Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:33, 2 March 2008

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, John McCain, due to size or style considerations.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

Re: Campaign Advisors

I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers. Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected. I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character. I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president. Your input would be greatly appreciated. ----Rawkcuf. (This is the same 'form letter' I've sent to all the other dicussion pages for candidate' articles. I understand that there is some major upheaval going on with John McCain's staff, so that it may make this issue irrelevant. I noticed that there was a lot of mention given to departing staff members-- perhaps it would help to put things on a more positive note, and mention those that remain. Just an observation. -R.)

Graphs, Diagrams, polls, I am getting dizzy

I noticed these on Thompson's, Romney's and Guliani's articles as well. As far as I know normal articles don't present these many graphs in excess. You don't write scientific articles this way. You refer to images in the text. These images are just pasted blatanly filling more than half the article. It is very annoying, disruptive for reading and actually not very informative either in the context and layout they are presented. Lord Metroid 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. There are plenty of references which include those graphs. It's hard enough to keep up with the poll numbers without throwing all those charts and graphs in there.Paisan30 (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Smears in South Carolina

As some of you may know there have been flyers found around South Carolina which make "claims" that John McCain was a "songbird" who turned on other POWs while imprisoned in North Vietnam supposedly in order to get better treatment. Following the smears that happened in the 2000 campaign against McCain he set up a "truth squad" in South Carolina and quickly disavowed these "claims". The following are the front and back of these flyers both in pdf format:

• Front of flyer (pdf)
• Back of flyer (pdf)

In the bottom-right of the back of the flyer there are two links which take you to the following sites:

• http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
• http://www.usveterandispatch.com/

The first is run by Jerry Kiley and the second is run by Ted Sampley. Here is an AP piece on CBS News that talks about the Kiley connection to this incident and also here is the Sourcewatch article on Ted Sampley. I don't regularly edit the John McCain article but I thought I might as well leave this information here so that other regulars on this article could consider how to add this information on the article. Thanks.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've incorporated a mention of this junk. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ross Perot

Ross Perot attacked McCain pretty badly. Shouldn't this be added? --STX 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This goes back to Perot's feud with McCain (and even more with John Kerry) during the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs hearings in 1991-1993. I need to work on that article more when I get a chance ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Radio Talkshows

Can anyone comfirm that the radio talkshows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been attacking John McCain lately? I don't get it. Spongefan (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they've been ripping into him. There's a snarling lunatic on at night who's been even worse. Why? McCain's departed from movement conservative orthodoxy too many times. And the talk show guys fear they're losing their influence on the Republican part of the process. The section on South Carolina in this article discusses the talk show role a bit, but it may need further treatment. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC) mod Wasted Time R (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Much of talk radio is against McCain. John and Ken in California had the "Hour of Rage Against McCain". Bytebear (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fix

I think that the fact that the Florida Governor endorsed John McCain, this should be added to this article or another one.

Reed Ebarb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.179.35 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Was subsequently done. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Louisiana?

I thought McCain won the closed caucus in Louisiana; how come it isn't mentioned in this article? -134.50.75.114 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Last I saw, nobody was sure who had won in Louisiana. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

Trying to figure out how to set up Super Tuesday... this article is already pretty long. If McCain gets the nomination, are we going to separate into primary/general election articles? I guess this applies to whoever gets the nominations. Paisan30 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, keep all of Super Tuesday in one section, and just give results in succinct form ("McCain won a majority of delegates in New Jersey, New York, blah blah, while losing in delegate counts in Georgia, Alabama, blah blah"). And yes, I agree there may need to be a separate general election article for the two that move on. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Too much like a story"

User:Bytebear has placed a cleanup tag on the "Caucuses and primaries 2008" section of the article, with the edit summary "sounds too much like a story, and not an encycolpedia article". Which raises the question, what would be a useful encyclopedia article about McCain's campaign? Most encyclopedias don't have separate articles on campaigns, so there isn't much prior art to go by. But to me, it should read like a narrative history of the campaign, describing what happened when and outlining the general themes and strategies of the campaign and why they led to eventual success or failure. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I read this and it is very well-written, informative and encyclopedic. This is exactly how these sections should read. On an unrelated topic, I placed a "fact" tag on the bit about Schwarzenegger being a Giuliani supporter before he endorsed McCain. Is there a source for that? --STX 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

NYT had quote from Ahnuld saying he was friends with and admired both Giuliani and McCain, and so didn't endorse anyone. Once one dropped out, he was happy to endorse the other. Don't have the url but you should be able to find it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think my biggest issue is that things are presented as facts, when in fact most of the things written are more opionion. I would like to see more "according to so-and-so..." and "comentators say..." Bytebear (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

California Primary

McCain won all the delegates? I thought this primary was proportional? GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman

So--which section of the article should be put her in? 4.246.120.240 (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a subsection of the "Caucuses and Primaries 2008" section, since it's another occurrence in the campaign at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal from Vicki Iseman

We have an article at Vicki Iseman. I have proposed it should be merged here, as she is unremarkable outside of gossip in this campaign, interested parties may wish to comment on the talk page of that article.--Doc 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: One of Misplaced Pages's strengths is immediate access to breaking news, and Iseman is real news. Readers want details of her life that illuminate access to political power. Time will tell whether her entry bears removing. Immediately consigning her identity to the heading John McCain lobbyist controversy is premature and does a disservice to readers.˜˜˜˜maestrodad, February 24, 2008

Support: I do not believe that Vicki Ismeman is all that notable sans the John McCain controversy. One controversy does not make a person notable, and I feel that the content can be merged here with no consequence. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your argument: She is not notable WP:INN. Why? She wouldn't be notable without McCain? Where is that policy/guideline? Brian McNamee is one of 1000s of valid articles where person X wouldn't be notable without person Y.

Your recommendation: Merge. Could you state what you want merged? All of the text concerning Iseman to be included in this article? If so, then I can see your argument. If merging = redirecting = de facto deletion with little carry forward of information, then this process is already happening at the AfD. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Support: Presently a textbook Misplaced Pages:BLP1E, barring future events. Quatloo (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify your understanding of WP:BLP1E? It reads: "such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election". Is your argument that she falls under this category? Are you arguing that the information in the Iseman article, personal, career, clients, lobbying activities, be merged into a section in this article to provide the reader with her background? WP:BLP1E makes these exceptions: "unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy", which it woruld, or "sources have written primarily about the person" which in the Iseman article, is the case. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Support: She's not notable on her own unless she starts writing a book about it, or making the daytime talk show circut or makes news beyond this McCain thing (which may or may not be true anyway)Mr mark taylor (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Books? Oprah? Where is that requirement in WP:BIO? I see:

is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Where does she fail the test of notability? Should we have waited for Brian McNamee to appear on Ellen before including an article? What is the relevance whether the "thing" is true or not? Which part are you referring to? The ethical conflicts or the report that two advisers feared that she was romantically involved? The source doesn't state she was romantically involved. Regardless, The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. And the details of the controversy are given only a mention in Iseman. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the material is now at John McCain lobbyist controversy, however attempts to redirect the so called "biography" are being resisted and reverted. Active support welcome.--Doc 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me put forward an alternative framing: a merge discussion at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Merge this with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 was initiated by the good doctor who then participated in the discussion along with TS -- no mention that a parallel discussion was occurring here. Doc failed to come to consensus. He and TS then attempted to redirect it here (i.e., deleting all the information on the page, including the biographical and controversial material and not redirecting to John McCain lobbyist controversy which didn't even exist yet) on their own and were, yes, resisted as consensus had not yet been reached contrary to consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Doc justified his actions by saying, uncivilly: "We remove them, until/unless there's a consensus to keep them - a few politically motivated users on a talk page is not a consensus." As one of the editors who worked diligently to add in criticism of The New York Times and balance throughout the article, I presume he believes that I'm a conservative and hence doesn't have the right to participate in consensus. I, respectively, disagree. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Now see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman--Doc 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Support merging the article on Ms. Iseman to the article John McCain lobbyist controversy, which is a more appropriate arget than this article. This merge proposal should be terminated in favor of a proposal to merge to that article. Edison (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, (as a compromise position) to merge the Iseman article to John McCain lobbyist controversy as long as merging means, well, merging. That all the salient biographical material is shifted to this article and "Vicki Iseman" is redirected. Doesn't seem necessary and personally, as the Iseman article stands, I think it is fine. WP:BLP says:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events ... biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This article is properly sourced, pared down and entirely neutral. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Question Oppose (plus my rationale for action) Why wasn't a similar "vote" conducted at Vicki Iseman? I want to make clear I'm not invested deeply in the "so-called" biography, I was just an editor studying speedy deletion policy when I saw Vicki Iseman get speedied twice in a few minutes, and I clicked on the still extant talk page just as an editor started rewriting. Still disinterested but intrigued, I googled and found a few links, and decided if the page still existed, that we'd build it responsibly, to provide rocky ground for vandals (just like I normally try to do in 19th century biographies, my field of interest; I edit BLP pages rarely). I have resisted, but not reverted the redirect, because no consensus had been reached at Talk:Vicki Iseman (as a matter of fact I was unaware of this discussion until hours after the AfD was nominated; it might have been linked at the appropriate section on talk to gather consensus of apparent outliers like myself and User:Therefore). I agree 100% in moving the controversy stuff to the John McCain lobbyist controversy space, and I assert the bare bio stub which remains after is well-cited and contains very little of harm to the pedia or to the subject. In its current version, the article represents exactly what most bio stubs represent: a good-faith attempt to depict a life based on reputable sources. BusterD (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your question seems to ignore the fact that the discussion was conducted at Vicki Iseman, and Doc's announcement asks people to conduct it there. Just to make it plain: there is no vote, and those who think there is a vote are wrong. --TS 23:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Your statement seems to ignore the fact that" you and the Doc created and participated in the discussion at Vicki Iseman, giving no indication that a parallel effort was made here. I wish that your answer to the merge question at the Iseman talk page, was more than "Yes. --TS 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"; might give you more credibility about not being a vote. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded a bit terse (and used the v-word), but as I was reading the discussion, consensus there for merging seemed quite mixed, yet the redirects were applied anyway. As I've said there, it appeared to me that page consensus was reached here to redirect the page. I don't doubt for a moment the importance of experienced page editors here in deciding whether to absorb material of any kind. I'm glad that Doc called my bluff and nominated Iseman to AfD. I have confidence that consensus will resolve this dispute. I reserve the right, however, to agree with arguments to review deletion later. I suspect that eventually en.wikipedia will have an article on the subject; I just want to make sure if so, it's a fair article. So we're all doing the right thing. BusterD (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages consensus is based in policy. If a bunch of us one day decided,for instance, that the content of a given article must never be sold for profit, that would not countermand Misplaced Pages policy and would not prevail even if a thousand or so of us said that it should. There were some opinions compatible with existing policy and they prevailed. --TS 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it. Thank you all for your indulgence. I'll now return myself to my normal 19th century programming. BusterD (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears, given the extended discussion, that the previous repeated attempts to merge were premature and aren't supported by consensus at either talk page; neither does it seem likely as of this timestamp that either the Vicki Iseman or John McCain lobbyist controversy will face deletion. All this written knowing that any crow to be eaten might eventually be gnawed by me. BusterD (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose the merge for the reasons I specified at Talk:Vicki_Iseman --Unflappable (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose For all the reasons stated at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Merge this with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman. Unless this merge proposal is to actually merge the two texts together so that the information on the Iseman page is preserved, then this is a third attempt at a de facto and de jure AfD. Let the AfD take its course as this is the proper avenue for deletion. Here are my specific reasons for keeping the Iseman page as is: The article provides background personal and career information on Iseman referenced from other sources that are not in the two other pages. Iseman is a public figure and now notable per WP:BIO. WP:BLP1E addresses the case when "relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election" is discussed which is not the case here. Paula Jones and Brian McNamee similarly are "one event" articles but have risen to notability. WP:COATRACK relates to "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." The controversy receives only a mention in the Iseman article. There is no bias nor cover. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If Afd decides not to delete the page, a consensus to merge may still be constructed here.--Doc 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That is true -- and it may still occur at the Iseman talk page. Or at AfD 2 or or at John McCain lobbyist controversy etc. There are many avenues an indefatigable editor may take to delete this page. What would be helpful is if you could define what you mean by merging -- de facto deletion or do you have a concrete proposal on preserving her biographical and professional information? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A merger means we redirect the page to the target. How much of it's text goes on the target is matter for those working on the target to decide. Whatever is put on initially can be increased, or decreased over time. The information on the merged article remains accessible in the history for those who wish to use it. A merge has no static effect, it is entirely a variable editorial decision as to what to include.--Doc 17:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That is your take of the merge process. From WP:MM:

You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. That is fine; you can feel free to delete the redundant information and only add the new stuff .

If you are proposing to bring forward the personal and career details of the Iseman page, then you are recommending a merger. I'm all for a merger discussion as long as we are actually stating that the "stuff from the Iseman page be brought forward -- at this point, there is little redundancy. It is best left where it is per WP:BLP:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

The bio is pared, sourced, neutral and on-topic (re: Iseman). ∴ Therefore | talk 18:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, many others seem to think a merger is better.--Doc 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. But not a consensus. You think merger = redirect. It doesn't. Redirection is one of the technical elements of the process. Merging means combining the text of the two articles to avoid redundancy and not an end run around AfD. Adding Iseman's bio details here wouldn't make much sense. It would make more sense to merge (*merge*) to the John McCain lobbyist controversy. Even so, I see no problem with the bio as it stands since it follows the guidelines of WP:BLP as noted above -- sourced, neutral and on-topic and falls within the guidelines of WP:BLP1E (sources independent of event and too much to merge into the event article).∴ Therefore | talk 18:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You've stated your case, let's see what emerges. I'm happy with a merge to either the campaign or controversy article, indeed I agree the controversy one is perhaps better. And yes, we can indeed move all the information there. But from that point it will be for those working on that article to decide what to do with it, and to trim it if they wish. A merge (even if it is only a redirect) is not a deletion, for the simple reason that it can be reversed at any time by any editor. It is just like any other edit, anyone can change it, but if controversial one should seek talk page support to do or reverse. It is not an end run about AfD.--Doc 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

