Misplaced Pages

Talk:John McCain: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:24, 14 March 2008 editHappyme22 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,662 edits →My thoughts: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:50, 18 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,063,551 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 9 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{talkheader|archive=yes}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap|style=long}}
{{notaforum}}
{{FAQ}}
{{Article history
|action1=WPR |action1=WPR
|action1date=00:03, 6 December 2006 |action1date=00:03, 6 December 2006
Line 10: Line 14:
|action2date=00:36, 5 March 2008 |action2date=00:36, 5 March 2008
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/John McCain/archive1 |action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/John McCain/archive1
|action2result=not promoted |action2result=failed
|action2oldid=195925591 |action2oldid=195925591


|action3=GAN
|currentstatus=FFAC
|action3date=19:29, 18 April 2008
}}
|action3link=Talk:John McCain/Archive 7#My GA Review for this article
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
|action3result=passed
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=B|nested=yes}}
|action3oldid=206545373
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=b|priority=|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes|military-work-group=yes|old-peer-review=yes|nested=yes|listas=McCain, John}}
{{WPMILHIST
|class= B
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=yes
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
|needs-[infobox=yes
|Aviation-task-force=yes
|Maritime-task-force=yes
]|US-task-force=yes
|nested=yes}}
{{WPVN|class=B|nested=yes}}
{{Project Congress|nested=yes|class=B|importance=Top|subject=Person}}
{{WikiProject Arizona|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
|blp=yes|activepol=yes}}
{{todo|small=yes}}
<!--Do Not Archive!-->
{{archive box|
]<br/>
]<br/>
]<br/>
]
}}


|action4=PR
==McCain's Office Response to Vietnam Issue - ''Do Not Archive''==
|action4date=16:51, 22 May 2008
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/John McCain/archive1
|action4result=reviewed
|action4oldid=214030081


|action5=GAR
'''NOTE: I'm moving this up here since this *is* the source. Please respect the sourcing and do not archive this if the time comes where this talk page is archived. --] 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)'''
|action5date=22:15, 3 July 2008
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/John McCain/1
|action5result=kept
|action5oldid=223391715


|action6=FAC
::: I have emailed McCain's Senate office for clarification. Until this is resolved we should leave the contradiction tag up there... Here is the full text of the email I sent:
|action6date=04:26, 18 August 2008
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/John McCain
|action6result=passed
|action6oldid=232613778


|action7=WPR
::: Greetings, I am trying to validate information concerning Senator McCain that is presented in the Senator's article in Misplaced Pages, the prominent online encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/John_McCain). There are two conflicting paragraphs in the article concerning Senator McCain's service in Vietnam. I am hoping you can assist me in correcting this problem. Could you read the contradictory paragraphs (included below) and let me know via email which version of the facts is accurate? Here are the two paragraphs in question:
|action7date=4 November 2008
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008
|action7result=Maindate
|action7oldid=249530682


|topic=politics
::: <snip>
|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=November 4, 2008
|itn1date=26 August 2018
|itn2date=5 November 2008
|otd1date=2020-03-14|otd1oldid=945225494
}}


{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|listas=McCain, John|blp=no|1=
::: If you have time, I would appreciate it if someone in your office could review the rest of the article for accuracy and bias as well. This information is read by millions of people, and I'd love to make certain that it's correct. Again, the article is located at: (http://en.wikipedia.org/John_McCain) ] 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Mid|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=Mid|old-peer-review=yes}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid|American=yes|American-importance=top}}
::::'''From Senator McCain's Office:'''"Thank you for taking the time to get your facts right! Both paragraphs have some truth to them.
{{WikiProject Military history|class=FA|Aviation=yes|Biography=yes|Maritime=yes|US=yes|Southeast-Asian=yes|Cold-War=yes}}

{{WikiProject Vietnam|importance=Low}}
::::McCain was first assigned to the USS Forrestal. He was in the cockpit of an A-4E Skyhawk on the deck of the Forrestal that was hit by an F-4 Zuni rocket to start the Forrestal fire on July 29, 1967.
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=Person}}
::::He served with the Saints following the Forrestal incident. They were short on men after the Oriskany fire, and he volunteered to go serve there. It was not long after moving to the Saints on the Oriskany that he was shot down in Vietnam, on October 26, 1967.
{{WikiProject Aviation|Biography=yes}}

{{WikiProject Panama|importance=Low}}
::::So, while it would seem he would be in two places at once, he was just moving around. But to be clear, he was only in one of the fires, aboard the Forrestal. He came to the Oriskany after its fire. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=High|AZ=Yes|AZ-importance=High |portal1-name=United States |portal1-link=Selected biography/18 |portal2-name=Arizona |portal2-link=Selected biography/3 |portal3-name=Politics |portal3-link=Selected biography/7 |portal4-name=Conservatism |portal4-link=Selected article/6}}

}}
::::Regards,
{{Press
::::<removed name>
| collapsed=yes
::::Executive Assistant
| title = 'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare
::::Office of Senator John McCain
| author = ], Rachel Martin
::::241 Russell Senate Office Building
| date = 2008-04-03
::::Washington, DC 20510
| url = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333759&sc=emaf
::::<removed phone>
| org = ], ]
Based on this, and pending confirmation from third-party published sources, I have added "just before McCain's arrival" to the info on the ] accident. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
| title2= Misplaced Pages Wars

| author2 = ]
<!--Please do not archive above!-->
| date2= 2008-04-12

| url2= http://www.charter.net/video/?vendid=35&vid=142269
<!--Do Not Archive this either -->
| org2= ], ]

| author3=]
== Questions? Ask them through Wikinews ==
| date3=2008-04-21

| url3=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_60/ai_n25474310/print?tag=artBody;col1
Hello,
| title3=Liberal Web

| org3=]
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
| section3=April 2008

| title4= Hillary Clinton's Misplaced Pages watchdog
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
| author4 = Kelly Heyboer

| date4= 2008-05-28
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
| url4=http://blog.nj.com/digitallife/2008/05/hillary_clintons_wikipedia_wat.html

| org4= ]
* ]
| title5=one of two pieces aired
* ]
| author5 = Paul Murnane
* ]
| date5= 2008-05-28

| url5=http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2400703
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or .
| org5= ]

| title6= Misplaced Pages Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks
Thanks,
| author6= Brian Krebs
Nick
| date6= 2008-08-29
| url6= http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082902691.html

| org6= ]
<!--Please do not archive above!-->
| title7= Misplaced Pages Enters the Fray

| author7= Noam Cohen

| date7= 2008-11-05
== Is McCain a "Native Born American"? ==
| url7= http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/live-blogging-covering-the-coverage/?src=scrl#t19h28m
section of Misplaced Pages's Panama Canal Zone article has reliably sourced information, some of which should be included here, at least the last paragraph, I think. If the matter is already included within the article, please advise. It will be pretty embarassing if he gets elected and then thrown out by the Supreme Court and this encyclopedia included nothing about the well-known and reliably reported issue. ] (]) 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
| org7= ]

| title8= Obama Gets a Landslide of Misplaced Pages Edits

| author8= Brian Heater
"Almost from the inception of the Canal Zone, questions arose as to whether the Zone was considered part of the United States for constitutional purposes, or, in the phrase of the day, whether the Constitition followed the flag. On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury ] stated, "While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C06E1DF113BE631A2575AC2A9619C946597D6CF</ref>
| date8= 2008-11-06
In 1953, Congress passed legislation to specify the status of Americans born in the Canal Zone--and to exclude non-Americans born there from citizenship. Title 8, Section 1403 of the ] grants citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone with at least one parent who is a United States citizen. This differs from the provision in the ] which grants citizenship to all born in the United States, regardless of parental nationality.
| url8= http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2334038,00.asp

| org8= ]
These provisions came to public attention in 2008, when Senator ]'s Presidential bid raised questions concerning whether he was a "natural born citizen" of the United States entitled to seek the presidency (only "natural born citizens", resident in the United States for fourteen or more years and aged at least 35, may be president, pursuant to Article II of the ]). McCain was born in the Canal Zone to United States citizen parents.
| title9= Updating a Reference Site on the Fly

| author9= Noam Cohen
On ], ], the '']'' published an article <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html</ref> concerning the question. The article reaches no legal conclusion, stating that there is confusion about the natural-born provision and uncertainty about who would have standing to bring suit to prevent McCain from taking office based on his birthplace."
| date9= 2008-11-09

| url9= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10link.html
::If anywhere, that issue would belong in the article about McCain's 2008 campaign. This main McCain article is about to be substantially reduced in size, so only the most essential stuff will belong here.
| org9= ]

|date10=August 17, 2009
::Also, it's not entirely clear why this issue would be any more legitimate than the issue of whether Obama's citizenship is lawful, given the allegedly unlawful annexation of Hawaii.
|url10=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html

|title10=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008
::The NY Times article is unlikely to gain any traction. If you would like to read an actual legal analysis of the issue, in response to the NYT, see . I'm not suggesting that the blog post should be included in Misplaced Pages, but the sources cited by the blog post might appropriately be included in this encyclopedia.] (]) 03:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
|org10=]

|author10=(none)
:::Thanks for the reference. Getting back to the Hawaii comparison, Hawaii was a State when he was born. Panama Canal Zone was not when McCain was born. You may be right that it belongs in the 2008 campaign article but it is also something that affects his earlier campaign and maybe his personal history. I just think it is an issue which should be mentioned in 1 of the 2 articles. I'm definitely not going to start including information about this myself because I don't think it should matter when it comes to McCain: I have a conflict between my own pov and what I think should be in an encyclopedia. ] (]) 14:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
}}

{{Annual report|] and ]}}
: I very much doubt that this kind of question can be resolved on a Misplaced Pages talk page; nor can it be used to improve the article. Perhaps the interested parties would like to add a note on this constitutional matter to their respective blogs. --] 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
{{Top 25 report|Jul 16 2017 (19th)|Aug 26 2018 (1st)|Sep 2 2018 (6th)}}

