Talk:John McCain/Archive 2

message: I have removed the last paragrph of the scetion about detainee treatment, because a number of sentances were copied verbatim from its source. --Samael775 02:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there was no copy violation. All fair use guidelines cover the use of several hundred words from a published source. Rjensen 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IT's also cited so it's not plagiarism although verbatim words should be quote.  It should not be removed however.--Tbeatty 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright infringment

message: http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/1-mccain_bush_hug.jpg
They love each other very much!!
::It certainly is a big  issue all over the US and the world--McCain dominatibe the story again; so it needs full play. It is not POV to describe what he did. (Wiki is not endorsing his position, just describing it.) Rjensen 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCain loves bush! 

message: He is in the "American Episcopalians" category as well as the "Roman Catholics" category. Which one is he? Geoffrey Gibson 02:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's an Episcopalian as per his Project Vote Smart profile. --Tim4christ17 talk 10:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCain's religion 

message: because I think this article has all the basic elements of becoming a very good article. I would like to believe that if it was better sourced, differently organized and cut down in some places with sub-pages added that it could someday be FA class. If you have any issues with the edits I have made or will continue to make in the future, please bring them up here. Thanks Jasper23 19:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation nag tags should almost never go at the top of an article page, they should go in the Footnotes or References section, but this article already has a ton of citations, it's a mis-use of the tag to use it for other purposes. -- Stbalbach 23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the citation tag "This article is missing citations and/or footnotes." Yes, it does belong at the top of the article and yes, this article is missing citations. It "has a ton of citations" does not mean it has enough citations. The citation tag stays until there is a compelling reason (such as little to no uncited material)to remove it. Jasper23 03:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Citation nag tags, it is generally agreed on, don't go at the top of articles. See the documentation of Template:unreferenced. "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." Further, this article currently has over 51 citations, it has more citations than probably %99 of the articles on Wikipedia - a more inappropriate article for a citation nag tag I could not imagine. Please stop junking up the article space and making the article look like it is of poor quality and unreliable - your personal opinion about what "enough" citations means is inappropriate, and frankly I wonder why your trying to discredit the quality of this controversial article with nag tags. -- Stbalbach 15:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not trying to discredit any article but just to keep wikipedia quality standards high. This tag reminds editors to reference materials already in the article and to add referenced materials. I think it is you who is trying to discredit this article by ignoring the serious citation issues that it has. This article is of middling quality and with events unfolding as they are this has to, and will be, one of the better political articles on wikipedia. Should I just put in 200 fact tags throughout the article? I hate unsourced material in important articles. Jasper23 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jasper, use {fact} tags (as you have done). That is what they are for. Every article on Wikipedia needs more citations, every article could have that template, every article is important, your rationale makes no sense given how many citations this article already has. This article not only has 51+ citations, it has tons more external links. Why don't you try to improve the article by incorporating those external links as real footnotes, by researching citations and adding them. If you persist in this I will open it up for an RfC as the next step. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I made some edits and put on the citation tag 

message: Why is there a NPOV tag? -- Stbalbach 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its gone. Jasper23 18:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Regarding this section in the WP:Lead section:
:McCain has simultaneously aroused intense support and notoriety as well as intense opposition  to an extent quite unusual for a politician.  McCain has often infuriated Republicans    by opposing conservative policies, such as with filibuster politics over judicial nominees   , campaign finance reform they see as beneficial to Democrats, and economic restrictions to reduce global warming .  McCain's lifetime rating by the American Conservative Union is 83 percenthttp://www.acuratings.org/2005all.htm#AZ.
According to WP:Lead section it should have no footnotes. It is a summary of what is already contained in the article. It should not be detailed or original discussion but a summary of what is already in the article. Basically, this is a fairly detailed and sourced discussion about McCain crossing party lines on certain issues - it can be summed up in a sentence or two without the need for footnotes. Some of these cites are of poor quality (blogs) and don't support what is being said (except in an interpretive way), it also has an undertone of emotional appeal ("infuriated republicans"). The current sentence "While conservative on many issues, McCain has been called a "maverick"" is a fair summary for the lead section, with more details in the section of the article title Political views. I've moved some of this material down to that section. -- Stbalbach 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party leanings in lead section 

message: In all this information on McCain, no economic matters are mentioned. Astounding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.236.23.108 (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Leanings 

message: I'm a wiki newbie, so I wasn't sure of the right place to put this, but shouldn't there be a reference category for the 2008 presidential candidates? I think a lot of people accessing this article for the next two years might want to contrast John McCain to other 2008 candidates.   02:58, 18 December 2006 24.205.99.159
:While a category might be useful, there already is a section about his 2008 Presidential hopes, including a link to a main article that in turn links to articles that list the full set of candidates.   John Broughton  |  Talk 16:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Presidential Candidates 

message: The source cited for it no longer exists. It needs either a new source now, a "citation needed" tag, or to be removed altogether. CyberRaptor 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that. I have updated the reference tag with a new Salon.com active URL for the article.  Remember, we should never remove references just because the link becomes inactive; see WP:REF#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" and Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. -- Satori Son 16:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "f*cking jerk" comment 

message: Shouldn't this be included? It's a very important issue for many American voters. In fact, I came to this page to look up what McCain's views on gun control are, and couldn't find a word on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tullie (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Amendment views 

message: Regarding his the incidents which occured on Oriskany and Forrestal, it talks about an accident on Forrestal in 1967, from which he was then assigned to Oriskany, where another accident occured, but it lists him coming aboard in 1966 from the Forrestal...In other words he was transferred from Forrestal to Oriskany in 1966 after an accident on Forrestal in 1967.  Just need someone to verify the dates and rearrange it, unless I am reading it wrong. Genrethan 05:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The accident on the Oriskany occurred before McCain transferred there. I have tried to rewrite that paragraph to make the timeline more clear. -- Satori Son 05:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological Order of Naval Incidents... 

message: Hmm, looking at the picture of the interview from 1974, I was struck by the resemblance.  Does this mean that Cruise will look like McCain in 30 years?  Is it just my poor eyes that see the similarity?
thumb|200px|left|Cruise in The Firm
thumb|right|Interview with McCain on April 24, 1974, after his return home. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CodeCarpenter (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Played by Tom Cruise? 

message: From TR's speech on "The Duties of American Citizenship, given in Buffalo, NY, January 26, 1883.
*"...Somebody has said that a racing-yacht, like a good rifle, is a bundle of incompatibilities; that you must get the utmost possible sail power without sacrificing some other quality if you really do get the utmost sail power, that, in short you have got to make more or less of a compromise on each in order to acquire the dozen things needful; but, of course, in making this compromise you must be very careful for the sake of something unimportant not to sacrifice any of the great principles of successful naval architecture. Well, it is about so with a man's political work. He has got to preserve his independence on the one hand; and on the other, unless he wishes to be a wholly ineffective crank, he has got to have some sense of party allegiance and party responsibility, and he has got to realize that in any given exigency it may be a matter of duty to sacrifice one quality, or it may be a matter of duty to sacrifice the other."  PS - You McCain staffers out there who keep tabs on this article (I bet at least one of you does it) - pass this on to the boss man as I think he'd agree with it and Semper Fi to your boss. PSS, He gave fine commencement at my stepson's graduation at USNA 1993. Source URL - The American Experience on TRSimonATL Theodore Roosevelt Association Member 05:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theodore Roosevelt Quote that Applies to McCain

message: Hello.  Long time listener, first time caller.  
I have an issue with the following quote and its source: "He has also come under increasing criticism for a pattern of "flip-flopping." 
I have put "flip-flopping" in quotations for now but to be honest I think this term falls under the categories Wikipedia would call NPOV "weasel words" in the following way: "A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue. Weasel words...are frequently used by politicians. A weasel word can be compared with, but is distinct from, a euphemism."
First of all, the source "The Real John McCain" (http://therealmccain.com/) has no neutrality whatsoever.  I'm not a particular fan of McCain myself, but this web source is a clear all-out attack on Senator McCain for political purposes.  It offers no alternative viewpoints and represents merely the opinions of one group of people (his political enemies) attempting to turn people against him.  Is this source and its aims legitimate without any attempt to balance its views?
Secondly, the phrase "flip-flop" is a stale political slogan created by Republicans during President Bush's re-election campaign in 2004.  Rather than neutral, it is an obvious attempt to create a derogatory moniker intended solely for one side's opponents, and its use here is obviously intended to link in the readers' minds McCain's alleged behavior to other Republican opponents like John Kerry or Hillary Clinton.  
Simply put, I have nothing wrong with the allegations per se but I am loathe to let stand such a politically loaded term in an article with no NPOV warning, neutral sourcing, attempt to find alternative neutral ways to allege said behavior ("he has been accused by his opponents of changing sides on issues in the past") or any balancing viewpoint. 
I didn't change anything except the quote marks because I am unregistered here.  Thank you.
210.20.86.85 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the sentence as this does not comply with WP:RS.--Mbc362 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Its a quote from a reliable source about McCain.  He does have a reputation for not always voting the same way his party does.  If you can think of a better way of explaining that to the reader that you feel is more neutral, please share it with us.--Mbc362 01:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Flip-Flopping?": Neutral??

