Talk:John McCain/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Pronunciation of 'McCain'

Both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin WP articles give guidance on how to pronounce the subject's surname. In Barack Obama's case, we are given the pronunciation for 'Barack', 'Hussein' and 'Obama'. But there is no guidance at all on how to pronounce 'John', 'Sidney' or 'McCain'. Could an IPA expert please enlighten us on how to pronounce 'McCain'? - PJHaseldine (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, are you seriously in doubt? With Biden and Palin, the guide is there to tell you whether the first vowel is long or short (Michael Palin, for example, is pronounced differently). With Obama, it's probably there to tell you where the accent is in his last name. But with McCain, there's only one way it could possibly be said. Unless I'm missing something. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mi-Cain or Mick-Cain (in other words, are both c's pronounced or not) ... I think that's something reasonable that someone might wonder about. --B (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that has more to do with the dialect and diction habits of the speaker than with McCain's name itself, but okay ... Wasted Time R (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's fairly obvious. We don't need the IPA guide for every article's title. Coemgenus 14:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious to some, maybe. But what if it is Mucka-in or even Mack-Ca-In? We have a (constitutional?) right to know!--PJHaseldine (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed an inappropriate comment here. Inseeisyou (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wasted Time here, there is no way to pronounce McCain except as it is, whereas the other candidates mentioned may leave doubt. Inseeisyou (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

health history?

a documentation of mccain's health should be included as it is highly relevant to the upcoming election in light of his running mate choice. [03:11, September 14, 2008 98.163.226.18]

It's interpersed in the article in several sections. "McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and then nearly drowned, when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi.[30] After he regained consciousness, some North Vietnamese pulled him ashore, then others crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt and bayoneted him.[30] ... His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[44]" and then "McCain has addressed concerns about his age and past health concerns, stating in 2005 that his health was "excellent".[205] He has been treated for a type of skin cancer called melanoma, and an operation in 2000 for that condition left a noticeable mark on the left side of his face.[206] McCain's prognosis appears favorable, according to independent experts, especially because he has already survived without a recurrence for more than seven years.[206] In May 2008, McCain's campaign let the press review his medical records, and he was described as appearing cancer-free, having a strong heart and in general good health.[207]" and then "He also carries physical vestiges of his war wounds, as well as his melanoma surgery.[246] When campaigning, he quips: "I am older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein."[247]"

The separate subarticles go into even more detail. "Bailing out upside down at high speed,[94] the force of the ejection fractured McCain's right arm in three places, his left arm, and his right leg, and knocked him unconscious.[94] McCain nearly drowned after making a parachute landing in Trúc Bạch Lake in Hanoi; ... A mob gathered around, spat on him, kicked him, and stripped him of his clothes; his left shoulder was crushed with the butt of a rifle and he was bayoneted in his left foot and abdominal area.[94][91]" ... "Further in 1993, a melanoma was discovered on his shoulder and removed.[74]" ... "McCain's plans to campaign for Bush in fall 2000 were delayed later in August by a recurrence of melanoma.[13] This Stage IIa instance on his temple required extensive surgery that removed the lesion, surrounding lymph nodes, and part of the parotid gland.[77] The final pathology tests showed that the melanoma had not spread, and his prognosis was good, but McCain was left with cosmetic aftereffects including a puffy cheek and a scar down his neck.[77]" ... "McCain's war wounds leave him incapable of raising his arms above his head; he is unable to attend to his own hair and he sometimes requires assistance in dressing, tasks performed by nearby aides.[11] His former communications director has said, "You comb someone's hair once, and you never forget it."[11] McCain has been treated for recurrent skin cancer, including melanoma, in 1993, 2000, and 2002;[22] one of the resulting operations left a noticeable mark on the left side of his face.[23] These medical conditions, combined with his advancing years, led him to repeatedly use a self-deprecating remark during his 2008 presidential campaigning: "I am older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein."[23]"

So McCain's health is covered here.

But what Wikipedia really needs is an index, like real books have. Then you could look up McCain, look up health, and there would be links to the places in the main article and the places in the subarticles where his health is described. Alas, all Wikipedia has is brute-force direct-match text search, which doesn't work too well for cases like this. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain's medical records have not been released to the public, except for a suspiciously private, shortened media session in which no one was allowed to take pictures of the records or take notes. Other than that, the article clarifies everything that has been publicly released about McCain's health. The only thing that is missing is more detail about his fight with melanoma, which has not been released by the McCain camp yet.--MegaKN (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

More on McCain's Foreign Interest Lobbyist's

The topic of John McCain's ties to lobbyist's and the interests they represent receives scant coverage in this article. For example, the Associated Press reported on July 20,2008 in an article headlined "FROM SHIPPING LOBBYIST TO MCCAIN ADVISOR" that(first paragraph) "Playing a dual role as shipping lobbyist and a member of a federal advisory panel, John McCain's Campaign policy coordinator helped shape a controversial homeland security initiative that has taken the government 5 1/2 years to develop." It goes on to state (third paragraph) that "A former chief of staff to McCain, Christopher Koch in 2000 set up the World Shipping Council to lobby on behalf of some 40 foreign-based and U.S. ocean carriers. The companies transport half a trillion dollars worth of exports and imports annually. The group has spent $1.7 milliion to influence the federal government on a range of maritime issues." Then third paragraph... "In May Koch de-registered as a lobbyist, took a leave of absence from the World Shipping Council and joined the McCain campaign. He plans to return to the shipping council after the election." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain, Georgia, and Lobbying

A Washington Post article of August 13, 2008(page A-3) displays the interconnections of foreign political lobbying and policy outcomes in the John McCain campaign. The article headlined "WHILE AIDE ADVISED MCCAIN, HIS FIRM LOBBIED FOR GEORGIA" is by the staff writers Matthew Mosk and Jeffrey Birnbaum. It starts..."Sen. John McCain's top foreign adviser prepped his boss for an April 17 phone call with the president of Georgia and then helped the presumptive presidential nominee prepare a strong statement of support for the fledgling republic.[next paragraph] The day of the call, a lobbying firm partly owned by the adviser, Randy Scheunemann, signed a $200,00 contract to continue providing strategic advice to the Georgian government in Washington." Later in the article it states..."For months while McCain's presidential campaign was gearing up, Scheunemann held dual roles, advising the candidate on foreign policy while working as Georgia's lobbyist." And,providing some context, the article states(paragraph 8)..."As a private lobbyist trying to influence lawmakers and Bush administration staffers, Scheunemann at times relied on his access to McCain in his work for foreign clients on Capitol Hill." The article quotes a lobbying expert James Thurber of American University as raising the ethical issue..."Is the adviser loyal to income from a foreign client ,or is he loyal to the candidate he is working for now?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

old man

he is the oldest person to run for president and hes Bold textOLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.94.226 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The article says, "Also, if inaugurated in 2009 at age 72 years and 144 days, he would be the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency,[204] and the second-oldest president to be inaugurated.[205]" (Footnote 205 tells you Ronald Reagan was older at the start of his second term.) Reagan was being inaugurated for a second term, at the age of 73. McCain would be inaugurated for his first term at 72. Reagan was already in office (he ascended to that office aged 69, the current record) and McCain will not be, thus he would be the oldest president upon ascention while Reagan would still hold the record as the oldest president inaugurated. Bob Dole was also 73 when he was nominated by the Republican party. Happyme22 (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Old flame

An old flame of JM has popped up in the news.Brazilian woman finds fame as McCain's old flame Shambalala (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff! I've added the real name and the cite to Early life and military career of John McCain, where the 'Elena story' was already mentioned. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that I used this Daily News article as the cite, since it was more expansive than the AP one. But don't let one editor around here see it, it would scandalize his notions of McCain and chastity ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Minimum wage

Ferrylodge removed a sketchily sourced statement about McCain and the minimum wage. We can do a better job with this PolitiFact roundup. Accurate would be something like: "McCain voted 19 times against an increase in the minimum wage, although on some of those occasions he supported a smaller increase." JamesMLane t c 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This article only mentions economic matters because the economy is among the top two issues that voters are concerned about. No other specific issues are covered here. The problem with this approach, as we all know from the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence, is that just about anything is related to the economy. I hope we can focus here on aspects of the economy that make it the top issue voters are concerned about, and I'm not sure the minimum wage qualifies in that respect.

Even if we were to get into the minimum wage here, we would have to merely sumarize what the sub-article says, and the sub-article does not say anything right now about how McCain has voted on the matter. The sub-article says, "McCain opposes the federal minimum wage; instead he believes that each state should decide its own minimum wage." I'm not sure that is 100% correct, given that he has "supported a smaller increase" in the federal minimum wage, but in any event we shouldn't go beyond what's in the sub-article.

I also think it's unfair to say he voted against the minimum wage X number of times. Much of that is a function of how long he has been in Congress. All of our other discussion of the economy in this article describes McCain's current position, not how he voted 20 years ago.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Senate committees

His work in Senate committees is interspersed throughout the article, but I was wondering if there is a list somewhere of committees that McCain has served on?

On a semi-related note...he was on the Commerce committee as stated in the article. Does this or the Finance committee (or another committee entirely) have oversight of the issues surrounding Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, etc.? --Kickstart70-T-C 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

List of committee and subcommittee assignments would be a good addition to the House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 and Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present articles, sort of similar to what's in the Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton#Assignments article section. But it would be too much detail for the main article. And no, the Commerce Committee doesn't cover the banking or financial sectors. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

John McCain and Asian/Asian Americans and racial slurs

I'm disturbed by the fact that John McCain's liberal and unapologetic use of the slur gook is not spoken about in the media and is not reflected in his wiki page. its a VERY important issue to Asian American voters. An entire book was dedicated to it: http://www.amazon.com/Gook-John-McCains-Racism-Matters/dp/0967943345

"I hate the gooks, said John McCain, "I will hate them as long as I live." Senator McCain said these words when asked about his continued use of the racial slur, "gook.".

Factchecker1999 (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Already included in John McCain presidential campaign, 2000#On to Super Tuesday and Cultural and political image of John McCain#Controversial remarks. Not important enough for inclusion here in the summary main article, given the context. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

After what they did to him, he's entitled to hate them, and he's entitled to use insulting language about them. It's no more controversial than WW2 veterans using "Kraut" or "Nip". -- Zsero (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that it's discussed in the "Frequently Asked Questions" at the top of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"strongly intelligence"

I wonder why it is stated that he is strongly intelligent. If you fail in math, then you're stupid. All records beside his IQ test don't show any sign that he is strongly intelligent. And there is no scource which garants in any way that this IQ test wasn't baised. It must be deleted because there doesn't exist a source which is reliable. I did for my self an IQ test on the net and it stated that I have an IQ of 168 which of course doesn't tell you anything if I am highly intelligent or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakbrain (talk • contribs) 07:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't know who gave his IQ tests. The second one was in 1984, and may have been part of a POW follow-up study, or maybe not. The first one was probably done in the Navy, seems like the kind of thing the military would do. And many people are very strong in subjects such as English and history and struggle badly in math, or vice versa. Intelligence is not one-dimensional. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protect?

Since this is an article about a highly visible, controversial figure, shouldn't it be semi-protected, least for the moment, so that anonymous users can't redirect it to Satan, as I must admit I feel tempted to do (sort of kidding). Aaeamdar (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

John McCain is semi-protected, and has been for a long time. Not sure what you mean. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

POW/MIAs

Hello Everyone:

I would like to include the following in the article on Senator McCain in the "Prisoner of war" section.

New information on the POW/MIA topic and Senator McCain has come to light in an article ref-273 written by a well respected retired editor of a major city newspaper and in an article ref-274 in a national news magazine. This information brings into question aspects of Senator McCain’s past roles and actions on these issues.

Reference 273 Schanberg, Sydney H. “McCain and the POW Cover-up” The Nation Institute, September 18, 2008.

External link: http://www.nationinstitute.org/p/schanberg09182008pt1

Reference 274 Alter, Jonathan “When Ross Perot Calls…” Newsweek, January 16, 2008.

External link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/94827

I am not sure what to do with the formatting and how to link these references to external links. I have gone through the sandbox tutorials.

I am not sure whether this is or is not a minor edit.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks,

Xerxes

Xerxescyrus (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perot's advocacy on the POW/MIA issue and fervent dislike of McCain is well-documented in several Wikipedia articles, including United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs and House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 and Carol McCain. It's nothing new. Schanberg is a once-great reporter who went off the deep end on this issue; there's a reason why no MSM publications would touch his POW/MIA stories. Schanberg's latest Nation piece is just a rehash of the pieces he originally did for Penthouse and later redid for the Village Voice. Schanberg's views on the Kerry committee are also included in our United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs article. None of this is new either. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain attempt to avoid debating Obama sign of a faltering campaign

On Wednesday, September 24, John McCain invoked the current economic crisis as reason for not showing up for the first 2008 presidential debate. Online versions of USA Today and the Boston Globe cite one possible reason being that his campaign had received disastrous poll results on McCain's ability to handle the economy. Is this approprioate to cite, of course with footnotes. A person dressed as a chciken appeard in front of McCain Palin headquarters in Manchester, NH today, this is reported on WCRB. CApitol3 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this would not be appropriate to cite in this article. Another reason for McCain's request to delay the debate might be that McCain actually believes it might be worth taking the next couple days to avert another great depression. Obama would rather debate foreign policy. Maybe Obama's correct that the current economic "crisis" is phony. We'll just have to wait and see. If all of this belongs anywhere at Wikipedia, it would be in a sub-article, rather than this main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain's not afraid of debating Obama about anything (Obama's not a very good debater, Hillary was generally stronger in most of the Dem debates). After the Palin boom wore off, McCain fell behind in the polls again, and then the financial crisis was pushing him even further behind. So now he's looking for another "game changer" to shake up the race, and adopting this "we must lead now, not campaign" posture is what he's come up with. If in fact in results in the debates being delayed (he may also be hoping the veep debate gets scrapped altogether), this article will reflect this happening. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat cynical. There's a major economic crisis going on right now, and I'd much rather have both Obama and McCain working to solve it during the next few days rather than practicing how to pronounce the names of the leaders of Iran, Georgia, and Ukraine.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither Obama nor McCain are the heavy hitters in Congress on banking or finance matters. (If Chris Dodd had become the nominee, or some Republican equivalent, different story.) Obama and McCain do have an important role in this, in that they are quasi-party leaders whose signing off on a deal will make it easier to sell to unhappy members. Whether they have to be physically present in Washington and not campaigning in order to do this is arguable; yes, they can talk to the other members better, but you might just as easily say they'd be better off in the field, talking to voters and local officials about how the deal is playing across the country. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain is good at knocking heads together. It can't be done long-distance, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain is doing this because he thinks it will help him win the election. He, like every other modern presidential candidate, has been running this campaign for two years, with all the effort and money and ups and downs and speeches and funds begging and everything else that entails. This close to the finish line, every single thing he does will be because he thinks it will help him win the election. Same is true of Obama. Same is true of Kerry and Bush and Gore and Dole and Clinton and everybody else who's been this close to the finish. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Cynic!Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, all that being said, his current efforts would ring much truer if he had participated in a single Senate vote since May. He's got more missed votes than any other Senator, including the one being treated for a major brain hemorrhage. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting that none of the missed votes were so close that he would have made a difference. Also, the Dems are in charge of the Senate and therefore are able to schedule votes to conform with the schedules of the Democratic presidential candidates.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Except that making a stand, showing your POV on important votes like the GI bill, those votes are important for regular voters to see what kind of leader you are. To oppose the bill, not vote for it, and to have Bush credit you for the same bill... Being there to vote absolutely matters. One should make the effort, if it is an important legislation known about weeks in advance. Duuude007 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill that would have helped the situation with Freddie and Fannie

Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, introduced 1/26/2005 A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

OxAO (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

THE DESCRIPTION/DOCUMENTATION OF MCCAIN’S IQ TESTS IS SUSPECT.

The source used to document McCain’s IQ testing results is a book by Paul Alexander, a former talk-show-host and fiction writer. However, my recent review of Alexander’s biography of McCain fails to provide any extant copes of Wechsler, Stanford-Binet and/or military psychometic data. In Wikipedia, I believe assertions such as specific IQ test result should be backed up by copies of the testing itself – not simply referenced a somewhat fawning portrayal of the subject. What’s next, citing blogs as references?

The use of the term “strong intelligence” to describe McCain is idiosyncratic usage at best – and biased at worst. Better perhaps to word this description in the more formal language of standard, journalistic reportage, avoiding either euphemistic or pejoritive commentary. This is, after all, not an opinion piece.

Suggestion: “Although McCain graduated 5th from the bottom (not the in the “Lower 20th percentile”) of his NA class, he reportedly scored 133 on the following tests:”

Then, let's see the tests.

Incidentally, IQ scores can change throuhout a person's life, so the time of testing shold also be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyteam (talk • contribs) 08:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The original source is not Alexander, but several news organizations when they were allowed to review McCain's medical/psychological records in December 1999. (Pro-George W. Bush forces were spreading rumors that McCain was nutso from his time as a POW, and showing the records was the McCain campaign's response.) You can see an original, unedited Associated Press report on what they saw in the records at this USA Today page. It says "Scored 128 and 133 in two separates IQ tests over the years, both above-average ratings." You can see Time magazine's account of the records in this story from the time here. It says "Included in the records is a 1984 IQ test. His score, 133, would rank him among the most intelligent Presidents in history." Alexander spent a lot of time covering McCain's 2000 campaign, but I don't know if he saw the records himself or just summarized in his book other news organizations' reporting on them. In any case, what he wrote in his book is consistent with what the news organizations reported. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As for your statement that we need to have a copy of the tests in order to cite this, that is not so. Indeed, WP:SECONDARY tells us that secondary sources (such as the AP, Time, and Alexander) are preferred over primary sources. I agree that the Alexander biography is favorably disposed towards its subject, but it is nonetheless generally well-researched. I agree that it would be good if McCain released his full naval records, which would resolve a number of minor biographical mysteries including whether these tests were given by the Navy and if so of what type they were. I agree that McCain is one of the worst students ever to set foot in Annapolis (for some reason, good students usually don't make national candidates: Biden's and Palin's records are pretty dreadful too, Gore was an underperformer, we know about GWB, etc). If you look at past Talk here, you'll see that I agree that the main article's wording about his Naval Academy rank is somewhat defensive; I too would prefer we say "fifth from the bottom" – hell, McCain used it as a chapter title in his memoir – but Ferrylodge will pitch a fit if we try to use that language. But I don't agree that the documentation of McCain's IQ test scores is suspect. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain was also a one-day winner on Jeopardy!, if that helps convince you of anything. See this AP story and this historical record. (Now added to Early life and military career of John McCain, didn't seem quite important enough to keep here.) Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole phrase about his intelligence should simply be omitted. This passage is about his accomplishments and his actions; the reference to his intelligence is a non sequitur. Sttaylor (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a non sequitur at all. The low class rank may possibly give people the idea that he's a moron, whereas the reference to his intelligence obviously reduces that possibility. They're very closely related, and together they seem to have an NPOV. Just presenting one or the other wuold not have an NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama's not a very good debater

I came across the above statement in a response to one of the edits. What is its attribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyteam (talk • contribs) 09:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It was just a talk page aside, not something anybody is proposing to put in the article. But you can read this NYT story if you want to see others with the same view. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bloat

I'm concerned that we seem to be getting into the habit of expanding this article without cutting anything, and putting in the latest news even though it may not stand the test of time. For example, this was recently inserted: "On September 24, McCain suspended his campaign, and proposed delaying the first of the general election debates, in order to work on the proposed financial system bailout before Congress, which was targeted at addressing the subprime mortgage crisis." I object to inclusion of all this stuff, because the so-called suspension was incredibly brief, and basically amounted to cancellation of an appearance on Letterman. McCain ads continued to play and McCain spokespersons continued giving statements criticizing Obama, while McCain himself continued to make speeches and give interviews. While I agree that the financial crisis is generally a notable event, it is not yet notable in connection with McCain; we don't yet know if he has done anything that will ultimately turn out to solve or exacerbate that crisis, and when we learn that then maybe it can go into this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain made a big play of suspending his campaign, going to Washington to fix the grave national financial crisis, putting the country above politics, etc. When was the last time you saw any candidate suspend their campaign in the presidential general election? That is surely notable. And the financial crisis is the signature event of the post-convention period. That McCain didn't really suspend his campaign is also interesting, but we need better cites than JaneGrey (a known vandal masquerading as an editor) provided and that's perhaps better left for the campaign article. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's my point: he didn't really suspend it. You could just as easily say that candidates "suspend" their campaigns whenever they visit wounded troops without cameras.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no comparison with the wounded troops case. You seem to be making a claim that McCain was just engaged in a massive BS operation. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it was a massive BS operation, also known as gaining control of the news cycle. I don't doubt that McCain was sincere in wanting to participate in the negotiations to solve the crisis, but the bit about suspending his campaign was total BS. And bully for him! See here and here.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, then find a non-Youtube cite that says the suspension was false. But you can't excise the financial crisis from the article; it is the campaign issue of this time, and unlike how many houses does he own, lipstick on a pig, and all the other nonsense that has gone back and forth between them, this issue is real and important. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "Make no mistake. John McCain did not 'suspend' his campaign." For us to say that he did adopts McCain's POV and denies Obama's POV. Various commentators say the same thing as Obama about the alleged "suspension".[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, we can tersely describe what happened. But this whole episode is doubly important because it illustrates McCain's campaign and political style: big, gambling moves. Same as the Palin pick. So even moreso it deserves to be in here. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If McCain said he was "suspending" his campaign to visit wounded troops, or "suspending" his campaign to go to the bathroom, it wouldn't be notable. WTR, please try to get beyond what McCain said here, and look at what he actually did. He merely cancelled a gig on Letterman. Letterman may consider that a major element of the McCain biography, but we shouldn't.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the same at all. This was a suspension announced with much ballyhoo. Yes, I know it was a crock, if you look at the campaign talk page you'll see me saying it yesterday. That's not the point. It is a major point of McCain's biography because it illustrates his big-gesture, big-gamble style. I've changed the language to say 'nominally suspended'. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with "nominally suspended" either, because it implies that he did so in name only. This adopts the Obama POV, and contradicts the McCain POV. It may be that McCain was sincere, but thought better of it soon after. I think you're just looking for things to illustrate and buttress what you consider to be themes of his biography. Call me a cynic! This whole "suspension" thing will soon be forgotten. (Except by Letterman.)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As you pointed out, it's a fact that most of McCain's campaign operations continued. That's independent of what McCain or Obama say. So 'nominally suspended' is reasonably accurate. And the effect of the financial crisis and the bailout plan on the campaign won't be forgotten, especially if the boosted lead that Obama's gotten as a result of it holds up. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The boosted lead that Obama's gotten is not what you put into the article. If McCain had not uttered the word "suspended" but had done everything else exactly the same, you apparently would not have put anything into this article about any suspension or about the financial crisis. Indeed, it is premature to describe McCain's role in resolving or exacerbating that crisis. Obsessing about this word "suspension" does not make it a major feature of his biography, IMHO. Additionally, if McCain intended to cancel all campaign appearances until the bailout legislation passed, then saying he "nominally" suspended his campaign is plain false.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't put in polling stuff until there's a clear, established trend change, and it's too soon for that. I started putting in the financial crisis stuff into the campaign article several days ago, well before the suspension, you can see my discussion with Happy on the talk page there. The financial crisis is important. I am not claiming that McCain has resolved or exacerbated that crisis, just the opposite -- the crisis is tangling up his campaign. The suspension and the debate postponement was a big gesture attempt by him to avoid getting pulled under by a shift to economic themes where Obama would have the advantage. You are the only political observer in the country who doesn't think the financial crisis is going to have a big impact on McCain's chances. As for "nominally", I'm willing to come up with an alternate but still terse construct for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said it's not going to have a big impact on his chances. However, see WP:Crystal.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If you're looking for things to cut, the biographical tour, the town hall debates proposal, and the broad theme of the campaign (which was changed post-Palin into a reform message, so it's not fully accurate anymore) are all less important than the developments around the financial crisis. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that the campaign "suspension" is now back in the article, this time merely as something McCain "said" rather than as something he "did". I disagree with this, because it's confusing and potentially misleading.

According to reliable sources, McCain did actually suspend his campaign earlier this month: "Barely a week ago, both men had suspended activities to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001." See "Financial Crisis Upends Campaign", Wall Street Journal. (2008-09-25). That was an actual suspension, rather than merely talk of suspension. Neither that actual suspension nor the more recent talk of suspension are notable enough for this article. The way it's phrased now in this article makes it sound a bit like McCain was throwing in the towel and then changed his mind, which of course did not happen.

I've tried to be agreeable to a compromise here, so that we can mention the big financial crisis and whatnot, even though it's not yet clear that McCain will have had any significant role in solving or exacerbating it. But I still do not agree with including talk about a "suspension" given that commentators disagree about whether a suspension actually occurred.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether commentators agree that there was a suspension, the McCain campaign made a big deal of him suspending his campaign. Was it a huge political stunt? Highly likely. But the fact that he still had ads running is not necessarily evidence that he didn't suspend his campaign. McCain's campaign did notify the television stations that they wanted their ads off the air, it's just that just because you tell them to take the ads off the air, doesn't mean it happens immediately. Just think of it as a hotel reservation. When was the last time you were able to cancel a hotel reservation with less than 24 hour notice. Pretending that the "suspension" didn't happen is not the best course of action, the best course of action would be to include something that mentions the reaction to the suspension, be that "It wasn't really a suspension!" or "It's another example of McCain putting country first." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, yes, in there past there have been mutual suspensions of campaigns for sudden tragedies, or national remembrances, or when a former president dies, things like that. But this is a different beast -- it was a unilateral suspension by one candidate, urging the other candidate to do the same, on the grounds that their 'day jobs' were suddenly more important at that time than the campaign. I can't recall ever having seen or heard of something similar. I've just included a brief statement about McCain's involvement in the Thursday breakdown of the bailout plan, and the WaPo cite includes the assessment "In truth, McCain's dramatic announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign and come to Washington for the bailout talks had wide repercussions." Nobody would have written the same about the other, proforma kind of suspensions you're mentioning. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to invasion of Lebanon, Haiti, and Somalia

McCain bucked the administration and opposed invasions of these 3 countries. A few months after the Lebanon invasion, the largest attack on the Marines since World War II occured killing more than 200 Marines.

McCain mentioned it in the debates but Wikipedia omits this. I fixed it with a one sentence addition. Several reliable sources, including USA Today confirm the accuracy of the report. 903M (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that they were not included in this article, and that was probably due to summary style. However, I am willing to bet money that they are in the House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 article. Happyme22 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon was in the sub-article, but not Somalia, so I inserted Somalia into the sub-article. Haiti may not be notable enough, since there never was an invasion. Clinton threatened an invasion if certain conditions were not met, but the conditions were met.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If we're including Lebanon and Somolia in the main article, then we've got to include McCain's position on all the other interventions too. He was very visible in supporting action on Kosovo, including possibly the use of ground troops, so I've added that. But his stance on Panama and Bosnia should go in too. And what about his positions on Iran and North Korea, two of the dominant negotiations vs. sanctions vs. intervention issues of the last two decades? Neither of them are mentioned once in this article. You've got to be very careful when adding things to the main article, there's frequently a cascade effect in order to address topics consistently. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The other kind of consistency we need is to be careful about overweighting exceptions. The 1983 Lebanon stance was a real outlier; on the whole in that era he was a very solid supporter of Reagan policies. I've added that briefly to the article, indicating that he supported Reagonomics and the Reagan policies towards the Soviet Union and Central America (both of which were more significant than the Lebanon position, in the case of the Soviet Union hugely more). Note that inclusion of Lebanon has been discussed here in Talk in the past, and we've always said that pulling it in would involve pulling in some other stuff too. I'm not sure McCain mentioning it in a debate should be the causative factor for us to change our minds on this, but I understand that pragmatically, people here something in a debate and they expect to see it here too. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"If we're including Lebanon and Somolia in the main article, then we've got to include McCain's position on all the other interventions too." That is incorrect. It is easy to say that McCain generally supported miltary actions proposed by U.S. presidents, and here are the exceptions: X, Y, and Z. That easily avoids having to go through the rest of the alphabet, and prevents this article from becoming unwieldy and verbose.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the flaw of overweighting exceptions. It leaves the reader with the vague sense that the person did A, but with specific, tangible associations to the times that the person did Not-A. It's like writing, "The Green Bay Packers were the dominant team of the early-to-mid-1960s, except for 1963 in which the team suffered key injuries and 1964 in which Bart Starr didn't play well in crucial games." You're left thinking about injuries and hey maybe this guy Starr isn't all he's made out to be, when you should be thinking about the 5 NFL championships they won during that period. This is a common flaw in Wikipedia writing all over the place, I see it all the time in music articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC) [Note to football fans, I made up the reasons why the Packers lost those two years, I don't remember them offhand.]

I have no problem with this article giving examples of his general support, alongside examples of exceptions. What I would object to is bloating up this article with every instance of general support, when it would do just as well to say that he was generally supportive (while providing an example or two).Ferrylodge (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the wording of the Lebanon sentence. There aren't any sources that say he opposed Reagan deploying the Marines to Lebanon, just that he opposed keeping them deployed there. It could be true that he opposed the initial deployment, but a source would be needed for that. Additionally, the wording of the sentence seemed to imply that McCain was prescient of the barracks bombing when his opposition wasn't that there were going to be attacks upon the US troops, but that there weren't any obtainable objectives. Basically, violence would happen in Lebanon regardless of the US being there and that it was unlikely that the presence of the troops would decrease the violence any. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add back in that hundreds of marines got killed. McCain may not have specifically predicted that, but it would have been avoided if he had had his way. This is not puffing up McCain, any more than it's piling on McCain to say, for example, that the line-item-veto legislation that he supported was subsequently ruled unconstitutional.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in this article and don't have extensive plans to edit the John McCain article. Since I did bring up the reference to this fact, I'll weigh in on it. Ask 100 Americans and 100 non-Americans about the history of the period in Lebanon and many will not know about it. So inclusion of the killed Marines helps article quality and understanding of facts. Undue weight considerations should limit it to 2-3 sentences at most. 903M (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing if the bombing would or would not have happened if the WPA had failed. Even if it had failed it is unlikely that the Marines would have been out of Lebanon by the time the bombing occurred. As far as what happened in Lebanon, there is a convenient link for anyone that is interested in more information can follow. The article doesn't mention the results of McCain supporting Reagan's support of the contras, what happened in Somalia after he opposed US involvement, how many US troops have died since he supported the Iraq War resolution, etc. Leaving out unrelated information that isn't important to the general telling of a person's bio is not uncommon within Wikipedia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've merely reinserted that it was an ill-fated mission, and supplied a wikilink. That way people can brush up on their history.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Ferrylodge. It doesn't work that way and you know that. Besides, Multinational Force in Lebanon already includes a whole section on the bombing. Are you proposing that we wikilink Battle of Mogadishu in McCain's opposition to Somalia? Or perhaps Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse in reference to his support of Iraq or Iran-Contra scandal in reference to his support for US's involvement with the Contras... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is supposed to summarize the sub-article. See WP:Summary Style. I don't recollect that I had any part in writing the relevant section of the sub-article, but that section of the sub-article does discuss the bombing of the barracks in Lebanon. If you would like to go and delete that, then go ahead and try. I think it's useful context. I mean, McCain has made a lot of decisions and cast a lot of votes in his career. Are we supposed to completely ignore whether history proved him right or wrong? If you're so excited to do so, Bobblehead, then why not delete from this article that the line-item veto legislation that he suported was later struck down by the Supreme Court?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, this is starting to look a bit heated. Earlier there was a comment that there's no mention if McCain opposed the original deployment. He was not a Congressman when the Marines were deployed to Lebanon. The edit by Ferrylodge seems like a reasonable balance between context/education and assuming the audience knows everything. This is not blanket support of Ferrylodge as he changed my edit but not to the degree that requires a revert. 903M (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

← The point I'm trying to make is that there is always extraneous information that can potentially be included in the article and thanks to the wonders of wikilinks it isn't necessary to include it. The fact that McCain voted against the WPA and the bombing occurred the next month doesn't mean history proved McCain right, just like Iran-Contra doesn't prove that his support of Reagan's policies in Latin America were wrong... If we want to go the route of WP:SS, then the removal of extraneous information that is not related to McCain's opposition to the US's involvement in Lebanon is more in line with the guideline than the inclusion of that information. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Somehow the fate of the Line Item Veto Act got caught up in this matter. If it's notable to say that a legislator pushed through some law, and if that law was very quickly ruled unconstitutional, then surely it's notable to say that too. This doesn't constitute "piling on" the legislator: many lawmakers are proud of passing such bills and believe that the courts got it wrong. I've restored the text in question. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead deleted that, not me. Bobblehead has a theory that the results of McCain's decisions (or the aftermath), should not be included in this article, and on that basis he removed the fact that the Marines got bombed in Lebanon. Why, WTR, did you reinsert the line-ietm veto stuff but not the Lebanon bombing stuff? Obviously, the former makes McCain look bad and ineffectual, whereas the latter makes him look wise and un-bellicose. Why do you restore the former but not the latter?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the original text, so I certainly thought it was correct at the time. The subarticle still contains my text too: "However, his vote against a resolution allowing President Reagan to keep U.S. Marines deployed as part of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, on the grounds that he "[did] not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon," would seem prescient after the catastrophic Beirut barracks bombing a month later;[1] this vote would also gain him national media exposure and start his reputation as a political maverick.[1]" Bobblehead has raised objections to the 'prescient' link, which I am mulling over and need to do a bit a research on. As noted below, I'm also trying to find the general WP guideline for this kind of context-providing. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, and in the mean time while you look for that guideline you restore context that makes McCain look bad, and keep out context that makes him look good. And an inflammatory edit summary to boot![2] Well done, pal. The top of this talk page says, "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here." Please try, else I may get paranoid.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Line Item Veto Act getting ruled unconstitutional doesn't make McCain look bad! It's a fine idea, I can't help it if the Supreme Court doesn't agree! Every poll I've ever seen says the public is in favor of line item vetoes! Come on ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same subject here? There has been no disagreement that the line-item veto should be mentioned in this article. The disagreement has been about mentioning the subsequent SCOTUS action. Please look at your own revert! You were not restoring mention of the line item veto, but rather were only restoring mention about the subsequent overturning by SCOTUS. Why do you insist on reverting Bobblehead by restoring the subsequent SCOTUS action, but not reverting Bobblehead on the Lebanon explosion? Bobblehead used the same exact rationale for both cases, and yet you are only restoring the material that makes McCain look bad. Why is that, WTR?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what I reverted. (a) I do not believe that the Line Item Veto Act getting ruled unconsitutional makes McCain look bad. Maybe it makes SCOTUS look bad, or maybe it makes the Constitution look bad, but not McCain. (b) I don't know whether you or Bobblehead established the linkage between this item and the Lebanon item, but I consider the linkage entirely bogus. One has nothing to do with the other. It's a no-brainer to include the SCOTUS ruling on the Line Item Veto Act, since it happened right away and since (without the reader linking through, which I do not believe we can assume, see side discussion below) the article would be misleading. I'm trying to research the Lebanon matter even as we type. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I admit it you're right. The fact that the SCOTUS decision made McCain look ineffectual and disrespectful of the Constitution was a definite plus for him. He probably thanked SCOTUS, instead of saying that it was a "defeat for the American people" and comparing the SCOTUS decision to his last interrogation in Hanoi.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See this NYT story during the legal process on the Line Item Veto Act. McCain and Bill Clinton (and I, for whatever that's worth) all thought it was a good idea and hoped the Supreme Court would okay it. It didn't. That's life, that's nothing to be ashamed of. The ruling doesn't make anyone look "ineffectual and disrespectful" of the Constitution, it just means that reasonable people can disagree and the makeup of the SCOTUS at that time had a different view. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There was only one dissenter, so McCain pretty well got wiped out. (I would also be remiss if I did not mention that, before the Supreme Court decided to take over the country and usurp legislative power, SCOTUS would let stand legislation if it thought reasonable people could differ about its constitutionality, and would only strike down legilstion that was clearly unconstitutional.) In any event, as you know, I would have no objection to including this SCOTUS material if we can also include the Lebanon bombing. I can't see any rationale for including one but excluding the other.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument defeats itself. If McCain was valiantly combating the appointed-for-life-accountable-to-no-one, from-the-bench-legislating, constitution-shredding, our-essential-liberties-depriving Supreme Court, then surely no number of these hideous creatures opposing him would make him look bad. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your logic escapes me, if indeed it was intended to be logic. You can wiggle all you want, but having legislation struck down is generally considered a defeat for a legislator, not a victory. That's extremely obvious, and I don't wish to quibble with you about it further. Incidentally, I never said that the Court's decision in this case was right or wrong, but rather was responding to your remark that reasonable people could disagree; I'm not sure you're right that the unconstitutionality was unclear in this case, and I don't have time to look into it right now. What I do know is that it was a big defeat for McCain, and defeats generally don't make a politician look good. End of story.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the results of McCain's decisions can not be included. What I'm saying is that unrelated events that do not have anything to do with McCain's decisions should not be included in the article as if there is a relationship. The bombing of the barracks does not mean that McCain was right or that those that voted for the WPA were wrong. The passage of the WPA certainly did not cause the bombing and it's unlikely that failure of the WPA would have prevented the attack. Attacks of this nature take quite a bit of time to plan out, so it is likely that planning began well before the attack took place. Additionally, removing troops from a combat zone takes longer than a month, particularly since the move wouldn't have had the support of the administration. Just as an example, it took almost two months for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq once Zapatero ordered the withdrawal of their 1,300 troops and they had six months warning that it was going to happen.[3] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, per the below I'm trying to research this better. If McCain believed that the U.S. forces were badly vulnerable and that the U.S. should rapidly withdraw, and if the attack happened, then he should get credit for having voiced this prescient view (even if the rejection of the authorization wouldn't have made a difference in the time span given). What I'm trying to establish was whether he ever publicly stated his force protection worry. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a WP guideline about this general subject, but now I can't find it. Anyway, I believe it said something to the effect that an article must be intelligible and coherent even if the reader never clicks on a single link (which is the forced case when the article is printed out or included in a printed volume). So imagine you're reading a real biography, or a long magazine or newspaper piece, and imagine how those writers would introduce contexts of events. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PAPER and m:Wiki is not paper seem to encourage leaving out extraneous information, but there is definitely a need to make sure the article is readable without having to click on links. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

On the substance of this whole dispute, McCain's account in Worth the Fighting For in fact does claim that he feared that the Marines were significantly endangered by the continuing deployment, due to the restricted rules of engagement (pp. 90-91) and to their being an undersized force (p. 93). Let me keep looking at this ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, that McCain's 28 September 1983 House floor statement opposing the authorization measure didn't mention vulnerability of U.S. forces, and just focused on the 'no achievable objectives, we'll just be trapped there politically' arguments. I need to find a source from the time that has McCain worried about force protection, in order to establish prescience. Will keep looking. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Worth the Fighting For was written almost twenty years after the bombings... I'd find it more convincing if there was some public record or someone unrelated to McCain supporting his fear for their safety rather than him applying 20/20 hindsight. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, that's what I'm looking for. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an edit conflicted response. I didn't actually read your comment until after reposting my comment. Keep up the good work.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't found much yet. This NYT story from 1987 has McCain saying " ... But I knew that 1,500 marines at the airport were not going to affect the outcome of events in Lebanon and, unfortunately, that some young Americans were going to die needlessly." But that's still hindsight, just from 4 years forward not 19. The 1983 newspaper articles I've seen (including one from NYT) are after the authorization vote, and just quote a line or two from McCain's floor speech. Unfortunately I can't find Arizona Republic archives from before 1999 (a problem I've had with other topics too), that's perhaps the most likely place for him to have said something publicly. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, you guys are nitpicking this to death. Of course McCain didn't foresee the precise barracks bombing. What he obviously foresaw is death of Americans. The bombing is what the whole episode is remembered for, so it's ridiculous to leave it out. Moreover, the bombing may well have saved him from electoral defeat. Timberg writes: "He created a mild furor in the district with his September 1983 vote on Lebanon. The criticism lasted a month, until October when the Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed...." Do you think Timberg was violating some rule of biography-writing to say so?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, there is always going to be deaths in combat operations that involve ground troops and McCain knows that. McCain has never supported or opposed operations based on whether or not there would be American deaths, it is based on whether or not there are obtainable objectives. As far as whether or not Timberg is violating a rule of biography. In the context Timberg uses it, the bombing does have an impact upon McCain's biography, but that isn't how it was being used in this article. As you have already admitted, the bombing was being used to show that McCain was right in his opposition to WPA and that isn't what it shows. The bombing changed public opinion on whether the US should be in Lebanon, it didn't prove that anyone was right or wrong. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, McCain would not have objected to the deployment if there was no risk of death. Why else prefer that troops be stationed in Frankfurt instead of Beirut? He said: "I believe the circumstances of our original involvement have changed, and I know four American families who share this view." He wanted to stop the pointless deaths. I'll reinsert the bombing in the context Timberg uses it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

← There is a sub-article that this kind of information can and should be included in. The criticism that he received was "mild" by Timberg's wording and it certainly doesn't say that the bombings saved his re-election as you claim. McCain got 78% of the vote, it is unlikely a "mild furor" would have cost him 29% of the vote. It's also not like the bombings were the first American casualties in Beirut, seventeen Americans died when the embassy was bombed in April of that year. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here. This thing won't ring a bell for many readers unless we mention that this was the incident where all those Marines got bombed. Anyway, the way it's worded now in the article seems unobjectionable by any measure.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to ring a bell, there's a link they can follow if they want to find out more about MNF. Additionally, the important part of McCain's opposition to the WPA is not that it started a mild furor in his home district, it's that it was the start of his regular appearances on the Sunday shows and his reputation as a maverick. You're still conflating his vote and the bombings when the two are not related. The mild furor and subsequent bombings are minor in comparison to that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is so unfortunate as to be perusing this talk page, it might help if you would spell out terms instead of using acronyms that only you and I will understand. As far as conflating anyting, I've tracked Timberg as closely as humanly possible without plagiarizing.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think anyone reading this talk page for the first time will get the point, since it's unlikely that I'm talking about Monday Night Football. :) But, the point I'm making is that the mild furor is not the defining point of McCain's vote against keeping the troops in Lebanon. The defining point of the vote is that it is the first time that McCain bucked his fellow Republicans in such a visible manner and that bucking, plus his history as a POW, attracted the national media who for the first time began seeking his opinion on matters of national importance. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure people will understand that you are not talking about Monday Night Football, but at the same time they will not know what you are talking about. What the defining point of his vote was is a matter of interpretation. If he voted as he did primarily to be contrarian, and to seek publicity, then I would agree with you about the defining point, but I don't.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, having pondered this overnight, I still stand by what I wrote originally here, that's now in the subarticle: "However, his vote against a resolution allowing President Reagan to keep U.S. Marines deployed as part of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, on the grounds that he "[did] not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon," would seem prescient after the catastrophic Beirut barracks bombing a month later; this vote would also gain him national media exposure and start his reputation as a political maverick." McCain's public House floor speech was short, and likely didn't include all his reasons against extending the deployment. I can't yet directly prove it with contemporaneous documents, but I do believe that force protection was one of his concerns, based on both his statements after the fact and the general nature of the debate at the time, about which the dangers posed to the Marine deployment was constantly being discussed. (See this NYT story or this NYT op-ed from a former Senator, both published earlier in September 1983, just as a couple of examples.) I think the 'Marines as sitting ducks' context was implicit in what McCain was saying, and that the 'no forseeable objectives' conclusion meant that casualties weren't worth taking (of course, no one expected the extent to which the casualties would disastrously occur).

The larger point is that opponents of ill-advised military involvements rarely foresee all of what will go wrong or exactly what shape the wrong will take, but they still usually get credit for recognizing that the involvement is misguided. This is true of early critics of the Vietnam War, for example. Or take Iraq: during the Democratic primaries, Obama got much of his base support for having opposed the war initially while Hillary supported it, yet when you look at Obama's famous 2002 speech, you'll see there's really only one sentence in it warning about the occupation -- "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." It's not like he was predicting, say, the depths to which the occupation would reach in the 2006 period. But he still got credit for his opposition to the war (from those opposed to the war), and rightly so.

So, in sum, if we include Lebanon, I favor the inclusion of as much of the above subarticle text in the main article as Ferrylodge's thou-shalt-grow-no-larger commandment allows. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article now says: "he opposed keeping U.S. Marines deployed in Lebanon citing a lack of obtainable objectives, and his opposition created a mild furor in his congressional district until a month later when a Marine barracks was bombed." This seems adequate, and well-supported by the cited sources.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about including the "mild furor" bit. Worth the Fighting For doesn't mention this. I'd like to find Timberg's original (presumably newspaper) source on this, and see what the magnitude was. Because if we're going to include Arizona dissatisfaction with McCain in the main article, we also need to include the recall efforts of the spring and summer of 2001. These didn't get too far, and ended with 9/11, but there was a groundswell of core Republican/conservative upset with McCain due to his many oppositions to Bush early in Bush's term. The recall efforts were reported on by the Arizona Republic, NY Times, and others, and are already mentioned in the corresponding subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took out the mild furor, and instead wrote this: "he opposed keeping U.S. Marines deployed in Lebanon citing unattainable objectives, and McCain later criticized President Reagan for pulling out the troops too late; in the interim, a Marine barracks was bombed killing hundreds."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's proposal is actually a moderate compromise. The right wing version would go beyond that. It would go on to explain that Osama bin Laden cites the Marine barracks bombing as encouragement that the U.S. is spineless and can be chased to hell. I do not share the right wing edit so Ferrylodge is actually the moderate, Wikipedia-neutral edit. Some backstory information that Ferrylodge presents is necessary for understanding. If one cites "you can always click a link or learn elsewhere" then Wikipedia should close down because most of Wikipedia's sources are online and anyone can look it up. I disagree with Ferrylodge often but not this time. 903M (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's make sure we get the dates accurate

Resolved

Looks ok to me.

We are making Wikipedia look sloppy and/or stupid. Let's nail down the facts. I am not so interested in the man but with a lot of people reading the article, we must get it right.

It says "House and Senate career...1982-2000" in the section title. No. He was sworn in as a Congressman in January 1983. So his congressional career started in 1983. True, the election was in late 1982 but one cannot have a career if they are not yet on the job. If one says that he was preparing for the job, he was preparing in 1952 when he was attending the Naval Academy but it's wrong to say "House and Senate career 1952-2000"

903M (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some children use Wikipedia for writing school reports. Using my new section heading, it becomes clear that he was Congressman from 1983-1987. Without it, the text of the section doesn't make it clear. Let's do this for the childrens' sake and not oppose it. 903M (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the heading to "House and Senate elections and career, 1982-2000". No way can anyone say that's inaccurate.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restructured the internal sections of House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 to deal with the election-vs-service complaint; see the Talk page there. However, that still leaves open the question of that article's title; see Talk:House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000#Proposals for new article title for discussion and possibilities. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Article size

Apologies, for the possibly awkward location of this comment, there doesn't seem to be an ideal location for a comment of this type. I appreciate the importance of having the most complete information on this subject (John McCain), for obvious reasons. But the overwhelming issue faced for any and all accessing this page is that it's become MUCH to thorough, best of Wikipedia or not. If I only had the necessary knowledge, I'd split it myself into multiple pages. Please fix this, anybody who is able. It has fallen victim to what may well be vanity-run-amok. Thank you. EnglishHornDude EnglishHornDude (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is already a summary of multiple other articles about John McCain. If you'll notice, the majority of the sections in the article contain a link to a main article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Like he said. Also, this article has been through numerous reviews, including GAC, peer review, a non-trivial GAR, and two FACs leading to FA. So for inexperienced users to come in and say the article is "sloppy and/or stupid" (903M) or "much too thorough" (EnglishHornDude) is kind of ... searching for an AGF-compliant word that means "annoying" ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

But, and I can't tell if it's related to this comment or not, Ferrylodge has made this long edit with the summary "Cutting and reducing. Glad to discuss if there are any objections." What is the motivation for this? The article is not too long in WP:SIZE terms: our 46 kB (7483 words) readable prose size fits well within the guideline boundaries of 60 kB and 10,000 words. Nor do I think the article is too long in terms of readability, usefulness, and similar characteristics. So why make a bunch of trimming edits, that in a number of places resulted in lost content and/or lost meaning? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WTR, this article has long had size issues. Between the first (failed) FAC and the second (succsessful) FAC, we cut out about 6000 words. It's started to grow back.

If you go to the article and click "edit this page", it says "This page is 133 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." That includes both readable and non-readable prose. When this article became featured, the message said, "This page is 118 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." So, it's obviously grown considerably in the last few weeks. The readable prose was only 42 kB (6833 words) when it passed FAC.

Wikipedia guidelines say: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles...." So, when the article passed FAC, we were already at the point where readers may become tired.

The article is 7,483 words. If readers tire of reading a page "much longer" than an average of 8,000 words, I don't think we've reached the tiredom point yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so we're headed to 8000 words now? WTR, didn't we agree previously that new stuff should be conterbalanced by removing old stuff that is less important? I don't want to go rummaging around for the diff, but wasn't it clear that our goal should be to try to keep the article to the FAC size?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't remember any such discussion or agreement, although maybe we said something and I've forgotten it, it's certainly possible. We obviously have differing views on article length, then and now, but rest assured I'm not trying to bring the article back to its pre-split-out size or anything close to that. Indeed, if I had my way, I'd take Lebanon, Somolia, and Kosovo all back out of the article, but two of them got mentioned in a debate the other night, so now all of a sudden it seems intervention material has to come in and existing stuff has to get thrown out. It's that rationale I don't agree with. If we made a mistake in leaving out this intervention material, then just put it in, don't sacrifice legitimate existing material just because of that mistake. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the material that you restored, you reinserted this regarding Kosovo: "McCain soon urged that use of ground troops in the intervention not be ruled out." We already describe his support for Cinton's bombing campaign, and this extra bit is a detail that belongs in the sub-article. It's not a statement of support for ground troops; it's merely a statement that they should not be ruled out. Geez, in a war you never rule anything out. This is barely notable for the sub-article, much less this one. I'm trying to cut some bloat here, and this is a prime example.

The ruling out of ground troops was actually a big issue at the time; the Clinton administration was heavily criticized by some Republicans and conservative commentators for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Clinton said that he did not rule out ground troops in Kosovo.[4][5] The way you have it phrased in this article makes it sound like McCain was calling for ground troops, which he was not doing. At least Timberg spelled it out: "He did not call for the deployment of ground troops but argued that the President and NATO should not unilaterally foreclose that option...." I continue to believe that this relatively minor detail should go. It's not one of those very precious things that has been in this article through FAC, after all. It's worded poorly, without any context, and will likely be confusing. The main thing is that McCain supported the bombing campaign. This article is for main things, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding cigarette taxes, I shortened "McCain took on the tobacco industry in 1998, proposing legislation that would increase cigarette taxes in order to fund anti-smoking campaigns, discourage teenage smokers, increase money for health research studies, and help states pay for smoking-related health care costs" to "McCain took on the tobacco industry in 1998, proposing legislation that would increase cigarette taxes in order to discourage teenage smokers, and fund efforts to grapple with smoking-related issues." Yes, of course the shorter version is more vague. Summaries are always more vague. That's why we have sub-articles.

McCain's a legislator. Saying what the laws he proposed or got passed would actually do is kind of important! "efforts to grapple with smoking-related issues" is the most vacuous, empty phrase I've heard in a while. It tells the reader nothing of what McCain was aiming for. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

He helped raise cigarette taxes. And doing so was to deter smokers. And instead of putting the revenue into the general treasury it was used specifically for smoking matters. The last point is not trivial or vacuous at all. There is a huge difference between putting tax revenue into the general treasury funds, versus targeting specifically on smoking. The little trivial details about how that revenue was distributed belong in a sub-article, not here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is at a size where it becomes worse as it becomes longer. I know that you wish longer articles could become featured. However, I hope you did not agree to shorten this article, intending to re-lengthen later.

BLP guidelines say that there should be consensus to reinsert or add material, not consensus to remove material. We're getting pretty close to the point where I'd like to start insisting on it. People come here for a relatively short read, not War and Peace.

We're also pretty close to the point, WTR, where I am going to conclude that you're reverting my edits reflexively, without any plausible reason. I changed "McCain attacked what he saw as the corrupting influence of large political contributions – from corporations, labor unions, other organizations, and wealthy individuals – and he made this his signature issue" to "McCain attacked what he saw as the corrupting influence of large political contributions, and he made this his signature issue." What on Earth is wrong with that edit of mine? McCain opposes large political contributions from virtually any person or group. What is the purpose of listing the different types? Can't that be done in the sub-article? This kind of excess verbiage is exactly what makes this article unpleasant and overly time-consuming for some people to read.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your removal here was that the later phrase "were opposed by some of the moneyed interests targeted" loses its antecedant. What moneyed interests? It's also worth listing both corporations and labor unions to show that McCain wasn't playing partisan favorites. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)-

Please give me one example of a moneyed interest that McCain thought should be able to give large political donations.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. If we just say "moneyed interests", every reader will form an image of who they think that might be. One person might think McCain was aiming at traditional political fat cats, and not big impersonal corporations. Another reader might think McCain was aiming at corporations, and never imagine McCain was target labor union contributions too. By enumerating them, we force readers to realize the breadth of McCain's goal, and help the reader better understand why there was so much opposition and it look so long to pass. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not reverting your edits reflexively, that's absurd. You suddenly, without warning or talk page explanation, decided to start eliminating material out of the article, that's been in for a long time and went through GA and FA. You think that isn't going to get a reaction? And I didn't revert all your cut-downs, just some of them. Geez, don't start getting paranoid on us. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and restored the ones where I thought the cutting degraded the article, and have given my reasons in the edit summaries. Ferrylodge, when you're doing a series of discrete reductions like that, it's usually best to do them as individual edits rather than all in one edit, so that others can more easily revert or modify ones they disagree with. I've done each of my restores as an individual edit, on this basis. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If I thought there was anything remotely controversial or problematic about them, then I would have done them as separate edits. See my previous comment.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird redirections

Why does searching for (redacted) get you redirected to John McCain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.60.122 (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)