Talk:John McCain/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Birthplace

The article needs to be more clear that McCain immigrated to the US from Panama as a young boy. His migrant story was a central part of his appeal as a politician from a state with large numbers of people with Latin American origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If there was any element of truth in what you said, then yes the article would have to be more clear about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is however incorrect about McCain's birthplace. While it is true his family was living in the Canal Zone, like most Americans he was not born at home but in a hospital and according to his birth certificate McCain was born at Colon Hospital which was located outside the Canal Zone. Ironically this improves McCain's case for meeting the "natural born citizen" of the United States requirement for the presidency since children born to American parents outside the Canal Zone were clearly citizens at the time of birth under the laws in effect when McCain was born. Had he been born in the Canal Zone he might not have been a citizen at birth but would have become a citizen when the law was changed in 1937. Prof. Gabriel Chin wrote law review article published in 2008 entitled "WHY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN CANNOT BE PRESIDENT: ELEVEN MONTHS AND A HUNDRED YARDS SHORT OF CITIZENSHIP". Even if he was right in his legal analysis, his facts were wrong. McCain was not born "a hundred yards short of citizenship" in the Canal Zone, he was born an American citizen in the Republic of Panama. Johhtfd (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The "birth certificate" you've seen on the Internet is a fake. He was born in a Navy hospital inside the PCZ. See John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, many former military kids get challenged over their American citizenship and get labled as "immigrants", when in fact they were born while their father (or mother) was a soldier serving their country at an overseas military base.

So John McCain was no immigrant, and never was.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Why does the main article have nothing specific about where he was born, only a date? That is bizarre. The connected article about his birth mentions the canal zone, nothing specific. I have no axe to grind here about his eligibility to be president, I simply came here wanting to know the details of exactly where he was born. This should be a simple fact, it is available for virtually every major public figure. [04:36, February 19, 2011 66.30.197.116]

The main article does say where he was born: "John McCain was born on August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, ..." Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

See that note by sinebot [first in this section] is not true. McCain did not immigrate to the US. He lived in Panama and was born there but no immigration paper work was needed. His citizenship was based directly on his parents birth in the US and his father was station in Panama. [06:41, February 28, 2011 99.13.123.131]

Nobody is saying he was an immigrant. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The hospital that John McCain was born in was located in Colon, Panama, a relatively short distance (perhaps less than a mile) from where the Coco Solo base was located in 1939. The hospital was built by the US Government, in Colon, before the base encompassed the surrounding grounds. Pres. Roosevelt did not delineate the military reservation border to expand the facility until his order of December 17, 1941. Until that time, Coco Solo base facilities were very limited: "Existing facilities in 1939 included a small landing-field, three plane hangars, one blimp hangar, barracks, officers' quarters, three seaplane ramps, and a few miscellaneous buildings." It appears that at the time of his birth, that the Colon hospital was not located on US naval base property. This would draw into question the "natural birth" requirement and the legitimacy of his 2008 Presidential candidacy. Not quite to the degree of Mexico born George Romney's 1968 Presidential candidacy, however, where the "natural born" Constitutional issue was not tested due to his campaign's failure. Gavilan1 (talk)gavilan1 —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is addressed briefly in this article ("McCain, having been born in the (Panama) Canal Zone, ...) and more extensively in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility. Bottom line: McCain was born in the PCZ (see the Washington Post fact checker sources used there) and he was eligible to serve as president. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dirt/Frankenstein Comment

"I am older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein."

Does this comment strike no one else as disingenuous? Dirt is the recent remains of ground minerals and decomposed plants and animals, while Frankenstein is the name of a fictional scientist who constructs a monster from dead body parts, and thus would not have any more scars than is normal.

98.230.43.227 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Arkhamite

See Figures of speech. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nixon Photograph?

I notice that the Photograph of McCain meeting Richard Nixon is gone; gone from all of Wikipedia in fact. I expect someone took exception to it on grounds of copyright or bias or some other feeble excuse. In reality, it was obvious that such an compelling, pertinent work of historical, political and cultural interest was of far too high a quality to be allowed to remain on any Wikipedia page. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your assessment of the photo is correct – it's iconic. But it was not taken and distributed by the military or some other branch of the federal government, in which case WP could use it, but rather by a photo syndicate. Thus, no go for WP, alas. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issues are not a feeble excuse; Wikipedia takes copyright as seriously as anyone (I know of) on the internet. If it's not free, we probably can't use it, regardless of partisan ideas. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Filibuster

McCain filibustered the whole National Defense Authorization Act, not just "a measure that would allow repeal" of Don't ask, don't tell, which he could not do since the language was already in the bill from the Armed Services Committee. That DADT was the reason was clarified, but the fact that it's the first time that happened since 1952 is sourced, notable and should stay in. It's also weird that the citation was de-formatted. Hekerui (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

First the style question. Due to a compromise from a couple of years ago between myself and Ferrylodge, the McCain main article does not use any cite templates, while the subarticles – such as Early life and military career of John McCain and so on – do use them. You may or may not agree with this decision, but it was done, and the main article is an FA article and thus has to be kept internally consistent in terms of style. I've found three cite templates that have crept in here, including yours, and I have changed to to the article's non-template form. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the substance of this, please note that the authorization bill hasn't failed yet, it's just mired in this dispute. Everybody expects that it will pass, possibly after a continuing resolution is put into place if things aren't worked out by the beginning of the fiscal year. If you follow Congress at all, you know this happens fairly often – a bill that is going to pass is held hostage to a variety of amendments and riders, some having little or nothing to do with the bill they are attached to. If McCain were really trying to defund the military, this indeed would be notable. But he isn't. And this main article, which is done in WP:Summary style, should not get into this level. That's for the Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present subarticle to do, where I have added this:

"In September 2010, McCain led a successful filibuster of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, which included a measure to allow repeal of the "Don't ask, don't tell" law regarding gays in the military.[132][133] McCain said that the debate on "Don't ask, don't tell" should wait until a Department of Defense survey on the views of the military towards repeal of it was published and that efforts to attach amendments to the authorization were politically motivated by the upcoming midterm elections.[132][133] The dispute over the repeal threatened to prevent the authorization bill from passing for the first time since 1952.[133]"

Do you have any problems with this description for the subarticle? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally, all that is really important for the main article, which as you can see is written very succinctly, is that McCain led a filibuster against DADT repeal. So I have changed that to read just this:

"McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards gays.[264]"

Readers who want to know more background about this or any of his other many legislative actions can consult the relevant subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of 'gays'