{{Annual readership}}
:: Who's asking for resolution of this in the John McCain article? People are simply asking for a reference to the question of eligibility. Reading through this talk page I see alot of intelligent, researched posts attacked by apologists and gatekeepers making juvenile, contradictory replies. Activity like this is what gives Misplaced Pages a bad name. ] (]) 22:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
{{American English}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Please. This is not an issue. John McCain is many things, among them a vile scumbag who hijacked the GOP, but he is still an American citizen. He was "natuarally born" with U.S. Citizenship. Any court would find that he was "born" an American citizen. ] (]) 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
|target= Talk:John McCain/Archive index

|mask= Talk:John McCain/Archive <#>
:It's odd that so many "editors" know for sure what the Supreme Court or "any court" is going to decide in this particular case. There have been some surprises before, and ] being two. Is there a reliable source which states what any court will decide on this matter? If so, let's include it. Let me ask you this hypothetical. Suppose a baby was born today in North Korea in an apartment rented by the US Government to provide housing for 2 Americans who work for the U.S. Government inside N.Korea, would that baby be a "native born American" ? Areyou sure that any court would find that to be the case? ] (]) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=

}}
:: Yes, there is not the slightest question that that baby would be a native-born citizen of the USA. Even if the birth was by caesarian section. This is black-letter law. Questioning it is like questioning the roundness of the earth. -- ] (]) 08:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(90d)
::: This part of ] reads "One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized." Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."" and there are many reliable in addition to the New York Times which see this as an important and unresoved issue. ] (]) 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
| archive = Talk:John McCain/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 20
::::Again from that same article: "Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."" It's a non-issue... since 1790 it's been US law that anyone born to US citizens, are natural born citizens, regardless of where they were physically born. ] (]) 14:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
| maxarchivesize = 100K

| archiveheader = {{aan}}
:::::I agree with Hutcher that our function is not to resolve the issue but simply to recognize and include the fact that there is an issue according to many reliable sources, including (but not exclusive to) the New York Times. ] (]) 15:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 2}}
== Nader older than McCain ==

"Should McCain win in 2008, he would be the oldest person to assume the Presidency in history at initial ascension to office, being 72 years old and surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 years old at his inauguration following the 1980 election."

Now that Ralph Nader is running for president, this sentence needs to be modified. ] (born February 27, 1934) is older than John McCain (born August 29, 1936) and would technically be the oldest president. -- ] (]) 03:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:Nader never became president. The sentence is correct and does not need to be changed. ''']''' '']'' 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

::The sentence implies that McCain is the oldest candidate in 2008, which isn't true. Nader is unlikely to win the presidency, but he is still a presidential candidate and should be mentioned. -- ] (]) 03:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:::It does not imply that he's the oldest candidate in 2008. It says if he wins, he'll be the oldest initial. You just registered. ''']''' '']'' 03:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Agree with Enigmaman. And Nader's not the oldest candidate anyway, ] is at 77. ] (]) 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Also agree with Enigmaman. The sentence in question does not refer to the age of a candidate. A similar sentence could be included in the article on Nader and it too would be true. --] (]) 04:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Both Gravel and Nader should be mentioned, in a footnote at least. But I am happy to leave the issue on this discussion page and out of the main article, to reduce the article's length. -- ] (]) 05:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Here's the ]. ], ], ], possibly others. -- ] (]) 06:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

== Who is going to add something about the "native born " issue? - Dispute Resolution ==

Topics 28,29 and 32 seem to me to provide a consensus that the eligibility for President question needs to be in this BLP and probably the 2008 campain article as well. I personally prefer not to be the one to add it, but in the interest of building a comprehensive encyclopedia of reliable sourced information I think it should be included. ] (]) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:I have started a discussion at the main article, . That's where this question should be addressed. See ].] (]) 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

: I've requested ] as per Step 6 of ] and plan to pursue this until resolution. There are editors of this article attempting to block all efforts to include this notable/verifiable point in an ] and irresponsible manner. This behavior does not belong in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

::Hutcher, is there a problem with discussing this at the ? That article is supposed to be summarized here in this article, so the place to begin is there.] (]) 23:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, someone suggested at ] that the material on his citizenship ought to be moved to ], so I moved it.] (]) 01:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I imagining it, or are some editors suggesting that Misplaced Pages should investigate McCain's constitutional eligibility to run for president, on the grounds that the lawyers of neither the Republican nor Democrat parties have sufficiently investigated this? ] (]) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

: I don't get it, ''there is no issue''. It's a made-up issue by a few idiots with time on their hands who can't read simple English. The meaning of "natural-born citizen" was black-letter law in the 18th century, there was not the slightest doubt about it, indeed it was cited as an example of a phrase that would never need interpretation by a court because its meaning was obvious. There is no doubt whatsoever that McCain is a natural-born citizen, and nobody of any importance is questioning it, so where's the notable issue that needs to be mentioned on WP? If a candidate were born on the 29th of February, and some idiot were to claim that he can't be president until his 140th birthday, would we cover that? -- ] (]) 08:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

::This part of ] reads "One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized." Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."" and there are many reliable in addition to the New York Times which see this as an important and unresolved issue. ] (]) 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::: The 14th amendment isn't the issue here. The 14th amendment doesn't use the term "natural born citizen". "Natural born citizen" was a common term in the 18th century, and there was no dispute whatsoever about its meaning. Everybody understood it to mean born under the protection of some sovereign, and everyone understood that children of ambassadors born abroad were natural-born citizens of their father's country, not of the country where they were born. This was taken as a completely obvious matter, and one that no court would ever be called on to interpret because it was so obvious and universally agreed to. -- ] (]) 20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the best place to discuss this would be at the talk page for ]. This kind of material would have to be included there before possibly being summarized here in the present article. Right now, this issue is only covered by a footnote in that other article on his 2008 campaign, so it doesn't currently seem significant enough to summarize here in this article. See ]. Thanks.] (]) 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

is the definitive answer to what "natural born citizen" meant in the 18th century. -- ] (]) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

: And is the definitive answer to what it means in the 21st. Needless to say, McCain's covered. ] (]) 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

::We are not constitutional authorities nor should we presume to '''know''' the answer to the question of whether McCain is a "natural born American" and it is weird that so many of us have such a determined opinion that they do know the answer to a question which most Reliable Sources and U.S. Senators frame as an unresolved and important question. Who here is qualified to dispute U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill's assertion that the matter is unresolved, '''important''' and needs '''to be''' resolved? I agree with Hutcher that our function is not to resolve the issue but simply to recognize and include the fact that there is an issue according to many reliable sources, including (but not exclusive to) the New York Times. ] (]) 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

== FAC closing ==
I've added ] ] (]) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:By the way, since the article is tagged as too long, I ran Dr pda's prose size script; it's currently at 52KB readable prose. Relative to the ] guideline of 30 to 50KB of readable prose, is it still necessary for the article to be tagged? ] (]) 01:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
::We should be under 50KB very soon anyway. We've only done shortening up through the section on the 2000 campaign.] (]) 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

== Won the nomination ==

I just saw on Fox News that he won the Repub nomination; I'll provide a cite in a minute. ] (]) 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:Correction: He has won enough delegates to get the nom, but will not be projected the nomination winner until later tonight or tomorrow (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/04/obama-mccain-win-vermont-primary/) Might not want to include until it is official, but here's a heads up. ] (]) 02:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
CNN has given it to him, so it's been added to the article. He just becomes the presumptive nominee, anyway; he doesn't become the official nominee until the convention, so all the category additions, firmly declarative statements, infoboxes, etc. should wait until then. ] (]) 02:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:Very true. I'm glad I was able to help (kinda). Great job with all this Wasted! ] (]) 02:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can see already we're going to have edits back and forth over "presumptive" or other wordings to describe what he is. "Presumptive" is the formulation that I believe most news organizations use from now until the convention, but we can see. In any case, I'm not going to go to reversion city over this one. ] (]) 02:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

==Wrong name spelling==

Why is his name wrong in the lead picture?

:Just as night follows day, make a big splash in the news, get vandalized in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

==Imbalance and cherry picking==
I've started reading through this article, and I'm finding strange imbalances, misrepresentations of sources, and what looks like cherry picking from some of the sources. I'm still in the first section, but here's one example:
: He had his share of run-ins with the leadership, did not take well to being bossed, and received many demerits.<ref name="az-naval">{{cite news |url=http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter2.html |title=John McCain Report: At the Naval Academy |author=Nowicki, Dan & Muller, Bill |publisher=] |date=] |accessdate=2007-11-10}}</ref> He competed as a ] ],<ref name="nw051407">{{cite news |url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/34694 |title=John McCain: 'I Learned How to Take Hard Blows' |author= Bailey, Holly|publisher=] |date=] |accessdate=2007-12-19}}</ref> and he did well in a few subjects that interested him.<ref name="az-naval"/>
{{reflist}}
So, I clicked on these articles, expecting to learn that McCain had been quite a screwup in his school years and while at the Academy. Curiously, both the ''Newsweek'' and ''The Arizona Republic'' articles give favorable to glowing reports about McCain (read them). It appears that the Wiki article highlights the few unfavorable passages from those articles, and positions them negatively. I hope this isn't occurring throughout (but I've already seen this in most of what I've read). I encourage a review of the sources for balance, cherry picking and due weight. Based on our text, when I clicked on these articles, I expected to find fairly negative reports, and was surprised at how we managed to glean the few unfavorable aspects of those articles for our use, while apparently neglecting the overall tenor of the articles. I don't know much about McCain, but I was surprised at how we don't seem to be representing the sources in a balanced way. Please review the sources and the article with accuracy and ] in mind, and take care not to cherry pick from sources. ] (]) 05:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

::I think that improving the article, and making sure it's NPOV and accurate, will be easier now that it's becoming shorter. I hope that the sections after the 2000 campaign section will soon be condensed. As far as the sentence that Sandy quotes, it ''is'' a bit negative. I would probably include something like this instead: "He was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, stood up for people who were being bullied, and was a feisty lightweight boxer. Although he had run-ins with the leadership, and was not inclined to obey every rule, he did well in academic subjects that interested him."] (]) 06:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I have a two-part response. Regarding the main article, I wash my hands of it. It's impossible to boil down McCain's character, personality, the different forces driving him in that period, and what at a result happened at the Naval Academy, to a couple of sentences. At least it's impossible for me. So you guys can do whatever you want in the main article on this. It may be best to just "stick to most basic bio facts" (entered this year, graduated that year) and not try to depict his personality, character, attitudes, outlook, etc. in any way, I don't know. If so you should probably leave out his class rank altogether, because that without the context that just makes him look like a dope.

