This is an archive of past discussions about John McCain. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Like John McCain's Wikipedia page, included in the lead should state Clinton's presidential loss to her opponent.
John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is an American politician serving as the senior United States Senator from Arizona, a seat he was first elected to in 1986. He was the Republican nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election, which he lost to Barack Obama.
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and diplomat who served as the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001, U.S. Senator from New York from 2001 to 2009, 67th United States Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, and the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2016 election, losing to Donald Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C8C0:EC90:91A:B690:994:E29A (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
You cross-posted this at Talk:Hillary Clinton. It doesn't belong here because it is not about improvement to this article. Next time feel free to post discussion notices elsewhere, but please don't duplicate discussions as all discussion on the topic should be concentrated in one place. See WP:MULTI. ―Mandruss☎06:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to John McCain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done The point is made correctly in the article and in the appropriate place: John McCain#Return to Senate. It does not yet belong in the lede section. As long as he is alive and a Senator, his vote in December 2017 may not be his last. --- Coffeeandcrumbs23:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to John McCain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I have reached to have a Wikipedia to add reference of the web site www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Not listing all "standard reactions" (unless there are non-platitudes), but Trump, who had disagreements and as sitting POTUS is notable.Lihaas (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I suggest the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph on topic of Tributes be changed to that shown below to better reflect the facts (and media reaction) around Donald Trump's single terse tweet. Omitting footnote references: "Tributes were widely given on social media, including from Congressional colleagues, former Presidents George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Vice President Mike Pence. President Donald Trump sent his condolences."Wiki999Adam (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Unclear citation style
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Coffeeandcrumbs tagged this with {{Citation style}}, saying "This article uses a fix of several citation styles, including WP:CS1 and WP:CS2. This is not an ITN concern. Article improvement should not be sacrificed for the sake of ITN's convenience."
@Coffeeandcrumbs: If you look at the article contribution stats, you will see that by far the two largest writers of this article have been User:Anythingyouwant and myself. Back when this article was first being brought to GA/FA status in 2007–08, there was considerable debate across Wikipedia between the "plain" citation style (no templates) and the "cite news" etc style (templates). I liked templates, but Anythingyouwant hated the templates approach on stylistic/editor usability grounds and also thought they were significantly slowing down article load times, which was a real issue with heavily cited articles back then. So an agreement was made that we would use plain style, not templates, in this article and I often reworked other editor's contributions to change the template cites to the format used by this article.
Time passed. I stopped working on heavily viewed, contentious article subjects, such as this one, and Anythingyouwant has taken periodic breaks from Wikipedia entirely, including one currently. Article load times stopped being an issue and cite templates became almost universal. So other editors' contributions always used cite templates and none of them thought to rework them into the existing article style, thus producing the mixture you see.
That said, the difference in styles will be imperceptible to 99% of readers, as your examples above illustrate – only someone with a copyeditor's soul would notice it. Thus I do not think that this situation warrants an ugly warning notice at the top of the article. If there has to be a notice, put it at the top of the References section, where it would be more appropriate. But to be honest, jillions of WP articles have much worse clashes of citing style than this one, and carry no warning notice at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: The issue still exists. It is NOT a sourcing issue. It is a citation style issue. Please add the tag back to the References section. Users keep moving it to the top of the page where it does not belong. Just because he died we should not stop improving this article. If there was a FAR today, this article would fail.--- Coffeeandcrumbs16:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know that it would fail FAR. This seems like a minor issue, one that makes a tag at the top inappropriate. I don't know that it's appropriate to have at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to John McCain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just FYI that this is getting enough traction for Politifact to start picking up on it. Apparently totally fabricated by their measure. But I wouldn't be surprised if it pops up here, assuming it hasn't already. GMGtalk10:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The article is deficient in that it completely fails to discuss his finances. While a public servant all his life, he is also known to be extremely wealthy, owning a huge mansion and a number of other properties, so many that he said he didn't know how many he had. A complete article would include a section on his sources of income and financial status. I don't have that information, and was disappointed when I came here to find it and found it totally missing. He was an important public figure, and deserves a more complete Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4202:59A0:84DC:94F5:FD0F:694C (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Per that article, his financial status was "Married to a beer heiress". So basically "set for life". Not much more to say, unless I'm overlooking something. InedibleHulk(talk)14:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
