Talk:John McCain/Archive 5

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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

"Should McCain win in 2008, he would be the oldest person to assume the Presidency in history at initial ascension to office, being 72 years old and surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 years old at his inauguration following the 1980 election."

Now that Ralph Nader is running for president, this sentence needs to be modified. Ralph Nader (born February 27, 1934) is older than John McCain (born August 29, 1936) and would technically be the oldest president. -- Burchett (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nader never became president. The sentence is correct and does not need to be changed. Enigma ^msg! 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence implies that McCain is the oldest candidate in 2008, which isn't true. Nader is unlikely to win the presidency, but he is still a presidential candidate and should be mentioned. -- Burchett (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not imply that he's the oldest candidate in 2008. It says if he wins, he'll be the oldest initial. You just registered. Enigma ^msg! 03:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Enigmaman. And Nader's not the oldest candidate anyway, Mike Gravel is at 77. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also agree with Enigmaman. The sentence in question does not refer to the age of a candidate. A similar sentence could be included in the article on Nader and it too would be true. --70.249.47.252 (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Both Gravel and Nader should be mentioned, in a footnote at least. But I am happy to leave the issue on this discussion page and out of the main article, to reduce the article's length. -- Burchett (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the List of United States presidential candidates, 2008. Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, possibly others. -- Burchett (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added my closing rationale to the FAC talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, since the article is tagged as too long, I ran Dr pda's prose size script; it's currently at 52KB readable prose. Relative to the WP:SIZE guideline of 30 to 50KB of readable prose, is it still necessary for the article to be tagged? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We should be under 50KB very soon anyway. We've only done shortening up through the section on the 2000 campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I just saw on Fox News that he won the Repub nomination; I'll provide a cite in a minute. Happyme22 (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction: He has won enough delegates to get the nom, but will not be projected the nomination winner until later tonight or tomorrow (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/04/obama-mccain-win-vermont-primary/) Might not want to include until it is official, but here's a heads up. Happyme22 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

CNN has given it to him, so it's been added to the article. He just becomes the presumptive nominee, anyway; he doesn't become the official nominee until the convention, so all the category additions, firmly declarative statements, infoboxes, etc. should wait until then. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true. I'm glad I was able to help (kinda). Great job with all this Wasted! Happyme22 (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can see already we're going to have edits back and forth over "presumptive" or other wordings to describe what he is. "Presumptive" is the formulation that I believe most news organizations use from now until the convention, but we can see. In any case, I'm not going to go to reversion city over this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is his name wrong in the lead picture? [02:36, 5 March 2008 72.70.81.157]

Just as night follows day, make a big splash in the news, get vandalized in Wikipedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started reading through this article, and I'm finding strange imbalances, misrepresentations of sources, and what looks like cherry picking from some of the sources. I'm still in the first section, but here's one example:

He had his share of run-ins with the leadership, did not take well to being bossed, and received many demerits.^[1] He competed as a lightweight boxer,^[2] and he did well in a few subjects that interested him.^[1]

So, I clicked on these articles, expecting to learn that McCain had been quite a screwup in his school years and while at the Academy. Curiously, both the Newsweek and The Arizona Republic articles give favorable to glowing reports about McCain (read them). It appears that the Wiki article highlights the few unfavorable passages from those articles, and positions them negatively. I hope this isn't occurring throughout (but I've already seen this in most of what I've read). I encourage a review of the sources for balance, cherry picking and due weight. Based on our text, when I clicked on these articles, I expected to find fairly negative reports, and was surprised at how we managed to glean the few unfavorable aspects of those articles for our use, while apparently neglecting the overall tenor of the articles. I don't know much about McCain, but I was surprised at how we don't seem to be representing the sources in a balanced way. Please review the sources and the article with accuracy and WP:UNDUE in mind, and take care not to cherry pick from sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that improving the article, and making sure it's NPOV and accurate, will be easier now that it's becoming shorter. I hope that the sections after the 2000 campaign section will soon be condensed. As far as the sentence that Sandy quotes, it is a bit negative. I would probably include something like this instead: "He was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, stood up for people who were being bullied, and was a feisty lightweight boxer. Although he had run-ins with the leadership, and was not inclined to obey every rule, he did well in academic subjects that interested him."Ferrylodge (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I have a two-part response. Regarding the main article, I wash my hands of it. It's impossible to boil down McCain's character, personality, the different forces driving him in that period, and what at a result happened at the Naval Academy, to a couple of sentences. At least it's impossible for me. So you guys can do whatever you want in the main article on this. It may be best to just "stick to most basic bio facts" (entered this year, graduated that year) and not try to depict his personality, character, attitudes, outlook, etc. in any way, I don't know. If so you should probably leave out his class rank altogether, because that without the context that just makes him look like a dope.

