Talk:Political positions of John McCain

Immigration stance

Does anyone still have problems with this? Can we remove to flag?

Beach Boys Song

This article currently says:

At a VFW Hall in South Carolina in 2007, a veteran asked when the U.S. would "send an air mail message to Iran." McCain replied, "You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" and began to sing, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."[1] McCain then explained his stance further, saying "Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That alone should concern us but now they are trying for nuclear capabilities. I totally support the president when he says we will not allow Iran to destroy Israel."[2]

There are a bunch of problems with this. Why include two refs, when the second ref is a more complete report? Also, both refs provide audiovideo, and I hear him saying "You mean that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" Additionally, the second cited article quotes Joe Biden as saying that McCain was joking around when he sang the Beach Boys song, and the second cited article explicitly says that McCain did not go so far as to endorse bombing Iran. Singing this song here was not a position statement, but rather was a controversial remark, and that's why it's covered at Cultural_and_political_image_of_John_McCain#Controversial_remarks.

If you want to accuse McCain of supporting a bombing campaign against Iran, can't you come up with anything better than this???

Additionally, not only Fox News but also Associated Press reported that McCain was joking about the Beach Boys, and quoted McCain differently ("That old, eh, that old Beach Boys song, 'Bomb Iran'"). See Hennessy, Kathleen. “McCain Message to Joke Critics: Get a Life”, Associated Press (2007-04-20).

I don't think that this is the correct article for McCain's jokes. This is supposed to be about his political positions.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I believe User:Zorodius and User:76.121.142.121 to be the same person, which would make one user supporting this who has been reverted by three different people. Using two different accounts does not exempt a user from WP:3RR but I'm reluctant to revert it again at this point because I've already done so twice. But to me it's clear that not every quote is a position. If we included every quote every candidate ever said on these position pages they'd be miles long and useless. We need to choose the quotes and paraphrases that are representative of the candidate's positions either according to the candidate's website or repeated statements or according to reliable sources. I've yet to see any source indicating that this is supposed to be his position on anything. Oren0 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. These "Political positions" articles are meant to convey just that, deliberate policy preferences. If a politician makes a stupid remark or dumbass joke, that's not a political position. If a politician makes a verbal blunder that's quickly corrected, that's not a political position. If a politician makes a deliberate policy statement that attracts a lot of heat and they weasel out of it a couple of months later, now that's something we do include here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If your argument is merely that it is not a "political position" of John McCain, why do you insist on removing all links to the page where the quote is covered? Who says that this page is merely for deliberate policy preferences? Which is more honest, something carefully planned and purposefully published, or a quote caught on a cellphone camera? It is not a wiki editor's job to decide that the public does not need to know something. If Obama joked about bombing Iran I would absolutely want to know. The title of the page where it is covered is not likely to be found by casual searching, so at the very least it should be referenced in this section.

The final edit including the "bomb bomb" quote included a complete explanation of his statements that day. Exactly what was cut out was the part that was most damaging. This is exactly censoring. Do not try to pretend this is about anything else. If you want to argue about exactly what was said, whether it was "You know..." or "You mean..." then include both quotes and who attributed them to McCain. Pretty simple journalistic decision making there.

Additionally, I think the accusations of vandalism are laughable. That he made this statement is fact, so you're calling TOO MUCH true information vandalism. Zorodius and I are not the same person. We're just both passionate about letting people know all the facts before they make a decision. I'm sure it's easy to form a consensus with other people who frequent this page on matters that arouse suspicion about John McCain. More people does not mean more correct. This quote will somehow be referenced on this page.AzureFury (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's not vandalism. Nobody's saying the thing doesn't belong in Wikipedia. We're just saying it's a controversial remark, not a political position, and thus belongs in Cultural and political image of John McCain and not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If your thing about vandalism is directed at me, I didn't say it was vandalism. I said it was an edit war. Quite simply, not everything a candidate says is his position. There is a difference between a statement a candidate makes and a position they hold. Would you support a statement added to the Obama positions page that he believes that there are 57 states? Of course not. Oren0 (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll speak for my self, thanks. If Obama said there were 57 states while the statehood of 7 territories was in question, I absolutely would want to know about it. The difference between saying there are 57 states and parodying a song with the words "bomb Iran" is one might indicate the desire to start a war and one does not. This not an apt comparison.

Also, John McCain is the only major candidate with a seperate "Cultural and Political image" page. Neither his main page nor this page (now, thanks to you guys) even mentions this quote.

This page includes both actions and quotes by John McCain. Not simply quotes of him saying where he stands on something. The fact that he is joking about bombing Iran is worthy of mention. As is the interview in response to that joke where he says to people that don't understand it, "get a life."AzureFury (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Say it was a joke, if you have a reliable source for that - that's interesting; but include it - readers should know why we do not count something, or they will add it themselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this would be given serious consideration. This is an article concerning political positions of John McCain, not controversial jokes of John McCain. By all means, if that article ever gets started and avoids being deleted, include it. But bombing Iran is not a position of McCain, and this isn't an article for jokes. Trilemma (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That article does exist, Cultural and political image of John McCain#Controversial remarks. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's what I get for being sarcastic ;) Well, that's where it belongs, not here. Trilemma (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article includes the "bomb bomb" comment as well as how it relates to his position. Sorry guys but saying "it's not his position" doesn't cut it as a reason to remove the quote anymore. Follow the wiki guidelines and include both sides of any controversial issue fully and fairly. There is no guideline saying, "never repeat something that is in another article."AzureFury (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone could put up an WP:RFC on this it'd be helpful so we can build consensus and stop revert warring. I'd do it myself but I'm at work and don't have time until the end of the day. Oren0 (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Does the "Bomb bomb Iran" incident belong in this article?

Speaking to a group of veterans, McCain made a comment about a Beach Boy song called "Bomb Iran," and started singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." Some editors feel this is relevant to his political positions, as some believe suggests he advocates military action against Iran. Other editors feel that, since he was making a comment rather than stating a position, and since the comment does not appear to have been meant literally, that it belongs at Cultural and political image of John McCain#Controversial remarks, but not in this particular article.

(Full disclosure: I attempted to state the problem in an unbiased manner, but I belong to the latter group, i.e. against inclusion of the quote. So correct for potential bias as necessary)

We'd like previously uninvolved editors to weigh in on this. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just add that this page is for the political positions of McCain and not one reliable source I'm aware of has said this is a position of his, however many sources have said it was a joke. Oren0 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're intentionally or unintentionally missing the point. I don't dispute that McCain has denied it was a promise to bomb Iran. The question is whether or not it was an unconscious slip, that despite all his public posturing, he is personally committed to bombing Iran. Dictionary.com defines "position" as "a rationalized mental attitude". This "bomb Iran" comment may or may not reveal his position more honestly than his purposeful public statements. Leave it to the reader to decide.AzureFury (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, I think it's cute that in the talk page you call it the "Beach boys song" incident rather than the "Bomb bomb iran" incident. Interesting.AzureFury (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, you are picky. I changed it to "Bomb bomb Iran" incident. I really don't care. Anyway, from now on, I would please like to only hear from previously uninvolved editors on the RfC. We already know what your opinion, my opinion, and OrenO's opinion is, and that didn't get us anywhere. Let's here from some other folks, shall we, hmm? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "Bomb, bomb Iran" comment should be a part of this article. A candidate's attitude towards diplomacy is an important part of his or her political position. No one is arguing that Senator McCain wasn't trying to get a laugh when he said it. Nonetheless, it was revealing of his attitude towards the situation. I think that a visitor to the page who was interested in reading up on McCain's political position regarding Iran would certainly be interested in knowing that he said this.