Responding to the use of the word "gays" under the "Filibuster" topic above --- I see in the Article Policies, this criteria - "Neutral point of view". In connection with the discussion on Senate action on a bill related to a change in the current DADT policy, I see the use of the word "gays". I believe the use of this word is contrary to the "Neutral point of view" policy. The first point to make in this regard would be that the law itself (DADT) does not refer to the male same-sex orientation by using the word "gays". The law itself uses the word "homosexual". You can read this in the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1994. The second point to make would be that the word "gay" is an example of a propaganda instrument employed by the homosexual movement to get its (preferred) message across to the people. In this regard, the use of the term "gay" fits the category of propaganda moreover, because the homosexual movement has adopted a term (gay) that is inherently untruthful in terms of accurately describing the character of the people that comprise the movement. I believe that from an objective point of view, if one were to accurately characterize the general demeanor of the members of the homosexual movement, most people would choose the words, angry, combative, frustrated, unjustly treated, and perhaps victimized. The characterization associated with the word "gay" does not exist anywhere in the public persona of this movement. This of course can be debated, but a wikipedia article is not the place for this debate. When you use the technically accurate word "homosexual" there is no debate. A homosexual is, what a homosexual is. By using this word (gay) in a wikipedia article to describe a homosexual or the homosexual movement, the article becomes an instrument for advancing the homosexual rights agenda. I do not believe that should be the purpose of wikipedia. And the neutrality policy itself, it seems to me, embodies this general desire to be accurate and truthful. Wikipedia should stand for the truth only. And I believe that the truth is the best policy in this situation. When we must refer to individuals that are defined as homosexuals, we should use the word "homosexual". StevenShowers (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely and utterly wrong. The word "gay" is the preferred term by The New York Times (see page 142 of their style manual), the Associated Press (see page 117 of their style manual), the Wall Street Journal (see page 102 of their Guide to Business Style and Usage).... I could go on, but you're right about one thing: Wikipedia articles (and their talk pages) are not the place for extremely biased comments like the above. Tvoz/talk 07:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe you addressed any of the points made by "StevenShowers". Your argument is basically, because these organizations have chosen to promote the agenda, then it's ok for Wikipedia to do it. That is an argument of the adenda promoters as far as I can see. It does not address the point about propaganda, and the fact that the term does not accurately portray the population in question. And this accusation that the individual is "extremely biased" is made only because he is obviously not a supporter of the agenda. That does not make him extremely biased. It makes him a non-supporter of the agenda. And it makes him simply an advocate for the truth. I don't see anything untrue in what he said. Does the term "gay" accurately represent the demeanor of this community? I don't think so. If it is not accurate or truthful, why use it? If these people are homosexuals, why not call them homosexuals? For myself, I find his arguments persuasive. What is the REASON that wikipedia should call them "gays" instead of what they are "homosexuals"? What is the REASON for wikipedia to hide the truth? What is the REASON that wikipedia should allow what appears to be a falsehood to appear in the place of the truth? Isn't that opening the door to the same kind of compromises in other areas, sort of like how rotteness spreads throughout an apple, where people are not sure when they read wikipedia, if they are getting the truth or not? EaglesGolden (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that you and "StevenShowers" are one and the same. That's a violation of WP:Sock puppetry. But I'll ignore that and your nasty and ignorant rhetoric for the moment, and just address how WP deals with terminology. WP uses 'gay' all the time in this meaning; see articles titled Gay icon, Gay pride, Gay square dance, etc. If you look at Category:LGBT culture, you'll see that a bunch of other articles are titled around 'LGBT', which includes 'gay' as well. And as you can see from looking at the entries in that category, very few articles are titled around 'homosexuality'. So that should convince you that WP endorses the use of 'gay' as used in this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument "Wasted Time" is the same argument made by "Tvoz". This person, and that person, and the other person, they are all making the same mistake, therefore, it must be OK. But I would have to say, that just because a lot of people are making the same mistake, that does not make it OK. And again, you have, like "Tvoz", failed to address the underlying questions at to whether the term “gay” is accurate, truthful, and not part of an agenda, and not an instrument of propaganda. I would appreciate it if "Tvoz", "Wasted Time", and others, would set aside this “everybody does it” argument, which is no argument at all, and address these underlying issues. Is the use of this term "neutral" or does it in fact serve the vested interestes of a particular political constituency? For myself, it is beyond me, why anyone would want to be part of such a practice of putting a false image into the minds of readers, rather than an accurate image, unless they have a vested interest in the spreading of that false image. For example, when you say "homosexual", the reader knows exactly what you are talking about. You are either talking about a man who is having sexual relationships with another man, or a woman who is having sexual relations with another woman. It is very clear and distinct. You are giving the reader the truth. And there is no confusion. But when the reader sees the word "gay" you have an image of bunch of really happy and exuberant people painted on the fabric of the reader’s mind. This is inherently dishonest. Those who argue for the use of the word "gay" are promoting an agenda, and the wikipedia policy forbids using wikipedia to promote an agenda. Every instance of the use of the word "gay" as a reference to homosexuals, within wikipedia articles violates the neutral point of view policy. We should recognize that, and we should draw the line here. EaglesGolden (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK this is enough. This is the talk page for the biography of John McCain and the purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to this article, not to debate the validity of the commonly-used term "gay". If you want to discuss the term, I recommend you go to the talk page of the article Gay (which is about the term), but I doubt you'll get much support there either. There is no agenda being promoted on Wikipedia by use of the term, any more than in the style manuals of the major media outlets I mentioned above which are politically diverse. Please take your agenda elsewhere and let us get back to the matter at hand here. Tvoz/talk 22:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "gays" in the context of the filibuster section above, is the issue at hand. Correcting an error in this article, even if it is only one word, would represent an improvement of the article. Yes, the changing of this one word to more accurately represent the truth, would represent an improvement of this article in my opinion. Let's see if we can work to find some common ground on this point. Again, just because a mistake has been widely accepted, does not mean that it cannot be corrected, or that it should not be corrected. For the sake of the truth, errors should be corrected. For example, some time ago, many people believed the world was flat. And they resisted the process by which their minds had to conform to the truth that the world was round. Along these lines, I would add to the observations above, this idea, that for the use of the word “gay” to be appropriate under Wikipedia guidelines, it seems to me that the term needs to be sourced to published information that shows that the term is an accurate representation of the demeanor of the homosexual movement in general. Now, it is clear that homosexuals see an advantage in characterizing their movement by the use of this word "gay". However, this fact alone does not make it appropriate for use on wikipedia in a situation like this. Especially if the word is a deception, embodying a conscious desire to deceive people, which appears to be the case. In that situation the use of the word on wikipedia, cannot pass wikipedia guidelines. Certainly, in any article where it is appropropriate, you could report the truth, that homosexuals desire to be known as gays. This is true. And that would be fine, as it is a statement of fact. But you also need to point out the truth, that the term “gay” is a deceptive identifier. That the homosexual movement as a whole does not exhibit the characteristics associated with the term “gay” as it is defined in standard dictionaries. If you did a poll asking people to describe their perceptions of homosexuals, and you gave them a list of happy, sad, frustrated, angry, combative, afflicted, you would not even have a majority of homosexuals choosing “happy.” If we understand that a particular word is no more than a public relations mask, a desire by the movement to present a deceptive facade, then it is inappropriate for an encylopedic endevour such as wikipedia to become a party to this deception. In this regard I would request that the sentence which reads "McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards gays" be changed to "McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards homosexuals." If we want to be completely accurate, we could change the sentence to read in this way: "McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards those individuals whom the law refers to as homosexuals." EaglesGolden (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You're probably just a troll, but in case not, please be aware there are many, many "gay" gays. Your entire premise is bogus. Get thee to a gay pride parade sometime ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort made in this last comment to go after my basic premise. I have never been to a homosexual pride parade, which is certainly an oxymoronic configuration of principles. But I have seen snippets of such events on the news. Just like going to any party, or parade, or festival, the participating homosexuals can escape their inner agonies for a time, and appear happy when they are surrounded by their supportive peer group. However, one afternoon spent in a delusionary state of happiness, does not a rule make. As soon as they return home, where they must live the other 364 days a year, away from this grand-standing support structure, they fall back into the thorn-like embrace of their guilt and shame ridden inner world, where they know they are different from the vast majority of people on the planet, and they are angry about it. They are not happy about it. They are angry about it. I believe if you did a scientific poll of long-time homosexuals, and you asked them, are you happy being a homosexual? The great majority would say "no". If they were told that there were a magic wand that could instantly turn them into a properly functioning heterosexual, without any effort on their part, and you asked them if they would want that magic wand to tap them on the top of their head, I believe that 99% of all homosexuals would say "yes". This is just common sense. So much agony would be removed from their lives by that simple wand tap. This bit of common sense supports my general premise completely. And therefore, because my premise, upon deeper analysis, appears to be valid, and thus supportive of the general thesis that the word "gay" is at best a deceptive PR tool of the homosexual movement, making the use of the word, in this context inappropriate according to wikipedia guidelines, I would ask again, that this sentence which reads "McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards gays" be changed to either, "McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards homosexuals," or "McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards those members of the military services whom the law defines as, and refers to, as homosexuals." EaglesGolden (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this homophobic creep has started in change every "gay" to "homosexual" in actual articles, I've reported him to WP:AN/I. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"this homophobic creep" - well, now, I see you are starting to use more of the homosexual movement buzz words which helps to make my case that the word "gay" is in fact a propaganda implant into this article, and it is surrounded by a phalanx of pro-homosexual agenda supporters to guard it. This is not what wikipedia is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EaglesGolden (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from EaglesGolden, 26 September 2010

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{edit semi-protected}} Under this heading - Senate career after 2008 - Remainder of fourth Senate term - Please change this sentence --- McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards gays. --- to this - McCain led a successful filibuster of a measure that would allow repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy towards homosexuals. --- Because - First, the law refers to homosexuals, not "gays". Second, the term "gay" is a deceptive propaganda instrument employed by the homosexual movement to further the homosexual rights cause. It is truly (1984) Orwellian in scope. A propaganda instrument has no place in an encyclopedia article about John McCain. EaglesGolden (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Not done: The consensus in the section above agrees to keep the terminology as "gay" not "homosexual". This has even been brought up in WP:ANI at the moment. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Might I also point out that if you read the Wikipedia article on Gay, you would see that the history of the word shows that it was meant to be a derogatory term when applied to homosexuals. Thus, it's quite ridiculous to assert that it is a "propaganda instrument" by the "homosexual movement". SilverserenC 02:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC) that piece of information, if it is accurate, which I doubt, is not known to the American people. The term "gay" has a definition, it is basically a very happy and carefee individual, exactly the opposite, as a general rule, of what homosexuals are. If the homosexual movement itself thought it was derogatory, they would drop the use of it, not encourage the use of it. They use it because it paints a deceptive picture of happiness over a condition of internal psychological agony. EaglesGolden (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Well then, you might want to start a blog to inform the American people about the deceptions of the "homosexual movement". Your comments are offensive, bigoted, and do not belong here. And I think this troll has been fed far too much already, so I'm done here. Tvoz/talk 03:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC) So, let's see. We have two zealous homosexual agenda supporters standing as the guardians of John McCain's wikipedia biography. I wonder what that means. Obviously you two are not Christian conservatives! Am I Right? McCain always did hate the conservative base of the Republican Party. Is that what this all about with you, that you wanted to portray his actions to the homosexual community in the most positive light, and the use of the word "homosexual" in that particular location seemed just too harsh, and would've have disrupted your agenda in that regard? After all, you know he is the friend of the homosexual community, he really is (except when it comes to getting the votes of the Republicans that he needs to hold his Senate seat), and you feel the need to soften that picture of betrayal as much as possible? EaglesGolden (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Since this twaddle was never intended as anything more than a chance for this person to espouse his or her personal views, can we just delete the whole section? -Rrius (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Soytenly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Military Childhood ("Early Life" Section is Missing the Fact that He Moved Constantly/Attended 20 Different Schools While Growing Up)

This is a very common ommission in documenting an American military childhood (and I know is not intentional)--

The article is otherwise really great, by the way--

But it misses the fact that, like most American children (of career military familes), John McCain grew up moving constantly. In fact he lived in more than 23 different locations and attended 20 different schools by the time he was 18 years old.

Having grown up as a military kid myself, I can attest to the fact that growing up while moving constantly, and having no permanent roots, is a very challenging circumstance.

Also it's misleading (unintentionally so, to be sure), to merely mention a military kids birthplace because it implies that he or she grew up there, when in fact they probably only lived there for a year or so.

I wish this (highly mobile/rootless) aspect of the military childhood was noted more often in the "early life" section of kids who grew up like us, because it really was so different. A good Wikipedia article on the American military childhood can be found here Military brat (U.S. subculture) ("military brat" is an affectionate/not a derogatory term in military culture, by the way).

By the way-- John McCain is mentioned in that article in the sub-page entitled "List of Famous Military Brats".

There is also an award-winnig documentary on the subject of American military childhoods that deals with the issue of high-mobility (constant moving from place-to-place while growing up). It was produced by a non-profit and won nineteen awards.

(Again, this is a nonprofit link, but it illustrates my point-- http://www.bratsourjourneyhome.com)

This also adds new context to the section below this one (here in the discussion area) on "Birthplace" and citizenship. Ironically, many former military kids get challenged over their American citizenship and get labled as "immigrants", when in fact they were born while their father (or mother) was a soldier serving their country at an overseas military base.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this article states "His family, including his older sister Sandy and younger brother Joe,[2] followed his father to various naval postings in the United States and the Pacific.[6] Altogether, he attended about 20 schools.[7]" You must have missed that. And for an expanded treatment of McCain's early life, including his difficulties with moving a lot and at schools, please read the Early life and military career of John McCain article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great (my apologies). But the current layout is confusing-- Because the "Early Years" link is easy to miss, and there is no mention of it in the "Formative Years" section which is what most people will see when they read the article.

I also think that mentioning that he attended 20 different schools would make this aspect more clear.

Otherwise, my compliments on a high-quality article.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

One possible solution might be to make the "link-text" for the "Early Life" link larger and harder to miss?

But it might also help to have some reference to the '20 schools' it in the "Formative Years Section".

98.245.150.162 (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. There is a "Early life and military career, 1936–1981" section and within that a "Formative years and education" subsection. That subsection is where you would expect to find information about his schooling. And indeed, the last sentence of the second paragraph of that subsection says "Altogether, he attended about 20 schools.[7]" So the 20 schools statement is pretty hard to miss. As for the link to Early life and military career of John McCain biographical subarticle, I agree that people do often miss that and not read it. But that format is a Wikipedia standard layout item, and there isn't much that can be done about it (can't change the size or add color, for example). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Changing Size of Link to Early Life Section

I don't understand why you are asking a question and then closing the discussion before I can answer it.

I meant the section (in the main article) entitled "Formative years and education".

As you have acknowledged-- the "Early Life" link in that section is hard to see/not likely to be clicked as often as it should.

So since we agree that there is a problem, here are two possible solutions:

1) Put a (brief) mention of his mobile childhood into that section (with the expanded version on the other page).

or 2) Keep in mind that some rules in literature can be broken, so long as they are broken well.

No one is likely to complain if the link were to be made bigger. Here is how you do it-- use the "Section Header" code (==) or (===) on either side of the link to adjust the size.

I would also argue that this doesn't violate Wikipedia policy anyway, since this "Section Header/Link" actually pertains to a real section anyway.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't close anything, the "This discussion has been closed" legend refers to unrelated topic above about McCain and DADT. All I did was move this new topic to the bottom of the Talk page, rather than the beginning where you had started it. New topics are always supposed to go on the bottom.

As for mention of this mobile childhood, there seems to be a huge disconnect here. This article, John McCain, the one you're on the talk page for, already mentions his mobile childhood and the 20 schools. There's nothing further to be done on this.

As for making the link to the Early life and military career of John McCain article bigger, no can do. Wikipedia is run by detail-oriented types who quickly see and revert Manual of Style violations. Moreover, this is a Featured Article which means it has to be kept with every i dotted and every t crossed with respect to the style guide. So it is the way it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I just saw the "20 schools" line.

This is the honest truth-- I misplaced my reading glasses yesterday. I still haven't found them/am squinting as I read.

My sincere apologies.

Take care,

98.245.150.162 (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested change

Going through the current senators' articles, I have standardized all those that were not locked, with the style, in every case, of the majority of pages. Please italicize the list of senate seniority in the order of precedence. All other items match this article's. Missing parties and states have been filled in elsewhere, and sized where needed. Thanks. 75.203.4.199 (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be italicized? None of the other 'middle columns' of these bottom-of-the-article succession boxes are italicized. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, because it was already like that on the majority; the number of very recent senators didn't skew the results. 75.204.236.52 (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Addionally, the same box for seniority in the house of representatives are italicized (from Rep. Conyers to Rep. Young, and thereafter many are not included), and no, I didn't just go do it, and, no, it wasn't me. There were about 60 italicicized and 40 not, with this, Sen. Grassley, and Sen. Inhofe semi-protected. If I had looked at the semi-protected pages first, I would have done them all without italics, but the consensus of the majority was italicized. 75.204.49.226 (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A 60-40 split isn't too convincing. It's better to discuss something like this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress first rather than just converting the 40. To my eyes, the italics make no sense. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Candy desk

I have been working on the article Candy desk, and have discovered that John McCain sat at it for two years in the Senate. I would like to add it to his article, but seeing that it is a featured article, and there is probably alot of contentious stuff in the article, i will just post this here and allow someone more familiar with the article to add the information. --Found5dollar (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's too minor to go into this article, but you could add it to an appropriate place in the House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Where's the birth certificate?

I heard that John McCain was born in Panama, and is therefor ineligible to run for president. I also heard that he refuses to produce a long-form birth certificate. Why isn't there a section about the controversy? I'd write it, but I'm just an IP address. 24.177.123.74 (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he was about to be born in the Panama Canal Zone, but his father, who was a submarine commander, snuck the family over to Kenya, which has long run a secret facility that specializes in giving birth to future U.S. presidential candidates. For another take on this, see John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)-

According to my admittedly accurate understanding, McCain can run for president as many times as he wants, even if born in Paraguay to Eva Braun and Dr. Mengele. He could run, but he would not be eligible to serve.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Formative years and education: Speculative comments

Regarding his Naval Academy rank, the statenment:

McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, and he did not always obey the rules, which contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899), despite a high IQ.[10][12] He did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he struggled with, such as mathematics.[5][13] McCain graduated in 1958

is speculative and sounds contradictory. Did he not do well because of conflict with these nebulous "higher-ranking personnel" over the four years he was at West Point or did he not do well because he did not study? As written, it almost reads as if McCain were "too smart" for those who out-ranked him (the faculty) and was therefore punished with a low class rank. The wiki entry should leave the facts but drop the speculative causes. E.g. "Despite high IQ test scores, McCain ranked 894 of 899 in his graduating class." 141.157.189.99 (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This part of the main John McCain article is an unfortunately very terse summary of the much more expansive treatment in the Early life and military career of John McCain subarticle. What you're probably not getting is that at the Naval Academy, grades were given for conduct and leadership as well as for performance in actual classes, so McCain's rank suffered from the double whammy of being an underachieving student and an attitudinal rebel. So read the subarticle and get a much better idea of what McCain was like back then, or better yet, get one of the Timberg books out of the library and read it directly. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to add

In the overall description we need to add that he is the first white presidential candidate to lose to a Black African American. [06:41, February 28, 2011 99.13.123.131]

Your formulation is objectionable, but looking at the article it's true that it's never stated that Obama became the first African American to be elected president. I've added a sentence indicating that McCain acknowledged the historic and special significance of this in his concession speech. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This is entirely trivial, but one could argue that Hillary Clinton, not to mention Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, preceded John McCain as white presidential candidates who lost to an Afro-American one. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I believe that it is important to note the Sen. Mccain is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=M [20:36, March 25, 2011 204.99.118.9]

I disagree. He's already listed in Members of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is enough. Most longtime Washington figures like him are members. Except to the conspiratorially-minded, it's not worth noting. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

I think the article fails to meet the neutrality standards, especially in the "Cultural and political image" section. It contains several opinionated statements about him and his personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.100.30 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a couple of examples.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, specifics are always needed. Note also that that section, and especially the underlying Cultural and political image of John McCain article, need updating for the course McCain has taken (and the reaction to that) since 2008. It's on my list of things to get to ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To follow up, I did do that updating a while back. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of quotes with punctuation

I propose changing all usage instances involving quotation marks and a form of punctuation to conform with the rules outlined here: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp. The article's present format is both inconsistent and (at times) grammatically incorrect.174.55.58.22 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of publishers follow the rules you reference, but Wikipedia does not. It has its own house style, as described at MOS:LQ. Accordingly, this article follows that style. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really major enough for main article?

[ moved here from User talk:Wasted Time R ]

Greetings, Wasted Time R. You moved my addition regarding McCain's vote on the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act to the separate page regarding his Senate Career. I feel that for many Senators (or other elected officials), this might be appropriate. However, it's widely known that McCain himself was militarily detained as a prisoner of war in Vietnam (and obviously, that occurred before his Senate career). His insertion of language authorizing military detention without trial of American citizens is thus of profound importance in understanding the man on a personal level, not merely as a Senator. I suggest my addition should be restored. Agreed? Ewcarson (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't like your phrasing and the use of the Lithwick source, but upon reflection, I agree this is important enough for inclusion in the main article (not because McCain was once a POW – nobody has ever disputed the right of the North Vietnamese to capture and hold him as a military prisoner – but because this is a very important policy area and McCain was a leader in the Senate on the issue). I've put it back in with revised wording and a different second source, see what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Times in torture

User:Wasted Time R - It is unfortunate that you would reinsert such a statement about McCains torture into you otherwise fine edits. For one year I was National Librarian for American Ex–Prisoners of War, Inc organization. During that time I received and read many documents about POW's torture from the men themselves and from various other documents, some smuggled out of the POW camp at great personal risk. I even wrote to DIA because POW's records were classified and asked for copies of de-briefing sessions. Was denied. In addition. my father-in-law was a Prisoner of War. I also worked for years as a volunteer at the Vietnam Vet Center in Fort Lauderdale and in Connecticut.

I have also had the pleasure of many correspondences with Senator McCain. He is a very humble man and always said others did better than him insofar as bearing the torture sessions. That is said by many POWs. The fact is, and this is substantiated by psychiatrists, that no POW remembers exactly how many torture sessions they had as the intense suffering clouds their mind and often blurs minor facts. It is the mind's safety mechanism (and many abuse victims have the same loss of minor facts) as well as feeling unwarranted guilt. The fact that McCain REFUSED EARLY RELEASE while living with only superfically treated wounds for five years as a POWs shows a courage that, according to many studies done on former POWs, you and I and the next ten thousand people would probably not have.

It should be obvious that Senator McCain and others have stated these things because of what they all feel - a combination of a mind which tends to blur the excruciatingly painful episodes and produces a "survivor guilt" that they feel as they see other prisoners carried out dead from wounds or beatings.

I do not know the author's source but ultimately, it could only come from the POW himself. For him to put this phrase in the book shows a callious disregard and a total ignorance for what these men endured and the pathology attached to it. I have never seen it before in print and hope I never do again.

I am removing it and I hope you will please show some compassion and see it for what it is and leave it out. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions here. The phrase in question is not meant to denigrate McCain's courage or experience in any way. It's simply to indicate that some others went through even longer and worse maltreatment than he did. This is true of those who were captured earlier, such as James Stockdale or James Robinson Risner in 1965 (compared to McCain's October 1967), and thus endured two additional years during the "bad" stretch (before conditions for POWs generally improved in late 1969). It also includes those who spent all their time in the hard-core bad camps, compared to the stretch that McCain spent at "the Plantation", which was (relatively) less bad. In McCain's case, he had two stretches of really bad beatings, one when he was first captured and the other in summer 1968 that led up to his forced "confession". Of course his state was further worsened by the terrible injuries he suffered during his shoot-down and the inept attempts to treat them.

And before you go off making negative remarks about the Hubbell book, I strongly suggest you read it, and the other account that I used as well:

• Hubbell, John G. (1976). P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-Of-War Experience in Vietnam, 1964–1973. New York: Reader's Digest Press. ISBN 0-88349-091-9. Republished and available from Amazon
• Rochester, Stuart I.; Kiley, Frederick (1999). Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-694-9. Available from Amazon

In addition to Amazon, both books are available at better local libraries or at university libraries. They do a great job in correlating different POW accounts into a whole tapestry of chronology and experience. By literally interviewing hundreds of POWs, they could reconstruct events that, as you say, might be hazy or confused in any one POW's memory, and could assess from common experiences whether any one account seemed inconsistent. These books also name names regarding those who resisted the most, those who suffered the most, those who collaborated with their captors, and so on; they are honest about what happened. In sum, these are the two standard works on American POWs in Vietnam.

And again, saying that others endured worse treatment than McCain is not a negative thing about McCain's endurance, any more than saying that Babe Ruth hit more home runs than Lou Gehrig is a negative thing about Gehrig's greatness. It's included in the article because McCain is now the most well known of the POWs, and this gives the reader who might not otherwise be aware of the American POW experience in Vietnam a quick idea that as bad as McCain's treatment was, others had it even worse. If you can think of a way to change that wording to make it more clear about what I was trying to get across, and less likely to be misunderstood the way you seem to have, I would be happy to reword it. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I do not agree with your Babe Ruth analogy, I must defer to you only because you are "technically" correct. I know that McCain said many times that he believes that others were tortured more. If I may, I will say this though: even though a prisoner was a POW "longer" does not necessary mean he was tortured more. Stockdale was certainly tortured many times and it almost broke my heart to see him break down in public when in his debate and also when he made a speech as a vice presidential candidate. Certainly the lights above that he kept looking at were distracting him and it brought tears to my eyes to think of what he was reliving. I will also say that I firmly believe the McCain was certainly tortured more than others, because at some point, the record shows that they found out who his father was and wanted very badly to break him to use him as propaganda. Interestingly, he never brings up this point himself to try to defend himself. Lastly, I will say again that I have many books about various POWs, including those on the Pueblo, and never have I seen any author put in that one sustained less torture than another. Certainly Bucher received more beatings at some point because he was "the highest ranking officer" and again, better propaganda. The same is true for General William Dean in the Korean war. So, by inference, one would infer that the others on the Pueblo received "less", but it is not mentioned in that way. Some might call is a difference without a distinction. I just feel it is unkind and really, despite what McCain himself believes, unprovable and totally unnecessary for the article. I wish we in this Wikipedia article could rise above this and not insert it back into the article.Mugginsx (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your chronology about McCain is off. His captors discovered he was the son of an admiral within a day or so of capture, and that point gave him medical treatment when at first it looked like they were going to let him die of his shoot-down wounds. McCain's status as a POW made page one of the New York Times and Washington Post two days after the shoot-down. He was in hospital for six weeks during which he was interviewed by a French television journalist and was visited by prominent North Vietnamese. He was sent off to the Plantation and thrown into solitary but didn't face any concerted torture efforts until August 1968, after his refusal to take early release angered the commander of the prison camp system. There's a passage in one of these two books where McCain wonders how he'll respond to the ropes torture, because he hadn't faced it until then, whereas he had heard about other POWs who had already been enduring it on and off for three years. It's to mark the suffering of those earlier, or even more unfortunate, POWs that I put the text in the article, knowing that it might be the only thing many readers encounter about the POW experience in Vietnam. Yet you turn this around and see the text as "unkind" towards McCain, when McCain, also trying to pay tribute to those other POWs, has said the very same thing himself. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My point is THEY ALL SAY IT OR THINK IT. They do not all run for Congress and speak publically but they all think it. I have been eye to eye with these men from three of the four conflicts and they ALL FEEL THEY WERE NOT AS BRAVE AS THE OTHERS. My question is: DOES IT HAVE TO BE IN THE ARTICLE? I am giving you an educated opinion based on personal experience i.e., interviews, telephone calls and letters, and sit-in sessions with their shrink on one occasion and after reading many psychological reports, both on the men personally, and as a group. Is it so important to be "technically correct: in that we meet the Wikipedia guidelines or can we once in awhile rise ABOVE the standards of Wikipedia and give these guys a break while understanding as much as possible their terrible confusion of the entire episodes. You will do whatever you feel you should do, but I ask you, is it so important to be "technically" correct when another, and I think better choice, is to see the obvious and real truth and just leave out THESE FEW WORDS? Mugginsx (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You are continuing to see some kind of derogatory conclusion that is not there. But it's clear we're not going to be able to reach any agreement on this. And as a word of general advice, typing in all caps on discussion pages does not strengthen one's argument, and in fact will quickly get you disregarded in the Wikipedia subculture. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been doing it for several years now. It is my style and not meant in any derogatory way. This is not a game to me as to who wins or loses this discussion. I was appealing to your sense of honor. Do whatever you want to do. Mugginsx (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Endorcement of Mitt Romney

I strongly think that John McCain Endorsing Mitt Romney should be added to the page. So I added it. Thank you, Keith G.J. Cody (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Grumpy old man

Why aren't people talking about how he is a grumpy, old man? He is grumpier than Barney The Dinosaur, and is so mean to everyone! Shouldn't it be in there? He once told me to vote for an old man! 199.80.226.18 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Co-author of the Indefinite Detention portion of the NDAA (2012) with Levin (D-Mich).

I think the subject is an important fact that should be included on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.184.171 (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It already is: "In November, McCain and Senator Carl Levin were leaders in efforts to codify in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that terrorism suspects, no matter where captured, could be detained by the U.S. military and its tribunal system; following objections by civil libertarians, some Democrats, and the White House, McCain and Levin agreed to language making it clear that the bill would not pertain to U.S. citizens.[276][277]" Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its best - A fine article

I commend all of the editors on this very fine article. I especially like the way the torture section is handled with eloquence and fairness and a sense of honor given him and all former POWs. Good job to all!! I do not always agree with the Senator's views but I do know that they all come from a place of honesty and integrity. And, yes, he is sometimes a grumpy old man and is the first to admit it, Wouldn't you be? I am sometimes and I never went through what he did. Once again, a very fine article! Mugginsx (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. You may also be interested in reading Early life and military career of John McCain, which has much more on that period. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and I will do so. Mugginsx (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article status

It's been four years since it became FA. Nevertheless, in WT:SIZE, one user said that this article is overly detailed and badly structured. I wonder if things can be done to fix this article to keep the FA status. If not, shall this be taken to WP:FAR? --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this article's size. At 54 kB (8,832 words) readable prose size is it well within the normal guidelines of 60 kB readable prose size and 10,000 words. If you look at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, there are nearly a hundred current FA articles longer than this one, some much longer. This article in its current form had literally millions of page views and many editors looking at it during the 2008 presidential campaign, and no one thought it was too long or poorly structured. As far as I can tell, the user you are quoting has no interest in this article beyond trying to win an argument at WP:Article size. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That said, there are a few things that need doing here. Checklinks reports about 15 busted cite links; the article is missing alt descriptions of its images; some of the book cites are missing locations. I'll start working on those. In terms of content, I've been meaning to add something about McCain's ongoing criticism of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and the effect it's had on campaigns, so I'll do that. Also, note that while the two charts may appear like they need updating, Gallup has published no new numbers since 2009 for the favorability ratings chart to use, and while the ACU has published McCain's score for 2011 (100, but his lifetime average stays the same), the ADA has not yet, so I'm waiting on the latter to update that chart. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alt descriptions and publisher locations now added. Citizens United mention added too. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

$1.6 million payout from LockMart

Is LockMart's $1.6 million payout notable?

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/key_senate_staffer_on_military.html

Hcobb (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not for this article, that I can see. The military-industrial-government complex has been going on a long time and this revolving door is one its its main features. The big payout is from L-M and has nothing to do with McCain or the Armed Services Committee job. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Theft

I think we should create a bill, that if you are arrested and convicted 3 times for shoplifting or beer running you will lose access and all benefits from health care to E.B.T food stamps or housing subsetys for at least 3 years. Thanks Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.220.66 (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Poor image placement

Consider the image with the following caption: "McCain (front right) with his squadron and T-2 Buckeye trainer, in 1965". Please move or remove this image. It is sandwiching text, in combination with another image.

This violates Wikipedia guidelines, in addition to looking bad. The guideline says: "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar."[1]

Such sandwiching did not exist when this article became featured.[2]108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried various placements of {{clear}} and {{clear left}} but they all made it worse. Sandwiching doesn't always occur in practice (I don't see it on my main computer, do on a laptop) and is less worse than yanking the image. If you want to de-cloak you can give it a try yourself. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I will cloak 'til I croak. Why not just move it under the image on the right?108.18.174.123 (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 October 2012

External links, change parameter to washpo = gIQAXQHr9O 184.78.81.245 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Picture gallery

I'm at the world's slowest computer right now. In a half hour or so I'll be at a better computer where I can fix the new picture gallery.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Done (on world's second-slowest computer).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Tax and spend Republican

http://www.yumasun.com/news/mccain-81232-defense-cuts.html The senator said he has been traveling around the nation speaking out against sequestration, a process of automatic federal spending cuts over the next decade that will start on Jan. 1. ... McCain suggested other ways to close the gap on the federal deficit, starting with eliminating corporate tax loopholes.

So it seems clear enough that he would rather raise the tax burden on job creators than reduce federal spending. Hcobb (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No. The sequestration cuts are not 'normal' federal spending cuts; they are draconian measures that get automatically triggered by the Budget Control Act of 2011 and were designed to be so unpalatable, especially in terms of defense cuts, that the specter of them will force Congress to compromise and act. So McCain is willing to raise some revenues to forestall this happening (he's also in favor of plenty of normal kinds of spending cuts). Reforming the corporate income tax is something a lot of people are in favor of, since currently the corporate tax rate is high but many companies pay little or no tax due to taking advantage of various exceptions and the like. So the current corporate tax code deforms the natural market. But both the corporate tax and sequestration are special cases, and do not support a general claim that "he would rather raise taxes on corporations than close the budget deficit through spending cuts". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Shouldn't the religion section be general? Baptist and Episcopalian are both Christian denomination, so shouldn't the info-box just say "Christian," rather than complicating it for the readers? Baptist and Episcopalian are not separate religions, they are separate sects within a single religion. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Throughout Wikipedia, the infobox religion gives Christian denomination and not just "Christian". It's nothing special to this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Too many categories

McCain is in too many categories. We should start by removing him from non-US awards categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this your own idiosyncratic view of the category system, or is there some WP-wide purge of non-essential categories going on? If the latter, please point to the consensus discussion behind it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Marital infidelity mention with regards to his public image is unreliably sourced

In the second line of the "Cultural and political image", it mentions John McCain's "marital infidelity" as part of "this image" as in his public image. This is sourced to a Blogspot blog, which I'm sure we all agree is an unreliable source as per WP:RS. Thus, the source should be changed or the sourced phrase removed. 211.31.192.182 (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right – I lost track of this on my watchlist when it came in. I have removed it. McCain's infidelities during his first marriage and the effect it had on his family are already mentioned in the "Commanding officer, liaison to Senate, and second marriage" section, but for whatever reason, those actions have not become a significant part of his image as a politician. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Silver Star

The Silver Star is a serious medal, "awarded for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States." what did he get it for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.223.87 (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Silver_Star_Medal_-_John_McCain Hcobb (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The latest

Perhaps WTR can work this in somewhere:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYY0rzrJ7Po 173.76.59.208 (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well now. Maybe if he busts this out a few more times we can add it to the cultural and political image subarticle. Or perhaps, per Jamie Foxx's comment, we could create a Republicans dancing in the Hamptons article. Wasted Time R (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a list.63.92.232.73 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2014

Keating Five text uses word "largely" to describe the charges being dismissed. There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss the ramifications of Charles Keating's crimes and impact on our society. People's lives were devastated and he was aided by a group of politicians who received a slap on the wrist, including McCain. To leave out the controversy surrounding that is to white wash history.

TheyCallHimHollywood (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: you have not made it clear exactly what you want done. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The term "largely exonerated" refers specifically to McCain and is factually accurate. The story was somewhat different for three of the other senators, especially Cranston. The Keating Five article contains details about the outcome with respect to all five of them, and the "Reactions" section of that article describes how some people thought the senators got off too lightly. The Charles Keating article contains details about that person's actions and the effect it had on people's lives, as do to some extent the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association and Savings and loan crisis articles. Since McCain was largely exonerated, those four other articles are more appropriate places to describe the effects of Keating's actions than this McCain article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

IS connections

Perhaps McCain's connections with several top leaders of the "Islamic State" should be mentioned here? How should this best be done and under which heading? --198.136.25.82 (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Since from a little unpleasant web browsing it appears the "source" for this claim is a French conspiracy theorist nutjob, the answers are no and never. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hang on a sec, look at the YouTube video on this page: http://www.taliban-norge.no/?p=5464 Never mind the page it is on. That video is from a major, bona fide American TV network. And look the photos on that page - are they forged? The video and the photos could have fooled me. They look real.--116.192.7.42 (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is from ABC News. Is ABC News a reliable source? Ought to be. Has John McCain contested the contents of this ABC News report? Nope. That video should be an ok source.--116.192.7.42 (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about McCain's 2013 trip to visit Syrian Rebels and the accusations against two of the people he was in a photograph with, that already is in the article and has been for some time:

"Regarding the Syrian civil war that had begun in 2011, McCain repeatedly argued for the U.S. intervening militarily in the conflict on the side of the anti-government forces.[289] He staged a visit to rebel forces inside Syria in May 2013, the first senator to do so, and called for arming the Free Syrian Army with heavy weapons and for the establishment of a no-fly zone over the country.[289] Following reports that two of the people he posed for pictures with had been responsible for the kidnapping of eleven Lebanese Shiite pilgrims the year before, McCain disputed one of the identifications and said he had not met directly with the other.[290]"

If there are now claims that these two people in question are top leaders of ISIL, that would require an additional reliable source. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Visual identification of Al-Baghdadi will not do? Al-Baghdadi' face is everywhere on videos from IS. Isn't this just to satisfy ourselves that it is one and the same person on all available pictures? And Mohammad Noor, his face is very characteristic, And then all of these in the same series of photographs... I would have thought that even one clear photograph would count as a reliable source. Here we have several, _and_ a video tape, from ABC News. What else do we need?--116.192.7.42 (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I read, the guys allegedly in the photo with McCain were from the Northern Storm Brigade, who opponents of ISIL in Syria, not allies. Anyway, what you need is a story published by the Washington Post or Reuters or CNN or somesuch mainstream media outlet that says what you are saying. An ABC News story would be fine, but all the one that you point to says is that McCain went to Syria and met with top rebel leaders, with nothing said at all about which groups those rebels were from. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. The guy in the pictures with McCain is Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader (or Kalif if you want) of IS aka ISIL aka ISIS. Al-Baghdadi is not an opponent of of IS(IL), he is the _leader_ of it. I just don't get it. What more can you want. The picture is right there. You are telling me that the persons I see in the pictures and in the video are not the persons I see. I throw in the towel. I am outta here. You guys can continue to edit this any way you want. But this is ridiculous.--116.192.7.42 (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has very different rules for inclusion than you are expecting. Your own personal beliefs and experiences and conclusions are irrelevant. Read WP:Verifiability carefully. Then focus on the WP:EXCEPTIONAL part of that. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I read that. Multiple mainstream sources. Hmm, ok. Would these count?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/22/376159/isil-independent-or-ciamossad-proxy/

http://www.tehrantimes.com/oped/117859-isil-independent-regional-actor-or-cia-mossad-proxy

http://www.senzasoste.it/internazionale/il-patto-isil-usa-in-una-foto

http://www.gargalianoi.com/2014/08/13/o-φανατικοσ-του-ισλαμ-aποκάλυψη-σοκ-ο-υπ/

That is four sources saying that McCain met with Al-Baghdadi. Four mainstream news sources. Does this satisfy the criteria for inclusion you mentioned?--116.192.7.42 (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

These sources do not seem to be mainstream. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is a meme going around about that purported photo, but it is all false propaganda. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems that McCain himself has contributed to circulating these photographs:

http://thetruthfulone.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/mccain-syria.jpg

So the photographs themselves are hardly forged. The issue rather seems to be, how do we identify the persons in the photographs in a way we can all agree upon. Am I right?--116.192.7.42 (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of order, the date of that tweet is May 29, 2013. It is still visible in the tweet feed of @SenJohnMacCain - and that _is_ the Twitter account of Senator McCain, is it not? Have there been any claims of McCain's Twitter account having been compromised around that time?--116.192.7.42 (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Not even close. Press TV is the official state broadcasting arm of the government of Iran, and they'll say anything to try and make the U.S. look bad. The Tehran Times is another government-supporting publication in Iran, and the piece in question is an op-ed, which wouldn't be usable as a source even if it was in the New York Times. The Italian piece I can't read, but I've never heard of Senza Soste; you would need a more established Italian paper like Corriere della Sera or La Repubblica or La Stampa or something like that. The Greek piece I can't read either, but I don't need to, since the page you link to is also pushing 9/11 conspiracy theories. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Tehran Times is the largest English language newspaper in Iran. Press TV is the largest English language TV channel in Iran. I am a little surprised you do not think they are mainstream news sources. Let me rephrase like this then: Does Wikipedia maintain a list of newspapers and broadcasters which it regards bona fide sources? And if there is no such list, shouldn't Wikipedia try to make one? It would save us all time and effort. Additional question, just because I am curious: Does Iran have any bona fide news sources at all (according to your criteria)?--116.192.7.42 (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a list per se, but WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the place to go for these discussions. Look in the archives on that page for previous discussions about a given outlet. As for Iran, there is no freedom of the press there and virtually everything has to pass through government censorship, so no, Iranian publications are not reliable sources for this kind of thing. You will however see some articles using the Tehran Times as a source for innocuous items like football tournament results. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this, this WaPo Fact Checker piece and this NYT story both dismiss as bogus and false the claims that McCain met with ISIL members during his Syria trip. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we mention that McCain's buddies sold American journalist Steven Sotloff to ISIS? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/john-mccains-terrorists/ Hcobb (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion piece from an opinion publication that pushes non-intervention. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Source seems to be Barak Barfi. http://jpupdates.com/2014/09/23/heated-dispute-details-sotloff-abduction-raises-questions-obama-syria-policy/ Hcobb (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is also reported by The Daily Beast (here) and elsewhere. However, The Daily Mail has published an article headlined White House says beheaded American journalist Steven Sotloff was not 'sold' to ISIS as family friend claims; similar articles have probably been published by other sources.

The answer to the question, "Should we mention that McCain's buddies sold American journalist Steven Sotloff to ISIS?" is "No, we should not." However, we should publish significant information about what reliable secondary sources are publishing about the topic of this article. The significance of comments about this particular point is a matter to be decided by editorial consensus here, hopefully keeping WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS in mind. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Just noted McCain's own response, as he's likely to be a RS for his own positions. Hcobb (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because McCain has denied something doesn't mean we should include it here. People in the public eye are forced to deny all sorts of allegations all the time. You (Hcobb) used a Newsmax source for your addition in the article itself, but Newsmax is generally marginal at best as a source. In addition, your edit was slanted as it failed to include Kerry's denial, which even the Newsmax story included. As for two of your other sources, the American Conservative is no good at all and jpupdates is some kind of obscure website that also has no value here. The Daily Beast is the closest thing to a mainstream source you've got. But in my view this story hasn't gotten sufficient media attention to warrant inclusion in this main article, especially given its 'guilt by association' BLP implications. I think your change should be removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

His meeting with Syrian rebels is fact that he himself tweeted. https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/339455679800700928/photo/1 so the rebels included the now ISIS leader. May be he did not know that some of the rebels will create ISIS then. But it is a fact that he met these rebels that included current ISIS leader. That fact need to be included in this page. [ 02:13, November 19, 2014‎ 117.208.216.255]

Yes, he met with Syrian rebels. No, he did not meet with ISIL leaders, current or future. See this WaPo Fact Checker piece and this NYT story. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

TV/movie section

Just wondering why there is no section about his cameos in TV and movies? McCain appeared as himself was in two episodes of Parks and Recreation, in 24 and also was in Wedding Crashers. I think this is definitely notable. He has so many related articles - where should this go? Thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Gallery

I put back the old gallery because I prefer the caption below rather than above, and in plain text rather than bold. Also, the low-res picture shows his parents and siblings which seems worthwhile.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Committee Assignments

McCain's committee assignments have not been properly updated since the beginning of the current congress.

1. He no longer serves on the Foreign Relations committee.

2. He is no longer a full member of any Armed Service sub committees but as Chairman of the full committee may serve as an ex-officio member of any subcommittee.

3. He is an ex-officio member of the Intelligence committee.

Conservative Thinker (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have made these changes. Thanks for pointing them out. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of proposal to wrap up subarticle

Just realized I never gave notice here of Talk:Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present#Proposal to wrap up this subarticle from a week ago. There's been no reaction there; if there isn't one here, I will proceed. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Language

In the POW section of the article, there is the phrase "and with his gray hair turned white as snow". I feel that this language is ill suited to wikipedia, perhaps more suited to a biography. According to the guidelines wikipedia should be free of Puffery. User:Wasted Time R appears to disagree, he/she mentions WP:POINT but I am unsure how this applies. Smk65536 (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Right next to that change, you made this edit which changed "In August 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain" to "In August 1968, a program of enhanced interrogation began on McCain". That is as good an example of WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as one could hope to find. And that convinced me your other edit wasn't serious either. As for "white as snow", it is sourced, but if you feel that it's too interesting for readers and that WP should always be boring to read, you can remove the "as snow", but I think the "white" should still stay. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with Smk65536. --Thomas de Mowbray (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Arizona GOP censures McCain for 'liberal' record

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/arizona-gop-censures-mccain-liberal-record

Is the action of the state party bigwigs notable enough to mention? Hcobb (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I hadn't seen it. I think the censure probably tells us more about the state party than it does about McCain, but it does illustrate that his 2009–10 swing is over and that, unless he does a repeat, he might be in trouble in 2016 should he decide to run again. So I've added it to this article and to the Senate career subarticle. When the 2013 ratings from the ACU and ADA come out, I'll update the chart that's here, which gives the most objective measure of changes in McCain's ideological state. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

He won the election.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

In the Writings by McCain section, do hyperlinks to the new articles on Why Courage Matters and Thirteen Soldiers. Thank you. 2600:1001:B12B:19C5:59C6:37B6:85EB:3062 (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

2600:1001:B12B:19C5:59C6:37B6:85EB:3062 (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Done Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

John McCain's Military Service

Due to a prominent urban legand about Senator McCain, it may be wise to mention the [USS Fortestal Incident] in which his aircraft was severely damaged by an electrical malfunction on an F-4B Phantom II Fighter Jet on the flight deck when it triggered a Mk-32 unguided rocket. The resulting fire and explosion led to two bombs becoming dislodged and "cooking off". The urban legend alledges that then- Lieutenant-Commander McCain dropped the bomb on the deck.MARINEav8r (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

We say here in this article that "On July 29, 1967, McCain, by then a lieutenant commander, was near the epicenter of the USS Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31]" Do yo think we should we say more?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sedona

The article on Sedona, Arizona lists McCain as a notable person. However, I can find no connection between McCain and Sedona. Is that a mistake?Bill (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It is sort of a mistake. The media has often referred to a McCain ranch (or cabin) in Sedona, but it's actually located in nearby Cornville, Arizona. On the other hand, McCain does host an annual conference in Sedona.[3].Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish

Dave Wagner here... Could someone please fix these "Scotch" references...? Scotch is drink, while Scottish is an ancestry. Thanks! 67.124.150.137 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish American is the base article being linked to, and the "Terminology" section there gets into the different terms that have been used. It always used to be "Scots-Irish" in this John McCain article until a couple of months ago when this edit changed it and I personally would be fine with reverting back to the prior usage. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct terminology is Scots-Irish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.70.26.200 (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2017

The picture of John McCain and Kerry speaking with (Saudi Royal Family members) is not accurate. Kerry is speaking with Dr. Muhammed Al-Issa, ex-minister of justice and current secratery general of the islamic world league and McCain is speaking with Sulaiman Abalkhail, ex-minister of Islamic affairs and president of Imam Muhammed bin Saud Islamic university. Both are not members of the royal family. The picture, however, have been taking in King's palace. 84.235.83.65 (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The State Department claims it's the Saudi royal family. — Train2104 (t • c) 17:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Lack of clarity in Senate career

The only reason I came to this page was to find out when his current term began and when that term expires. I don't really want to tackle this whole article but do want to point out that as the place to go to find quick information that is laid out consistently, this article falls short. I'm only adding this section to point out that I'm going to search elsewhere on the Internet for this information (probably ballotpedia). If you have a vested interest in Arizona, the Senate, or McCain and would like to straighten up the shelves, they sure could use it. --SlimJim^Talk 02:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John McCain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=caucus&template=detail&candidate=mccain
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511174630/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/06/_winstonsalem_ncforeshadowing.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/06/_winstonsalem_ncforeshadowing.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080927205109/http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=723483 to http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=723483
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013133940/http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html to http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529155057/http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/3491861.html?page=3 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/3491861.html?page=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John McCain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013133940/http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html to http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529155057/http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/3491861.html?page=3 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/3491861.html?page=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821034132/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)