Regarding the subarticle, however, there we have more space, and that's what I am going to focus on. I don't see that the current description in Early life and military career of John McCain#Naval Academy is negative or cherry-picked. It depends upon your cultural outlook, I guess, but I for one largely admire the guy who's portrayed there — tough, non-conformist, willing to speak his mind, etc. — these are some of the traits that define him as an attractive politician too. And for what it's worth, I do know a lot about McCain(*): I've read the Arizona Republic series, both Timberg biographies, the Paul Alexander biography, and countless newspaper and magazine articles about him. But the best place to start is with his own Faith of My Fathers. Sandy, I'd urge you to buy it or take it out from your library and read it. This guy might well be the next president, and all aside from WP it's worth knowing him better. And it's a great book. And one thing about McCain that makes it easier for us, is that when he does something wrong or foolish or ill-advised, he beats himself up more than any critic does. Read the parts in Faith of My Fathers about his regrets about his misspent youth and lack of seriousness of purpose, and how his time as a POW made him vow to do more with his life was he got out. There's a lot more self-criticism in what he writes than we could ever manage here. The "full McCain" — from the heroic to the foolish, from the principled to the sometimes compromising, from the salty to the self-critical — is what I want to try to get across here, and in the subarticles I'll continue to do so. I'll start with adding some more material to the Naval Academy, that gives a fuller picture of those years, given that I have a bit more space. But again, Sandy and anyone else reading, I urge you to give Faith of My Fathers a try. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And FWIW, the next best things to read about McCain are the two Robert Timberg books. The Nightingale's Song contrasts five different to-be-famous Naval Academy graduates from the same time — McCain, James Webb (possible veep pick this year!), Oliver North, Bud McFarlane, John Poindexter — and how they were all affected by the Vietnam experience and the courses their careers later took. (Timberg himself is also a Naval Academy grad and Vietnam vet.) Highly praised book, really worth the while. The McCain parts were later extracted and expanded to form John McCain: An American Odyssey, which I've used more heavily as a cite here because it's easier to follow the chronlogical flow (Nightingale jumps back and forth between the different subjects). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasted Time R (talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(*) That didn't come off too modestly. I've tried to know a lot about McCain ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WTR, you said about the main article: "I wash my hands of it." Please let me know if you change your mind. In the mean time, I'll proceed with shortening the sections after the 2000 campaign section. And I hope that you'll help to revert moronic and outrageous edits to this article, as you've done in the past. Your participation has been very helpful.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's work on the central question below. I'm very frustrated that Sandy, a good editor, has completely misinterpreted everything I've done here. My top priority is to fix that. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WastedTime, as an attempt at a helpful proposal: perhaps you shouldn't take comments from others and your own contributions so personally and try to remember our ownership policy, and then maybe you won't feel so personally frustrated or that your individual efforts have been misunderstood? I think this article will become all the better if you will at least consider that change and then continue participating rather than washing your hands of the main article. As Ferrylodge says, You participation has been very helpful. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The central question for this main article is whether we try to describe McCain's personality, character, attitude, etc. at all. If we don't, we can take a very matter-of-fact approach, and replace this paragraph:

Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy. He was a rebellious midshipman, and his career at the Naval Academy was ambivalent.[11] He had his share of run-ins with the leadership, did not take well to being bossed, and received many demerits.[12] He competed as a lightweight boxer,[13] and he did well in a few subjects that interested him.[12][11] Despite his low standing, he was a leader among his fellow midshipmen.[11] He wanted to show the same mettle as his naval forebears, and so he managed to graduate from the Naval Academy in 1958, though near the bottom of his class.[14]

with this:

Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy, and graduated in 1958.

and leave Early life and military career of John McCain to cover, with its advantage of having enough space to give full context, what McCain's years at Annapolis were like. We can take a similar approach in the rest of the main article; just be matter-of-fact with the standard resumé items and nothing else, and leave the subarticles to give a more three-dimensional view. What think? Wasted Time R (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to strive for a happy medium. Sandy's main point seems to be that, whatever we do, we ought to try harder to track the reliable sources. What do you think about this material based on what I suggested above?

"Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy. He was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, stood up for people who were being bullied, and was a feisty lightweight boxer. Although he McCain had run-ins with the leadership, and was not inclined to obey every rule, and did not care about his low class rank (894/899). He did well in academic subjects that interested him, and his graduation in 1958 gave him an opportunity to show the same mettle as his naval forbears. He was not a perfect fit for the Naval Academy, but wanted to show the same mettle as his naval forebears, and he managed to graduate from the Naval Academy in 1958 near the bottom of his class."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This feels a bit defensively worded, and the "although" and "but" constructs might fail WP:AVOID, I'd have to check. And I don't like shying away from his actual class rank (5th from bottom, or 894/899 I think it was). McCain doesn't shy away from that; hell, Faith of My Fathers even includes an amusing story about how he was a bit envious of the guy who finished absolute last. Called "The Anchor", that midshipsman got a special celebratory call-out during the commencement and a smile from Dwight Eisenhower, the commencement speaker. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Trying again, see edits above.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "did not care about his class rank" is accurate. The "ambivalence" is in the early version perhaps is the shortest accurate characterization. But I'm going to go back and re-read some book portions and expand/rework the Naval Academy section in the subarticle, hopefully tonight; maybe that will give you some more grist for the boiled down version. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) For now, I'd like to put this into the article, which might allow removal of the tag:

"Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy. He was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, stood up for people who were being bullied, and was a feisty lightweight boxer. McCain had run-ins with the leadership, was not inclined to obey every rule, and did not aim to improve his class rank was ambivalent about class rank (his was 894/899). McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him, and his graduation in 1958 gave him an opportunity to show the same mettle as his naval forbears."