What sorts of things would it include? Buildings, streets, schools etc. named for him? I think this idea has possibilities - we often do that kind of section for prominent people - but can we see some examples? Certainly if they rename the Russell Senate Office Building for him, that would be one. Are there other types of legacies - organizations he founded, significant bills still in effect that he authored? --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I notice that other articles such as John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy combine my idea here - memorials and things - along with historical evaluation of their impact, into sections variously called Legacy, Honors, Historical impact, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Whether the "myth" has been "put to rest" is irrelevant. It was the subject of a major investigative report by a respected, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a venerable albeit left-wing weekly magazine less than a month before the 2008 election. Neutrality favors the inclusion of "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". The text is well-sourced, takes no position on the allegations, and is relevant in the context of the section on McCain's failed 2008 presidential bid. Further, one paragraph on that subject in context of the hundreds of other words on the election is not disproportionate and does not violate WP:UNDUE.--Mox La Push (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Well no. If these allegations have been put to rest there's no reason to include them, especially not in the way you have it written. You would have to show that these allegations are still relevant and still being covered in recent sources. Volunteer Marek 07:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
First, neither you nor Gandydancer have provided any reliable sources showing that the allegations have been "put to rest". You have merely asserted that to be so. In any case the allegations are relevant in the context of the section on his failed 2008 presidential bid. And what Wikipedia policy indicates that for a topic to be included in an article it must be "being covered in recent sources"? There is plenty of stuff in the article and I'm pretty sure no one is writing now about how "During the 2006 election cycle, McCain had attended 346 events ..." for one example. --Mox La Push (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not up to us to provide such sources, it's up to you to show that this is still relevant. The policies are, as already mentioned WP:UNDUE and also WP:EVENT. And yes BLP applies here because BLP applies to articles about the recently deceased (second sentence of WP:BLP). Since more than one user has objected to this material, and since you're the only one who wants to add it, the WP:ONUS is on you to convince others, not vice versa. Volunteer Marek 13:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
"...1993. The group’s difficult finding—that there was no evidence that any Americans had been held back in Vietnamese prisons—was agreed to unanimously by all members, across the political divide, from far right to far left. It was a truly bipartisan outcome, one of those increasingly infrequent moments in which facts vanquished ideology on Capitol Hill. No one was more central to that blazingly controversial effort than John McCain. By dismantling the last pillar of American contempt for Vietnam, McCain, in partnership with Kerry, led the way to the lifting of the embargo, the diplomatic recognition of Vietnam, and the true end of the war." [1]Gandydancer (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, you are way off base and ripping Wikipedia policy out of context. The fact that allegations from a reliable source concerning McCain's role in POWs/MIAs allegedly left behind in Vietnam resurfaced just weeks before the 2008 presidential election is both useful to the reader and within the scope of the article. Neutrality favors the inclusion of "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". The text is well-sourced, takes no position on the allegations, and is relevant in the context of the section on McCain's failed 2008 presidential bid. Further, one paragraph on that subject in context of the hundreds of other words on the election is not disproportionate and does not violate WP:UNDUE. WP:EVENT is inapplicable because we are not debating "whether a topic can have its own article". WP:BLP only applies to "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced". The material in dispute is well sourced. As for WP:ONUS, there is no consensus that the text on the 2008 allegations "does not improve an article" and only you have removed the content. Gandydancer, has merely asserted that "POW myth was put to rest many years ago". As I have pointed out "put to rest" or not "put to rest" is irrelevant in the context of the section on the 2008 election. --Mox La Push (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
1) Please don't use false edit summaries or make false accusations. I did not violate 3RR. If you really believe I did, feel free to report me to WP:AN/3. Keep in mind however that you could get a WP:BOOMERANG especially since WP:BLP applies to this page.
2) Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are just repeating the same thing over and over again, both in your statement above and in your edit summaries, and refusing to actually consider the points made by others. Volunteer Marek 03:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, I don't have time to further engage tonight and I'm not sure it would help in any case. I do have time to say that you are correct, my last edit summary was false. I was mistaken, you did not violate 3RR. I apologize for the error. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Well I'll say this, to write of your own work essentially that it's not been widely covered in the mainstream press because there's a conspiracy to suppress the information...Well...if there's such a thing as a Wikipedian dog whistle, where normal people in crowd don't give a second thought, and editors hear panicked screaming "Don't put me in an article!"...That's it right there. It's basically a self-admission of WP:UNDUE weight. GMGtalk12:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
With respect to the purported failure by other media outlets to take up Schanberg's allegations against McCain, the disputed/reverted text never uses the word "conspiracy" or alludes to one. I used the word "colludes". While conspire and colludes are synonyms they are not precisely the same. In any case, that was probably a poor word choice on my part and I believe I would have been open to constructive feedback on that point. More importantly, in the Nation article cited, Schanberg doesn't explicitly allege collusion and the following is his sole reference to conspiracy: "McCain has insisted again and again that all the evidence has been woven together by unscrupulous deceivers to create an insidious and unpatriotic myth. He calls it the work of the 'bizarre rantings of the MIA hobbyists.' He has regularly vilified those who keep trying to pry out classified documents as 'hoaxers,' 'charlatans,' 'conspiracy theorists' and 'dime-store Rambos.' " Finally, I would add that if, say, the allegations had been made in 200-word rant by 19-year-old fry cook on an obscure blog then, yes, the references to other media failing to run with the story would point to WP:UNDUE. Here, however, we're talking about a long-form investigative piece by a veteran, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist in a national magazine that has been a mainstay of American journalism for over 150 years. That doesn't mean that Schanberg and The Nation were correct about the allegations but I do think, in context, it obviates claims about WP:UNDUE. --Mox La Push (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Well...let's be clear, Schanberg is unequivocally making accusations of a grand conspiracy including not only McCain, but also Kerry, the Pentagon, the media...I dunno...what?..five presidential administrations? And his own credibility as an individual doesn't at all satisfy UNDUE, because he's only one individual, and is individually the primary proponent of his conspiracy theory. And elsewhere it gets picked up by folks like [shorturl.at/iqDFY Infowars] and Zero Edge, both smorgasbords of conspiratorial nonsense. GMGtalk15:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
failure by other media outlets to take up Schanberg's allegations against McCain This settles the matter right there. A primary source (even from a Pulitzer Prize winning author) is not worth mentioning here if its contents are not repeated and extended by secondary sources. As for the allegations themselves, history has disproven them. No "left-behind" POWs were ever found, and no evidence of them has turned up even after we re-opened relations with Vietnam. An equally well-sourced, and far more likely, explanation for the "POWs left behind" claim was that the Nixon administration promoted it as an excuse to keep the war going - deliberately combining the MIA numbers with the POW numbers to inflate them, and during his second term changing the rationale for the war from "repel the Communist invaders" to "get our people back".[2] --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Schanberg's work isn't a primary source for the purposes of this discussion. As is clear from the removed text, other media outlets did, in fact, "take up" Schanberg's allegations. One cited in the removed text was the Editor & Publisher piece. Also, in 2008, St. Martin's Press published An Enormous Crime: The Definitive Account of American POWs Abandoned in Southeast Asia by Bill Hendon and Elizabeth A. Stewart. Hendon and Stewart cite one of Schanberg's Newsday pieces in support of their argument. I haven't read the book but according to the Publisher's Weekly blurb: "Hendon and Stewart directly accuse a long list of government officials of the coverup. Among the most culpable: Kissinger, President George H.W. Bush, Senators John McCain ..." Before that, in 2004, as John Kerry sought to become the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, The Village Voice (VV) ran a series of articles on the subject by Schanberg. One accused Kerry of covering "up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973." The VV piece also implicated John McCain by name and the VV also published list of dozens of works on the subject by Schanberg published by Newsday. Moreover, when McCain was running for re-election to the Senate in 2010, The American Conservativerepublished Schanberg's Nation piece four months before the election. You claim, "No 'left-behind' POWs were ever found, and no evidence of them has turned up ..." We can surely agree the John McCain article isn't the place to hash that out and the disputed edit was NPOV re: the merits of Schanberg's claims. What is relevant is whether the disputed/deleted addition is NPOV in context. For reasons I have already stated, I submit that it is NPOV and that the special circumstances exceptions of BLP are inapplicable to the disputed/deleted addition. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
GMG, let's be clear: First, in the Schanberg article cited in the deleted text, Schanberg himself chose not to use the word "conspiracy", except to describe how McCain had deployed that word against his critics. I think it's a fair point that his allegations are tantamount to an allegation of conspiracy by McCain and other officials but I can't claim to know why he didn't come right out and say that. It could be that he had a more nuanced view, that he thought making such a claim would trigger some readers to reflexively dismiss his case on specious grounds, or something else. Second, WP:UNDUE isn't about whether a point of view posits a conspiracy—"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I maintain that the deleted text, in context, represents a significant viewpoint published by reliable sources and that one relatively short paragraph in the entirety of the John McCain article is proportionate. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Support content inclusion. We follow the sources, right? Based on that argument used minute to minute on various other political articles in Wikipedia to add content, there's no reason to keep it out of this article. -- ψλ ● ✉✓16:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