I think both the comment, and McCain's later explanation of it should be a part of the "Iran" section of this article. If the purpose of the page was merely to repeat carefully-censored information published by McCain's campaign, you could save time by just replacing the entire thing with a link to his personal website. Zorodius (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of the identity of this editor. Also, I guess I'm not previously uninvolved, but just to restate it, I am absolutely against the inclusion of an off-the-cuff joke in an article about the political positioning of a candidate. Trilemma (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As an otherwise uninvolved editor, I believe that the remark is definitely germane to an encyclopedic treatment of a man running for president of the United States, most especially with so much strife ongoing regarding the situations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran. That being said, I do not believe this is the proper article to detail it. The purpose of a "Political positions" article is to detail a politician's stated political positions and to detail his voting record (whether be they congruous or incongruous with his stated position). This sort of remark, should it be properly sourced, is better suited in an article detailing controversies or criticisms than it is here. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the phrase doesn't present a unique political position by itself, but it certainly shows that McCain takes a very negative view of Iran. Karen Dolan, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C., seems to take the remarks seriously.([3]). Even Fox News thinks that he used the phrase to "make a point"([4]). But we should note anyone's view that McCain was perhaps joking. We should also not give this UNDUE weight.Bless sins (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. It should be included. The issue is very notable, and the quote is pretty heavily used. Not including it here would constitute a form of censorship. YahelGuhan (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a view that he was joking, it's a fact. Trilemma (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeating that doesn't make it true. He says it was just a joke, that's all that is fact. AzureFury (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The only fact here is that he said it. Nobody disputes that. But do we have reliable sources indicating that the quote represents a position? Oren0 (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment about Yahel Guhan's contention that not including it would "constitute a form of censorship" -- please read WP:CENSOR more carefully. This would constitute a form of editorial control. Note once again that the remark is already included at Cultural and political image of John McCain#Controversial remarks. Those of us who oppose its inclusion here are not trying to censor the remark from Wikipedia, no no no... we merely believe that it is extraneous here. We all agree that it is highly notable that a presidential candidate made such a controversial remark. But just because it's notable doesn't mean it belongs in every article. Or perhaps we should add the remark to Sloppy joe and Fawn-breasted and Doughnut as well? heh.. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First off I would ask if this article is about John McCain's positions on the issues, or John McCain's officially stated positions on the issues. If it is only on the latter, then the introduction to this article should state that, and I think this quote may or may not be appropriate. One could argue it's not an officially stated position, but on the other hand it was given by him at a speech, not recorded on some cell phone behind the scenes. If the article is on John McCain's actual positions, then I think the quote should be included because it speaks to his actual position (on the extreme side it indicates that he is interested in attacking Iran, on the less extreme side, it indicates that he may not feel he shouldn't joke about bombing a country, and on a positive note, it may indicate that even in the face of a serious issue he is relaxed). Furthermore, in my opinion, the fact that it was a joke doesn't disqualify it from being an indication of his position, e.g. if a politician made a racist joke in a speech, that would speak to his position on race; or if a democrat running for office said, in a speech, as a joke, "yeah sometimes i just want to shoot those republicans", and the crowd laughed, it would still speak to his position on bipartisanship. RobHar (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't made in a speech, but rather in a town hall meeting where he was responding to a question from a local citizen. A public setting, yes, but not a planned response. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, by speech I simply meant public speaking event. RobHar (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, McCain's lousy at set speeches, where he reads the teleprompter badly and comes across as stiff, but good at town halls, where he just wings it and is more natural and his personality comes through. But when he's winging it, by his nature he sometimes says dumb or incautious things. Doesn't mean those things are part of his policy portfolio ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So, none of these comments actually contradict any of my points (and that was probably not the point of the comments, but I would like to make that clear). Just to be clear, i think that:

1) If this article is only about the "officially sanctioned" (past and) present positions of John McCain, then that should be made clear in the intro, and a link to possible dissent, should be provided (namely Cultural_and_political_image_of_John_McCain#Controversial_remarks), though it seems like in many articles dissent is usually provided within the article in a separate section.

If this article is about trying to present McCain's actual position then:

2) That a comment was a joke doesn't make it irrelevant to the person's position.

And just to be clear, if some one wants to discuss this with me I am capable of changing my mind. Also, what McCain is lousy at or good at is rather irrelevant (unless on this position page, we'd want to add "position on political speeches" and say he'd rather risk saying dumb or incautious things than being stiff (j/k)). RobHar (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's #2 in general. If any reliable source says that something is his position, that's one thing. But it's original research for us to say that this joke represents his position without sources that say that. Oren0 (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I buy that (and WP:OR has not been used in this discussion until now). Upon googling there are certainly a lot of people who say it's "not a joke", but none that I found that were "reliable sources". So I think my position is that, barring someone finding a reliable source (or three), it should not be included as per WP:OR. (On a side note, I think #1 should still be discussed, but perhaps at a later time). RobHar (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the claim that this violates WP:OR is a joke. I gave 4 citations in my last edit of people saying it was not just a joke. Admittedly, 3 of them were liberal leaning publications, but that doesn't change the fact that it someone else saying it and not the editor. Additionally, the edit was phrased "led to accusations," which is pure fact. Some people think it is his position to bomb Iran. That is fact which is and has been trivially demonstrated through citation.

I would not be opposed to a link in this section and others (such as Economy Policy) to seperate articles covering criticisms of his policy, as long as there was a short explanation as to what to expect there. AzureFury (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure I'm convinced by your citations. The GlobalSecurity.org link doesn't even mention McCain in the article (it just links to the youtube video). And the other citations are really quite left leaning (like a political ad from moveon.org). Things that Obama has said and done have "led to accusations" (that I'm sure can be found on right leaning "news" websites) that he is a terrorist/secret (extremist) muslim/whatever far-stretched accusation. That does not mean that on his version of this article, under terrorism, it should read "It has been said that Obama actually is a terrorist and thus clearly supports terrorism."

Also, your phrasing, in your edit, implies that this article thinks that "bomb iran" is McCain's position. Indeed, you say "then explained his stance further" (italics added for emphasis). It seems clear that this article is at best unsure whether this is his stance, and thus the phrasing shouldn't in my opinion, subtly imply that it is his stance.

I'd be technical and say that his comment "led to accusations" is not "pure fact" but rather mostly fact, but with a good enough dose of ommission. Rather, it seems it led to accusations from the "left".

I'm not going to revert cuz I consider myself to only be participating in this request for comment as an outsider, and furthermore, I don't know the policy on editing a contentious part of a wiki article during an RfC. RobHar (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought an article describing in detail how to go about attacking Iran encircling a youtube link to the video of McCain singing was a heavy enough implication to include it as a reference, but if you feel that's too much of a stretch, I am willing to remove it, as I have 3 other sources.

As for your comparison of "McCain wants to bomb Iran" to "Obama is a terrorist", I would say that is not fair. People have suggested that he is MUSLIM, not a terrorist. Here is the difference; McCain has said he might bomb Iran, and Obama has never said he will do any terrorist activities.

You don't need to be a democrat to suspect McCain of wanting to bomb Iran after he sings that song. It is presumptive to say that ONLY people on the left are making that accusation. I wouldn't be surprised if people who call themselves "independents" also believe this. But if you want to add something like, "...have led politically left organizations to accuse him..." I'd be fine with that. AzureFury (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The youtube video in the GlobalSecurity.org article starts from the beginning of the audience member's question. This guy's question is entirely about how iran deserves to be bombed and when they hell is america finally going to "send an air mail message to Iran". The question alone is possibly good enough to include the video as relevant. McCain's answer (after the song) seems to make it clear that if Iran attacked Israel, he'd be in favour of bombing them. This clearly justifies the video being included in the GlobalSecurity.org article. The actual singing of "bomb iran" is not necessary for the relevance of the video to the article.

What about fox's "terrorist fist bump?" comment? What about [5]? (watch the video, it's ridiculous). In my opinion, in the past, the right has been much more successful on positioning their media outlets as being more in the center. It would be dangerous to start including left-wing "news" sites as sole citations, because the same would have to be true of right-wing news sites.

As for my opinion on what the song meant, after watching the clip many, many times over the last few days, I think it's entirely possible that he was just trying to be funny. The guy's question never mentioned "bombing iran", and he ended with "air mail". McCain could've easily said "Oh like bomb iran?" without singing, but he thought we has just too gosh darn funny to do that. And then he says, "anyways" (which is a pretty clear cut-off transition word), and gives his answer. I think that this point of view is a completely plausible, it may not be correct, but unless we know it's wrong, or unless many "centrist" "news" media outlets say it may be wrong, I think it shouldn't be included.

Furthermore, I think the most clearly interesting point in this exchange (in terms of McCain's Iran position) is that the questioner lists all sort of things that we "know" are true, and then basically calls for bombing iran now (as Bush did with Iraq when it had perceived threats), and all McCain answered was, well you know if they go for Israel we'll do something. McCain did not say, "you know those things you say are known to be true aren't", and he certainly did not say that the US should not bomb iran now. RobHar (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for verifiable facts, and as far as I'm concerned unless you have a quote from him or a reliable source indicating that he intends to bomb Iran, that is hearsay. Do I personally believe McCain wants to bomb Iran? Absolutely, as do many other people, but baseless belief and intuition are not the building blocks of a good encyclopedia. L'Aquatique[review] 18:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My whole reason for including the citations for the accusations was to show that it was a popularly held belief, that not just I or my friends believed it. I was avoiding the claim of WP:OR. Of course no paper intending to be objective will say that McCain wants to bomb Iran.