message: Many of the other potential 2008 candidates have separate articles for their political views.  Should this article, too? Yavoh 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely say yes.  See Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Political views of Barack Obama, Political views of Rudy Giuliani, Political views of Mike Gravel, etc.   Wasted Time R 13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have now done so.  Wasted Time R 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Thanks for taking care of this. -- Satori Son 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Views: separate article? 

message: I believe I have seen a documentary on the military channel that McCain's rocket lauched and hit another fuel tank. I can't remember, however, so please remove this concern if my information is misleading. Thanks, Michael Norkus 06:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to ''USS Forrestal'' 

message: Are these appropriate?
:He began campaigning with a strong anti government corruption message, but many said he stepped on the toes of too many big donors and business people, whereas Bush greased them.
:McCain has a strong independent streak, and supported some initiatives not agreed upon by his own party,... 
:McCain's reputation as a maverick stems from various issues, his strong stance against government-business corruption and lobbying which is untypical for his party, his support for a guest worker program for some immigrants yet tough border controls, support for stricter limits on political campaign funds, his moderate record on environmental issues, and frequent opposition to president Bush, including the $350 billion in tax breaks to the very top income brackets over 11 years which is also known as the Bush Tax cuts.''
--Media anthro 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits by [[User:CrystalizedAngels]] 

message: "John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is a liar and a deciever. He is staunchly supporting President Bush's surge in Iraq and said on CNN, "There are neighborhoods in Iraq where I could stroll around." He is a total embarrassment, a total discrace. To even suggest such a thing is disrespectful and misleading. He is undermining our troops and emboldening our enemies with such lies and by supporting the Bush Administration."
hey that doesn't sound very NPOV  ;)
someone should fix that
216.113.96.110 11:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a source for it and put it in if it's true.  Talk page is not for original research.--Gloriamarie 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "is a liar and a deciever" ??? 

message: Did anyone hear that when his first wife was in serious accident and put in a wheel chair. he decided to leave her and marry someone else. Can you believe she waited for him for five years when he was pow and did not cheat on him. This sob could not do the same for her ? He is evil man and should not be allowed in the white house.
(Irishmonk 21:03, 4 April 2007)
:This is already in the article, please stop using the talk pages for debate. The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Jon513 15:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of morals

message: There seems to be no information on his approach to US detainee torture. That would be notable but the information apparently in the article last October has gone. Can something be put back? At the very least, the issue of the White House accepting his position on the issue needs coverage. Eiler7 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appropriate for Political positions of John McCain article.--Gloriamarie 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torture 

message: Does anyone know what rank he reached upon retirement? It doesnt say so in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajw18 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank in Navy? 

message: "In 1998, McCain was chastised for reportedly making an off-color joke at a Republican fundraiser about President Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, saying "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." McCain later apologized to President Clinton and Clinton accepted his apology."
LOL Armyrifle 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: I really, really hate to sound rude, but I found nothing about his unusual chin shape in the article. Is it naturally like that, or was it caused by torture/skin cancer? I notice he has some similar facial morphology in earlier photos from his youth, so I'm guessing it's natural. Seriously, though, I'm not trying to be offensive...I just really want to know. 74.56.165.54 09:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chin hump 

message: I believe that his religious denomination should be changed to Baptist.  I know he was raised Episcopalian, and his profile says that, but he his now Baptist.  I just finished listening to him being interviewed on KWQW 98.3 WOW FM in Des Moines. He was a guest on the show Mac's World.  McCain stated he is now Baptist and attends North Phoenix Baptist Church.  BrainyIowan 13:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that American Baptist or Southern Baptist?  To some people, there's quite a difference between the two denominations.--Gloriamarie 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm changing the reference now that I have a citation (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070917/29334_McCain%3A_I%27m_Baptist%2C_Not_Episcopalian.htm).  --Tim4christ17 talk 11:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Denomination 

message: I removed a quote from Sen. McCain's ex-wife about them being on good terms because the source didn't contain the quote in the article.  The source didn't even look authoritative in the first place. --72.200.65.39 00:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than removing information (unless it is in a biography and very negative information that is potentially libelous and you strongly suspect is inaccurate), you should put a citation tag and let someone have time to find a source for the information.  --Gloriamarie 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I just added back the quote.  The previous source wasn't that good, but the quote is also in the NY Times article used for the rest of the paragraph, so we'll just use that instead Maximusveritas 03:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work.---Gloriamarie 17:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carol Schepp 

message: I think that the following passage, found near the end of the first paragraph of the "2000 Presidential Primary" section, should be removed because it is off-topic and reads like an advertisement for a book: "Accounts of this are covered in the books, Bush's Brain and Boy Genius." Dennis 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush's Brain

message: In response to a question on the day of the Virginia Tech massacre, McCain said the tragedy at Virginia Tech did not change his view that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to carry a weapon.McCain stands firm on Second Amendment gun ownership rights after Virginia Tech rampage International Herald Tribune April 16, 2007
futurebird 03:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it belongs; if anywhere, it would go in Political Positions.  And to be accurate, McCain actually gets an F- from Gun Owners of America on defending 2nd Amendment rights.---Gloriamarie 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where should we put this?