We don't follow EVERY source - only the sources/reports that are given WEIGHT by being reported on and repeated by multiple, independent, reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to John McCain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"Thwarted" implies bad intent. Or that McCain deserved to win. Neutral would be "defeated". That's redundant to the article as it's already mentioned, and not relevant to the funeral. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
It implies no such thing. If you think it does, then change it to defeated. It IS relevant to the funeral because McCain asked to be honored by the men who thwarted his presidential aspirations, at his funeral. soibangla (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2) I deleted it. So did Moboshgu. It is completely out of place in a discussion of his funeral. He chose them to speak; it was like him to reach across the aisle and across their past history, a gracious way of putting the past behind them - but he didn't make a point of that graciousness and neither should we. P.S. does any Reliable Source mention this bit of history in connection with his funeral plans, or is it Original Research to mention it there? --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Both of you are reading intent on my part that simply is not present in the edit. If anything, it supports "a gracious way of putting the past behind them." Slow down, relax, and read it again. soibangla (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I ask again: are Reliable Sources making this connection - calling attention to their past opposition in direct connection, the same breath, with his funeral plans? --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
RS aren't needed to present the indisputable fact, which some readers may not know, that both Bush and Obama thwarted McCain's presidential aspirations. A lesser man would've been bitter at them, but instead he asked both of them to honor him at his funeral. Again, if anything, it supports "a gracious way of putting the past behind them." There is absolutely nothing wrong with the edit.soibangla (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, well, you are free to continue to maintain that, even though it is purely synthesis - i.e., taking two indisputable facts and trying to establish a connection between them. ("RS aren't needed" is a rather strange argument to put forward at Wikipedia.) Anyhow, you will need to obtain consensus before it goes back in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no synth whatsoever. Both of you overreacted and you both know it. Show some humility and restore it rather than forcing me to jump through hoops to put back a perfectly fine edit. soibangla (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You don't think it has a negative connotation. I do. to oppose successfully; prevent from accomplishing a purpose; to frustrate or baffle (a plan, purpose, etc.) sounds plenty negative to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't need to. They can use whatever words they like. They follow their own style guide, we follow ours. – Muboshgu (talk)`
It is not “ours,” it is yours. Even the definitions you provided above show it is not the least bit prejudicial. The objections to the edit are utterly preposterous. I’m done here. soibangla (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a community and communities follow standards. You've had at least four editors tell you that "thwarted" is inappropriate language. I suggest you read through the Manual of Style. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
"Thwarted" does not have a neutral tone. It reads, even if unintentionally, as if "the men who thwarted his aspirations" intentionally and out of malicious intent sought to stop him from becoming the president. In reality, the men who thwarted his aspirations were simply other candidates with the same aspirations. Such words would be fine if this were a newspaper, but this is an encyclopedia and its purpose is solely to inform. For more information, read WP:MOS. This request is clearly made out of good faith, but by an editor that does not appear to be familiar with the Manual of Style. Brendon the Wizard✉️✨14:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I still think we should leave it out entirely. And that latest wording proposal - "requested that both of his presidential opponents, Bush and Obama, eulogize him" - makes him sound small, petty - like he was getting the last word, forcing them to say nice things about him - that's not at all how I think he felt or meant it. IMO there is no good way to say this, and no need to say it at all. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree with this. The article already mentions in great detail his competition against Dubya and Obama. No need to say it again. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
"Competitor" and "opponent" are too neutral, omitting the result of the contest. Purely as a verb, there's absolutely nothing wrong with "thwarted"; the point of all competition is to thwart your opponent, and wanting to defeat a consenting player is hardly malicious. Its impropriety at a funeral comes only from its misfortune as a string of text, which (sometimes subconsciously) resembles a contraction of "the warty twat that farted" if skimmed too quickly. Some synonym of "thwarted" is in order. Whether Obama "upset his apple cart" or Bush "queered" him, something happened along the way to ensure he never became president. InedibleHulk(talk)09:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Our article presently reads: "Prior to his death, McCain requested that former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the men that defeated him in his first and second presidential campaigns, respectively, deliver eulogies at his funeral, and asked that President Donald Trump not attend." Melanie suggests: "requested that both of his presidential opponents, Bush and Obama, eulogize him" I tend to like the present one best since it brings out something that he's known for - his ability to look beyond past differences and make fresh starts which is an important sign of maturity, (and especially as opposed to Trump who is well-known for holding a grudge forever). On the other hand, if most don't see it my way I think that Melanie's suggestion is fine as well. Gandydancer (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I did NOT suggest that phrase; that was BullRangifer's suggestion, and I opposed it, saying it made him look small and petty. I still oppose any mention of their previous competition in connection with their eulogizing him, and I have seen no proposed wording that I agree with. More to the point: why is there anything about this in the article? Who re-added it, after it was challenged twice (once by Moboshgu, once by me)? I'm going to review this discussion to see if there is consensus to include this. If not I am going to remove it again. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Put me down for Keep. If "defeat" is a truly dirty word, there are many other instances here that need deletion, too. Just sounds a bit too much like "the feet", in my opinion. InedibleHulk(talk)14:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is the word "defeat". I think the problem is that it's redundant because anyone reading McCain's bio already knows who he lost to in 2000 and 2008. We aim for brevity. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
A noble goal, for sure, but this particular article is already extremely wordy and overcited. I thought that was the look we were going for. If we're genuinely trying to slim it down now, I can get behind starting here. InedibleHulk(talk)18:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Turn out that "what is in the article now" was added less than 12 hours ago, [3], by Pickle Mon, who has not taken part in this discussion and was probably unaware of it. I’m going to remove it since there is ongoing discussion here and no conclusion. At this discussion we have five four people (counting the IP) who want to include something but haven’t agreed on the wording, and three four people who oppose saying anything. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)d
Sorry to be such a dope which I won't get into right now, but you can add me to the list of "oppose saying anything" editors. Gandydancer (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
Should a sub-section for Funeral Service be broken out, as well as perhaps his memorial service in Arizona? His funeral service at the Washington National Cathedral was a significant moment broadcast by CNN. In that interest, I've drafted parts that I hope others will add to, confirm, and add references.
This is excessive. Wikipedia is not a memorial. We can have some prose to mention the eulogies by Bush and Obama, and other important bits, but we don't need to list the hymns and readings at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it should be written as prose. I welcome others to help shape it as such. I used the narrative of Reagan's state funeral (even though this wasn't a state funeral) as a loose basis but it needs work. At least it's a start:
After lying in state at the Capital, McCain's flag-draped casket was transported by motorcade to the Washington National Cathedral for the Episcopalian funeral service. Eulogies were given by Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain; Sen. Joseph Lieberman, former Democratic Senator from Connecticut; President George W. Bush; Sec. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State under President Nixon; and President Barack Obama.[1] Interspersed with the eulogies were anthems and hymns performed by the U.S. Naval Academy Glee Club, the Washington National Cathedral Choir, and the U.S. Navy Band Brass Ensemble. The songs included Amazing Grace by the U.S. Naval Academy Glee Club, The Lord is My Shepherd, How Great Thou Art, Danny Boy, sung by opera singer Renee Fleming, and America the Beautiful. Following tradition, three readings were given: Wisdom 3:1-5, 9 read by Sen. Kelly Ayotte; 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 by Sidney McCain, daughter of John McCain; and John 15:12-13 read by Senator [Lindsey Graham]] [2] A brief homily was given Rev. Edward Reese, followed by prayers from Rev. Canon Jan Naylor Cope. After a benediction, the casket was carried by a military honor guard down the aisle, followed by Cindy McCain and the McCain family members.
@CountryMama27: You don't start a discussion and then add the material to the article that you're seeking consensus for, let the discussion run its course, then it will be determined if it should be included. This is how these things work. - FlightTime (open channel)17:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not a memorial page, but referencing the elements of the service given, particularly those who spoke, readings shared, and hymns and songs performed. I understand that I shouldn't have moved it to his page - but then please put it back in here in Talk. All of the references took a great deal of time to put together, and I think there's a reasonable discussion that this detail of his service is a moment in history that's important to include. In the interim, please put the detail back? CountryMama27 (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
In taking a look at some other famous people pages (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funeral_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales - I'm sure there are others), when there is a nationally televised/publicized funeral, even though it isn't a state funeral, it is clearly a newsworthy event. For some people who are interested in the details, having them would be useful. There certainly are many references for each of the eulogies, songs, and Biblical passages read at the service thus far, as well as critiques and commentary. It was a major, newsworthy, important event. Perhaps I didn't write it in the correct format (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_state_funeral_of_Ronald_Reagan - Cathedral Events). CountryMama27 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it is way excessive to list all the speakers, hymns, performers, etc. Focus on the things that all news coverage is focusing on, per WEIGHT. That will have to wait for the summary-type, next-day news coverage, as opposed to the contemporaneous play-by-play reporting. My hunch is that the regular coverage will be about the eulogies by the two ex-presidents - not what they said, just that they spoke. That's the encyclopedia-worthy item. Let all the other details go. TMI for an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Unclear sentence needs revision
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958 and was commissioned into the United States Navy. He became a naval aviator and flew ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers. During the Vietnam War, he was almost killed in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire."