Again, I've never claimed McCain has overtly said he will bomb Iran, nor that this song is a clear endorsement. My idea is that people coming to this article want to know more about John McCain and where he stands, and to simply say he "will bomb Iran if it attacks Israel" simply because he has publicly and deliberately stated that is not enough. Politicians lie or conceal truth, on both sides. We should absolutely describe in detail his actions consistent and inconsistent with his stated policies. This "joke" is worthy of noting since it could potentially reveal what he is thinking and not saying in regards to his position towards Iran.

A widely held belief is absolutely material fit for an Encyclopedia. My edit never says "McCain might bomb Iran if elected", it says "people believe McCain might bomb Iran if elected". If you need proof: I believe McCain might bomb Iran if elected. The fact is verified. As for the basis of this belief, not that it matters as people believe many things without reason, the joke itself gives basis. You could argue that other policies can add to the basis, such as his support for the Iraq war, or saying we might stay in Iraq for the next 10,000 years. I didn't think an indepth explanation of commonly held liberal views would be appropriate for this section. Of course, that sort of thing could always be referenced. AzureFury (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the major point is that no paper intending to be objective has said that McCain's singing indicates something about his position on bombing iran. So yeah you can say that your references get around WP:OR because they show some people think it meant he wanted to bomb iran, but i guess my point of view was that the WP:OR referred to saying that unbiased people thought his singing meant anything. RobHar (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote is not a political position unless a WP:RS says it is. Otherwise, it may be a political position, or it may be an off-the-cuff joke. WP:CRYSTAL says we shouldn't try to speculate which. Absent a source that calls it such, the quote does not belong here; however discussion of the quote and the controversy generated probably does belong at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the RfC since I think we've come to a compromise. AzureFury (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Roll call

So we can try to determine where consensus lies on this, let's get a head count of who stands where. I'm basing this on comments in the talk page regarding this and I apologize if I miscategorize you. The current count is 9-5 opposed. Oren0 (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion:User:AzureFury, User:Bless sins (?), User:Yahel Guhan, User:Zorodius, User:JCDenton2052
• Oppose inclusion:User:Oren0, User:Trilemma, User:Wasted Time R, User:Ferrylodge, User:Jaysweet, User:Blaxthos, User:RobHar, User: L'Aquatique, User:Wikidemo

Added Zorodius and removed RobHar as he has not explicitly stated his position. This count is 6-4 opposed. AzureFury (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Add me as supporting it. However, if McCain has made a retraction, add that too so that it will be balanced. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:RobHar said: "barring someone finding a reliable source (or three), it should not be included." How that qualifies as "not having stated his position" is beyond me, given that he later said he doesn't buy the sources presented. Oren0 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my current position could be unclear, as i only said "I'm not sure I'm convinced by your citations", but I do agree that my position is currently "oppose" (and I don't agree with the reliability of the citations). 128.112.16.36 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Oops, I wasn't logged in. RobHar (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding my name to the list, but I'd like to remind you that voting is not a proper way to determine consensus! L'Aquatique[review] 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that. It's worht point out that User:Yahel Guhan's Support !vote, for instance, only made a case for the quote should be included on Wikipedia, not why it should be included in this article. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out where people stand. To me the consensus seems clear but AzureFury keeps re-adding the material (and replacing the whole Iran section with the joke, which I think we can all agree is ridiculous) anyway. Oren0 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You always say you have consensus even when you don't. You claimed to have consensus when 4 people were opposed to inclusion and 3 people supported it. Don't try to take the moral high ground, your removing the edit is exactly as bad as my replacing it. I've shown my willingness to compromise. Just because the page is specifically for his "positions" doesn't mean you can't include or reference quotes or actions that portray him unfavorably. This page doesn't even have a "See Also" section.

I like how you say "replacing the whole Iran section with the joke" when I never deleted what was already in the section. It is an addition, not a replacement. Great exaggeration though. AzureFury (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So add a "see also" section if you think there should be one. If you think that a "compromise" is that the first sentence about Iran is about the Beach Boys song, then we have very different definitions of compromise. If you were willing to turn this into one sentence at the end of the Iran section, that'd be compromise. And intentionally deceptive edit summaries and 3RR violations aren't exactly inspiring evidence of the "moral high ground" either. Furthermore, the consensus still opposes, and you still haven't addressed either of our major points: 1) It's original research to say that the joke has anything to do with McCain's policies unless reliable sources (read: not an op-ed or political blog) says it does. 2) This is adequately covered elsewhere. 3) WP:WEIGHT tells us that even if we include it its inclusion should be much more minor than his general policy in Iran (read: not first and not as long as the entire rest of his position). 4) The majority of editors still oppose its inclusion. If you work towards addressing these points, then we'd work towards inclusion. Oren0 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I put it at the top because I thought it fit more smoothly there. My edit was not deceptive, it just wasn't descriptive. I fixed the spacing *in my edit*. In response to your points... 1) It is not original research if other people have come to the same conclusion. I could argue that saying "he's joking" is just as unreliable because the original source to say it was just a joke was McCain himself, and he is obviously going to be biased on that matter. 2) It is standard in most articles (that I've read at least) to give a brief description and a link to something related. This was my second edit if I recall, but apparently "bomb bomb" was too much of an eye-sore. 3) The first edit was two sentences, but this wasn't enough to cover it fairly.

I'll see if I can't think up something more agreeable. AzureFury (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the whole Iran section, I tried to be as fair as possible while at the same time making it interesting. I included a reference to the article covering the joke but did not include the words "bomb bomb" in this edit. I'm just now realizing that I forgot to include the World Cup thing. Totally unintentional, I'd put it back but I'm waiting to see what everyone else thinks about the rest. AzureFury (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth I would oppose inclusion - it's not a political position. Anyway, setting the arguments aside there doesn't seem to be sufficient consensus to include. Wikidemo (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited your changes some but I don't mind the current state of the page. Nobody was ever trying to "censor" this from the page, we just wanted this discussed reasonably as it is now. From my point of view, you can readd the World Cup stuff. Oren0 (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the current edit the proposed compromise? I strongly oppose any inclusion of it, including in its current form. It's simply not a political position. Trilemma (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that when you know exactly how I will respond? Do you really want to continue an edit war over one vague sentence? AzureFury (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we reached a consensus to not include it. If you choose to edit war, you'll be blocked again. Your decision. Trilemma (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't mind the current revision as a compromise. That said, if you removed it I wouldn't revert you. Oren0 (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I am okay with the current compromise, though let me read it again to be sure. In the meantime, I would warn everyone involved, on both sides of the issue, that edit warring will not be tolerated. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that edit warring on both sides is inappropriate; however, we don't have a consensus to discuss the McCain's "bomb Iran" kidding as a bona fide political position, and that would be inappropriate because it's not. Wikidemo (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromises

Okay, I read the proposed compromise again, and I think it is much closer to where we want to be. Written the way it does now, it starts to make sense in a "Political positions" article, because it serves to clarify his position as much as it does to distort. Also, giving only a single sentence avoids undue weight problems.

I have a couple suggestions about it, though. The current version reads:

But his comments regarding "bombing Iran" made to veterans in South Carolina have come under scrutiny despite McCain's repeated claims that the comments were made in jest.

First things first, I would definitely remove the "but". It is not necessary in context, IMO. This might read better:

Certain comments regarding "bombing Iran" made to veterans in South Carolina have come under scrutiny despite McCain's repeated claims that the comments were made in jest.

I think it would be even better -- in the "political positions" article, at least -- to put the clarification focus first, and then the scrutiny part. This article is not about scrutiny of McCain's remarks, it's about his political positions. So, maybe:

McCain has repeatedly asserted that comments he made to veterans in South Carolina regarding "bombing Iran" were made purely in jest, despite those comments coming under scrutiny.

Eh? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of the version you have proposed, I believe the second is most neutral and devoid of excessive language. The third continued reference to the comments themselves seems linguistically cumbersome. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The third version is the most neutral, though it's cumbersome. Perhaps a more gifted writer than I could fix it. Oren0 (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The version originally pushed by AzureFury, as found here, gave too much prominence to the quotation by placing it first. The more recent version (here) puts it in context, so I'm restoring that version, except for "repeated claims" -- "repeated" is pointless (politicians get asked some questions over and over so much of what they say is repeated), and "claims" works in a POV by casting doubt on the truth of McCain's statement. JamesMLane t c 06:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No doubt version #3 is cumbersome, I think I got distracted right when I was finishing typing it :D Ooo, how about this:

McCain has repeatedly asserted that highly scrutinized comments he made in a speech to veterans about "bomb[ing] Iran" were purely in jest.

Hmmm, it's still a little awkward in parts, but seems closer.

I'd like to hear Trilemma's comments here, since he has been reverting out AzureFury's suggested compromise (which I agree does not have anything close to consensus yet). I continue to think that McCain's clarification of the "bomb Iran" comment may have a place in a "political positions" article, even though the comment itself really doesn't. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We discussed it and the opinion was that the comment doesn't warrant mention in this article. That doesn't mean that an editor gets to reword it and insert it again. It doesn't matter how you word it, we decided that it doesn't belong. Trilemma (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like something to the effect of:

McCain has repeatedly asserted that controversial comments he made regarding "bomb[ing] Iran" were made purely in jest.

I believe this is OK to include for several reasons: 1) We agreed that "bomb bomb Iran" wasn't McCain's position. But the comments were made and the fact that they were a joke is his position. This is written in such a way that it focuses on his position (this was a joke) rather than on the joke itself (not a position). 2) Since we have a position, the question is whether it's notable enough to merit inclusion. I believe that a short sentence as an aside is appropriate weight for something that was reported fairly widely in the media. 3) This relatively minor inclusion satisfies most parties. Though the "inclusion" camp was a minority, they were a significant one, and it's best to avoid edit wars and accusations of censorship. Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would add that since the comments have been so widely reported, presenting it in this way may serve more to clarify and reinforce his stated position rather than to sew doubt and confusion. I am comfortable with it (of course), and I think Oren0's latest suggestion is the best yet in terms of brevity and clarity. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For the reader who hasn't been immersed in this discussion, beginning with McCain's characterization of his comment, when the reader hasn't yet seen the comment, would be confusing. If people insist on trying to downplay it, we could put it in a subordinate clause: "Although, in speaking before veterans in South Carolina, McCain said, 'Bomb Iran', he has said that it was a joke and that critics should 'Lighten up'." (As a side note, putting "bombing Iran" in quotation marks is improper, because McCain's actual song performance didn't use the word "bombing".) JamesMLane t c 17:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it presents it as a matter of conjecture. There is not a RS that has stated that it was anything other than a joke. Should we start a section on "David Letterman" and include jokes he's told about him while on Late Night as positions? I don't mean to condescend, I'm merely trying to make a point: That McCain was joking has not seriously been argued about in reputable circles. Therefor, the comment falls under the category of jokes, not political positions. The inclusion of it in the article would mislead readers into thinking that it is seriously considered a political position of McCain. I don't see this as a matter where compromise is possible. It's a zero sum game: either the comment goes in, or it doesn't. It'll do a disservice to the article to include it.Trilemma (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The possible use of military force against Iran is an important issue, on which McCain has not taken an unequivocal stand. (His statements, as I understand the record, are that he hopes and believes that he can accomplish all his objectives without war, but won't rule out war as a continuation of his politics by other means.) Given that stance, it becomes relevant for the reader to try to read the tea leaves and get some idea of how likely it is that McCain would attack. After all, I think his statements, as I summarized them above, are in substance the same as Obama's. If, in some situations, one candidate would be more likely than the other to use force, then that would be akin to "he favors Social Security privatization" or the like -- it would be a basis on which some voters would prefer that candidate while others would prefer his opponent. McCain's Beach Boys riff is one of the tea leaves that some people (including some prominent spokespersons, per WP:NPOV) take as an indication that he'd be more ready to use force than would Obama.

The test isn't whether his response to a question about policy meets an artificially narrow definition of "position". Don't get hung up on one word. The test is whether including the information will help the reader understand McCain's views. The answer is that it would. My suggested wording would include McCain's phrase "Lighten up", because that also helps the reader understand the opposing position, namely that MoveOn et al. are making too big a deal out of the statement. JamesMLane t c 07:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What view does this help inform people on? His view on jokes? On parodies of Beach Boys songs? No RS links his joke to a serious view concerning Iran. So, it doesn't inform readers, whatsoever, on relevant issues. Trilemma (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If it were informative only about his view of the Beach Boys or about his ability to carry a tune, it wouldn't have received the kind of attention it has. People commented on it, and MoveOn made an ad about it, precisely because of a very widespread feeling that a candidate who answers a question about Iran by making a reference to bombing is more likely to bomb Iran, even if the comment really was intended as a joke. JamesMLane t c 15:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Widespread...in non-RS sources. There were plenty of non-RS sources that contended that Obama's '57 states' flub was a secret reference to Muslim allegiance. Obviously ludicrous, but only as ludicrous as the assertion that a joke=a position. Neither have RS backing, neither warrant inclusion in the respective articles. Trilemma (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd include them. If you want to go edit the Obama pages, I'll even help you get consensus. Popular opinion is not always reasonable, but definitely notable. AzureFury (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No serious reader would be in genuine doubt about how many states there are, or about how many states Obama thinks there are. As I pointed out above, however, a serious reader would be in genuine doubt about whether and under what circumstances McCain would use military force against Iran. I don't understand what kind of "RS" you're looking for. An article in USA Today flatly asserting that McCain's song parody demonstrates conclusively that he'll start bombing Iran on the afternoon of January 20? Of course there's no such thing in the MSM. (Heck, I doubt there's any such thing even in the liberal blogosphere.) There is, however, widespread attention paid to McCain's comment, because it casts some light on an unclear area. JamesMLane t c 17:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're asserting that on what grounds? Partisan non-RS source speculation? Precisely the same grounds as the speculation that Obama either doesn't know how many states there are or is sending secret signals of a pact with Muslim states, or whatever the claim was precisely. Trilemma (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the WP:RS policy. We require reliable sources for factual assertions made in the article. We do not require reliable sources for matters of editorial judgment. You can't find a RS that will say "Wikipedia should report McCain's view on taxes but should not report his support for opening a new Social Security office in Phoenix." We follow that guidance because it makes sense, not because we read it in the newspaper. In my comment above, the two sentences beginning "No serious reader ...." are my own editorial judgment. Do you disagree with my statements? Please note that I am not saying that the article should assert that McCain's comment is indicative of his mindset toward Iran. JamesMLane t c 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully disagree with your assertion that a non-partisan could believe that McCain's joke in any way represents a viewpoint or position. And the fact that only partisan anti-McCain sites treat it as such validates this. Trilemma (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough

Trilemma, consensus appears that this is going in. Although I commented that I didn't believe it was appropriate here, I accept that and move forward to find an acceptable version for inclusion. If you're editing in good faith and not advancing an agenda, now is the time to stop trying to derail our efforts towards finding an acceptable answer and jump on the train. If you're only intent is to game the system to make a point, or otherwise disrupt the process, please stop. Thanks. Moving forward (or, re-focusing)... do we have a proposed quote for inclusion, or is there more refining to do? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but I see no such consensus. We had a consensus and then two editors decided to simply rewrite what we decided does not belong and try to insert it again. The roll call was in regards to the inclusion of the remark, not the specific format. Let's have another roll call, if you wish. Trilemma (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we're not going to call another !vote. No, we're not going to try to draw this thing out ad infintum to protest its inclusion. The fact that this conversation is now hundreds of kilobytes (largely due to your continued defiance of other editors' opinions) is indication enough that this has met the burden of conclusion. Let's move forward with a compromise instead of being stubborn.

Do we have a proposed quote for inclusion, or is there more refining to do? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no majority supporting inclusion. The next step would be arbitration, if you want to add it. We held a roll call and the majority said no to including it. You don't get to overturn that because the editor who was pushing it in first place rewrote it and tried to insert it again.Trilemma (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration does not handle content disputes. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I meant to say mediation. Trilemma (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Has this qualified for WP:SILENCE yet? It's been like 5 days. AzureFury (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that silence shows that the consensus, as demonstrated by the straw poll, is that the comment does not warrant inclusion. Trilemma (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

lol. To be fair, the comment isn't included. It's just linked with one sentence. AzureFury (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that we're back to where we started with this Trilemma? I really don't see how to work with you since you've stated your unwllingness to compromise.

"It's a zero sum game: either the comment goes in, or it doesn't" - Trilemma

As I stated just a few lines ago, the quote is not included, just a reference to it. Do you deny that this is relevant to the discussion of McCain's relationship with Iran? AzureFury (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should a 2004 yes/no survey be included in the free trade section

I feel strongly that it doesn't warrant inclusion. We establish that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements. That's all that needs said. The inclusion of a non-elaborated yes/no survey establishes an NPOV situation in which there is contextual bias against McCain--it'd be comparable to if we included in an anti-death penalty politician, "xyz opposes the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden." By establishing that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements for ANY reason, this survey is a moot point at best. Trilemma (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. McCain was asked a specific and important question, about including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements, and he gave his answer. Our article quotes the question and the answer verbatim (noting that they are from 2004; not noting that a 2008 update is unavailable because in 2008 McCain refused to answer the question). Trilemma persists in assuming, utterly without support, that the issue arises only in the context of renegotiation of trade agreements. Trilemma's view is, "The specific 2004 survey appears to be in regards to proposed renegotiations of NAFTA and other trade agreements." That interpretation is fanciful. The cited source doesn't contain the word "renegotiation" or any of its variants. In the real world the question of labor and environmental protection is actually raised in the context of whether to grant initial approval to a trade agreement. See, for example, this letter from environmentalists urging rejection of the proposed U.S. - Columbia Free Trade Agreement ("Despite the inclusion of some essential environmental and labor safeguards, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement none-the-less contains provisions that encourage the relocation of industry in pursuit of the least stringent environmental and social standards and continues to prioritize the rights of private corporations over the public good."). McCain's express disagreement with this standard for evaluating proposed FTA's is part of his position and merits inclusion. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support thoroughly, as equivalent to standard procedure at political positions of Ron Paul. Quoting question and answer exactly is pretty much the only way to give correct context, and that is done; "he declined to answer in 2008" may also be added. As an inclusionist, I think that during the campaign this article should be a catchall for any reasonable statements of position because each is nuanced differently (excluding indiscriminately collected info, of course, which this is very probably not). The allegedly stronger statement does not require exclusion of the nuanced statement; it may be culled in a well-balanced trim of all sections, but certainly not as a separate RfC. To argue that one moots the other is to apply a weighting argument which might work in the bio but has very very little utility in the positions article; and there is no clear evidence one does moot the other. JJB 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid when possible. The current article text reads: In 2004, when McCain was asked, "Should trade agreements include provisions to address environmental concerns and to protect workers' rights?", he answered, "No."[87] This text doesn't make clear that the context was a written survey in which a one-word yes or no answer was required. That's different from if he said this in an interview and was so adamant about his response that he didn't follow it up with any further explanation. He had been able to give a longer response in the survey, the answer might have been 'Usually not, but there might be exceptions on a case-by-case basis' or something like that. That's why forced short responses of this kind should be avoided when possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. McCain wasn't strictly confined to "a one-word yes or no answer". If you look at the cited source, you'll see that each section of the survey, including the cited section on "International Trade", concluded with an open-ended invitation to the candidate to expound "Other or expanded principles". McCain used this option several times to provide the kind of nuance you mention. For example, in the "National Security Issues" section, he answered "Yes" to the question about pre-emptive strikes, but then took advantage of the "Other or expanded principles" question to add, "Pre-emptive strikes should be evaluated on a case by case basis depending on the severity of the threat". He chose not to make any such elaboration with regard to his opposition to including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements. JamesMLane t c 02:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• OUTSIDE OPINION Support inclusion. The article currently states the question verbatim; we're presenting the fact. Contrary to the initial statement of the RfC, we're not making hypothetical scenarios. If we were, that would be a problem, but as it is, it's factual. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Sounds like McCain had a chance to explain himself and chose not to. I think the sentence should be written more specifically. Too many statistics or political responses are thrown around without explanation of the way they were obtained. I suggest including the response but also that the survey is yes/no with the option of expanding further. Basically just explain everything that has been said here. AzureFury (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion -- note on general grounds that McCain opposes renegotiating free trade agreements; if you must mention the question, fairness demands a recounting of the context, specifically, that it was a yes/no survey. There are rare politicians who don't attach detailed 35-point caveats and explanations to every yes/no question; this should not be viewed as license to portray their reply in the most negative light possible. RayAYang (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH says we can't edit based on what we think he opposes. AzureFury (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Space Program

I added a blurb about McCain's opioion on the space program since Obama's article had a blurb about it. Information came from here and here.

Deletion of Wiretap Provision

Trilemma decided that McCain's position on wiretapping did not warrant inclusion and has insisted on its deletion. It seems to me that since the preceding paragraph mentions amendments to the bill which might potentially be opposed to wiretapping, inclusion can be based simply on clarity. In addition, wiretapping is an extremely controvesial issue, thus making it trivially notable. AzureFury (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What I decided is that the paragraph-long explanation does not warrant inclusion. Not every bill warrants a broad explanation. Furthermore, it appears that the paragraph was copied wholesale from a site, as it reads like a talking point. One of our goals is to be concise. My edit is aimed at that. Trilemma (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE says our goal is not to be concise, especially on such high profile issues. Where is the paragraph copied from? AzureFury (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to track down where it's copied from; either the editor who initially added it has no clue about sentence construction, or was copying verbatim from talking points. And, the secondary wiretapping measure is not a high profile issue. Please prove that it is. Do you have significant coverage on major news networks or newspapers? This is an issue dominant on the left-wing netroots, not the mainstream news, and it's receiving undue weight. Trilemma (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Waste Transportation

I removed the comment about his comment regarding Nuclear Waste Transportation for a few reasons. One the source is The Sierra Club, which should not qualify as a RS. They are a very biased extremist group and in no way could be considered to be neutral. Additionally, if you go and actually listen to the video, the connection that the Sierra Club makes regarding the question is marginal at best. It appears that McCain is not even answering the question which the reporter appears to be asking. The reporter as if he would be comfortable with nuclear waste be transported through Arizona, through Pheonix, to which he replies "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe, and again, we have two options here...." , but the way it cuts back to McCain it appears almost like he is answering a different question, I suspect the video may have been edited. In any case, The Sierra Club doing OR on a YouTube video is no better than some random editor doing the same thing. Thus this fails WP:RS WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Additionally, The Sierra Club is actively campainging against McCain. Arzel (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To call the Sierra Club "extremist" in the context of WP:RS is ludicrous. Neutrality of a source isn't required. In any event, the Sierra Club statement links to a video of McCain making the comment. If you think that was an actor portraying McCain, provide some evidence. Your personal suspicion that the video was edited is irrelevant for this purpose. I don't understand your interpretation of the video, but if some prominent spokesperson has articulated that interpretation, or has argued that the video was edited, feel free to include that point, with a citation. Finally, to say that a prominent outside source is "doing OR" is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NOR.

Given that, AFAIK, there is no good-faith dispute whatsoever that McCain actually said this, the passage I wrote is perfectly acceptable. Nevertheless, in an attempt to avoid another edit war, I'll reword it to make it clear that this statement is advanced by the Sierra Club. I think that the McCain campaign responded by attacking Obama but not by denying the quotation. If so, perhaps we should include that as well, as it's additional evidence (by omission) that the quotation is accurate. (Of course, that elaboration would be unnecessary if we followed the sensible course of stating the fact about which there's no good-faith dispute.) JamesMLane t c 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement cannot be included per WP:WEIGHT. Do you have evidence that this statement was given coverage by many reliable sources? This article doesn't purport to present the answer to every question McCain has ever been asked, and cherry picking this one is undue weight. Oren0 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

James, I didn't say it was an actor, I said that it looks like the video was edited. Regardless, if YouTube cannont be used as a source, then why would the Sierra Club simply commenting on the YouTube video be a reliable source?...from the source you listed they didn't do any fact finding or clarrification of this issue, and the source of the video wasn't the station, just some guy that uploaded it to the internet. Additionally, Verifiability and Neutrality go hand and hand. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean is passes neutrality. I've noticed that you have done this a few times now, presenting a fact from a biased source without attribuation. Finally, do you even know what question he supposedly answered? The reporter asked first about Arizona and then Phoneix, but review of the video indicates that McCain would have to be referring to the second question, but even then his answer doesn't make sense "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe..." What can be made safe? Transportation of NW?...If it can why would he say no? Transportation in general to Yucca Mountain?...That makes more sense, but it is not clear. I think if you can get past your admitted right-wing bias, you will see that this fails on a number of levels. Arzel (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sierra Club press release was picked up by some general media sources, such as YubaNet.com ([6]) and The Daily Kenoshan ([7]); by environment-oriented sources, including a political reporter for Grist ([8]) and a writer for Treehugger, another environmental website ([9]); by WisPolitics.com ([10]), which appears to be a neutral site devoted to political news; and by some Democratic Party sites, such as in Ohio ([11]) and the National Jewish Democratic Council ([12]). Without specific reference to the Sierra Club press release, the Obama campaign included the McCain clip in an ad, which was covered by CBS News ([13]) in a story that included a link to the clip, so if you think there's a conspiracy afoot to edit the tape so as to make McCain look stupid, you'd have to think that CBS is in on it, too. JamesMLane t c 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're still not addressing the core issue, which is due weight. The fact that you're pointing to Yubanet and The Daily Kenoshan as sources that "picked up" this story indicates to me that it was likely not widely reported (I also believe this because I've never heard of this until now). Unless you can demonstrate that this was reported in the mainsteam media (not by partisan groups, small town newspapers, and blogs) then it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT and therefore doesn't merit inclusion imo. Oren0 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now added links to CBS News and The New York Times. There was an AP story that was published by, among others, Forbes ([14]), the Houston Chronicle ([15]), Salon ([16]), and that well-known bastion of left-wing extremism, Fox News ([17]). If I were to keep Googling I'm sure I could give you plenty more such sources. JamesMLane t c 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A transcript of an Obama ad in and of itself lends no additional weight to the underlying quote as a McCain policy. The question isn't who reported Obama's ad, the question is who reported the original quote, specifically as a relevant position of McCain. Oren0 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of no basis in Wikipedia policy for such a restriction. The purpose of the article is to provide information to readers who want to know about McCain's political positions. Presumably, some of his positions are on subjects of such limited interest that there'd be no point in including them here. This topic, however, is now being widely reported, more so than many of the other positions elucidated in this article. JamesMLane t c 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The basis is the core policies of WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and common sense. The sources you've provided only show that Obama has attacked McCain for a certain position. They don't show that anyone is reporting this as an important or relevant position of McCain. If indeed the topic "is being widely reported" as a defining/important/notable position of McCain then it would merit inclusion but I haven't seen any source claiming this. Oren0 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

These two quotes are from Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

WP:UNDUE says include. To say that the video is editted is WP:OR, and can not contribute to our decision of whether or not to include these statements. Accusations are trivially verifiable, so WP:VERIFY is not an issue here, only perhaps notability. Since the Obama campaign has also made these allegations, the comments are indeed notable. They should be included. AzureFury (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed that the video was edited. And to say that any accusation made in a campaign ad instantly becomes a notable position of the other party is ludicrous. I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page? Of course not. Notability must be demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which the McCain quote has not gotten. Oren0 (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I stated that the video appeared to be edited. In anycase Verfiability and Neutrality go hand in hand. Just because some can be verified does not mean that it passes neutrality. This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral, not to mention a whole host of other problems like weight and the fact that the whole basis is a YouTube video which is not a reliable source. The fact that Obama and others are using the video to attack McCain does not make the video a reliable source per common sense. Arzel (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You like to answer your own questions don't you? Again, there is a difference between the present situation and your wanna-be analogy. In this case we have solid proof of McCain making these statements. If you don't dispute the accuracy of the video then we don't need attribution to the Sierra Club or Obama campaign. Regarding notability, perhaps you missed the two paragraphs by James listing source after source? AzureFury (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, does McCain dispute the accuracy of the video? Unless he does then your claim that the video is editted is baseless. See above for my refutation of weight issues. WP:PRESERVE says that WP:NPOV does not justify deletion of facts that are fairly weighted. AzureFury (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When the scale is tipped so far over that one end is resting on the ground, I would hardly consider that to be fairly weighted. Neutrality is a core policy, and trumps preserve with minority views. You have one marginal source which is simply parroting a YouTube video, and Obama using it to attack McCain, and you want to use it to state an official McCain position? As I stated earlier McCain's answer was not clear. If you listen to the video it his position can only be obtained by interpreting what he is saying. The Obama camp and The Sierra Club are doing the same thing. If you can not see the partisan bias in this then I don't know what else to tell you. Even if one does not dispute the video, the video itself cannot be used because it is not a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is youtube not a reliable source? If videos are satisfactory to sentence someone to death, then they are satisfactory to quote someone.

"Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Phoenix on its way to Yucca Mountain?"

"No I would not." - McCain

Explain to me a contrary interpretation derived from that quote. If need be we can quote him directly. AzureFury (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) "Source after source?" Every source I see above is one or more of: inherently partisan (democratic party, Sierra Club, etc), an op-ed (not RS, see Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations), or only reporting a transcript of an Obama ad (lends no weight to this being a position of McCain). Oren0 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability, No Original Research and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections

Notability does not apply here. AzureFury (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just Wikilawyering. I'm using the dictionary definition of notability rather than the Wikipedia one. This page can't list everything McCain has ever said. Therefore, we choose the most notable (read: most covered by reliable sources) positions to list here. There has been no evidence that this quote has been covered in reliable sources at all (making WP:V an additional concern), much less covered enough to warrant mention here. Even if it had been covered, it's still unclear that this is a position. If it was demonstrated that this comment demonstrated significant controversy, keeping in mind that this hasn't been demonstrated yet, it would be a better fit at Cultural and political image of John McCain because it's not a position. Oren0 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is more appropriate in Wikipedia than Lawyerlawyering. You say only thing covered in objective (? I assume this is what you mean by reliable) sources is worth mentioning. I say it isn't. You say this isn't one of his most notable positions. I say it's more important than his position on transportation. You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it. You say it's not a position. I say it is. We use Wiki policies when we can't agree. Welp, we can't agree. AzureFury (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When I say "objective," I mean not the democratic party, Obama's ads, partisan groups, etc. You say it's important; our opinions don't matter. If it was important (not his policy on nuclear energy in general, his policy on waste in Arizona specifically), you'd think that it would be mentioned often in reliable sources. As it stands, not one source meeting WP:RS has been presented for this. Let's contrast that with transportation; the current page lists three sources (and I could certainly present dozens more). That's how we measure importance, and for this issue the sources objectively don't stack up. Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it." - No, that's not how it works. There is no reason to include it as it wasn't reported in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is "ya huh." AzureFury (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The pretexts for trying to censor this information are becoming very threadbare.

• Oren0 wrote, "I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page?" That depends on two specific issues involved, importance and verifiability:

Importance. If McCain makes a big deal about an issue, that fact would indeed affect its importance. A McCain attack might justify including something on Obama's page that otherwise would be too minor. Each campaign has some ability to set the agenda and to influence what's important.

Verifiability. Here's the clear difference between the two cases. The question is whether there's a good-faith dispute about what the candidate's position is. In the case you mention, there is a dispute. The Obama campaign has released a video setting forth why the McCain ad is a lie. You can watch it here. You'll see that the Obama campaign has specifically and in great detail disputed the accuracy of McCain's characterization of Obama's position. Therefore, we would not report McCain's characterization as if it were fact. By contrast, as I pointed out above, the McCain campaign has not denied that McCain made the statements attributed to him by the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign. And it's not because McCain's staffers have been too busy hunting for good pictures of Britney Spears and so haven't had time to respond to the Obama ad -- the McCain campaign did respond to the ad, going negative on Obama as per usual and distorting his record as per usual, but didn't dispute the accuracy of the video clip or of the quotation. The revised passage I wrote for our article includes the McCain campaign's response, cited to this article, although my edit charitably avoids pointing out that the McCain response was itself a distortion of Obama's position.

• It was Arzel who suggested, entirely without evidence, that the video might have been edited. I think we're entitled to assume that CBS wouldn't have linked to it without checking that. I think we're entitled to further assume that, if it had been edited, the McCain campaign would have jumped to point that out, instead of (as noted immediately above) responding to the Obama ad without disputing the accuracy of the clip.
• For these reasons, Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling. We have well-known organizations asserting that McCain said it. We have a video of McCain saying it. We have CBS News using the video, strongly suggesting that it hasn't been tinkered with. We have the Obama campaign using the video in an ad and the McCain campaign responding to the ad without contesting the accuracy of the quotation. No reasonable person could doubt that McCain actually said this. What kind of verifiability do you think is needed?
• Oren0 says there's no source claiming that this is an important position of McCain's. So what? We need a source for the point that McCain actually said it. We do not need any kind of outside source saying, in effect, "McCain's position on transportation of nuclear waste is important enough to be covered in Wikipedia." That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article.
• Arzel writes, "This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral...." That's not the standard set by NPOV. We write neutrally. That the facts could be used or are being used in a partisan attack doesn't mean that we have to omit those facts. For example, McCain favors offshore drilling, Obama opposes it, and both those facts are being used in partisan attacks over the issue. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't say "McCain favors offshore drilling and tries to bamboozle the voters into thinking that would reduce gas prices anytime soon" or "Obama opposes offshore drilling and therefore cripples the goal of achieving American energy independence". Nevertheless, the existence of these partisan attacks doesn't mean that we omit the issue from Wikipedia. It means that we simply state the facts, maintaining a neutral tone, and let the chips fall where they may.
• Moreover, the attack on the neutrality of McCain's critics is completely beside the point. It would arguably be relevant if there were a good-faith dispute about what McCain actually said (for example, at some unrecorded closed-door meeting), but there is no such dispute. Nevertheless, in an effort to reach a compromise, I treated this subject as if someone had raised some serious question about the tape being edited or about McCain's comments needing interpretation. I reworded the passage to say that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign had "charged" that McCain said what he said. That's a considerable concession because it will lead some careless readers to think that this indisputable fact may be in dispute. At any rate, the revised wording should dispose of this spurious "neutrality" argument. WP:NPOV says that we can, indeed should, report facts about opinions. It's a fact, supported by citations, that the named sources hold the opinion that McCain said this. If some prominent spokesperson expresses the opinion that McCain didn't say it, we should of course report that too. I've read quite a bit about this issue by now, though, and the only such comment that I've seen is Arzel's.

I surely hope we don't have to go to RfC over this. It seems absurd that we have to spend this much effort to get a simple, straightforward, undisputed fact into Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems that RfC is where this is going. It's hard to argue with such fundamental misunderstandings of policy.

• "Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling." - Wikipedia isn't about what's true. It's about what is verifiable and attributable to reliable sources. This is neither.
• "Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is 'ya huh.'" - What are you talking about? Reliable sources are needed to report anything. This is especially true in a WP:BLP page such as this one. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
• "That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article." - Maybe it's clear to you. Maybe if you'd link some of this mysterious "coverage" I'd tend to agree with you. As it stands, you haven't shown one reliable source discussing this quote directly. Assuming we were starting with something attributable (which hasn't been demonstrated yet), it'd still have to be covered in multiple sources to make the cut here, where we're boiling hundreds of statements on an issue down to three sentence paragraphs. You claim, with no evidence to back it up, that this is significant in any way. In order to make that claim, you need sources. I feel like a broken record here, but without attributable and reliable sources this just can't be added. Oren0 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain said it. Are you saying McCain is not a reliable source on quotes by McCain? Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance. AzureFury (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The point about verifiability is that we have a clip of McCain saying it, plus multiple sources saying he said it, plus no source whatsoever denying that he said it or even raising a serious question. That satisfies WP:V. It's not like I'm claiming I was in an elevator with McCain and heard him say it. The sources we rely on are all available to anyone with web access. Beyond that, though, the compromise wording states that certain anti-McCain sources have "charged" that he said it. That's a fact about opinions and it's clearly verifiable. A reader may conclude that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign are all lying through their teeth. Well, we've given the verifiable facts that will let each reader make that judgment for him/herself.

Yes, reliable sources are needed "to report anything", meaning that there must be a reliable source for each factual assertion in the article. The policy does not mean that there must be a reliable source for the correctness of the editorial judgment we exercise. I don't think I've seen a single item in this article backed up by a reliable source saying "This is important enough to be in the Wikipedia article." To take another example, there's also no reliable source saying that it's correct to begin the article with McCain's self-serving defense against the charge that he's a flip-flopping panderer. I have doubts about whether that's appropriate, but that's a matter of judgment, not of sourcing. It's obvious that WP:RS is met by the source confirming that he said it. I would never attack that paragraph by demanding a reliable source for the proposition that what he said should begin our article. I'm confident that no such source could be provided. That's not an argument for deleting the paragraph, though. (edit conflict: While I was writing the long explanation in this paragraph, AzureFury wrote, "Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance." I agree.)

I take you to be conceding that there's extensive coverage about McCain and the transport of nuclear waste. Nevertheless, you're discounting all that coverage simply because it was prompted by the Obama ad. That's a completely artificial distinction. Obviously, this position of McCain's has become more important because Obama has jumped on it. That's why McCain's remark about transporting waste through Arizona can now be found at the websites of Forbes, Fox News, The New York Times, and the like, although two months ago it couldn't be. So what? The importance of things changes as the campaign develops. It's like Terri Schiavo -- Wikipedia doesn't cover every decision to take an individual patient off life support, but the Republicans in Congress made a lot of noise about that case, so it's extensively covered here. JamesMLane t c 04:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain Iran comment, part II

Azurefury, we had a vote. We settled that the comment was not worth including. You then persisted with attempts at fitting it in with alternative phrasings. That doesn't work. The issue has been decided. Continuing to push something that a roll call determined to be not worth including is close to vandalism. Trilemma (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you're in a time warp. More than a month ago, there was an RfC. A majority of the respondents (not a consensus, contrary to your incessantly reiterated assertion) opposed the version that quoted verbatim what McCain said.

That didn't end the matter, though. On Wikipedia, nothing like this is cast in stone even when there is a consensus, but here there wasn't. Therefore, editors working in good faith to improve the article moved on from the RfC to discuss alternatives that might reach or at least approach consensus. The result was a compromise version that was much shorter, that did not quote the comment (which would be my preference and the preference of several other editors) but instead merely referred to its existence, and which also gave McCain's take on what he had in mind.

You appear to be the only active editor who disagrees with this compromise. Note the comments in the earlier thread by Jaysweet and Blaxthos, both of whom opposed the original version but didn't think that the RfC somehow barred this compromise. Under these circumstances, for you to keep reverting, with an ES like "please either seek arbitration or leave the consensus be", has reached the point of being disruptive.

You've been told before that ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes. I restored the compromise language, and if you think that I'm the one who's being disruptive, then that accusation against me (a conduct issue) is the type that ArbCom will hear. You can begin a proceeding against me if you choose. ArbCom will then examine the conduct of all the involved editors. JamesMLane t c 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the previous discussion I think it is clear that it does not belong in this article. It is not a stated position and only conjecture can come to that conclusion. Furthermore is it purely a partisan issue, and any inclusion would be undue weight as it only serves to obfuscate McCain's position on Iran. It is not the job of this article to interpret McCain's positions on anything, only to summarize what those positions are in a neutral manner. To introduce phrasing which would attempt to define McCain's position on anything would be original research and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the conclusion we reached. So far as I can tell, two editors are persisting in the face of the decided verdict, trying to insert something that is clearly not worthy of inclusion. And James, I don't need to accuse you of disruptive edits, as your user page declares your status as a POV warrior: "Biased against the right wing and the parapsychology/quackery mindset."Trilemma (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, it is clear to you that it doesn't belong. It is clear to me that it should be quoted in full. Neither of us gets to impose our unilateral vision, however clear.

Yes, but my vision is based upon WP policies of OR and Undue Weight, which trump any vision. Arzel (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are not self-executing. Our governance method is that the editors working on a particular article try to determine how the policies apply to particular issues. Our governance method is not that one editor can proclaim his or her view to be based upon policies, at which point all other editors must yield to The Wisdom Of Arzel. I believe that the omission of this widely publicized incident would constitute a whitewashing of McCain, trying to help him by censoring facts that make him look bad, and would therefore violate the NPOV policy. The NPOV policy trumps your individual vision.

You see how that works? I can't shut you up just by invoking a policy. My own interpretation of the policy isn't entitled to automatic deference any more than yours is. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you just keep on saying things like "the decided verdict". You completely ignored what I wrote on that subject, so I won't bother repeating it. As for my discussion of my biases on my user page, you're hardly the first right-wing POV warrior to completely misinterpret it. That your characterization is false is quite obvious to anyone who reads my page. JamesMLane t c 19:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Namecalling really isn't helpful. Just because you proudly pronounce yourself biased doesn't mean that other editors would be flattered to be called POV warriors. Oren0 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an initial assumption, not a lifelong guarantee. I've seen enough of Trilemma's edits that I'm comfortable with my characterization of them. There's a huge difference between having (and admitting) a bias, on the one hand, and editing as a POV warrior to push your bias in violation of Wikipedia's policies, on the other hand. I'm in the former category but not the latter. I'm sorry if I didn't make that distinction clear.

Also, I do not "proudly" pronounce my bias. Maybe "resignedly" would be a better word; I'm recognizing that non one (including myself) is completely impartial. Part of my amusement at the comments elicited by my user page is the recurrent suggestion from right-wingers that, because I have opinions, I shouldn't edit political articles. Their implicit assertion is that as long as they don't admit to a bias, they don't have any. I don't accept that logic. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor whose only contributions to this page are substantial contentious deletions is in no position to comment on bias. Needless to say, I agree with everything James has said. Most people who cared enough to check back on the page to see the result of the RfC were satisfied with the compromise. The quote is not included. Inclusion of a reference does not conflict with the survey done previously. AzureFury (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

James, just because I have gone to the trouble of trying to restore neutrality in the face of your continued POV warriorism (per the doctrine you lay out on your user page) doesn't mean that I am a POV warrior. I realize that a common technique of POV warriors is to declare anyone not sharing their philosophy of simply being a POV warrior on the other end of the political spectrum, but that's not going to fly here. From your contentious, partisan editing, to your unsubstantiated slander, to your restoration of a line we had clearly established, through a roll call, that doesn't belong, you are close to being reported to wikiquette or elsewhere. We established the line doesn't go in. Two editors' persistence does NOT circumvent the clear majority opinion. Trilemma (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, I have already corrected Oren0 on this point -- see the latter part of this edit. Your assertion that I lay out a doctrine of continued POV warriorism does not accurately characterize my user page. Please do not continue repeating this false statement. You are, of course, free to hold whatever opinion you like of my edits, as I am free to evaluate yours. On that score, I would love it if you would report this in some fashion that would bring in more uninvolved editors to comment on my conduct and on yours. (I'm not familiar with this idea of reporting "to wikiquette" but if you can find a place to make such a report, go for it -- you have my blessing.) I would also love it if editors familiar with Wikipedia practices would comment to both of us on your assertion that a majority vote in one particular survey "established" that a line wouldn't go in and thereby also "established" that it couldn't even be mentioned, let alone included, and "established" these points in perpetuity. You adhere strongly to that interpretation and reiterate it at every opportunity. I believe that that interpretation is indefensible. One of us is greatly in need of enlightenment. JamesMLane t c 14:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a lot more than two editors and you know it. Every editor except you still discussing it was satisfied. AzureFury (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "aap-08" :
  • {{cite book | title = ''Almanac of American Politics (2008)'' | author = Barone, Michael and Cohen, Richard | publisher = National Journal | date=2008 | page = 95}}
  • {{cite book | title =[[The Almanac of American Politics]] | edition=2008 | last=Barone | first=Michael | authorlink=Michael Barone (pundit) | coauthors=[[Richard E. Cohen|Cohen, Richard E.]] | publisher = [[National Journal]] |location= Washington, D.C. | year=2007 |isbn=0-8923-4117-3}} pp. 95–100.
• "Sweeney" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney}}
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney|publisher=''[[The San Diego Union-Tribune]]''|date=2006-09-11|accessdate=2008-07-01}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed up. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth Control

Ok, so I noticed that someone added:

McCain's pro-life position on abortion, his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade[214], and his position that human life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized has raised concerns[215] that McCain would seek to outlaw the pill and other forms of birth control considered to be abortifacients.

Now, this claim links back to an opinion piece in Time which argues that McCain's certainty on the abortion issue might lead to problems of logical consistency since the BCP might prevent implantation. Nowhere is there a claim that McCain himself believes this; no where is the claim that McCain actually plans to seek outlawing the BCP. The op-ed's claim is that it might create an issue of logical consistency and the dangers of being too blunt in your answers. Thus, I propose that the section either be removed or changed to indicate that no one has actually voiced said concerns, just theoretical comments about potential implications of a position. JEB90 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should stick to things McCain has said. Theoretical extrapolations of what those things might mean if taken to the utmost point of philosophical consistency are pointless; no politician tries to do that, except maybe some hard-core libertarians. The sentence in question should be removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The preceding sentences imply this already. One op-ed is not enough to include as a criticism of McCain's policies. Maybe if a notable democrat says this, we can include it, but until then, the implication is sufficient, I think. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It would still be irrelevant even if a Democrat said the same thing as the Time piece. The point is, politicians don't do "logical consistency". They happily hold opposite and contradictory positions regarding trade with Cuba and China, to pick a well-known example. If McCain says he wants to outlaw X, then report it here. But don't extrapolate outlawing X from positions A and B. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the WP:SYNTH policy, thanks for explaining that. Quoting someone making the interpretation is not a violation of SYNTH. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the thing here, at least to some degree, is that the op-ed doesn't even claim that he does believe it. Just that his views, if taken to an extreme, might someday lead to it. I think that if a notable democrat (or even a notable op-ed writer) claimed that McCain believed these things, it might be worth quoting. JEB90 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article on the pill and abortifacients leads me to believe calling the pill an abortifacients requires citation. It can only be said that some people consider the pill an abortifacient. I'll go along with the change by JEB until better sources are found. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Conscription"

Isn't it more common to call this the "Draft."? That's what people are going to be looking for (it's what I was looking for just a few minutes ago). Maybe we should change the section name? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Either/or. Note that I've removed most of the section because it doesn't come close to meeting WP:RS (neither a partisan blog nor youtube comes even close to qualifying). As with previous sections, you need reliable sources to demonstrate that these comments have WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, you're just cherrypicking quotes that fit your POV. Oren0 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not debating this with you again. When we have a video of McCain saying it, then it goes in. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should reread the relevant policies. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Especially in a WP:BLP page, we specifically cannot include material that is unpublished in reliable sources. This is doubly true as significant editor consensus has ruled that YouTube is explicity disallowed as a reliable source unless confirmed by other reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The one relevant "policy" you've given is an essay. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to the last paragraph in this section. Why is that persons question notable when it is not even logical? How would the draft even solve the problems that this person was stating? Furthermore it doesn't flow well, it is just hanging out there without any context for why this particular question was important. I would say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information would cover this. Arzel (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Some editors don't seem to grasp the idea that these pages simply cannot list everything the candidates ever say. Nor can they list only quotes cherrypicked by editors to push their POV. These pages must list the relevant major positions based on coverage in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to delete everything except "how do we get Bin Laden without re-instating the draft?" that would be fine with me. I think the reason it's included is to show that the lady was rambling and McCain sweepingly agreed with everything. Some people take this as an edorsement of the draft and some do not. We leave it to the reader to decided. Having her rambling question is supportive of McCain. I don't think you want to delete it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're presenting a false dichotomy. The question isn't "should we include the whole question or just part of the question?" The question is "Is there any evidence that this question is significant enough to be mentioned at all?" To me, the answer is clearly no. Oren0 (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Huge surprise there. To me, the answer is clearly yes. Equally surprising, right? The lead to the section states that McCain's responses have always been ambiguous, thus we take what few quotes we can get. He's given two that liberals think are important. The "I don't disagree" comment was only 4 days ago and it's already overflowing in google hits. Include quotes that conservatives think are important. Include something from his website, I'm sure he's denied he would ever issue a draft there. But don't delete these trivially verifiable facts that are so wildly popular. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If indeed it's "overflowing in Google hits" and they meet WP:RS (ie, not blogs or youtube as you've currently listed and not op-eds either) then cite those and you won't hear any complaints from me. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to argue that a candidate's position on the draft is not a major issue. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'm sure there's a "draft" section on the candidates' websites then. I'm sure lots of sources have covered this. What's a major issue has nothing to do with what you and I think, it has to do with what is covered in sources. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that I or AzureFury have covered up quotes where McCain has unequivocally opposed the draft, feel free to add them. Otherwise your claim of "cherrypicking" is baseless. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)