Regarding the subarticle, however, there we have more space, and that's what I am going to focus on. I don't see that the current description in ] is negative or cherry-picked. It depends upon your cultural outlook, I guess, but I for one largely admire the guy who's portrayed there — tough, non-conformist, willing to speak his mind, etc. — these are some of the traits that define him as an attractive politician too. And for what it's worth, I ''do'' know a lot about McCain(*): I've read the ''Arizona Republic'' series, both Timberg biographies, the Paul Alexander biography, and countless newspaper and magazine articles about him. But the best place to start is with his own '']''. Sandy, I'd urge you to buy it or take it out from your library and read it. This guy might well be the next president, and all aside from WP it's worth knowing him better. And it's a great book. And one thing about McCain that makes it easier for us, is that when he does something wrong or foolish or ill-advised, he beats himself up more than any critic does. Read the parts in ''Faith of My Fathers'' about his regrets about his misspent youth and lack of seriousness of purpose, and how his time as a POW made him vow to do more with his life was he got out. There's a lot more self-criticism in what he writes than we could ever manage here. The "full McCain" — from the heroic to the foolish, from the principled to the sometimes compromising, from the salty to the self-critical — is what I want to try to get across here, and in the subarticles I'll continue to do so. I'll start with adding some more material to the Naval Academy, that gives a fuller picture of those years, given that I have a bit more space. But again, Sandy and anyone else reading, I urge you to give ''Faith of My Fathers'' a try. ] (]) 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And FWIW, the next best things to read about McCain are the two Robert Timberg books. ''The Nightingale's Song'' contrasts five different to-be-famous Naval Academy graduates from the same time — McCain, ] (possible veep pick this year!), ], ], ] — and how they were all affected by the Vietnam experience and the courses their careers later took. (Timberg himself is also a Naval Academy grad and Vietnam vet.) Highly praised book, really worth the while. The McCain parts were later extracted and expanded to form ''John McCain: An American Odyssey'', which I've used more heavily as a cite here because it's easier to follow the chronlogical flow (''Nightingale'' jumps back and forth between the different subjects). <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

(*) That didn't come off too modestly. I've ''tried'' to know a lot about McCain ;-) ] (]) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:::WTR, you said about the main article: "I wash my hands of it." Please let me know if you change your mind. In the mean time, I'll proceed with shortening the sections after the 2000 campaign section. And I hope that you'll help to revert moronic and outrageous edits to this article, as you've done in the past. Your participation has been very helpful.] (]) 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Well, let's work on the central question below. I'm very frustrated that Sandy, a good editor, has completely misinterpreted everything I've done here. My top priority is to fix that. ] (]) 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::WastedTime, as an attempt at a helpful proposal: perhaps you shouldn't take comments from others and your own contributions so personally and try to remember our ], and then maybe you won't feel so personally frustrated or that your individual efforts have been misunderstood? I think this article will become all the better if you will at least consider that change and then continue participating rather than washing your hands of the main article. As Ferrylodge says, You participation has been '''very''' helpful. ] (]) 16:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

===The central question===
The central question for this main article is whether we try to describe McCain's personality, character, attitude, etc. at all. If we don't, we can take a very matter-of-fact approach, and replace this paragraph:

:Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy. He was a rebellious midshipman, and his career at the Naval Academy was ambivalent. He had his share of run-ins with the leadership, did not take well to being bossed, and received many demerits. He competed as a lightweight boxer, and he did well in a few subjects that interested him. Despite his low standing, he was a leader among his fellow midshipmen. He wanted to show the same mettle as his naval forebears, and so he managed to graduate from the Naval Academy in 1958, though near the bottom of his class.

with this:

:Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy, and graduated in 1958.

and leave ] to cover, with its advantage of having enough space to give full context, what McCain's years at Annapolis were like. We can take a similar approach in the rest of the main article; just be matter-of-fact with the standard resumé items and nothing else, and leave the subarticles to give a more three-dimensional view. What think? ] (]) 16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

::I think we need to strive for a happy medium. Sandy's main point seems to be that, whatever we do, we ought to try harder to track the reliable sources. What do you think about this material based on what I suggested above?

::"Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy. He was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, stood up for people who were being bullied, and was a feisty lightweight boxer. <s>Although he</s> '''McCain''' had run-ins with the leadership, <s>and</s> was not inclined to obey every rule, '''and did not care about his low class rank (894/899).''' He did well in academic subjects that interested him, '''and his graduation in 1958 gave him an opportunity to show the same mettle as his naval forbears.''' <s>He was not a perfect fit for the Naval Academy, but wanted to show the same mettle as his naval forebears, and he managed to graduate from the Naval Academy in 1958 near the bottom of his class.</s>"] (]) 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:::This feels a bit defensively worded, and the "although" and "but" constructs might fail ], I'd have to check. And I don't like shying away from his actual class rank (5th from bottom, or 894/899 I think it was). McCain doesn't shy away from that; hell, ''Faith of My Fathers'' even includes an amusing story about how he was a bit envious of the guy who finished absolute last. Called "The Anchor", that midshipsman got a special celebratory call-out during the commencement and a smile from Dwight Eisenhower, the commencement speaker. ] (]) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Trying again, see edits above.] (]) 18:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::I don't think the "did not care about his class rank" is accurate. The "ambivalence" is in the early version perhaps is the shortest accurate characterization. But I'm going to go back and re-read some book portions and expand/rework the Naval Academy section in the subarticle, hopefully tonight; maybe that will give you some more grist for the boiled down version. ] (]) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) For now, I'd like to put this into the article, which might allow removal of the tag:

"Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy. He was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, stood up for people who were being bullied, and was a feisty lightweight boxer. McCain had run-ins with the leadership, was not inclined to obey every rule, and '''did not aim to improve his class rank''' <s>was ambivalent about class rank</s> (his was 894/899). McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him, and his graduation in 1958 gave him an opportunity to show the same mettle as his naval forbears."

Please let me know if there are any objections to this tentative fix.] (]) 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:He wasn't ambivalent about class rank, he was ambivalent about being at the Naval Academy in general. ] (]) 18:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

::WTR, you said that he was a bit envious of the guy who finished absolute last. That means he didn't much care about having a higher class rank. And if he was ambivalent about being in the Naval Academy, then that includes ambivalence about getting a good class rank. The point is, if we're going to mention class rank, we ought to also mention that he didn't really give a damn about his class rank. How would you like to phrase it? One of the cited sources says that his low academic standing was "by choice."] (]) 18:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I've edited above so it says the he didn't aim to improve his class rank.] (]) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A reworked and expanded Naval Academy section is now present in ]. You can use it or not to tweak the main article boil-down. Of particular relevance to the class rank issue is that his "grease grade" (roughly, spit-and-polish, conduct, leadership, and getting along with your CO) was always very poor, and that was included into the class rank calculation. ] (]) 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::Looks good, and I also like the recent slimming of the main article. Regarding whether the improved section in ] should lead to corresponding changes in the main John McCain article, we could either remove the parenthetical "(894/899)" since it may be misleading, or we could explain that those numbers reflect not just academics but also spit-and-polish, conduct, leadership, and getting along with your commanding officer. My inclination would be to just remove the parenthetical, and people could then consult the "Early Life..." article for details about that.] (]) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

== Needs rephrasing for clarity - probable faulty inferences from the reference as well. ==

"The leader in terms of establishment Republican Party support and fundraising was Texas Governor and presidential son George W. Bush."

What is this trying to say? To me, it makes no sense at all and "in terms of" doesn't help. Is it trying to say that GWB was leading RP support and fundraising for McCain? probably not but that's how it first read to me.

Was the leader at the time GWB (which by the way is not stated in the reference only inferred as there is no comparison to McCain and no statement that Bush was ahead by either support or finances as stated)?

Shouldn't it say "then Texas Governor" for context and isn't "presidential son" superfluous?

--] (]) 06:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:I've rewritten this as "The leader for the Republican nomination was ] ], who had the most establishment party support and funds." Is that clearer? ] (]) 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:I think the text about this in the ] section is clear. Another case of something getting mangled when size reduction was done. ] (]) 14:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

::That's fine. Kinks are inevitable when there's size reduction, so I think we ought to proceed with the size reduction and work out the kinks. And I don't think that Candy's objections were entirely inapplicable to the main article, which said: "There was a crowded field of Republican candidates, but the big leader in terms of establishment party support and fundraising was Texas Governor and presidential son George W. Bush."] (]) 15:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

==Re the John McCain series==
I've taken the liberty of changing the name of the McCain articles' series in its navigation box from '''''The life of ]''''' to the '''''] series,''''' a better title since subarticles about McCain's political positions and cultural image have to do with both McCain's life and ''work.''
Not all subarticles in a series will sequence chronologically, eg, in the ] series along with chronologically grouped subarticles there are also subarticles concerning ''causes'' and ''historiography'', subarticles comprising ''list of people'' and an overview of ''wars,'' and article providing a ''timeline'' and a ''glossary'' (and indeed, WP's McCain "Political positions" subarticle, though it correlates to a section within the main McCain bio, had until recently been left out of the series due its ill-fit under its previous strictly chronological "Life of" rubric). --] (]) 07:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Current components of the McCain biographical series are
*'''''Faith of My Fathers''''' ''- autobiographical writing''
*'''Early life and military career · House and Senate career, 1982–1999 · 2000 presidential campaign · Senate career, 2001–present · 2008 presidential campaign''' ''- chronological items''
*'''Political positions · Cultural and political image''' ''- dealing with works and legacy''
Any we ought delete? --] (]) 09:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

== Update ==

He has, without any doubt, won the nomination. The article should be adjusted to reflect that. ] (]) 11:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

==Image at Top==
The editor "Camptown" with another image that (to my knowledge) has never been at the top of the article. No edit summary was provided, so the motivation for this change is unknown. The picture that was removed is a recent photo that had broad consensus here. ] (]) 16:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture currently at the top of the article is more than nine years old, according to.] (]) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:Good idea for dating it, I've add that to the captions in the 1982-1999 section and subarticle. ] (]) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It now appears that another editor (8thstar) at the top of the article, without any edit summary or talk page discussion. The image that 8thstar has inserted is at least four years old, judging from June 12, 2004 biography available from archive.org.] (]) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:Hey, at least in this article every new photo is of McCain. In the Hillary article, when the top photo is replaced it's usually with something obscene. ] (]) 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::I'd prefer something obscene, because then I could revert the vandalism without worrying about 3RR.] (]) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Turns out that the 2004 photo was rejected as a "Featured Picture" here at Misplaced Pages.] (]) 04:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:Well, Someone replaced the main image with that one from the 90s, so I replaced that one with the more recent official portrait, and the official portrait is what is used on most of the politicians articles. ] 04:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for the comment, 8thstar. The official portrait that you installed is at least four years old, and I agree with those who say that it's lousy. The image presently at the top of the article may not exactly be a "portrait" but it seems a lot better than some of the other photos that have been used, plus it's only a month old.] (]) 04:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::: So, the "old" picture on hillary clinton's page should be replaced with a newer one? how about a cropped version of ] 05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::::I guess that would be something to suggest at the HRC article.] (]) 15:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

==Expanded infobox==
The editor Philip Stevens has expanded the infobox at the top right of the article, to include info about McCain’s status as a presidential candidate. Such info is not included in the info boxes for ], ], ], ], or any of the other presidential candidates that I’m aware of.

I don’t know if there is a Misplaced Pages guideline or policy about this, but I do know that expanding the infobox like that makes it too big, and material is now slopping into the next section of the article.] (]) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:McCain ''will'' be the nominee, even if he isn't just yet, and so will run for President in November. ] also has such fields as he too is certain to contest the presidency; Obama and Clinton are not. Also, there are fair bigger infoboxes around, ] and ] for example. I don't think it makes the page look sloppy. I'll return the infobox to how it was but if anyone else objects to them I suggest having a fuller discussion here. --] (]) 06:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::I strongly disagree with the utility of a "presidential candidate" section of an infobox. Basically, I think that infoboxes are better suited for positions rather than titles, if that makes any sense. A position is something you hold/are, while titles are grab-bag. I'm not denying that McCain functionally is the nominee - that has nothing to do with this - but "nominee" is not something worth sticking in an infobox. He is a Senator and will be referred to by the media and in the debates as "Senator McCain." That is his identity, and should be the focus of the infobox. I know the infobox used to include random committe chairmanships and the like, and those were removed as well (by someone else) a long time ago as just not that important and clutter. It's the same problem with this section; it doesn't say much useful and is clutter. (The other candidates section is particularly clunky; he'll only be running against one of Hillary and Obama, and "and numerous others" sounds odd.)

::As an example... an infobox for "baseball player" makes sense, but would an infobox for "Season MVP" make any sense? I mean, you could list the people who most recently held that title ("incumbent"), runner-ups in voting ("other candidates"), maybe some random season statistics, but I think most people would agree that this is something better suited for a succession box at the bottom, not the infobox which is supposed to encapsulate someone's career quickly. Just leave it as baseball player.

::Furthermore, as bad as it looks here on a current candidate, this kind of infobox would look even sillier on historical candidates. Any winning candidate obviously should have a President's infobox instead, but even for losing ones... should Walter Mondale be introduced as "Vice President" or "Presidential Candidate?" Obviously Vice President, in my mind. William Jennings Bryan is even more problematic - he ran for office repeatedly but in non-consecutive years (1896, 1900, and 1908). Does he get three infobox sections? One confused and crowded section? The only possible exception I can think of would be for someone who isn't known for anything other than being a presidential candidate- say, Ross Perot. But that's extremely rare, and I'd say that an infobox is simply not required or need be used then. ] (]) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Firstly, I don't think the fields should be used on historical candidates, but I don't see why the infobox should only be for offices and not titles. Surely the object of the infobox is to quickly inform the reader of the most important information in the rest of the article. To not mention of the fact he is the presumptive nominee seems to leave out the most important piece of information about the man at this time. There are examples of the infobox being used for titles, President-elect ] and First Lady ] for example. I think the infobox works well in those cases as it does with McCain. --] (]) 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree with SnowFire. The "presidential candidate" part of the infobox makes it look sloppy and cluttered. Also, it raises another issue: how do we know where to draw a line? Are we going to have infobox sections for every office a single person ever runs for? Or for every current action a politician is taking? ] (]) 06:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::::How does it look sloppy, surely that's a matter of taste? I like the section, its informative which is what the '''''info'''''box is for. With respect to the other users, I think some people criticize anything that they haven't seen before just for the sake of it. I do agree though, that the section should not be put on any past election pages, as that would look cluttered, and when this election is over, the section should either be removed or replace with a president-elect section. --] (]) 06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:So... Is this to be removed or added to the other candidates articles? ] 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

::I think there is a consensus not to add the section to candidates from past elections. As for current elections, when the Democrats pick their nominee, the section should be added to his/her infobox. On November 5, the section should either be removed or replaced with a president-elect section depending on who won. --] (]) 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I still very, very strongly disagree with this infobox existing at all, and consensus seems split on it. What useful information does it offer? Mevedev had an infobox for being ''president-elect'', which is a whole different kettle of fish. As I said before, McCain is a Senator, and he'll still be a Senator when the election comes. Plus, the Senatorial infobox has actually useful information; are Clinton and Obama somehow part of McCain's history? ] (]) 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

==Appropriate Title==
John McCain is not the Republican Nominee for President. As fun as it is for those of you editing the article to pretend you know American politics, his position is still contested until the Republican Nominating Convention, at which time the delegates (pledged to anyone) can vote for anyone else. It would be nice if Misplaced Pages actually stated factually accurate material regarding some well known things. ] 17:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:I fully agree, he's the presumptive nomineee. The Republicans don't pick their presidential nominee ''until'' September. ] (]) 17:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

==McCain's opponents for Senate request==
Maybe somebody from Arizona would know more... anyway, ] and ] currently don't have articles. Most Senatorial candidates are notable; does anybody know anything more about these two and is willing to write a stub? Figure that since this article is set to become rather important, there'd be some benefit to reducing redlinks.

Also, McCain's opponents for his House seat in the 80s are also redlinks. It's more likely that these may be non-notable people who ran in one race and then retired from public life, but beats me. Maybe they had interesting careers in Arizona State politics and are notable after all. If anybody knows more on this, either stubs or else simply removing the link if they're non-notable can get rid of those redlinks. ] (]) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== Oven chips ==

Is it true that his father is the creator of McCains oven chips? This should be added if so. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: No. You want ]. -- ] (]) 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

== "and presumptive Republican Party nominee for President of the United States." ==

Where's the source for this information?? I want proof.

] (]) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

:No sources are cited in the lead paragraphs, because they just summarize the rest of the article. The cited source that you're looking for is at the end of the section titled "2008 presidential campaign."] (]) 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
:: In any case, only contentious information needs to be sourced. Something that nobody can honestly challenge does not need a source. -- ] (]) 07:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
::: "Something that nobody can honestly challenge does not need a source"? That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. Everything needs a source. Otherwise I could write in the article the McCain has had sex with farm animals, and (being that nobody has any information on that) nobody could challenge it. Great idea Zsero. Open mouth, insert foot. ] (]) 16:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
:::: You are wrong. Why don't you actually read the policies and guidelines instead of making things up? Uncontentious facts do ''not'' need to be sourced. This isn't some new idea, it's the current rule on Misplaced Pages. And it has to be the rule; otherwise we'd end up with nothing ''but'' sources. -- ] (]) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
::::: Actually, you are wrong. And the mere existence of this line of discussion shows it. The actual policy of wikipedia, direct from ] is simple, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Quite basically, Zsero, ] challenged the information and now anyone with relevant proof must provide a source for it. Perhaps it is you who should read the policies of Misplaced Pages. And by the way, in a respectable encyclopedia-- having too many sources is much better than having unsourced material(s).] 15:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::: That anonymous editor did not challenge it at all; s/he didn't say s/he doubted its truth, s/he merely demanded a source just to be annoying. It is almost impossible for any editor to honestly challenge it; any challenge to such a well-known fact would be very strong evidence of bad faith. -- ] (]) 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::: (ec) "Presumptive nominee" ''is'' sourced in the body of the article, by which says "Sen. John McCain swept all four Republican contests on Tuesday to become his party's presumptive nominee." The style of the article is that the intro section at the top doesn't use any footnotes, because it only summarizes material that is cited in the body of the article. So what exactly is the problem here? Do you think McCain ''isn't'' the presumptive nominee? If so, what cites do you have to back up that position? ] (]) 15:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Where in ] precludes citations in the lede? Check with the various WikiProjects and you'll find one consistency: if the citations aren't nailed down, they'll be challenged regardless of where it is in the article. So... "better safe than sorry" is the popular adage regarding citations. If you doubt that, take a gander of the last several ]. ] (]) 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presumptive:

''Main Entry: pre·sump·tive <br>
''Function: adjective

''1 : based on probability or presumption <the presumptive nominee> <br>
''2 : giving grounds for reasonable opinion or belief

That's the sense we're using it in. ] (]) 12:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

== Vandalism ==
This article has been vandalized. Can someone investigate? Thank you. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->



== John Sydney McCain the 4th ==

I recently read of the (official) G.O.P nominee's dad who also happens to go by the name John Sydney McCain. I also read that McCain's dad also had a father who also both went by the name John Sydney McCain and also happened to have a father going by the same name as well. I think someone needs to correct this. Moreover I also have some proof from the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/John_S._McCain%2C_Sr.

http://www.wargs.com/political/mccain.html

] (]) 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

:In this area, people are what they use, not what you count. ] (]) 04:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that John McCain chose to be named John Sydney McCain the 3rd rather than the 4th?

