had the discussions at TFA/R), trying to work directly with the article now is probably going to be hard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

With the article unprotected, WTR and I will use up our 3 reverts in no time. Too bad. In this environment, it just seems crazy to attempt any kind of rewrite or overhaul of the campaign section.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

True what you say, Wasted. And another regret: the article was hijacked by WP:TAGTEAMsters, confining it to a hagiography unworthy of an encyclopedia. But I'm foolishly optimistic that the various shortcomings can be remedied in due course.— Writegeist (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. Already, we've had an inappropriate cn added to the lead, and a category incorrectly removed. So very quickly now, we'll be unable to correct these issues and we'll have a potential embarrassment on the main page. Since Jossi lobbied Raul to remove the protection, I left a note there asking when he was going to help with these corrections. IMO, this will actually make it harder to work on content, since just dealing with the vandalism will take over. I think I'll go to bed :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bedtime for Ferrylodge too.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was protected early this morning when I could have added something, and now it's been unprotected but I have to go to work. I missed my windows ... In my essential bits list above, I should have also included McCain being outspent by up to 4-to-1. As for what's appropriate for bio's, elections are a crucible and no real biographer would back off describing how a campaign fit, or didn't fit, into the existing fabric of someone's story. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll get to it soon, no worries.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Per the concerns raised immediately above (and also discussed on various pages elsewhere), I'm reluctant to keep this semi-protected overnight, at least. I'm on Pacific time, and will be up for a while. I'm quite prepared to full protect if necessary before I, too, go to bed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeopardy?

I see the edit summaries insisting the category is appropriate. However, a search of the article does not include any information about McCain being a Jeopardy contestant. This inconsistency should probably be resolved while the page is still at semi-protection. Risker (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See Early life and military career of John McCain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I wanted to place the category there, not here, to avoid this kind of confusion, but another editor objected strongly at Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain#Jeopardy! category, so it is here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Locked

With the increase in vandalism and edit warring, I have fully protected this article for 24 hours. By that time, the final results will be in (barring a repeat of 2000), and the risks will be considerably decreased.

Please continue to discuss proposed improvements to the article on this page. Someone might consider setting up a subpage for new and unregistered editors to add suggestions or otherwise comment, but I will leave that to others. Risker (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Risks of what?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts entirely. Perhaps it was not a wise idea to have him on the main page today. Why have we two featured pages today, antway? Are we going to do this every time every country in the world has an election? Giano (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Only if people care enough to get that country's main candidates to Featured Article status and keep them there, in some cases for years. You know yourself how difficult that can be. Risker (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If there happen to be two candidates running head-to-head and both happen to be the subject of Featured articles, why not? By the way, from the front page of today's New York Times (oh noes! US bias!): "The 2008 election has upended how presidential campaigns are fought". Even if we take journalistic hyperbole into account, I think we can all agree that this is the single most important event in the English-speaking world today... and it just happens to be the subject of several FAs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Un-necessary protection was widely discussed, and, with this act, ignored!. Good faith editors abound to provide protection but I suppose that is not good enough for some.. Homeland Security comes to Wikipedia. --Buster7 (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Glad to see someone else has now stepped down to semi-protection; I was just logging in to propose the same step. Risker (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that if edit warring starts again (something that is not happening on Obama), it'll be promptly full protected again. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Avoid redirect

The word senior in the article's intro is wikilinked to Senior senator which is a redirect to Seniority in the United States Senate. I suggest linking to Seniority in the United States Senate directly, bypassing the redirect. NSK Nikolaos S. Karastathis (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:R#NOTBROKEN. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 12:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Amen. In computer science and software engineering, utilizing a level of indirection is the key to many good things. Same for redirects here: If someone someday writes a specific article on "Senior senator" that is a spinoff of "Seniority in the United States Senate", we'll have the right link already in place. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

reference 33

This article seems biased. It should not be used as a reference without stating that it is based on what McCain says and others contradict his statements. (Ikbentbeu (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Footnote 33 is Nowicki, Dan & Muller, Bill. "John McCain Report: Prisoner of War", The Arizona Republic (March 1, 2007). This is part of a series on McCain published by Arizona's largest and most-respected newspaper. This chapter of the series is cited in nine different places, so you'd have to be more specific about which instance you are unhappy about. But if you look at the bibliography for the series, you'll see that it uses not only on McCain's writings but also one of the two standard works on American POWs in North Vietnam, Hubbell's P.O.W., as well as using one of the memoirs by other POWs, Ernest C. Brace. And our article, and the more detailed Early life and military career of John McCain, uses these sources too, as well as the other standard account of American POWs, Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound, as well as other memoirs or books about other former POWs. The bottom line is that the Nowicki & Muller story accurately reflects the widely-accepted account by WP:RSes of McCain's time in Vietnam. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The article shown in ref. 33 does not say what parts are from other sources and what parts are only said by McCain (or things he wrote). If the other sources from the newspaper article are used, the reference should be made to the original. For other parts, that are not in the unbiased references, it should be at least noted that that are McCains -unproven- words or the reference should be also changed to the original, i.e. McCains works or speeches or whatever. I checked the references of the article before I put my first post and noticed its references are general. I realise this makes things harder to investigate. But if the references were changed to the original, someone who reads the article on Wikipedia will know it was McCain who claimed some of the contents and not as it seems now, a respected newspaper. I'm not interested in the information, but I'm trying to make the Wiki-article better. At this point, all the info from ref. 33 seems biased and it probably isn't, so something has to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikbentbeu (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent)It might help if you would be more specific about a particular sentence in the present Wikipedia article that you find problematic. If you look at the bibliography for the profile that is cited in our footnote 33, it says the original author was journalist Bill Muller, and it originally appeared in The Arizona Republic and on azcentral.com on Oct. 3, 1999. Reporter Dan Nowicki updated and revised the profile with additional material in January 2007. Muller’s profile of John McCain won first place in the Arizona Press Club’s 1999 Awards for the Best Journalism in Arizona in government/politics reporting. See "ANY PUBLICATION: Government/Politics Reporting", Arizona Press Club (1999). The Arizona Press Club described Muller's "The life story of Arizona's maverick senator" as follows:

This story soared above the competitors. This entry was written masterfully and thoroughly. The reporting was excellent as the writer drew from a myriad of sources and materials. No stone was apparently left unturned in providing insight into the real John McCain. This is the story to read for anyone wondering who John McCain is but wanting a fair, unbiased accounting. Particularly impressive was the section on the complicated Keating Five scandal, which is often written about in confusing, hard-to-understand terms. The scandal was portrayed accurately, but the details were not skimped on in making it easy to understand for those unfamiliar with it.

So, I think that footnote 33 is in good shape. But please let us know if you have a particular concern about a particular statement in this Wikipedia article. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to make this clear: there is a reference to a newspaper article and if you check the newspaper article it gives a lot of sources. But it fails to say what it got from each of those sources.

The problem is that as a reader you don't know where the info comes from. Some info comes from books, other info from McCain himself. What is only said by McCain and what comes from the reliable sources can not be said on the basis of this newspaper article alone. Therefore references should be made to the original source and not to this newspaper article, if possible. Any info coming from the newspaper article now can be questioned, because it could be coming from McCain and not from any other source.Ikbentbeu (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To some extent, what you are unhappy with is true of many secondary, and all tertiary, sources. And indeed there was a long discussion about Nowicki-Muller in this article's GAR review back in July. Not every newspaper or book does sentence-by-sentence citing like our WP articles do! But that's the value of secondary and tertiary sources; they weigh all the 'evidence' before them, including statements from the people involved, and decide what fits the known facts and what doesn't. Newspaper reporters hear all sorts of stuff all the time that they don't print, because they think it's made up or exaggerated or they're being spun, etc. So I didn't agree with the objection to Nowicki-Muller in GAR and I still don't agree with it now. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that some repeats somebody else's story does not make it true or verifiable. For the parts of the Wiki-article only told by McCain and repeated in the newspaper, we should mention this.

But it is't even very hard to make this Wiki-article better. I'll give my corrections for ref. 33:

A. "He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[33][34]" There are 2 references, so just delete ref 33 here.

B. "nearly drowned when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake.[33]" If you make this "and parachuted into Truc Bach Lake." and refer to the picture, the problem is solved.

C. "Some North Vietnamese pulled him ashore, then others crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt and bayoneted him.[33]" If this can not be found anywhere else, delete it. If so, refer to the other source. (I'm guessing this is written or said by McCain, though I admit I can be wrong. But the sentence has little value now.)

D. and E. "McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33] By then having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white,[33]" See C.

F. "He was subjected to rope bindings and repeated beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[33][45]" There are 2 references, so just delete ref 33 here.

G. "Further injuries led to the beginning of a suicide attempt, stopped by guards.[33] See C.

H. "After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession".[33] See C, but this is the only sentence that can not be deleted if no other reference can be found. Unless the sentence following this sentence is deleted as well.

In this way, the article will appear less biased then it is now. For now, it looks like some of these statements were made only by McCain and they are in the article as if they are facts. They might be, but using ref. 33 does not prove this. I have no problem with secondary or tertairy sources that does sentence-by-sentence citing like our WP articles do. The fact is that the newspaper article seems biased because of its general sourcing, as it becomes unpossible to see where the info comes from (McCain or another source). Like C., all references to the newspaper article could be claimed by McCain, without anyone backing him up. That's why we need other sources to back these sentences and not ref. 33.

I might just be pushing this too hard, but it is this kind of uncertainties and uncriticised sources that make this article look biased, even if it might not be so. I for one, am not sure this is an unbiased article. When compared to professional, scientific articles, this kind of bad references and sources make this article unreliable. Ref. 33 can easily be criticised and should therefor not be used, as there are other sources for the material that is really needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikbentbeu (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

First, be aware that when multiple footnotes are present, it's often because each is supporting a different fact or statement in a longer sentence. So no, you can't just hack one of the footnotes out just because you see two of them. Second, biographical articles never look like professional scientific articles; they are two different beasts with different target content, and what works for Physical Review is not going to work here. Third, WP:V does not require the test you are making of reliable sources, that everything in the source attributes all its facts and conclusions on a per-statement basis. Instead, WP:V says: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." The Arizona Republic is a mainstream, quality newspaper, and this series of articles, as well as its other articles, do indeed go through a process of checking facts, scrutinizing and weighing evidence, and so forth. (In fact, this newspaper has always been more arms-length from, and sometimes hostile towards, McCain than much of the pre-2008 national press.) There is no reason why we cannot use this source in this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, if this newspaper is as good as you believe it to be. I just want to point out that sentences only sourced by ref. 33 are questionable and I don't like questionable facts on Wikipedia. I know this is a biographical article about a living person, so it's nearly impossible to get the reference as good as for "physical review", but questionable info that has little relevelance should not be in a Wiki-article. But if every one supports this article, I'll no longer call it questionable. Thanks for the interesting discussion. Ikbentbeu (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Election Day

Well done to everyone who helped build this article to FA, get it on the main page today, and keep it from safe from vandal and POV harm during the last 6 months. This is perhaps one of the most difficult, exhausting, and completely overwhelming tasks that a volunteer editor may achieve; BLP's during severe public scrutiny by high profile, notable individuals. What a nightmare! Digital^Ninja 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's what we get paid the big bucks for! ;-) Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is for every editor who assisted in accuracy, form, vandalism and POV fighting for John McCain for Election Day 2008, and who did it with civility, and just a dash of frustration and coriander. Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Srsly kids. I write Featured Articles. I would not touch these four with a 10-foot pole. They frighten me. I'm glad y'all do it so I don't have to. --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we possibly change the main picture so that he doesn't look so tired? The Obama picture shows him smiling and happy, while this one makes McCain look almost...annoyed.128.211.169.59 (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Digital and Moni3. IP 128.211.169.59, I agree that the photo of McCain is not so great. However, it's his official photo, and we agreed that it's probably best to stick with the official photo. There are two versions of the official photo from the federal government, one with a black background, and one with a blue and white background, so we selected the latter (and upgraded the quality). For some reason that I don't understand, the image of McCain at the top of this article looks a lot better than the reduced-size image that's now on the main page. C'est la vie.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love how Wasted Time and Ferrylodge credit themselves with keeping the article "safe from POV harm". :~) Writegeist (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove semiprotection on this page?

I'd like to remove the semi-protection I applied earlier this morning to this page, so that unregistered and new editors can make suggestions and comments here. Are there sufficient eyes on the page to keep up with the vandalism? Risker (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama has the same problem. We can try and see (though I'm not sure it'll be manageable) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's try. This talk page, not article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sourced POV

I believe this article repeats the POV presented on "Hubbell, John G. P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-Of-War Experience in Vietnam". I have no doubt this is a wonderful and respectful book, but while the book is entitled for editorial judgments, Wikipedia articles are not. We should take extra care to just copy FACTs from such sources. Just my two cents. --Damiens.rf 15:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Hubbell book makes few if any editorial judgments; it is a historical account that correlates and cross-checks the narratives of many American POWs were who living in a variety of camps over a span of a number of years. Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound is the other similar work, done two decades later. While it took issue with a few of Hubbell's conclusions here and there, it validated the large majority of them, including all the ones related to McCain. Other POW memoirs also validate the same accounts regarding McCain, for those POWs who were in the same camps with him. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

wrong lock

{{editprotected}} The padlock on the upper-right of the page should be gold (full protect), not silver (semiprotect). Also, the star symbol indicating a featured article went away, could that be returned as well? Thanks, ♪TempoDiValse♪ 18:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Changed the template. Don't know about the FA star. It was there when I looked at it, and {{featured article}} is on the page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reword made things worse