As it stands, the second sentence seems to indicate (by position that McCain was flying group-attack BEFORE the Vietnam War, which begins in sentence 3. What war could McCain have been fighting in before Vietnam? I think 1958 is too late for the Korean War. Under Ike it became "Peace & Prosperity." If sentence 2 concerns the Vietnam War, then "During the Vietnam War" (intro to sentence 3, should be moved back before sentence 2. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC))
Agreed. The fire was also much more significant that the initial writing. How about the following:
After graduating from the United States Naval Academy in 1958, McCain was commissioned as a Ensign and attended flight school in Pensecola, FL [1], graduating in 1960 at the start of the Vietnam War[2]. After serving as a flight instructor in Mississippi, he volunteered to join a combat squadron on the USS Forrestal in 1966. He was seriously wounded in a deadly, accidental missile firing on the Forrestal in 1967 that killed 134 soldiers [3].
CountryMama27 (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with this change. References 1 and 3 are the same and should be combined. And of course the references have to be expanded to give all the information, not just a link. If you don't know how to do references, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. It's just a draft rewrite. Expanding the citations into wiki format, I agree it would need to be done before publishing but until the writing is agreed to, it didn't make sense to me to put it all in at once. In reading where these sentences appear in the article, I'd probably trim back this a little bit since much of the detail (e.g. rank, Forrestal fire) is included later in the article. It really should be a single sentence, two at the most. Interestingly, his service as a flight instructor and then volunteering for combat duty isn't mentioned in the detail part of the article and should be there at some point. CountryMama27 (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
"III" vs "IV"
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The father of John Sidney McCain Sr. (the senator's grandfather) is also "John Sidney McCain" (the senator's great-grandfather). Is the numbering and naming of our articles off? The senator is the fourth of the line with this name, in direct succession.
-- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
He went by John Sidney McCain III. His father went by John Sidney McCain Jr. His grandfather went by John Sidney McCain Sr. His great-grandfather apparently didn't use a designation. We go with how people style themselves - not by how we think they ought to be styled according to some rule. For example, the president is called Donald Trump, not Donald Trump Sr. - even though he has a son called Donald Trump Jr. --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Break out separate article for Death and Memorial services?
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Have we considered breaking out a separate article for McCain's death, memorial, funeral, and legacy? There has been significant media coverage, and the politics of it (Trump's non-invitation) are noteworthy. Additionally there is movement to rename the Russell Senate Office Building for him. Any opinions on this? KConWiki (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I would oppose this. There is room in the article for what we have and maybe a little more; there is no encyclopedic need to chronicle the memorial services in great detail. We may create a legacy section later, when history has had a chance to evaluate him. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to John McCain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On thinking about it, I have added AMVETS to the "backlash" sentence; we already had a mention of the American Legion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
RfC about the label
Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments16 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Politician, as it currently reads, sounds the most neutral and straightforward to me. Are there an abundance of reliable sources which refer to him as a statesman? Mz7 (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Politician is very appropriate. Most definitions of "statesmen" relate to leaders, and even referring to a president as a statesman reads awkwardly. Brendon the Wizard✉️✨10:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Politician, which is entirely neutral and non-demeaning, and also neutral in the sense of WP:NPOV. To use statesman would be subjective and hyperbolic – although his achievements include diplomatic ones, politics within the US account for most of what makes him notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Politician History will tell if he ends up viewed as a "statesman". For now, we stick with the neutral (less peacock-y) term -- politician. --Calthinus (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Politician -- He is probably best known as a U.S. senator and secondarily as a presidential candidate so politician would be a better term. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the info box, John McCain's son's name is linked to the article on his father, not his son.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
In the info box, John McCain's son's name is linked to the article on his father, not his son.
(I'm a little confused on how to fix it -- I don't want to mess it up.)
Morris (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The infobox doesn't mention McCain's son's name. The line for children is "7, including Meghan," because Meghan McCain is his only notable child. John S. McCain IV and the other sons don't meet Wikipedia notability requirements. John S. McCain Jr. is the Senators father, and is listed in the infobox as such. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the Death section the first sentence reads "John McCain's family announced on August 24, 2018, that he would no longer receive treatment for his cancer."
The 2nd sentence then begins "Few days later on 25 August ..."