] (]) 04:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:Since Mac's great-grandfather John Sydney McCain, the originator of four generations of namesakes (assuming Mac's son, ''Jack the IVth'' doesn't have a son) didn't himself get an ordinal number, what should Misplaced Pages term him? John Sydney McCain, ''grand''Sr.? (Note that while Pres. Andew Jackson's father is known to history as ''Andrew Jackson, Sr.,'' it is Old Hickory (Pres. Jackson's) ''son'' who's known to history as ''Andrew Jackon, Jr.'')--] (]) 07:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that may an appropiate term to use for his great grandfather, though I personally believe that an ordinal number would be more appropiate when trying to distinguish the (official) G.O.P candidate from his other ancestors.

] (]) 19:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:Most biographers use "Slew" and "Jack" for the Senator's grandfather and father, while he is "John" or "Johnny". ] (]) 19:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:So it breaks down, uh, "ordinalizationally" like this:
:<blockquote>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mac's son, ''Midshipman Jack'' is ''John Sydney McCain IV;''<br>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."Johnny" Mac ''the '''Nominee''''' is ''John Sydney McCain'''...the 3rd;'''''<br>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mac's ''papa, Admiral Jack'' is ''John Sydney McCain, Jr.;''<br>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mac's grandpop, ''Vice Admiral Slew'' is ''John Sydney McCain, Sr.;'' and<br>Mac's '''''great'''''grandfather, ''John McCain of Mississippi'' is '''''John McCain...the 1st---"b.f."''''' ("before familial 'ordinalizations'")?</blockquote>--] (]) 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::The last is named simply as "yet another John Sidney McCain" by the Senator in ''Faith of My Fathers'''. So you could give him the suffix Y.A. ... ] (]) 20:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC) And by the way, all these "Sydney"s should be "Sidney". ] (]) 20:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::And presumably they all subscribe to the family motto: felis demulcta mitis.] (]) 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this all can be settled by finding a ] that verifies his complete legal name (say, one that shows his birth certificate, marriage license, automobile license, and so forth). Until such official documentation is presented, either we accept the affirmation of Sen. McCain or indulge in (anti-Wiki policy) ]. ] (]) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

:I have to make a correction here. The name is John Sidney McCain III. ''']''' '']'' 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

== Lead Photo Sucks Bad ==

I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but the lead photo on the top right is not very flattering '''at all!''' I realize that John McCain is not the most photogenic person in the world, but there has GOT to be a better pic of him out there somewhere. Is there not an official Senate file photo of him available? Or anything where he doesn't look like he just got through sucking on a lemon?

I read the "new image" comments about halfway up, and I realize it was generous for Mr. Dan Raustadt to offer the use of these photos for Misplaced Pages, but in all honesty -- great quality side -- both Raustadt photos (scroll up) are not very good. He is making weird facial expressions in both of them. :-\

Added/Comment: And please, before anyone gets all huffy and pissed... please understand I am not trying to knock Mr. Raustadt's photography skills. They are great quality, but the Senator simply does not look flattering in either of them. McCain has a serious problem with making weird or bland facial expressions in photos and on television, as we can see here.

Added/Suggestion: here is one from his campaign website's "Press Room," so is assumably going to be public domain. It is vastly superior to what is there currently. There is also a full press gallery () at his campaign website, where even the worst photos are better than what is here in this article. For goodness sakes, there are better pics out there! I am 100% in favor of replacing the lead photo. Thoughts? Please? LOL ] (]) 03:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::The photo currently at the top is the best we've got, and I don't think it's bad at all. By the way, it's also recently been used at the . I don't think that is particularly good; he looks tired, and isn't even wearing a necktie. Additionally, we shouldn't use a photo where the top of his head is chopped off, nor should we use a photo that doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's rules against using copyrighted photos.] (]) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I personally think it's a pretty good photo. Currently, our choices are limited to ], or, if you can find any others ''created by the Federal government'', then you can upload them and we'll use them. ] (]) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

::::@Ferrylodge & Evil Spartan - First, the links I provided are free use with proper attribution. The provides in very clear wording that they can be used for whatever reason deemed appropriate. Second, even without the release/disclaimer (which is extremely clear in stating the photos may be used for any purpose) on McCain's gallery page, the items would be considered fair use under common corporate/organizational/journalistic practices. They provide high-resolution download links, are collectively labeled as "Media Kit," and are accessed through the "Press Room" section of his website. The only restriction for them is (verbatim) ''"Please Credit: John McCain 2008 - www.JohnMcCain.com"''. The Misplaced Pages guidelines really do not mean a lot in this matter: the clearly-worded release on the gallery webpage, and the context of the gallery, unquestionably releases all of the images into public domain.

::::And I am not sure what you are talking about, really. may be subject to individual perception as to the setting and the Senator's appearance, but there is a considerable amount of space above his head, and to both of his sides. You might be better off to download the photo and view it from your desktop, where it is not subject to bandwidth limitations that might make it appear "chopped off."

::::I'm also not really sure what a necktie has to do with this, but okay... whatever. There are several others on the gallery page where he '''is''' wearing a necktie. My main problem with the current photo is that he is making a very awkward facial expression. Showing it to a colleague sparked the question, ''"Is he being blown by a large fan?"'', although my personal opinion is that in the current photo, his smile looks forced, he looks far more wrinkled than he really is, and there is no contrast between his body and the background (a big photography no-no, which even if used as a style element is considered dated). As I said, I have nothing against the photo quality or the photographer... I just feel like – for the Senator – that the current photo was victim of inopportune timing. :)

::::I should also note the the press photos at his website have no doubt been specifically selected by his high-level campaign advisers as being of masterful quality, to such extent that these campaign/gallery press photos are how the Senator wishes to be represented at this critical time in his career. I don't really care. From a PR standpoint, however, the current pic is not a good reflection of McCain on a number of levels.

::::As well, I am not dead-set attempting to convince you use one of his campaign/press photos – it was only a suggestion. I think there are probably a number of public domain photos from various sources that are better. I respect a consensus if this is what people truly want here as the lead photo, but I would love to see a few more people pipe in on this issue. I admit that my concern over the current lead photo may be a personal opinion exclusive to me only, but I very highly doubt it. ] (]) 03:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::I agree with you. I think there are better photos out there. ''']''' '']'' 04:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Several of the photos in have the top of his head chopped off. I once put such a picture at the top of this Misplaced Pages article, and was criticized for it. The general feeling is that a Misplaced Pages article like this should not have the top of the subject's head chopped off. Additionally, a formal picture is the norm, and that means a necktie. Anyway, if you find a picture that you think is best, feel free to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and we can go from there, but be forewarned that Wikimedia Commons has fairly strict rules about copyright. Again, I think the present image is pretty good, and I say that as someone who fully intends to vote for John McCain in November.] (]) 04:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::I think you make a good point about a "formal" picture being the norm, and I have no problem looking for a necktie pic... although I feel that in general this particular biographical formality is a trend that goes rightfully unenforced in pop culture. As for copyrights, I can say authoritatively that if Misplaced Pages prohibits upload of a press photo which is quite clearly released for use with proper attribution, that the policies are flawed and inaccurate. Voting for McCain is something I am not doing, so rest assured that my opinion here is unbiased. I simply feel that the current photo is an inaccurate and unflattering representation of the Senator, and that anyone notable enough for their own Misplaced Pages listing... especially someone so high-profile... should have his best face put forward. More to come if I find something, but I would still love to see other opinions as to whether or not this is the best public domain photo available. :) ] (]) 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::: '''SUGGESTIONS FOR REPLACEMENT - THOUGHTS?'''
:::::::'''1''' -

:::::::'''2''' -

:::::::'''3''' -

:::::::] (]) 05:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::::The photo that you say is "extremely good" is a photo that I emailed the McCain campaign requesting permission to use. The permission was not granted. The other two pictures you suggest are very old. For example, is from the 1990s, as you can see .] (]) 05:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::The first of the three is the one I think the article should use. I don't understand why the campaign would say no. The second, as Ferry said, looks very outdated. ''']''' '']'' 05:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::I would be interested to know how you presented your request, or '''why''' you even requested permission for that matter given the clear release provided. In any major newsroom, an editor would not even contact the campaign to use these photos... they would slap it in with the proper attribution and forget about it - and be well protected legally. The only reason I could think of for a denial would have been in the event that the campaign staff was unaware that Misplaced Pages Commons will hold the prescribed attribution in the file information. But if you tell me the current lead photo is the best '''usable''' picture of a man who has been a high-profile figure in the Senate since 1986, I have to call B.S. ] (]) 05:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::Since you've said that you're going to vote against McCain, I find your efforts here somewhat curious. In any event, I requested permission because I doubt that the statements at McCain's web site are sufficiently unambiguous to persuade the folks at Wikimedia Commons to accept the photo.] (]) 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::If you can find a better image on or if you would like to upload one, please provide a link to the image you prefer that we use. '''] ]''' 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::, but I think it's also preferable to the current one. ''']''' '']'' 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Enigma, I think that picture makes McCain look lousy. Moreover, that picture is at least four years old, and has already been rejected as a Featured Misplaced Pages picture for a variety of very good reasons.] (]) 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::I have also uploaded , and feel I got the attribution correct... although the image page looks a little wacky as if I perhaps forgot to add something in the image summary. I would vote for Enigma's, though, too. ] (]) 06:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Anon, please sign in. '''] ]''' 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::You have to go to Wikimedia, not Misplaced Pages, if you want to upload a picture that might be suitable at the top of this article. Additionally, the photo would have to be cropped, or else his head would be puny in comparison to screen size. Additionally, this photo illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, and thus fair use is not an adequate rationale.] (]) 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, we'll do a straw poll over the image choices. Please vote for your favorate image (feel free to add images). '''] ]''' 06:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<gallery>
Image:Raustadt Photo of McCain-1.JPG|'''1''' (current image)
Image:John McCain official photo portrait-cropped.JPG|'''2'''
Image:Senator John McCain 2007.jpeg|'''3'''
Image:John McCain official photo portrait.JPG|'''4'''
Image:John McCain.jpg|'''5'''
Image:John McCain Official Other Version.jpg|'''6'''
Image:McCain.JPG|'''7'''
Image:McCainPortrait.jpeg|'''8'''
Image:Raustadt_Photo_of_McCain-2.JPG|'''9'''
Image:JohnMcCain.JPG|'''10'''
</gallery>

(undent)How about if we agree on some basic principles first. The photo at the top of this article should not be more than a couple years old. It should be formal, in that a necktie ought to be included like for all the other male candidates that have run this year. Part of his head ought not to be chopped off. It should be accepted at Wikimedia Commons. These principles ought to rule out most of those photos.] (]) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:: Edited: Yahel Guhan, I have signed in for this comment at your request but in general I prefer to edit and comment with my IP. I will agree to any of them (except the current one), but my preferences are 3 and 2 in that order. ] (]) 06:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::3,6,5, and 2, in that order. ''']''' '']'' 06:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)People, we all agree that 3 is a nice photo. However, it's not available at Wikimedia Commons. Additionally, the photo would have to be cropped, or else his head would be puny in comparison to screen size. Additionally, this photo illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, and thus fair use is not an adequate rationale.] (]) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::: I alter my vote. I go for 3 and 5 in that order. In photo 2, he would be facing away from the text towards the edge of the page, which is a stylistic no-no... albeit a picky one. Also, cropping image #3 could POTENTIALLY nullify its fair use as directed by the McCain campaign website - that should not be an option (in general, never physically alter a photo where someone asks for credit). As far as fair use, you are getting a bit too Wiki with your rationale... if you use the pic and provide the credit prescribed at the website, its place here should not be arguable. The link for that photo I originally provided went back to Encyclopedia Brittanica. ] (]) 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
::::You may want to them and see of you can convince them to make the image public domein. You never know. They might just do it. '''] ]''' 06:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::As far as the cropping, I see that as a very small issue that should be given little consideration compared to say, facial expression. If you look at ] and ] (both candidates in the '08 election), it is evident that "zoomed-out" photos showing more of the torso are accepted in other articles. ] (]) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::The images from his campaign website would never be made public domain in the middle of a campaign. The attribution request is what's keeping his competitors from using the images. But as far as media – and call me progressive, but I *do* see Misplaced Pages as "media" - I think the clearly-prescribed fair use with photo credit should be adequate for allowing placement in the article. It's good enough for the largest daily newspapers you read each day, and the blogs... and although I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on television... I think that release should work here, too. ] (]) 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::I did not make up the rules to ], so I cannot respond here on that, but I highly doubt the general[REDACTED] community will accept a fair use image when there are other free images. If they do, I will be suprised, and if we can use the image, we will, otherwise I guess we won't. We'd best have a backup plan. Good luck there. '''] ]''' 06:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I think my argument on that front is just, but it is also probably centric on old media. I'm sure the infinite shelf life and free distribution nature of Misplaced Pages content play a bit differently with traditional procedures for using a press photo. Oh well, rules are rules. It's just sad that such a good pic is hitting a road block. ] (]) 07:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


(undent) Generally speaking, why would Misplaced Pages editors who vocally support other candidates want to play around with the McCain image? Just curious. And I'll vote for image #1.] (]) 06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:What do you mean, "''play around with the McCain image''"? '''] ]''' 06:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:I take extreme offense to your comment. If you want to make it a political argument, go right ahead. I'm not going to be part of that. I've said nothing anti-McCain or pro-anybody-else in this section. I'm making this observation for historic purposes. The lead photo is a disservice to this listing, which is actually separate from the article about his presidential candidacy. ] (]) 06:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::Gee maybe I hit a nerve. Sorry. I'll retract the comment. But I'll still vote for image #1.] (]) 06:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Perhaps I did not eloquently reply, as well. But on a personal note I see this single talk page as a shining example of why most major universities prohibit students from citing Misplaced Pages sources in assignments, and why most major researchers and scholars warn individuals against using it for important studies. It's difficult to keep opinions and point of view from being injected into articles here. That being said, the usefulness and mainstream acceptance of Misplaced Pages warrants a high-profile article to have a quality photo that accurately represents its subject, in my opinion. I vote for 3 and 5 respectively... for 5 solely if there are questions about how well Misplaced Pages rules will cooperate with 3, and with the release provided at the campaign website. And I leave it at that. :) ] (]) 07:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::I've added a ninth image. Image #5 was taken in the 1990s. Why not use a photo taken last month?] (]) 07:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::RE # 9 - It's better than the current image. It's still a less favorable facial expression than any of the others. I would vote for 5 and 9 respectively ''if 3 is not an option''. I don't see a 1990s photo as extremely dated considering his physical appearance has changed little. I do believe that a photo from the campaign website should be considered more "official" than one from a random photographer with unverifiable professional history. As well, I would personally consider campaign photos' website availability and release to be approval by proxy from the Senator himself. However, given the questions about press photo attribution... campaign website photos probably aren't an option. Sigh... it would make this a lot easier if these people would update their official gov't portraits more often than once a decade. I defer argument on my end to anyone else wanting to use something other than 9, but in the event there is no majority opinion for something else, I would take 9. ] (]) 07:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Lets give it a day to let some of the other editors vote on this issue. We might have a consensus after that. '''] ]''' 07:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of our articles on sitting senators use the most recent conventional, face forward, formal or official portrait available on the subject's senate web site. Thus, ] uses , ] uses , ] uses , ] uses . So by this logic, I support the most recent such photo from McCain's senate website, which if you go to "About Senator McCain" then "Biography" is , which is #2/#4 above (same photo, different croppings and darkness). ] (]) 12:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:I'm adding a photo #10 to the gallery above. This seems to be the most recent conventional, face forward, formal or official portrait available on the subject's senate web site. But, again, I think #1 is far and away the best photo currently available.] (]) 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::That's half of a joint photo with his wife, so I didn't include it in my consideration. ] (]) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

===Straw poll: Which image ===
Please vote for the best 3-4 images for the lead (in order). Choose the numbers from the gallary above. Feel free to add proposals. Following my example. Comment in the discussion section. '''] ]''' 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

*'''3,5,4,1''' '''] ]''' 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''2''' We need to use official photos. I don't really think it matters if the official portrait is a few years older, the official portrait is the only standard we should rely on. I can understand arguments that posting a "younger" looking picture is POV, but I don't recall its use being an big issue before he ran for president? A lot of members of congress have outdated official photos. Look at ]. That picture has to be from the mid-1980s. By relying on non-official, candid photos, we risk including the photographers POV in the picture. I agree that the current picture is nice looking, but use of official portrait allows for consistency across articles.] (]) 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''2 or 4''' I agree with Dcmacnut. ] 00:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''2''', '''4''' per my reasoning above. But I don't have strong feelings on the matter. ] (]) 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''1''', '''3''', '''10''', '''9''', '''7''' in that order. They're all recent. '''3''', '''10''' and '''7''' seem to be official photos (from his web sites).] (]) 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''3,6,5''' ''']''' '']'' 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''1, 3, 2'''. ] 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''#1''' and '''only''' #1. I am hoping he does not win so if #1 is removed, I'll be glad for that reason. #1 does what no other has ever done which is make him look downright happy and friendly and someone you'd want to invite for dinner or elect to a high office. ] (]) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
:*Not surprising... ''']''' '']'' 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''2, 4, 9'''. ] (]) 02:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

===Discussion===
Regarding what DCmacnut said, if we should use the photo that was used before he ran for President, then wouldn't that be '''5'''? There are several official photos here, so I'm unclear why '''2''' would be best. I admit that there are risks in relying on non-official, candid photos but the same logic would dictate that we also rely on his official biography instead of writing our own.] (]) 00:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like some responses here:
;First issue:

Is it a problem that image 3 is fair use (and not free). Is that a problem? '''] ]''' 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
:Yes it is. Since there are many free images of McCain, that image does not qualify for fair use and should actually be deleted. ] (]) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

;second issue: Interpriting the results:
The result of the straw poll so far shows 3 votes for #1 ,3 for #2, and 2 for #3 for first choice. And for second choice, 2 for #4, and 2 for #3, 1 for #5 and 1 for #6. Based on the results so far, I'd say image #2 seems to be the best choice at this time. Any thoughts? '''] ]''' 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::Since #1 and #2 seem to be basically tied, and #1 is currently in the article, I'd suggest leaving things as they are, unless there's more input that things should be changed. Also, note that another editor has previously supported #1 instead of #2.] (]) 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I think we can give it a week in case others who are watching this page wish to vote. Hopefully then we'll have a better consensus. '''] ]''' 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Timdlocklear voted for 3 and 2 (below the gallery). Votes:<br>
Picture One 1,1,1,4, ... Picture two 1,1,1,2,3, ... Picture three 1,1,1,2,2,<br>
So, picture #3 would be in the lead, followed by #2, followed by #1. ] 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::Actually, I think that Timdlocklear subsequently logged in as an IP (72.213.129.138) and changed his vote. And why include that vote while excluding that of Evil Spartan?] (]) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Evil Spartan did not a vote in this poll. And 3 people also had picture #4 (which is just an uncropped version of #2) as their second and third choice. ] 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Anyway, let's wait until March 18 as suggested above, and then we can see if it's necessary to figure out how to read the results.] (]) 22:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've casted my votes above for either 2, 4, or 9; seeing as image '''2''' is a very good, cropped, ''recent'' and professional looking photo of McCain, I feel that it is probably best served to be the main image (and apparently others feel the same). The fascinating issue to me (and I'm very suprised that this did not come up before) is that image 3 is a ''fair use'' image. Like I mentioned above in discussion topic one, technically, it shouldn't even be allowed on any of the Wikimedia projects because it is in blatant violation of ]. There are many free equivalents available (including image 2) which should be substituted in its place. ] (]) 02:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

==“Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.”==
This quote says pretty much about a presidential candidate. Why is there not one sentence about this affair in the article? ] (]) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:It used to be here, but now with the article size reduction work, it's made reference to in ]. ] (]) 13:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::Sure are a lot of nasty and disturbing quotes from McCain, e.g. "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?..." stuck over that will never be seen by 99% of the readers who come to Misplaced Pages for information about the candidates. Those McCain quotes are categorized in a pretty blatant pov way as "colorful" whereas they just as easily could be labeled "sociopathic" if pov was stretched that far in the other direction. Reminds me of how sexist and racist comments used to be dismissed as "colorful" language. But seriously, when he made that remark about Chelsea, she was 18 years old. What kind of would-be President would say that publicly about an 18 year old girl/woman? ...and maybe that quote,at least, shouldn't be buried off in the[REDACTED] hinterlands because I sure think it's important. ] (]) 03:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm going to ] and move that section to this BLP. If someone disagrees, feel free to explain why and move it back. ] (])

::::And I'm going to have to disagree with you. By inserting that section, you are showing your own POV. I'm sure that the editors of this article placed it on the other page for a reason (most likely size concerns) and nitpicking certain specifics to place on this page is POV. This page, due to its size, is meant to generalize certain aspects of McCain's life and career. And just because this information you are talking about is on another Misplaced Pages page rather than the main one (as well as a lot of other stuff regarding McCain) does not mean that it's off in "Misplaced Pages hinterland". ] (]) 04:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::*Maybe you are right because I do have a definite pov about a possible leader of the world with his finger on the button making '''public''' jokes calling an 18 year old girl "ugly", '''publicly''' calling anybody "gooks" and joking '''in public''' about bombing a country.
::::::I wonder if Obama called white people in Alabama "rednecks" it would be off his main page or if Hillary made a joke about McCain's wife being "ugly" it would be off her main page. I think the pov that is in effect here is the view that it's more acceptable for an older man with a reputation for being macho to make racist,sexist and sadistic jokes than say someone like Kramer, ( ] )an actual comedian, whose stupid and racist remarks are right in the lead to his article. I think McCain's remarks are extremely important and disturbing in both their quantity and ignorance and that there are too many of them not to be recognized as a substantial part of his public personna which should be in this main article. ] (]) 14:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Including this material places ] on one part of McCain's life, and showcases your ] at the expense of the readability of the article. ] 14:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, on second thought I can see where that may be the case. I suppose it's a better fit with policy to leave this stuff where it is. However, it still ''feels'' a bit weird that someone can read this main BLP from start to finish and be left not knowing that those comments were ever made by the subject of the BLP. I did not know (before yesterday)about the "gooks" or Chelsea comments myself. ] (]) 17:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not justifying McCain's comments; I'm saying that choosing certain specific aspects of his cultural and political image to place on this page shows POV. ] (]) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

==Presumptive nominee==
If you think this hasn't been easy, wait until November. On ] or within a few days after, we will know who the next president will be, and we will have hordes of people rushing to change that person's status from "Democratic/Republican candidate" to "President Elect". But that person will ''not'' be the president-elect until the Electoral College meets on ]; until then, s/he will merely be the presumptive President-Elect. And this will have to be explained, over and over, just as we've experienced here with McCain's current status. -- ] (]) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:How about, ''President-Presumed Elect?'' --] (]) 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

== infobox ==

I combined the infoboxes into one infobox, found at ]. This, plus the ] tags, should keep the section edit links from bunching up. If you don't like it, of course, feel free to revert. ] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:I'm nominating that template for deletion: it's a single-use template, should be placed as is in the article. ] (]) 04:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
::I would agree with that, but the layout and everything is perfect and definetely needs to stay. However, size concerns brings up another issue... ] (]) 04:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I'll repeat what I said at the deletion page: I created this template because I could not find any other way to get the edit boxes from bunching up when it was three separate templates. If anyone with more wiki skills than I can get it to work some other way, I would fully endorse the deletion. ] 13:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

== Good progress ==
Wow; I just popped in for the first time in a while to see if progress was being made, and was relieved to find a more encyclopedic-sized 38KB of readable prose and tidy external links. I see some missing lastaccessdates on sources, See also shouldn't be there (that nav template can be relocated somewhere else, it's awkward there), electoral history should be fixed (there shouldn't be scrollboxes in the text as they don't work on mirror sites or printable versions), I saw many ] logical punctuation issues on quotes, "Political positions" is listy and could be converted to prose/paragraphs, there is some faulty punctuation on image captions (see ], the difference between sentence fragments and full sentences), and make sure the article consistently uses either % or percent. Nice progress !! ] (]) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for the revisit. We'll try to address those things you mention. Regarding "%", it's only used in the electoral history section. Is that really a problem? MOS:NUM that "%" is preferred in tables.] (]) 19:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

::I would agree that there is great potential for this article. Ferrylodge asked me to weigh in on this page so I've watchlisted it and I will continue to participate in discussions and make edits as I see fit; in a few days will present, like Sandy, a "report" on my views (consider it a mini-peer review). My sincere congratulations to each and every editor of this article for all of his/her hard work. Best, ] (]) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

::PS - ], but that's another matter :-) --Hap

:::Thanks! We'll look forward to your mini-peer review (and your edits). Cheers.] (]) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As a comment. I actually agree that the sliding scroll bars are eh and would not have them by default, but another editor - ] - complained on the talk page about the horizontal scrollbars when they aren't used. See ]

Also, since I added it, I obviously support the inclusion of electoral histories - they're much easier to read than a prose rendition of the same, which would be far longer and prone to editorial omission. This is fundamentally tabular data, so presenting it in a table makes sense. ] (]) 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

==Readership of subarticles==

I've just run across what I've always been looking for, a page view counter for Misplaced Pages pages, at http://stats.grok.se/en/. In particular, I wanted to know if anyone reads subarticles of these biographies. Here are some results:

In March 2008, so far:
* Views of ]: 444,077
* Views of ]: 6,736
* Views of ]: 2,686
* Views of ]: 1,440
* Views of ]: 409
* Views of ]: 9,627
* Views of ]: 1,839
* Views of ]: 13,453

Let's check January 2008, before the big split but in the heat of the campaign:
* Views of ]: 929,544
* Views of ]: 25,479
* Views of ]: 51,391

Let's check another candidate with subarticles, Hillary, for February 2008:
* Views of ]+]: 863,642
* Views of ]: 1,804
* Views of ]: 2,910
* Views of ]: 2,311
* Views of ]: 76,624
* Views of ]+HC variant: 72,070
* Views of ]: 3,099
* Views of ]: 2,102

Let's check one more, for February 2008:
* Views of ]: 563,193
* Views of ]: 3,739
* Views of ]: 1,928
* (there are lots of other Bush subarticles ...)

Preliminary conclusions: The click-through rate of subarticles dealing with the current campaign and political positions isn't too bad for Hillary, and ranges from not too bad to pretty bad for McCain. The click-through rate for subarticles dealing with straight biographical material is dreadful for everyone (from one percent down to a tenth of one percent, roughly). More thoughts later ... ] (]) 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for the info, and especially for the hit counter. I didn't know one was available.] (]) 15:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's another example, for January 2008:
* ]: 220,785
* ]: 2,972
* ]: 1,609
* ]: 2,153
* ]: 716
* ]: 24,922
* ]: 25,558

Again, the current presidential campaign article and political positions article are read about a tenth as much as the main article (when I said "click through" for these above I was mistaken, as they have also been available through the 2008 presidential candidates template much of the time), while the straight biographical subarticles are read about a hundredth as much as the main article, if that. ] (]) 17:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun, the Obama numbers for February 2008:
* ]: 2,625,243
* ]: 126,880
* ]: 143,147
* ]: 77,203
Pretty much the same pattern (Obama doesn't have any straight sub articles), but the numbers overall are much higher. ] (]) 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

=== "Gooks" language buried in sub-article ===

Thanks to WastedTime for this. I think it proves that much fewer readers ever get to what I call the Misplaced Pages Hinterlands than get to the main article. That means that very few people who come to this encyclopedia for information about John McCain will find out that he publicly used the word "Gook" for 30+ years and that he publicly called an 18 year old Chelsea Clinton "ugly". The core function here is to inform and I think that WastedTime's research proves that our process is interfering with our function. ] (]) 23:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

:And I think you are still trying to add POV to this article. I've said it above twice and I'll say it again: it is POV to nitpick certain specific facts from McCain's cultural and political image and add them to this page, be them positive or negative. A lot of well written material once on this article ''had'' to be cut and placed in other articles because of size concerns.

:I will admit that Wasted's findings are intriguing and revealing about sub-articles. But the sub-articles present details to what we editors are supposed to generalize here, and I'd surmise that people only visit them if they want more details. McCain saying that Clinton is ugly and using the word gook for thrity years are statements which merit inclusion in the other ''detailed'' article because they are ''details'' (although I'm not sure what using "gook" has to do with anything and find it largely trivial). I might point out that on this article's "Cultural and political image" section, there is a phrase that states, "...his well-known temper, his admitted propensity for controversial or ill-advised remarks, and his..." Since this page ''generalizes'' his image, I think his Clinton comments and "gook" would fall under those contentions. --] (]) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

== My thoughts ==

] asked me to check out this page to get my thoughts on it's status and potential future FA status. I promised a "mini-peer review" so here are some of my thoughts:


== McCain's funeral should have its own article ==
*There are many sections throughout the article regarding his family. I realize that it moves chronlogically throughout the Senator's life, but instead of placing the sections convolutedly throughout, why not combine them into a general "Marriage and family" section? Instead of "Naval training, early assignments, first marriage, and children", it could simply become "Naval training and early assignments" getting rid of the longer title (the same goes for "Senate liaison and second marriage", "US Congressman and more children", etc.) while moving the paragraphs having to do with his first marriage and children into the Marriage and family section. It should probably go below the "Naval traning and early assignments" section.
With how huge and significant McCain's funeral was, and if RBG's death and funeral can have its own article, I don't see why McCain can't. ] (]) 06:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)


:Actually, I think the section is greatly over-written. Note that all of it was added after the article was promoted to FA, as he was still alive then. If you want to make a separate article about the funeral arrangements, knock yourself out, but what is there now includes a whole lot of ] and ]ism. Even ]'s much more historically important funeral and lying in state is less than half as long as this bloated section. -- ] (]) 16:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*Consistent citation formats, including:
::I agree. Someone needs to take a hatchet to that section. ] (]) 11:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
**for book sources; either cite them all individually in the text with page numbers, or place them all in a bottom "References" section and write "Smith, Anna (1989), p.0" in the footnote.
:We have several articles on notable funerals. But you may need to personally write one on MCain's funeral, as there seems to be limited interest by other editors. ] (]) 12:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
**italicize newspaper names; Something that I learned from my friend Wasted Time R. Either use the "publisher" parameter in the {{tl|cite news}} template and add two apostrophe marks at the beginning and end, or simply use cite news' "work" parameter, which italicizes it for you. For works by other sources that have been republished, you will have to use both parameters.
:@] It is a good idea, I would be willing to write. ] 23:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
**wikilinks; either link all the publisher names, link them only the first time they appear, or don't link any at all; authors with wiki articles may be wikilinked.
:@] Then a main article tag can be added to the funeral section. ] 23:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
**no blogs! I removed one, and have seen a few others remaining on the page. Blog sources are not always verifiable.
::I agree that (1) this article is too long, and should be split, and (2) an article should be created about his funeral. ] (]) 02:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
:I have no problem with you splitting. ]. As for the ] being shorter, it should probably be expanded, so that's no argument against a page for McCain. ] (]) 03:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
{{section resolved|1=] (]) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)}}


== Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2024 ==
*Citations needed:
**In the entire "Keating five" section
**The mention of the "Gang of 14" needs a citation as well
**McCain's attempts at immigration reform
**"Cultural and political image" section
**The "Military" section in "Awards, honors, and decorations"


{{edit semi-protected|John McCain|answered=yes}}
*Are there any free photos of the 2000 presidential campaign? If so, it would be nice to include one.
Please clarify 2nd to last sentence in “John McCain” intro, as it reads if if McCain voted AGAINST the Affordable Care Act.


Please re-write : While McCain opposed the Obama-era Affordable Care Act (ACA), he cast the deciding vote against the ACA-repealing American Health Care Act of 2017.
*In the "Second Bush term" section, the quote "Although Bush had threatened to veto the bill if McCain's language was included," is strange. McCain speaks English, as we all know, and unless it's profanity or something else being reffered to, I'm not sure what "language" the sentence is talking about.


By adding a few extra words you can make it clearer that McCain voted to RETAIN the ACA.
*Above the "Cultural and political image" section, there is one big list of ratings different organizations have given McCain over the years. Those aren't his political positions; it's a list that goes on far too long and does not communicate as much as should be communicated (particularly under the "special interests groups" section). While I think one or two of the views expressed by the special interest groups and the political organizations should be kept, this section needs to describe McCain's Republican stance (moderate, conservative, or liberal) and views on the pressing issues of today (War on Terror, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, climate change, gay rights, illegal immigration, economy including taxes, healthcare, abortion, stem-cell research, etc.). I realize that much of those have been brought up in the article, but they should be made reference to here again because that is the title of the section.


While the way it is currently stated is not incorrect- the vote to repeal the ACA was written in a double negative.
*Get rid of the see also section and the template because it is the same one as that below the infobox.


I just want McCain to be honored thru the years as the hero who came to vote against other Republicans- NOT to repeal it.. He voted to save Obama Care because Republicans didn’t have a better program to replace it with- and because Democrats had previously provided needed medical benefits to many US citizens by finally getting the Affordable Care Act passed into law. ] (]) 13:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
*I've made my opposition to elecoral histories sections clear, but I am in no position to demand that this one be removed. I do, however, recommend that the format of the content stay consistent; two elections are horozontally listed with a scrollbar and colors, while one is vertically listed (I would prefer them all vertically listed).


:I changed "ACA-repealing" to "which would have partially repealed the ACA" (borrowing some language from the ] article). I believe this is clearer. ] (] / ] / ]) 22:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
All in all, I think this article has great potential and definitely FA worthy when the concerns I've raised are taken care of. Your biggest challenge, however (and boy ]), is the stablity issue because he is currently running for office; I think that can be argued against by the fact that ]'s article is featured and he too is running for president. I hope the editors have found this insight useful, and please if you have any questions feel free to contact me. Thanks so much and good luck, ] (]) 02:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
{{section resolved|1=] (]) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)}}

Latest revision as of 01:50, 18 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John McCain article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about John McCain. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about John McCain at the Reference desk.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1:Why does this article cover up the fact that McCain has called Asians "gooks" and made other similar remarks?

A1:Nothing is being covered up. This article is written according to summary style which requires that material in other articles is only summarized here in this article. The information about McCain's use of the term "gook" is discussed in the articles on John McCain 2000 presidential campaign and Cultural and political image of John McCain. Many other controversial remarks by McCain are detailed in the latter article. The "gook" comment was narrowly used by McCain with reference to the specific people who captured and then tortured him in Vietnam; McCain stopped using the term in 2000, and many Asians did not mind him narrowly using the term in the way he did. Singling out this remark for inclusion in this article would give it undue weight, and providing the necessary background and context would also take up too much space in this article. This issue was previously discussed in March, May, and June of 2008.


Q2: Where is X? It is a well-known development in McCain's life.

A2: As stated above, this article uses summary style; think of it as an executive summary of McCain. Much more information about McCain's life, military career, political career, and persona is included in the McCain biographical subarticles shown in the navigational box: Early life and military career of John McCain, House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999, John McCain 2000 presidential campaign, Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present, John McCain 2008 presidential campaign, and Cultural and political image of John McCain.


Q3: Which of these is the subarticle that lists his controversies?

A3: None of them. All such material (such as his role in the Keating Five, for example) is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article and in the various subarticles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see here.


Q4: This article is not neutral! It's biased {for, against} him! It reads like it was written by {his PR team, Democratic hatchet men}!

A4: Complaints of bias are taken seriously, but must be accompanied by very specific areas of concern or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements such as these are of no help to editors; we can't read your mind.


Q5: The section on his presidential campaign leaves out important developments. What gives?

A5: The main article's presidential campaign section is intentionally brief. The subarticle John McCain 2008 presidential campaign has a much fuller treatment of the campaign and that is where most new additions should go.


Q6: Something in the lead (introductory) section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{fact}} tag on it right now.

A6: This article (like many others) uses the approach that there are no citations in the lead section, because everything in the lead is also found in the body of the article along with its citation.

Featured articleJohn McCain is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED] This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 6, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 5, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 18, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 22, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
August 18, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 26, 2018, and November 5, 2008.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 14, 2020.
Current status: Featured article
This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Military / Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / Biography / Maritime / Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States / Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary historyWikiProject icon
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
Military biography task force
Taskforce icon
Maritime warfare task force
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
Southeast Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
WikiProject iconVietnam Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconU.S. Congress High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is about one (or many) Person(s).
WikiProject iconAviation: Biography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aerospace biography project.
WikiProject iconPanama (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Panama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PanamaWikipedia:WikiProject PanamaTemplate:WikiProject PanamaPanama
WikiProject iconUnited States: Arizona / Presidential elections High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).
More information:
/ 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Arizona portal.
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Politics portal.
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Conservatism portal.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008 and 2018.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

McCain's funeral should have its own article

With how huge and significant McCain's funeral was, and if RBG's death and funeral can have its own article, I don't see why McCain can't. Vinnylospo (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I think the section is greatly over-written. Note that all of it was added after the article was promoted to FA, as he was still alive then. If you want to make a separate article about the funeral arrangements, knock yourself out, but what is there now includes a whole lot of less important stuff and WP:RECENTism. Even Lenin's much more historically important funeral and lying in state is less than half as long as this bloated section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Someone needs to take a hatchet to that section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
We have several articles on notable funerals. But you may need to personally write one on MCain's funeral, as there seems to be limited interest by other editors. Dimadick (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Vinnylospo It is a good idea, I would be willing to write. FloridaMan21 23:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Vinnylospo Then a main article tag can be added to the funeral section. FloridaMan21 23:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that (1) this article is too long, and should be split, and (2) an article should be created about his funeral. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I have no problem with you splitting. Be bold. As for the Lenin article being shorter, it should probably be expanded, so that's no argument against a page for McCain. Relinus (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bsasap (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please clarify 2nd to last sentence in “John McCain” intro, as it reads if if McCain voted AGAINST the Affordable Care Act.

Please re-write : While McCain opposed the Obama-era Affordable Care Act (ACA), he cast the deciding vote against the ACA-repealing American Health Care Act of 2017.

By adding a few extra words you can make it clearer that McCain voted to RETAIN the ACA.

While the way it is currently stated is not incorrect- the vote to repeal the ACA was written in a double negative.

I just want McCain to be honored thru the years as the hero who came to vote against other Republicans- NOT to repeal it.. He voted to save Obama Care because Republicans didn’t have a better program to replace it with- and because Democrats had previously provided needed medical benefits to many US citizens by finally getting the Affordable Care Act passed into law. Friend80401 (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I changed "ACA-repealing" to "which would have partially repealed the ACA" (borrowing some language from the American Health Care Act of 2017 article). I believe this is clearer. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bsasap (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC) Categories:
Talk:John McCain: Difference between revisions Add topic