message: This is pathetic. There is next to nothing listed concerning the democratic candidates and we know that is a blatant lie. This section only shows how low and scavenging the Democratic Party truly has become. Obviously, they'll do anything to get in --clearly they need a paycheck. Unlike the Democratic party of decades ago, they care nothing for the people. They only seek to pad their own pockets and gain prestige. It is not the season to vote for a showboat pathetic beggarly scavengers a.k.a. democrats. 
This looks like a hangout for haters. Only people who are sick with ideology would try to run down a man who refused freedom and remained in a brutal prison camp for years out of loyalty to his country. 
Never trust people who run down heros and patriots like this-- one can disagree with McCain's political opinions (at times I do) but still show respect for a Man like this. 
The tone of many of the posts below suggest people who are so ideological that they have lost any sense of decency or compassion. That is what all ideology does (Left or Right)-- it makes people cruel and hateful and cynically blind to courage and herosim.  
Sean7phil 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-McCain Bias in the Discussion Section

message: Is there any indication McCain knew the Vince Vance & The Valiants song?  Since he referenced the Beach Boys, it seems he was more likely reinventing an obvious "joke."  Better to note the coincidence, or not note it at all I think.  I'll be glad when politicians stop trying to do standup routines.... Шизомби 13:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bomb Iran

message: It seems that this section is more of "black propaganda". I move that this section is to be removed. --Mr roces 02:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of Controversies Section

message: Footnote 80 about the wife's stroke is a dead link.  It needs fixing. JonnyLate 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a problem link to that site. I'll see what I can do. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake

message: The Extramarital relationship segment. Is this actually relevant to the article? I'd like some input or consensus before I decide to remove it. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it relevant? 

message: What's this about Rudy can't get an erection?  Must be some anti-Rudy folks editing.  There's even a reference.  How about mentioning Bill Clinton's crooked penis, which is a true statement.  Seriously, we need warnings on the top of these articles or people will think all of wikipedia is wacky, not just the articles of presidential hopefuls. JonnyLate 16:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New standards for wikipedia presidential hopefuls' article.  Mention sex, I'm not kidding

message: Check out the early life section -- it says he was boring in Japan in the Panama Canal Zone? Huh?! 24.148.118.190 01:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan/Panama Canal Zone 

message: In one of his political philosophy books written with Salter, McCain has an entire chapter on Theodore Roosevelt, one of his heros, . See article on John S. McCain, Sr. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain%2C_Sr. SimonATL 22:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Tidbit - Added a pic of McCain's grandfather, John S. McCain, Sr. with Theodore Roosevelt

message: The new section on the possible 2010 senate election seems a little foolish to me. Just because one poll of questionable neutrality says that he would lose reelection three years before the election itself suddenly means that it should be included in this article. I can understand it being in the actual article about the election but being placed here seems pointless and irrelevant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.177.205 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the 2010 election section necesarry?  

message: I have several problems with this section and changed it accordingly: I think the incident should be included, but the way it was at last edit before mine was not ok.  Much of the text that was used in this section was a direct lift from the Washington Post blog that it uses as a source. First, it would be better to rewrite it, but if not, it has to be in quotes, and should say "According to..." to make it clear that this is someone else's text.  Second, you needed to indicate that some material was removed from the Washpo blog quote, which I did with an ellipsis.  Third, I don't know that a blog, even a Washpo blog, is the most reliable source to use.  And fourth, and most importantly, while I am sure he said "Fuck you", the source does not say that - it says "[Expletive]". Not "[F***]" either, as an earlier edit tried.  You cannot quote something, use it as a source, and change it, even if your change is accurate regarding what was originally said.  So either say "[Expletive]" or go out and find a source that will give you the actual quote.  If not, it is OR and not allowable.  This has nothing to do with Wikipedia not censoring - it isn't Wikipedia that is censoring, it is, in this quote, the Washington Post blog that is censoring.  Do some research and change the sourcing on that sentence if you can find something reliable that gives the actual quote. Tvoz |talk 17:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cursing at Cornyn 

message: Hey, maybe we should put his position in his graduating class.  I think this is important for any real politics people.  I think it was something like fifth from the bottom.  Dan3falcon (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, did you read the article?  "... he was fifth from the bottom in class rank.[8]".  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graduation Rank