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under "Reaction from the White House" it says "belatedly issued", i feel this is biased. should be just "issued" or should explain how it is belated, like the cultural norms or whatnot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.210.23.0 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Footage of McCain memorial services, speeches, etc.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Good afternoon fellow Wikipedians - I recently added a collapsible table with the C-SPAN footage of the McCain memorial services, including the speeches by Biden, Bush, Obama, Lieberman, Kissinger, et al. This edit was reverted with the rationale of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. That guidline is reproduced here:
"Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (However, for the Wikipedia page for deceased Wikipedia editors, see WP:RIP)."
C-SPAN coverage of John McCain memorial services and related events
I do not see how the inclusion of the links to the footage, which (to me, anyhow) would seem reasonable to be of interest and use to at least some of the WP readers visiting the section about McCain's death and funeral, violates the above guideline. To me, that means that if a friend or relative passes away, that they ought not automatically be considered article-worthy. The McCain memorial services and the attendant political factors dominated the news that week, at least in the United States, and from what I have seen elsewhere, were prominent in news coverage internationally as well.
The box is collapsible, so as not to take up too much space for those readers who are not interested in viewing the footage. If the placement or formatting of the box could be done differently, then I would be happy to discuss and learn from fellow editors with suggestions on it. However, I do not see how the inclusion of the links harms WP or its readers, and I do not see how the removal of the links helps.
Thanks for asking. I agree that NOTMEMORIAL does not apply, but I think including this would be overkill. This is a biography; it's about his entire life. Why C-span footage of his entire funeral, blow by blow, hours and hours? Why not C-Span footage of him getting off the airplane after his captivity, or of his vote to save Obamacare? Those are much more notable. I'm not suggesting we add them, quite the contrary. Basically I think if we start providing links to extended TV news coverage, on any subject, we are opening the door to something that could overwhelm our articles. If people really want to see this, no doubt they can easily find it on YouTube. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to John McCain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the 'Awards and Honors' section please add: "In the spring of 2018 Senator. McCain was decorated with the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun from the Japanese Emperor for 'strengthening bilateral relations and promoting friendship between Japan and the United States'".[1]Odysseas2001 (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. No need to focus on her on one of the worst days of her life. How about this one instead? Less closeup of any one mourner. —[AlanM1(talk)]—16:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
At #RfC about the label, many asserted that "politician" was more neutral-sounding than "statesman", with the concern that the latter implied a positive value judgement. However, each of the following well-known dictionary definitions that I checked may be interpreted to say the opposite; the "politician" entries each include a definition with a clearly negative connotation (emphasized in yellow by me). The "statesman" entries do include (emphasized in cyan by me) "wise"/"wisdom", "skilled", and "respected", though these seem less strong than the terms "manipulative", "devious", "disparaging", and "[not] maintaining principles" that are found in the "politician" definitions.
Google (based on Oxford Pocket, confirmed at Oxford online)
"2. a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles."
"3. a person who holds a political office."
Ob[Non?]BiasDisclosure: Like many of his well-known ideological opponents, I can respect his motivations (i.e. AGF), dedication, and ability, even if I didn't agree with all of his actions or ideas. —[AlanM1(talk)]—19:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Denomination
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Reading the sources on the subject, which are mostly from the 2008 campaign trail, I believe the man identified as both (or maybe neither) Episcopalian and/or Baptist, which does not seem unreasonable. Even within individual sources (e.g. AP via WaPo (2007) esp. ¶¶ 1,6, Baptist News (2008) esp. ¶ 4, Christian Post (2018) (which is "pan-denominational Christian"), etc.), there is no clear conclusion that he "converted" (for lack of a better term) from one denomination to the other, only that he later preferred to attend, and participate at, a particular Baptist church near his home.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to John McCain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
under Reaction from the White House it states that Trump "reportedly" rejected the White House's plans to release a statement praising McCain's life. This should be removed as it is not based on fact, and merely conjecture. WWGOWGA (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done – Like it or not, it's cited to the WaPo, who said it was "according to current and former White House aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity". As I understand it, they would typically employ some editorial verification before publishing something defamatory. It's not surprising and not inconsistent with President Trump's personality, politics, and what he has done and said in the past, regarding McCain specifically and in general, IMO. —[AlanM1(talk)]—14:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Funeral details in lead
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to see Senator McCain's Military Decorations, (AKA Fruit Salad), would someone please post that with descriptions for each? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzhuh (talk • contribs) 00:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Allegations from POWs about McCain providing Intel to captors.