{{editprotected}} This edit made today during a semi-protection period made the article worse. First, the article's scheme is that various sections in the subarticles underlying this summary article, are linked to by introductory language here. This edit undid that, and left link text of "John McCain", which is unhelpful. Second, this change suggests that he underwent one training course that lasted two and a half years. In reality, he would have had a number of different training courses, which collectively extended over a two and a half year period. So I am requesting that this edit be undone. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking back over my edits, I'm not sure how I possibly could have thought that those edits helped. I was kind of in a POINTy mood then, hoping to prove that the articles had to be semi-protected because there were issues that a newbie could catch and so the article should be semi- and not full- protected indefinitely. I would be perfectly fine with it if my edits were reverted. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Seems to already have been fixed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've further tweaked it, it should be okay now. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Horrible, simply horrible

The picture of McCain in the article looks like a mug shot, or worse the morning after heavy binge drinking. I for one feel this atrocity profoundly impacted the so-far election results. Ok, so maybe I'm a little dramatic and pointy (watching Katie Couric does that to me.) Anyways, I just thought I'd let someone know :) Good luck! Digital^Ninja 03:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people said Hillary's top photo in her article is awful too. And they both lost to Obama! I'll be sure to let all the political scientists out there include this is a heretofore unknown causative factor in the 2008 elections. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Superb! Just make sure you cite myself as the "think tank" that happened to discover this remarkably obvious phenomenon :) Digital^Ninja 03:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. No need for monetary compensation -- democrats are in office now; it's not necessary. *giggle* Digital^Ninja 03:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's right, any monetary compensation you receive will be taken away and given to someone who did NOT come up with the "ugly picture phenomenon" theory. 76.99.238.21 (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Awww173.17.167.212 (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

former candidate

What event is needed to declare former candidate? just to have a clear policy --neolandes 04:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neolandes (talk • contribs)

He's conceding right now. Need for the article to be unlocked. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

That is some truly ugly vandalism. Perhaps protection should be upped, after all. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it sure was funny as fuck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.90.157 (talk • contribs)

Not surprising ... I felt it was coming. Hopefully it'll stop soon enough. Latics (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What did it say?Dumaka (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here. The user was blocked. Writegeist (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Excel Plots

The excel plots (graphs) on this page look cheap and nasty, give the man some credit and tidy them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.54.14 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project. Take your opinion and go somewhere else. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

White space

I'm seeing a huge amount of white space in the article, immediately after the section header "Formative years and education." It's been caused by this edit, which is summarized by "Moved image to fix bunched-up edit links." Anyone have any suggestion what to do about this?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks ok on my Firefox 2 and Firefox 3. But it's nearly impossible for any one editor to test how the article renders on all different versions of different browsers. The image placement and associated code in the article had been stable for a long time, until a flurry of recent changes. I'd be tempted to go back to the stable arrangement, under the assumption that the lack of complaints meant it was working decently everywhere. But then I seem to remember Sandy made one of the changes for WP:ACCESS conformance, so I don't know what to say. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the white space. If people have problems with bunching, I guess we could try something else.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Main photo

I propose that we replace the image shown in the infobox with the image seen here to the right. Looking at the current photo close up looks like part of the left side of his face is fuzzy, as if partially painted over by whoever changed the background, but the background of the original Senate photo seems way too dark. Any thoughts? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This photo's from too far back; since he's still in a very active part of his career, we should use something more recent. The dark background of the original photo is the way McCain and his staff liked it, obviously, since that's what they put up on his website. Who are we to judge it too dark? It was a mistake ever to try to "improve" it. But I said this at the time too, if you go back through the archives, so I won't say more now. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the photo to the right is from too far back. Regarding the photo that's in the article right now, I don't see that it's been partially painted over by whoever changed the background. The photo at the top of the article now is an upgraded version of an official photo from the US Government that has a blue background. See here. There is another version from the federal government that has a black background, but the consensus was that the blue background is better.

I don't think that the photo at the top of this article right now is a particularly good photo, but it's okay until we get a better one. Until the election, the consensus was to use official photos at all the candidate pages. But now the election's over. I don't see why we should have to use a photo just because McCain's Senate office likes it; that's not how we wrote the rest of this article, after all. Anyway, the photo presently at the top of the article is now a bit dated; it's over four years old.[1] So, a more recent photo would be good.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)