CommentHere's another one; and they both do look,quack and walk like a de facto and de jure AfD, in my opinion. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons stated on the AfD. Important information about this newly-notable individual - who will continue to surface in prominent places in the major media for a good while to come, and will likely play an individual role in future events - will be lost in a merge, as always. People will be looking to the encyclopedia for specific biographical, past, and career information on this woman who has suddenly been catapulted to prominence. Everything from her birthdate to her lobbying history will be sought out specifically, and that is the sort of individual information that is best covered in a biographical article. Mr. IP (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The Iseman events happened long before this campaign and belongs in the main article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support - She's not notable except as part of the New York Times's attack article on McCain. Enigma 03:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Material about age in the lead

Does this really deserve such promenence in the article? Same for his birthplace? I would rather see those maybe at the end of the introduction as they appear more as trivia rather than details about the actual campaign. Thoughts? Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This material establishes "what's different about this campaign" before getting into the actual campaign itself. The age is likely to be a real factor in the contest, especially if it's contrasted with Obama's much younger age. The place of birth attracts a lot of interest from WP commenters here and in the main article, who think he isn't constitutionally eligible to become prez. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal from John McCain lobbyist controversy

The article prior to blanking and redirection

This event was too abruptly made into its own article. The media has already stopped covering it almost entirely. No major consequences occurred because of the Times' article. John McCain denied the allegations the same day; the media made a fuss for two days about the Times' credibility and John McCain's lobbying record; the controversy ended. It's not like, for examples, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal or the Burr-Hamilton duel, which had a marked history and the events went on for a marked period of time and had lasting ramifications. Unless this story later proves to become a much bigger and important aspect of the 2008 elections, it should only remain as a subsection under McCain's presidential run and in the 2008 U.S. elections in general. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and was trying to get that across in the AfD debate. I dont believe that the full concensus was keep, but those decision are made above my head. I'm not doubting that this is a notable event, however it can be summed up easily in 4 or 5 sentances, and put into the main candidacy article. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. This merge proposal is Forum shopping.

The article just went through an AfD which had a 22-8 majority vote for it to be kept separate and not abbreviated nor merged. I actually prefer it to be in the main BLP but let's please just accept the strong consensus. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - per what I said above. Enigma 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - what is with people wanting to keep the controversy article? This is a presidential candidate, we need to be especially careful. Will 13:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support per my earlier comment referring to New York Times' own ombudsman's criticism concerning the insubstantiality of the piece run by the newspaper. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, in which there was a clear consensus to retain the article, and an administrative judgment that the article did not constitute a WP:BLP violation. Furthermore, the extensive coverage in third-party reliable sources cited in the article clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this topic per the general notability guideline. John254 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose (1) This is procedurally wrong: Consensus to keep was already obtained at the AfD. This is forum shopping. Misplaced Pages editors should not be forced into going from forum to forum because some don't like the result. (2) Enough has already been written about this incident to establish that it is worth longer treatment than the section of an article can provide: (a) The issue of New York Times journalistic judgment is worth a section itself; (b) the Washington Post stated that it did an independent investigtion and came up with the same essential findings, so the basic facts of the case have reliable sourcing; (c) The more unreliable insinuation that there was an affair is not the only issue here concerning McCain's judgment: Simply being seen so often with this lobbyist (an attractive woman later able to boast about her access to McCain and who was a lobbyist with matters before McCain's committee and who did apparently get McCain's support urging the FCC to take a vote) should be explained in the detail that an article affords and a section doesn't, because (d) this is a campaign for the most important public office in the world, and a serious encyclopedia with our breadth needs to cover in detail the important matters that voters may use in deciding how to vote. No BLP conceerns that are present here override (d). None. Not one. We can revisit deletion or merger after the campaign is over. Before election day, we should lean toward inclusion.Noroton (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• oppose is a separate topic that deserves large discussion. To put it in here is essentially whitewashing for both McCain and the New York Times. Furthermore, there has been discussion about merging the Iseman artciel into lobbyist article which would make the section here unreasonably long by far in an already long article. Let's not go against a clear AfD consensus JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• This matters: From the "Well-known public figures" section of WP:BLP: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. This can also be used as a justification for having a separate article, if important enough. Tne NYT and Washington Post investigations showed we have reliable sourcing that there was significant concern about McCain's relationship with the lobbyist (whatever the nature of that relationship), that McCain admitted to something "inappropriate" (either an affair or perpetuating the appearance of a conflict of interest -- especially given his image, that could be considered inappropriate). This is an appropriate matter for voters to consider when judging the character of McCain, and it deserves nuanced treatment not available in the short length of a section. This was basically Bill Keller's justification of the article to the NYT public editor, and it's a good defense of our own article. (It happens to be a lousy defense of an article on the lobbyist.) Noroton (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles