Talk:John McCain

McCain's Office Response to Vietnam Issue - Do Not Archive

NOTE: I'm moving this up here since this *is* the source. Please respect the sourcing and do not archive this if the time comes where this talk page is archived. --badlydrawnjeff 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed McCain's Senate office for clarification. Until this is resolved we should leave the contradiction tag up there... Here is the full text of the email I sent:

Greetings, I am trying to validate information concerning Senator McCain that is presented in the Senator's article in Wikipedia, the prominent online encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain). There are two conflicting paragraphs in the article concerning Senator McCain's service in Vietnam. I am hoping you can assist me in correcting this problem. Could you read the contradictory paragraphs (included below) and let me know via email which version of the facts is accurate? Here are the two paragraphs in question:

<snip>

If you have time, I would appreciate it if someone in your office could review the rest of the article for accuracy and bias as well. This information is read by millions of people, and I'd love to make certain that it's correct. Again, the article is located at: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain) Killdevil 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

From Senator McCain's Office:"Thank you for taking the time to get your facts right! Both paragraphs have some truth to them.

McCain was first assigned to the USS Forrestal. He was in the cockpit of an A-4E Skyhawk on the deck of the Forrestal that was hit by an F-4 Zuni rocket to start the Forrestal fire on July 29, 1967.

He served with the Saints following the Forrestal incident. They were short on men after the Oriskany fire, and he volunteered to go serve there. It was not long after moving to the Saints on the Oriskany that he was shot down in Vietnam, on October 26, 1967.

So, while it would seem he would be in two places at once, he was just moving around. But to be clear, he was only in one of the fires, aboard the Forrestal. He came to the Oriskany after its fire. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.

Regards,

<removed name>

Executive Assistant

Office of Senator John McCain

241 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

<removed phone>

Based on this, and pending confirmation from third-party published sources, I have added "just before McCain's arrival" to the info on the Oriskany accident. -- Satori Son 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

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

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick [ 19:35, 19 July 2007 Zanimum ]

Election date

IT'S UNACCEPTABLE THAT IT SAYS "ELECTION DATE" UNDERNEATH MCCAIN'S BIO PICTURE. HE HAS NOT BEEN ELECTED AND, WHEN BROWSING THE PAGE OF OBAMA, THE SAME LANGUAGE IS NOT USED. "ELECTION DATE" APPEARS TO BE A BIASED STATEMENT, PERHAPS WISHFUL THINKING ON SOMEONE'S PART. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.134.65 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong words from someone unwilling to sign their post.Ratherthanlater (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lobbyist

An editor seems determined to insert a statement into the infobox that McCain was a lobbyist. This is wrong. McCain did many different things while he was in the Navy, and one of them was to serve as Navy liaison to the Senate. Another was serving as a trainee before combat duty, and then serving as a trainer after combat duty, and also serving as a POW during combat duty. There is no reason to list one but not other of those naval activities in the info box. Moreover, the liaison position required McCain to perform many functions having nothing to do with lobbying, such as providing constituent services and facilitating communication between legislators and DoD.[1] So, I'll revert the recent addition of "lobbyist" to the infobox.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the U.S. government's definition of lobbyist. I don't think it includes a government employee who discusses his department with Congressmen. Coemgenus 01:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Short paragraphs

The article has a lot of (what seem to me) short paragraphs. Is this intentional, or an accidental by-product of the winnowing-down process? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It has some short paragraphs and some long paragraphs, which I think is fine. We do need to stay away from one-sentence paragraphs, which are bad form, but aside from that there's not any Wikipedia guideline I know of that discourages short paragraphs.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, just checking, doesn't bother me. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes there’s nothing wrong with short paragraphs as long as they aren’t one sentence paragraphs. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

I don't see anything about who McCain has selected for VP. I thought I had heard it was Condoleezza Rice. That would make an interesting ticket, although no one thinks that Obama will pick Hillary (she said she would pick him) it would mean a black man and a white woman on one side and a white man and a black woman on the other. Oakwillow (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That kind of thing would eventually belong in the appropriate section of the separate Wikipedia article about his 2008 campaign. It's not there now, for a couple of possible reasons. First, there are 20 people on McCain's VP list, and focusing on Rice would be undue weight. Second, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, United States Republican vice presidential candidates, 2008 is the article for this kind of idle speculation. John_McCain_presidential_campaign, 2008 is the article for when real, verified veep activity occurs (rare). John McCain is the article for when he finally announces his veep pick. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WTR, I didn't know about that article. Shouldn't it be wikilinked from the McCain 2008 article?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It used to be ... musta got lost along the way ... I see you've now added it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickname

I think on his info box there should be a spot for his nickname (I'm pretty sure other people have those spots), and the nickname I've heard him called the most is the Straight Talker.

Dunnsworth (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

His family nickname growing up was "Johnny", which we state in Early life and military career of John McCain. While he certainly likes to use the Straight Talk image in his campaigns, it's not a nickname; I don't think anyone walks down the corridors of the Capitol, sees McCain, and yells out, "Hey Straight Talker, what time does the subcommittee hearing begin this afternoon?" Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I actually laughed out loud! --Happyme22 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I meant a nickname in the same sense as Abraham Lincoln being called the Great Emancipator Dunnsworth (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that is a common nickname. While he certainly uses Straight Talk Express/the "Straight Talk" motif/etc., I don't know (maybe I'm really that out of the loop) that I've ever heard him called "The Straight Talker". Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as Lincoln was the Great Emancipator and Reagan was the Great Communicator, I too have never heard McCain reffered to as the Strait Talker. Happyme22 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image placement

The Manual of Style says: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." So, I'll move pics accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Humpelschmumpel has reverted. What part of the MOS is violated by having the pics arranged like I had it? And please note that one of Wikipedia's leading experts on the MOS has already weighed in on this.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

ANGER and TEMPER

Not enough has been mentioned about Senator McCain's temper, even though many Republicans have spoken up about this issue. There is a new book coming out, and here is some information from that book:

[nasty word story elided]

See http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html.

The book is "The Real McCain" by Cliff Schecter. [elided] Cindy McCain has funded John McCain's lifestyle, as it is HER money. His comments were unforgivable. Mungemach (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and political image of John McCain is where McCain's temperment and temper are covered. Nowhere is where these very weakly sourced stories from the Schecter book are included.

Nonsense - everything in Schecter's book is documented, footnoted and sourced. This article is a disgrace from a neutrality perspective - it couldn't be any more pro-McCain if his campaign had written it themselves. Or did they? [18:26, 20 April 2008 68.183.79.169]

I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. But its objectivity is suspect to begin with from its subtitle: The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't. Not exactly neutral. I'm familiar with this type of book from working on the Hillary articles, where there's a whole cottage industry in books with similar subtitles, such as Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, and Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House. As reliable sources, they aren't worth anything.

Regarding the specific Schecter tale in question, it's not well sourced at all. It supposedly happened 16 years ago, witnessed by three reporters, yet none ever reported it in the years since. And even now, none of their reporters are willing to put their name to it; they all want anonymity. Reporters are supposed to put their names in front of their claims! That's their job. From a WP:RS perspective, this is junk. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And regarding your general "This article is a disgrace ..." comment, we need specific examples of what you think is wrong (other than this one Schecter tale). General allegations such as you make don't provide us with anything to go on. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea - we're all pawns of the John McCain campaign. I'm surprised it took you this long to figure it out! Paisan30 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm often accused of being on the Hillary campaign too. I want double pay!! Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish I were with the McCain campaign. Then maybe I'd get something out of all this wasted time on Wikipedia besides aggravation. Percocet and Vicodin are nothing compared to Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to place ...

-not sure where to place the following, McCain faces many challenges in the upcoming 2008 election. Aside from embracing the unpopular War in Iraq, McCain carres the weight of carrying the torch on an incumbent party, that is presiding over a sliding economy. Further complicating matters is McCains appointing of Mr. Harris, as his chief economic advisor. Harris who authored a 200 page addendum to an exisiting 1000 page bill, is responsible for introducing legislation that led to the deregulation that has led to the current mortgage crisis. While the motivation of the bill is unclear. An economic plan steered by someone whose policy has affected the middle class, may be viewed as either favoring wealth over middle class citizens, or a major error in policy. Both of which, will look bad in face of the nations current economic downturn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.66.47 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is your own opinion, nowhere. If this is a cited, notable opinion of lots of political observers, maybe in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the intention of wiki article to be timeless, is it appropriate to mention future challenges of a McCain candidacy? Maybe it is more appropriate to mention after the election that he won or loss because of a particular issue (if in fact his win or loss was viewed by noteworthy sources as having such an impact on the election results). It is me i think (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Both the campaign article referred to above, and the summary section of it in this article, will do some analysis of why he won or lost ("exit polls showed he captured a majority of independents and some blue-collar Democrats", or "outspent heavily both in television commercials and get-out-the-vote efforts, his campaign failed to be effective in key battleground states", or whatever). But to try to speculate as to what will happen ahead of time, not our role, and to quote others' speculations, well they're often wrong too. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Question on lack of citations at the beginning of article

There is virtually no citations for the introduction of this article. The rest of the article has substantial citations. Given the potential for disagreements and in the spirit of wikipedia through the creation of outstanding article, should more citations be added. Wanted to get input before I start adding citations. Please advise It is me i think (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Same answer as for Hillary's article. The style here is to only summarize material in the introduction, that's presented later in the body of the article and with citations there. Thus no need to have citations in the introduction. Many FA-level articles are done this way. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain took Keating apart

I disagree with this revert by WTR. The removed material is as follows:

“ Keating also asked McCain to block the investigation; McCain refused and threw Keating out of his office.[1] ”

[1]Jaffe, Harry. "John McCain, Senator Hothead", Washingtonian, (1997-02-01).

WTR's edit summary says: "source suspect, disagrees with bios, request less stark and no throwing out." So, I gather there is no disagreement that the cited source says what I said it says. Here are some further supporting references:

[2] "Testimony Shows Rift Of Senators", St. Louis Post Dispatch (1990-11-21): "In testimony Tuesday, McCain administrative assistant Chris Koch said his enraged boss threw Keating out of his office at a meeting on March 24, 1987."

[3] Anglen, Robert. "McCain: Message inspires new voters", Cincinnati Enquirer (2000-03-03): "I want to point out that I threw Keating out of my office."

[4] Gibbs, Nancy; Dickerson, John. "The Power and The Story", Time (1999-12-13): "When Keating asked for a favor and McCain resisted, Keating told another Senator that McCain was a wimp. The next time Keating appeared in McCain's office, the Senator took him apart. 'I did not serve 5 1/2 years in a POW camp to have my integrity questioned,' Koch recalls him saying.”

Ferrylodge (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My first objection was to the Washingtonian source — it's a collection of gossip items of uncertain provenance. The Time cite above is closest to what the Alexander, Timberg, and McCain memoirs all say — March 24 saw a confrontational meeting because of Keating having called McCain a wimp earlier. None of them say that he threw Keating out; they all say that Keating departed on his own, unhappy. Also, Keating wasn't exactly asking McCain to get the investigation of Lincoln S&L blocked ... that's too stark. It gets complicated, but Keating was asking that Lincoln be given a lenient judgment so that it could limit its high risk investments and get into the safe (back then, not now!) home mortgage business, thus allowing the business to survive (this is before the senators knew that Lincoln was under investigation for possibly criminal actions, not just heading to insolvency). And it's important to get the chrono right ... this meeting with Keating happened before the two meetings with Gray and the board, not after as our text had suggested. Anyway, I'm hoping to rewrite the subarticle section on this, to try to make it all clearer — not easy! But that's why I reverted what was there. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I'll be interested to see what you come up with. McCain, his administartive assistant Chris Koch, and the anti-McCain Harry Jaffe all say explicitly that McCain "threw out" keating. That doesn't necessarily mean that McCain physically touched Keating, but rather suggests that Keating was told emphatically to leave. Here are two more supporting references:

[5] Rasky, Susan. “Washington Talk; To Senator McCain, the Savings and Loan Affair Is Now a Personal Demon”, New York Times (1989-12-22): “When Mr. Keating asked Senator McCain to help him make a deal with savings and loan regulators to ease up on Lincoln, the request led to a thunderous argument between the two men outside the Senator's office on March 24, 1987, a week before the first of two meetings with the regulators.”

[6] “Excerpts From Counsel's Statement at Senate Ethics Hearing", New York Times (1990-11-16): “Following are excerpts from the opening statement by Robert S. Bennett, special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee…’Senator McCain's refusal to go along with Mr. Keating's agenda regarding the regulators caused Mr. Keating to call Senator McCain a wimp. Word of this remark reached Senator McCain through Senator DeConcini's office. As a result, when Senator McCain and Mr. Keating met on March 24, 1987 to discuss the upcoming meeting with Chairman Gray, they had a heated argument. . . . Mr. Keating left in an angry state. This argument ended Senator McCain's personal relationship with Charles Keating.’”

Anyway, I'll wait to see what you come up with. I only cited Jaffe's article because someone else had already inserted it into this Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Those two "supporting" references agree with what I'm reading, but note neither of them say Keating was thrown out physically or ordered to leave. Anyway, the real problem wasn't this detail, but that after all the arguing, McCain went to the board meetings anyway. That's what landed him in the soup. As for the Jaffe article, you should have just junked it; its value on its own as a WP:RS is near nil. Some of those items might be true, but you'd have to find the original newspaper or magazine or whatever reports that it's recycling, and use those directly. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it that you don't want to accept everything that McCain has said at face value.  :-)

Page 176 of Worth the Fighting For describes the end of this meeting, and in no way indicates he threw out or asked Keating to leave. If McCain made earlier statements to the contrary, they must have become inoperative, to use an old Nixon phrase. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, I'll wait and see what you come up with. This incident on March 24, 1987 seems important. There was a thunderous argument at McCain's office when McCain refused to go along with Keating's agenda, and that marked the end of their personal relationship. All of the reliable sources support that. But you're right that McCain still did go meet the regulators.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems too detailed to belong here. It should belong in the Keating Five article. Arnabdas (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain, 25 pages into his 46-page chapter on his role in the Keating Five:

I have risked deluging the reader with numbing details and regulatory arcana involved in the Lincoln story, which many may not understand any better than I do.

He ain't kiddin', this is definitely at the dull end of the scandal scale ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked this article's treatment of K5 slightly, but I'm not going to include the March 24 meeting. The basic sequence seems to be (Alexander pp 108-111): Keating wants McCain to argue his case before the regulators. McCain refuses. Keating calls McCain a wimp. They meet on March 24, get into heated argument, ends badly. McCain then changes his mind and meets twice with regulators. Why? That's the big question. Alexander says it's some combination of McCain and Keating having been good friends for a number of years, McCain thinking were legitimate concerns about the length of the inquiry into Lincoln (borne out by a letter from Arthur Young to this effect), and McCain thinking that if he was very careful about what he said at the meetings with the regulators, he'd be okay (wrong!). In the very short treatment that this article is giving K5, we can't say all this, and so I don't think the March 24 meeting warrants inclusion; regardless of what may have happened in it, McCain did go to meet with the regulators. I will include it in the House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999 subarticle, however, although I'm not going to try to rewrite the whole K5 section there (too much work that I wouldn't enjoy), just adjust it in places. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess this article's current treatment of Keating Five is adequate, at least based on what I know now. I've inserted the word "legal" with reference to the $112,000 because otherwsie the implication is that it was illegal.

I seem to recall that McCain flatly refused DeConcini's request that they fly to the west coast to meet the regulators, and instead met them in DC to avoid the appearance of pressuring the regulators. Also, I seem to recall that McCain insisted on not representing Keating's interests in that meeting, as opposed to merely trying to make sure that Keating was getting fair treatment (a somewhat fine distinction). But I guess this article can do without those details.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My GA Review for this article

The requirements for a Good Article are as follows:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

   (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

   (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

   • Remove all non-working (red) links
   • Is this statement needed in the Introduction? : "McCain's grandfather and father were the first pair of father/son Four-Star admirals in the United States Navy."
   • Specify that he was elected to U.S. Senate, not just a state senate.
   • Citation? : "As Forrestal headed for repairs, McCain volunteered for the USS Oriskany."
   • "...give him medical care and announced [should be announce] his capture.
   • "prisoner of war" should only be hyperlinked in the body the first time it appears
   • Only one period needed after Hensley & Co.
   • I suggest combining these two sentences so not so choppy: "McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980. McCain retired from the Navy on April 1, 1981, as a captain."
   • This introductory sentence to a section should be improved: "McCain set his sights on becoming a Congressman." When? Since when? Why?
   • "...real estate developer (and future Arizona governor) Fife Symington III"
   • Not in chronological order: "He won re-election to the House easily in 1984. In 1983 McCain opposed...."
   • Remove potential POV word "handily"
   • Move period inside quotation marks: "...American remains alive in captivity in Southeast Asia".
   • May need to elaborate on "big money"
   • Remove sentence "McCain has long had a reputation as a maverick." He talks about him as a maverick in the subsequent paragraph (and more accurately) and has no value or relevancy beginning this paragraph.
   • Correct: "US [U.S.] Army Field Manual on Interrogation"
   • Remove potential POV "extensive" in "extensive fundraising abilities" — I actually worry about the entire statement, since the next paragraph says "McCain had fundraising problems in the first half of 2007"
   • Italicize "Straight Talk Express"
   • Briefly explain why: "...reported on McCain's connection with a lobbyist in 2000; the Times came under significant criticism for the report."
   • Briefly explain (re-state) why he can even run: "If he wins the presidency, John McCain’s birth (in Panama) would be the first presidential birth outside the current 50 states."
   • Article says "A number of organizations have attempted to scientifically measure..." but then only shares one measure—modification needed. Maybe just say, "For example..." Period also needed at end of paragraph.
   • Citation? "He favors private Social Security accounts, and opposes an expanded government role in health care. McCain also supports school vouchers, capital punishment, mandatory sentencing, and welfare reform."
   • In-text citation out of place? "This image includes [188]..."

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

   (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

   • Yes

   (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and

   • Yes

   (c) contains no original research.

   • Yes

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

   • Yes

   (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and

   • Yes

   (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

   • For the most part

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

   • For the most part

5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

   • Some recent heated discussions but appear to be constructive

6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. In this respect:

   (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

   • Article has 16 images, which all abide by respective copyright marks.

   (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • Placing an image to the left of a header ("McCain at Annapolis"), a list, or the Table of Contents is frowned upon. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images.
   • Explain what "McCain's Voting Scores" is supposed to illustrate briefly in caption
   • I think the "John McCain Gallup Poll Ratings" figure is too small. Perhaps just link to it?

In conclusion, with the article as it now stands, I will put it on hold for 1 week until the above issues are addressed. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. We'll be trying to address all of these concerns.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther King

Info about McCain's opposition to the 1983 King holiday was recently inserted into this article. I may support inclusion of this info, but not the way it's been presented.

The user Ronjohn seems to be in a habit of making edits without edit summaries. "It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field…as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page."[2] Additionally, this article uses footnotes rather than external jumps as Ronjohn used.

Regarding this particular edit, the article now says: "In 1983 McCain opposed creating a federal holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. The House vote was 338-90 and President Reagan signed the bill into law later that year." This seems to be the only one of McCain's House votes that is now mentioned by this article. Was this his most significant vote? Also, this article now mentions nothing about his subsequent change of position, such as his later support for an MLK holiday in Arizona. Thus, we have an undue weight problem. I will revert the edit for the time being, until this is resolved.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain public statement about his voting against the MLK Holiday "We can be slow as well to give greatness its due, a mistake I made myself long ago when I voted against a federal holiday in memory of D. King. I was wrong and eventually realised that, in time to give full support for a state holiday in Arizona." according to the UK Independent UK Independent article]. I think it would be most appropriate to include at least a reference to McCain's own the statement confirming his vote against the amendment and possible link to the actual vote (if someone could find that). It is me i think (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How about the fact that McCain was a prime mover behind the effort to get Arizona to recognize MLK day? Shouldn't that be included too? Since his statements and actions on this issue are spread over a great many years, I would think that the "Political positions" section would be the most appropriate place to put this stuff, although maybe it would be sufficient to cover it in the "Political positions" article and not in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have misread your comment "It is me i think."Ferrylodge (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this is already covered in House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not covered in Political positions of John McCain. I think it should be, including his recent speech in Memphis regretting not having supported the holiday in 1983.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain's statements about this matter during his presidential campaigns don't reflect very well upon him — they are at variance with what he said at the time in the 1980s and early 1990s, and indicate a baffling past ignorance of MLK's importance (regardless of the holiday issue per se). As I tried to show in the House and Senate article, this was a bigger issue in Arizona than anywhere else, and his "conversion" in 1989 was more forced and grudging than he now might acknowledge. What I need however is a better source for his position during 1992, when it was both a ballot initiative and he was running against ex-Gov Mecham, the leader of the anti-MLK-holiday movement. I don't know how enthusiastically or on what grounds he supported the initiative. Oh for the Arizona Republic archives to be fully accessible ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Ronjohn has reinserted the MLK material exactly as he did before, without addressing any of the concerns expressed in this section, and evidently without even reading this section. The first time around, my edit summary said: "Please see talk page. We may include info about MLK Day in this article, but I hope not this way." Would others please suggest what might be the best way to proceed here? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon. It appears that SarcasticIdealist addressed this issue following RonJohn's most recent edit.[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with what we have now. Votes against it in House in 1983, gives a loving quote about it in 2008 in the next sentence. There's a lot of history in between those two points that's being skipped. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, there's a lot of history here, and rather than chronologically sprinkling this article with MLK from beginning to end, it would be best to deal with this (if at all) in the political positions section where it can all be covered at once.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I SAID BEFORE THIS IS FACTUAL INFORMATION!!! I didn't make it up. You could've just moved it instead of deleting it. I HATE PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT USE WIKI. You have your on agenda and idealogy that you want everyone to believe. FACTS ARE FACTS!!! Wikis is for facts not one way thinking!! I'll repost it but I'll move it to positions!! DO NOT DELETE If you delete I will report as vandalism. [07:25, 19 April 2008 Ronjohn]

Ronjohn, have you looked at House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999 yet? The MLK holiday issue is mentioned there in three difference places. And fix that CapsLock key on your computer. And read WP:CIVIL. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Items that need work per GA Review

Let's strikethrough and/or comment upon these items here, as they are addressed:

• Remove pertinent non-working (red) links / Remove all non-working (red) links

  Not applicable... not a Good Article criteria. the only red links in the article currently are: 5 people: Claire Sargent, Ed Ranger, William Hegerty, Harry Braun, Jonathan Shay, 3 publishers" Millbrook Press, Lexington Books, PoliPoint Press, and 1 publication: Irish America. Red links can be helpful for new articles to be created. --Ali'i 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Current policy states as follows: "Only make links that are relevant to the context. Do not create links for subsidiary topics that result in red links (links that go nowhere) to articles that will never be created, such as the titles of book chapters. Do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that need to be explained, or topics which should obviously have articles. Keep in mind there are various notability guidelines (WP:NOTABILITY), which exist for a number of subjects, including people (WP:BIO). These guidelines give helpful pointers on what subjects are appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia." Considering this policy, I agree to refine my suggestion; i.e., to remove all pertinent non-working links—some can stay, but please provide justification. I doubt all of the current red links would be notable of an independent article. I believe this would fit under GA Guideline 1b. Hope this is reasonable. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  I'm a fan of red links — that's how this work was built. Current-day major party general election senatorial candidates all get articles, no matter how big an underdog they are/were, and three of five of McCain's past opponents have them already, so I'd argue Sargent and Ranger should stay red. Publishers and magazines of this kind will all get articles in due time, so I'd argue for keeping those red. The two defeated House candidates, I dunno, maybe they should go black. Jonathan Shay the co-author has some real notability, witness a google search and this NYT profile, so I'd keep him red too. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's enough to have one redlink for Clair Sargent, and one for Ed Ranger. There's no need for two apiece. So, I've removed the first redlink for each of them. Generally speaking, redlinks may be confusing to people unfamiliar with what they signify, so I think we're better off relegating the redlinks to the electoral history section towards the end of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is this statement needed in the Introduction? : "McCain's grandfather and father were the first pair of father/son Four-Star admirals in the United States Navy."

  Yes, his naval heritage is essential to his story; witness his memoir, Faith of My Fathers. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Specify that he was elected to U.S. Senate, not just a state senate.

  Not sure this is applicable. The first sentence states he's the United States Senator, and the word Senate is wikilinked to United States Senate again. (Perhaps a better comment would be to remove the second wikilink?) --Ali'i 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted "U.S." before "Senate". This seems harmless, and gives symmetry to the paragraph, which already talks about the "U.S. House."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Citation? : "As Forrestal headed for repairs, McCain volunteered for the USS Oriskany."

  Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• "...give him medical care and announced [should be announce] his capture.

  Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• "prisoner of war" should only be hyperlinked in the body the first time it appears

  The usual guideline is once per section; I've moved the wlink up to its first appearance in that section, where the acronym is also defined. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Only one period needed after Hensley & Co.

  Ali'i did this.

• I suggest combining these two sentences so not so choppy: "McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980. McCain retired from the Navy on April 1, 1981, as a captain."

  I'm not so sure ... these two actions were not necessarily related, although some people (not his biographers Alexander and Timberg, though) accuse them of being so. I think it's better to avoid trouble and keep them apart. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the choppiness by adding a phrase to the latter sentence: "and headed west to Arizona."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• This introductory sentence to a section should be improved: "McCain set his sights on becoming a Congressman." When? Since when? Why?

  This and another awkward construct below come from Ferrylodge's well-intentioned effort to promote readership of the biographical subarticles by wlinking to them underneath sentences like this. But it isn't working: House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999 is getting 100 hits a day, while John McCain gets 18,000 hits a day. It's time to give up and pull these out, I think. The only way the subarticles will get readership is if they show up higher on Google searches. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the criticism here is not so much that it's awkward, but that it is incomplete. I've expanded the sentence: "McCain set his sights on becoming a Congressman upon moving to Arizona, because he was interested in current events, and was ready for a new challenge.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Interested in current events" sounds like a comment on a sixth-grader's report card. We need a little more sophisticated explanation of his desire to enter elective politics than this. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Before your "sixth-grader" comment, I already expanded that sentence to read: "McCain set his sights on becoming a Congressman upon moving to Arizona, because he was interested in current events, was ready for a new challenge, and had developed political ambitions during his time as Senate liaison." Whether we think it's sophisticated or not, the cited source discusses his interest in current events and his lack of interest in beer. Additionally, please note that the following sentence was already in the main article: "He had little interest in the beer business itself, instead preferring to talk about current events."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• "...real estate developer (and future Arizona governor) Fife Symington III"

  I thought of saying that at the time, but he was elected 10 years into the future, which is a long time; thought it better to stick with what he was then. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems worth mentioning at least in the footnote, so I did.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I changed it to not duplicate the cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not in chronological order: "He won re-election to the House easily in 1984. In 1983 McCain opposed...."

  This was due to the Martin Luther King holiday insertion, since removed, being debated in a section next door. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone reinserted the MLK stuff, so I've put it in chronological order.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remove potential POV word "handily"

  Just short-hand for "easily", "wide margin", etc. (56-32-11 percentages). Important to indicate because observers thought he'd be in trouble from K5 fallout. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Move period inside quotation marks: "...American remains alive in captivity in Southeast Asia".

  Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• May need to elaborate on "big money"

  Agreed. I've changed it to explicitly list who was targeted. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remove sentence "McCain has long had a reputation as a maverick." He talks about him as a maverick in the subsequent paragraph (and more accurately) and has no value or relevancy beginning this paragraph.

  Same deal as "McCain set his sights on becoming a Congressman" above. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've clarified that McCain's work on Vietnam renormalization was an example of the "maverick" Senator, immediately after the statement that he's long had a reputation as a maverick.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with this. What was now there jumped our narrative twice, talking about both normalization and maverick before we got to them later. Moreover, it tied maverick too closely physically to the POW/MIA committee (which wasn't about that at all) and Vietnam normalization, which isn't really the best maverick example. The WaPo Balz article is a good cite, so instead I pulled some other language out of it and made this its own paragraph. Sort of a topic paragraph for the rest of the section. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Correct: "US [U.S.] Army Field Manual on Interrogation"

  Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remove potential POV "extensive" in "extensive fundraising abilities" — I actually worry about the entire statement, since the next paragraph says "McCain had fundraising problems in the first half of 2007"

  Agreed. I've changed this to an expectations that he would gain GWB's fundraising network, which is what the WaPo source is actually talking about. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Italicize "Straight Talk Express"

  Actually, the large majority of uses I've seen just use it plain, no italics no quotes. It's not formal or big enough, like a ship's name, to merit italics. I've changed one use in quotes to remove them. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Briefly explain why: "...reported on McCain's connection with a lobbyist in 2000; the Times came under significant criticism for the report."

  I've stayed away from this hot potato from the get-go; someone else can deal with it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This story was a flash in the pan. It's completely faded away, and so I've removed it from this article. It remains in the sub-article about his 2008 campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC).

• Briefly explain (re-state) why he can even run: "If he wins the presidency, John McCain’s birth (in Panama) would be the first presidential birth outside the current 50 states."

  Ditto, even moreso! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've briefly expanded the sentence to indicate that bipartisan scholars say he's a natural-born citizen.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Might it be simply because he was born within the then-American-controlled Panama Canal Zone? I think this part could still be clarified. --Eustress (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted this quote into the footnote: "Senator McCain's birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a 'natural born citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Article says "A number of organizations have attempted to scientifically measure..." but then only shares one measure—modification needed. Maybe just say, "For example..." Period also needed at end of paragraph.

  Fixed, by chopping the prelude. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Citation? "He favors private Social Security accounts, and opposes an expanded government role in health care. McCain also supports school vouchers, capital punishment, mandatory sentencing, and welfare reform."

  I've now added these cites. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• In-text citation out of place? "This image includes [188]..."

  I moved this slightly. However, I was going to move it to the end of the paragraph, extending the second sentence to note his image is one of "energy" and "dynamism" (using the Brooks piece as the cite), but I wasn't sure how neutral that would have been. Either way, the piece does a good job of noting McCain's personal character, and how it's perceived. --Ali'i 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Placing an image to the left of a header ("McCain at Annapolis"), a list, or the Table of Contents is frowned upon. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images.

Hmm, I'm not sure this is a problem. The image is not to the left of the Table of Contents, nor is it to the left of a header. Is an infobox really considered to be a "list"?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's to the left of the header "Military service and marriages". Please adjust accordingly. --Eustress (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This problem does not show up in my browser. Anyway, I've tried to fix it. I've added some text, and split a paragraph in two. This way, temperament has a paragraph of its own. Also, the image hopefully will not interfere with heading below. Is that okay now?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Explain what "McCain's Voting Scores" is supposed to illustrate briefly in caption

  I expanded the caption a bit. In the past, attempts to give cited interpretations of graphs like these has met with disapproval from other editors. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I can't update this table for 2007 yet because while the ADA put out its scores for the year a while ago (McCain got a 10), the ACU still hasn't. (What takes so long? Nobody there knows how to use a spreadsheet?) Wasted Time R (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the "John McCain Gallup Poll Ratings" figure is too small. Perhaps just link to it?

  In my browsers it looks enticing enough that readers will do the one click necessary to make it much bigger. No different from any other thumbnail. Then once you see the legend, you can reduce it and still get the general import of it (favorables significantly outweigh unfavorables through most of his career). More importantly, I need to update both this table and the voting scores table, for the most recent data. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did this stuff come from? I disagree with pieces of it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See a couple sections up. Which ones do you disagree with?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha... d'oh. <forehead slap> --Ali'i 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be able to comment/work on some of these that I'm originally responsible for, in a couple of hours. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WTR, I've chimed in regarding the items up to the one about his birth outside the current 50 states. Did you want to deal with any of the items after that?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'll be tackling some of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The changes look great. There's still one citation needed, but you can look into that more later. I'll pass this on to GA status—great collaborative work to all of you! --Eustress (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much Eustress. We'll take care of that citation.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now added these missing citations. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Eustress. Doing reviews is one of the most undervalued tasks in WP. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Mahalo for everything, Eustress. I guess I'll just be the hole in the middle of Ferrylodge's and Wasted Time R's barnstars. ;-) Oh well, they did much better work than I, anyway. Heh. --Ali'i 19:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They were just half-barnstars, Ali'i.  :-) Plus you'll get your chance for glory when we go for FAC.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not editing Wikipedia for glory or awards. I'll take my hole-status and be happy. :-) --Ali'i 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Their names are all over the last 300 edits for this article...and while I like awarding barnstars, I seldom award them when acting as a reviewing do to a potential COI, but the collaboration they've rendered on this article over a long period of time is uncanny...but like Ferrylodge said, just keep up the good work during the FAC too! Best regards. --Eustress (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful job everyone! I'm truly sorry that I was not able to help out with this as much as I would have liked to, but I have been pretty busy in the real world and with some other articles. I'd be happy to help you in FAC, though. Happyme22 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I took off the word "Protestant" from the info box. In the USA the Episcopal Church is often considered catholic, although not a part of the Roman Catholic Church of course. Senator Clinton's United Methodist Church, which split off from the Episcopal Church long after the time of Luther, is also sometimes considered a catholic church. ("catholic" = "universal", as you probably know) The articles on the three candidates now match each other on this point, and I hope offend no one. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Category: intelligent design advocates?

This article has the bio tag Category:Intelligent design advocates, but there's nothing in the article supporting that. Can someone give me a link to back this up? "Intelligent Design" is a specific argument, and not everyone who believes, say, that "God created the universe" or that "there are problems with Darwinism" is a proponent of ID. Not saying McCain isn't an ID proponent, just that I hadn't heard it. Can someone give me a link to an article? -- Narsil (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Based on his stormy relationship with the religious right, I doubt he's an ID advocate. Even if he is, though, the presence of the category in the article without a citation is a clear BLP violation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain has indeed played footsie with ID. This 2005 statement to the Arizona Daily Star started it off, while this 2007 ABC News story gives a good recap of his various remarks on the subject. As you can see from the second one, he's all over the map. While his "there's nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought" line is indeed the kind of thing that drives scientists to despair, he's too inconsistent to belong in this "advocates" category. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have added that the above is included in the Political positions of John McCain#Education article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Seriously? McCain redirects HERE? Is this article really the best representation of the English speaking worlds usage of the word/name "McCain"? JayKeaton (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is the main John McCain article. I don't know how else to explain it... Happyme22 (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And also, why was McCain moved to McCain (disambiguation)? Was it so McCain could just redirect to John McCain? That seems insane, shuffling around articles just to redirect the name to a different article. JayKeaton (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to have been some edit warring on this ... it doesn't matter to me either way ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The directing of McCain to here and the moving of McCain to the disembag was done by two American editors, one of whom is an admin. And looking at that admins edit history, she did no research into whether people wanted the move and redirect or not. All I can tell is that during that week she was creating a lot of redirects, and she probably was unhappy to see that McCain had a lot of other meanings besides an American politician. In fact she was contested at Talk:McCain (disambiguation), but no follow up had been taken. I think I'd better take care of this. JayKeaton (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, what is the problem? People who are looking for "McCain" are overwhelmingly likely to be looking for this article. If not, there's a note at the top of this article pointing them to the disambiguation page. I don't see anyhting wrong with this arrangement.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone outside of America would be looking for this "John McCain" person. And besides, his article name is "John McCain", not "McCain". Why would someone search for "McCain" when they are looking for John McCain? However is someone is looking for the McCain branded foods that operate globally (not just in America) they will almost certainly type in just "McCain". This isn't us.wikipedia.org, it's en.wikipedia.org JayKeaton (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of ethocentricism, it's a matter of convenience. This article has been viewed 311507 times this month, and McCain Foods Limited has been viewed 1929 times this month. Likewsie in January (before "McCain" redirected here) this article was viewed 929544 times, and McCain Foods Limited was viewed 2143 times.[4] So, someone who types "McCain" is redirected here, and informed how they can also find other uses. The same thing is occurring at the Barack Obama article; "Barack" as well as "Obama" redirect to that article. May I ask why you find this kind of thing inappropriate?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason that Madonna the singer has 314,983 views this month and Madonna the Christian icon only has 12,739 views and the Madonna disembag is still maintained, and the Bush disembag is still maintained, and the Clinton disembag is still maintained, and Simpson. All of these stick to formal encyclopedia guidelines, why should McCain be any different? The Simpsons got over 200,000 views this month, but Simpson (surname) got less than 500. Should Simpson then redirect to The Simpsons? Should McDonald redirect to McDonald's? Why is McCain any different? JayKeaton (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Reagan" redirects to Ronald Reagan. If someone wanted to find, oh, say, Nancy Reagan, and just wasn't specific in their search, they can click on the Reagan (disambiguation) link at the top of the page. I really don't see the problem, there and here. Happyme22 (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Jay, what is the formal encyclopedia guideline to which you are referring? And why are you worked up about McCain and not Obama or Reagan?

Please note that this article is getting more than a hundred times more people looking for it than any other McCain-related article. You cited several examples, such as Madonna. For some reason there are separate articles for Mary (mother of Jesus) and Blessed Virgin Mary; combined they got about 10% of the hits that Madonna (entertainer) got this month. Likewise, Laura Bush got about 10% of the hits that George W. Bush got this month. Hillary Clinton got about half the hits that Bill Clinton did this month. Homer Simpson got about 20% of the hits that The Simpsons got this month. And, Ronald McDonald got more than 20% of the hits that McDonald's got this month.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons gets about 50 times as many hits as Simpson, McDonald's gets around 60 times as many hits as McDonald (or Mcdonald, as it redirects to), George_W._Bush gets 13 times as many as Bush, Dalai Lama gets 13 times the hits as Lama does, Tom Cruise gets 48 times the hits of Cruise, yet they don't redirect. By your logic Bush should redirect to GWB, or Lost should redirect to Lost_(TV_series) just because it gets more hits. But it doesn't work like that. McCain is ambiguous, it doesn't just mean John McCain, no matter how many hits it gets. Jon McCain isn't ambiguous, either is John McKane, but McCain is. JayKeaton (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also those examples you just gave above Ferrylodge, none of them are ambiguous. Laura Bush and George W. Bush are not at all ambiguous, you completely missed my point with my original examples such as McDonald and McDonald's.

All the examples I gave were suggested by yourself. You say, "By your logic Bush should redirect to GWB." Actually, as I mentioned, Laura Bush gets about 10% of the traffic that her husband gets. In contrast, McCain Foods Limited doesn't even get 1% of the traffic that John McCain gets. That is an order of magnitude difference.

Anyway, I asked above: "what is the formal encyclopedia guideline to which you are referring? And why are you worked up about McCain and not Obama or Reagan?"Ferrylodge (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Laura Bush though, I meant just the Bush article (or disembag). As for why McCain, I don't know anything about Obamas, but I familiar with the different McCain subjects (which is what brought me to McCain to begin with). Oh, and wikipedia policy I don't think there is one, there aren't really a lot of policies in Wikipedia actually. Guidelines were more vague on this, I couldn't find anything for or against it. I will keep looking, but even still logic says that this John McCain person can't be official definition of McCain in an encyclopedia. John McCain is not "McCain". JayKeaton (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYUSAGE is the guideline for this. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Primary Usage only refers to an actual article name taking a disambiguation name, it does not refer to redirects. You would be right if his name was just "McCain", but it is not. Just to be clear so you understand, the Primary Usage guideline you are linking to does not apply because we are talking about a redirect, NOT an actual article needing McCain. "then that topic may be used for the title of the main article" = McCain is not John McCains "main article". You can use this rule, however, if you wish to actually move the article John McCain to McCain, however I think you would be shot down very quickly if you actually tried to do it. JayKeaton (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, never mind. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, 99% of the people who type "McCain" or "Obama" will want to read about John McCain or Barack Obama, at least in the next six months. And, unlike "Clinton" or "Bush", there are other no contemporary political figures with the same last name and the same level of notability. Seriously, how many people would type in "McCain" and be disappointed or confused when John McCain comes up? How many type "Obama" and mean someone other than Barack Obama? Coemgenus 17:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I can't speak for Obama because I don't know any corporations called "Obama" or any other people in history with the name "Obama", but McCain is different. And it shouldn't matter so much what people are looking for, because "McCain" is definitely NOT unique to John McCain. To redirect "McCain" to John McCain is as bad a choice as redirecting "Election" to "2008 United States Presidential Election" on the assumption that people looking to read about an election want to read about the American one (whether or not it is true doesn't matter). Just because he is John McCain doesn't make him the definition of "McCain". JayKeaton (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if what your saying is somewhat of an issue, there are consistency concerns to be raised here. McCain should redirect to John McCain as long as Obama redirects to Barack Obama. Clinton should be a disambig because of Bill and Hillary. Happyme22 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Happyme22. Anyway, there is no corporation named "McCain." In contrast, there is a corporation named "McCain Foods Limited." And incidentally, in March about ten times as many people visited election as visited 2008 United States Presidential Election, so it would make little sense to redirect from the former to the latter.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain Foods Limited is known just as McCain, just as Apple Inc. is known as Apple and Creative Technology Limited is known as just Creative. And anyway, is it fair to use to page count of John McCain if McCain is redirecting here? No matter what people are looking for when they type in McCain they will always contribute to the page count of John McCain. And aren't we creating a damaging precedent here, if a redirect is made to go not to the article that closets fits the name, but the article with the most page hits? George could end up redirecting to George W Bush, Galactic could end up redirecting to Battlestar Galactica and Hussein could end up redirecting to Barack Obama instead of Husayn, because Mr Barack Hussein Obama has over 700 times the hits as the Husayn article. JayKeaton (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, as I said, "in January (before 'McCain' redirected here) this article was viewed 929544 times, and McCain Foods Limited was viewed 2143 times." What's unfair about that comparison? And there's no reason for you to be concerned about a precedent to redirect to the article with the most page hits. We're not talking here about most hits. We're talking here about more than a hundredfold number of hits.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that he is going to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States, I think it's safe to say that the proportion of "McCain" page views coming to this page will be even more overwhelming in the next few months. Paisan30 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'all biased because you already have an invested interest in this John McCain person, because you were already here editing his article (plus most of you would be American too) :P Anyway, is there such thing as like a WP Guru or summat, someone that has a deep understanding of the rules and format of Wikipedia? We are down to talking about page hits and not much else, I think we need to get into the actual rules of a word or common surname redirecting straight to a person when in all other circumstances that ambiguous article name would be disambiguated. JayKeaton (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I am the guru.  :-) And I suggest that we channel our psychic energies in a different direction.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The view count isn't biased, and it clearly shows that no other "McCain" page was getting close to the number of visitors as this one. Regardless of where you're from, being a major party candidate for President of the United States makes one pretty prominent. I don't know that there's been any international coverage of McCain Foods lately. Paisan30 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So just to be clear, I am allowed to move articles so I can use that articles old name to redirect to a different article that has a lot more page hits? The general guru approved rule is that articles are shuffled around based on how many hits they get at that particular month? I can redirect Hussein to the Obama article because Mr Barack Hussein Obama gets over 700 times the hits as the Hussein redirect is giving now? Regardless, I'll leave this talk page to do it's own thing and seek advice elsewhere about an article for a person taking precedence over a surname namespace just because they also happen to have that surname. JayKeaton (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The title of Obama's article is not "Barack Hussein Obama". It's Barack Obama. Common sense tells you that a person typing in "Hussein" would probably be looking for something other than the Barack Obama page, as that is not his commonly used name. Paisan30 (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So the issue here is not that this persons name is John McCain, but that it has "McCain" in the articles title? JayKeaton (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

How does this show Up on the web?

"I interviewed Col. Bui Tin in Hanoi, who was presented to me as their authority on POW/MIA issues. In the course of the interview Tin told me that during the war he was involved in the imprisonment of American POWs. When I questioned him further he said that John McCain was a `special prisoner.' Tin later told other POWs that McCain never was tortured. So when McCain embraced Tin during the hearings it seemed to some Vietnam vets to confirm the reports they had heard, and it really angered a lot of people. It was no secret that McCain had admitted to giving information to the enemy."

McCain made not one but 32, Thirty Two, Propaganda films for North Vietnam. Why is there no mention of this. Is he in the IMDB? Should he get a link... 32 Films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.174.12 (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And your source for this conglomeration of fact and fantasy is ... ? FWIW, the meeting with Bui Tin is covered in the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)