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm curious to see that there is no mention at all of the very numerous allegations from fellow POWs in Vietnam that Mr. McCain supplied the VC with Intel on US air sorties. I've noticed other political figures have numerous mentions of disputed allegations in their bio. Is this a normal degree of bias in Wikipedia? Lakeraider01 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Very few people to possibly no one should be ever negatively judged regarding their behavior resulting from being savagely tortured daily in a POW camp. While a select few may be able to "hold out," suggesting that this is a reasonable expectation for a human in this situation is profoundly unjust and inappropriate. This is particularly true of anyone who hasn't been through such a situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3016:204:B1E0:3D2F:5F38:1955:BFBB (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2019
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to John McCain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"While McCain opposed the Affordable Care Act, he cast the deciding vote against the ACA-repealing American Health Care Act of 2017." This sentence is not factual. While he was one of three republican senators (the two others being Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski) to vote along with all democratic senators to oppose the AHCA, he did not cast "the deciding vote". In fact, there is no "deciding" vote. All votes are equal and every one of the 51 people to oppose that law did effect the result equally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1640:2538:E0AD:35FF:FE14:F93F (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
claim sarah palin wasn't invited to mccain's funeral is unsourced
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I think having the caption be" Official Senate portrait, 2009" is perfectly acceptable and prefer it. Others may agree or disagree. Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with that caption and can not see a reason not to have one. Politicsfan4 why is a consensus necessary? Do you no think the caption is appropriate? SSSB (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Politicsfan4 See, a few more details was useful. Thank you. I still think a link to what the portrait is officially from is not untoward. All the politicians' articles don't have to march in lockstep but this is not the hill I am willing to die on. I just needed some clarification. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
"McCain was placed in a cell with two other Americans, who did not expect him to live more than a week"
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The two Americans were Bud Day and Norris Overly. In particular Overly is credited with saving his life. However Overly accepted an early release along with John Black and David Matheny, which McCain never forgave him for. Timberg p. 121-122. Seems worth mentioning.96.240.128.124 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to John McCain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Jean Alexandra is referenced in the early "life section" but is not included in the "Personal details" section under "relatives." This should be rectified. Innocuous Hat (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Perhaps there's a specific reason for this, but why do we cite two Hindi language newspapers in the last sentence of the lead? Non-English sources are of course permissible, but surely there should be plenty of quality English sources to verify his death and who eulogized him. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2021
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to John McCain has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the section "Prisoner of war" There is this sentence: After the war, McCain, accompanied by his family and his second wife Cindy, returned to the site on a few occasions in efforts of trying to come to terms with what had happened to him there during his capture. This sentence needs better clarification. What site? What were they remembering? DragonFury (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Short description as 'statesman'
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The lead currently describes the subject as a "statesman". In the article, that description only appears once, in a piece in the NYT that doesn't exactly use it in that way, instead saying the description is a cliche McCain had promoted: "[Politicians] tell and retell the same stories; things get musty. They engage in a lot of self-mythologizing, and no one in Washington has been the subject and the perpetrator of more mythmaking than McCain: the maverick, the former maverick, the curmudgeon, the bridge builder, the war hero bent on transcending the call of self-interest to serve a cause greater than himself, the sore loser, old bull, last lion, loose cannon, happy warrior, elder statesman, lion in winter... you lose track of which McCain cliché is operational at a given moment." (Source here.)
When I searched "John McCain statesman", the first hit is WP, obviously, followed by an op-ed saying he wasn't a statesman from The Arizona Republic (source here), followed by a middle-school reader book by a non-notable publisher (source here). There are other sources out there describing the subject as such, but for such a grandiose claim in Wikivoice I'm surprised it's not sourced in the article even once, and it doesn't seem to be his main descriptor in RS. Barack Obama, for example, gets over double the amount of ghits for the same phrase, and WP is hardly likely to use that descriptor for him without a protracted edit war.
In looking over the talk page archives, the discussion in 2018 surrounding this had a single !vote for "statesman" with a supermajority (every other editor) thinking "politician" should be used. Discussion is here: [[7]].
No editors have weighed in, so I'm assume this is an uncontroversial removal. Being bold, I removed it. The claim does not appear sourced in the article, does not match the short description, and had previously been rejected as a description. --Kbabej (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Not done The point is made correctly in the article and in the appropriate place: John McCain#Return to Senate. It does not yet belong in the lede section. As long as he is alive and a Senator, his vote in December 2017 may not be his last. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
~Awilley (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Not done: The vandalism has now been reverted. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Already done —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
—[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