Please let me know if there are any objections to this tentative fix.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't ambivalent about class rank, he was ambivalent about being at the Naval Academy in general. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WTR, you said that he was a bit envious of the guy who finished absolute last. That means he didn't much care about having a higher class rank. And if he was ambivalent about being in the Naval Academy, then that includes ambivalence about getting a good class rank. The point is, if we're going to mention class rank, we ought to also mention that he didn't really give a damn about his class rank. How would you like to phrase it? One of the cited sources says that his low academic standing was "by choice."[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've edited above so it says the he didn't aim to improve his class rank.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A reworked and expanded Naval Academy section is now present in Early life and military career of John McCain#Naval Academy. You can use it or not to tweak the main article boil-down. Of particular relevance to the class rank issue is that his "grease grade" (roughly, spit-and-polish, conduct, leadership, and getting along with your CO) was always very poor, and that was included into the class rank calculation. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, and I also like the recent slimming of the main article. Regarding whether the improved section in Early life and military career of John McCain#Naval Academy should lead to corresponding changes in the main John McCain article, we could either remove the parenthetical "(894/899)" since it may be misleading, or we could explain that those numbers reflect not just academics but also spit-and-polish, conduct, leadership, and getting along with your commanding officer. My inclination would be to just remove the parenthetical, and people could then consult the "Early Life..." article for details about that.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"The leader in terms of establishment Republican Party support and fundraising was Texas Governor and presidential son George W. Bush."

What is this trying to say? To me, it makes no sense at all and "in terms of" doesn't help. Is it trying to say that GWB was leading RP support and fundraising for McCain? probably not but that's how it first read to me.

Was the leader at the time GWB (which by the way is not stated in the reference only inferred as there is no comparison to McCain and no statement that Bush was ahead by either support or finances as stated)?

Shouldn't it say "then Texas Governor" for context and isn't "presidential son" superfluous?

--Candy (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten this as "The leader for the Republican nomination was Governor of Texas George W. Bush, who had the most establishment party support and funds." Is that clearer? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the text about this in the John McCain presidential campaign, 2000#Campaign developments 1999 section is clear. Another case of something getting mangled when size reduction was done. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Kinks are inevitable when there's size reduction, so I think we ought to proceed with the size reduction and work out the kinks. And I don't think that Candy's objections were entirely inapplicable to the main article, which said: "There was a crowded field of Republican candidates, but the big leader in terms of establishment party support and fundraising was Texas Governor and presidential son George W. Bush."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of changing the name of the McCain articles' series in its navigation box from The life of John McCain to the John McCain series, a better title since subarticles about McCain's political positions and cultural image have to do with both McCain's life and work. Not all subarticles in a series will sequence chronologically, eg, in the French Revolution series along with chronologically grouped subarticles there are also subarticles concerning causes and historiography, subarticles comprising list of people and an overview of wars, and article providing a timeline and a glossary (and indeed, WP's McCain "Political positions" subarticle, though it correlates to a section within the main McCain bio, had until recently been left out of the series due its ill-fit under its previous strictly chronological "Life of" rubric). --Justmeherenow (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Current components of the McCain biographical series are

• Faith of My Fathers - autobiographical writing
• Early life and military career · House and Senate career, 1982–1999 · 2000 presidential campaign · Senate career, 2001–present · 2008 presidential campaign - chronological items
• Political positions · Cultural and political image - dealing with works and legacy

Any we ought delete? --Justmeherenow (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He has, without any doubt, won the nomination. The article should be adjusted to reflect that. Contralya (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor "Camptown" has replaced the image at the top of the article with another image that (to my knowledge) has never been at the top of the article. No edit summary was provided, so the motivation for this change is unknown. The picture that was removed is a recent photo that had broad consensus here. [2]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture currently at the top of the article is more than nine years old, according tothis May 8, 1999 version of McCain's official Senate web site.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea for dating it, I've add that to the captions in the 1982-1999 section and subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It now appears that another editor (8thstar) has again changed the image at the top of the article, without any edit summary or talk page discussion. The image that 8thstar has inserted is at least four years old, judging from this June 12, 2004 biography available from archive.org.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, at least in this article every new photo is of McCain. In the Hillary article, when the top photo is replaced it's usually with something obscene. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer something obscene, because then I could revert the vandalism without worrying about 3RR.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Turns out that the 2004 photo was rejected as a "Featured Picture" here at Wikipedia.[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Someone replaced the main image with that one from the 90s, so I replaced that one with the more recent official portrait, and the official portrait is what is used on most of the politicians articles. ^8thstar 04:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, 8thstar. The official portrait that you installed is at least four years old, and I agree with those who say that it's lousy.[4] The image presently at the top of the article may not exactly be a "portrait" but it seems a lot better than some of the other photos that have been used, plus it's only a month old.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So, the "old" picture on hillary clinton's page should be replaced with a newer one? how about a cropped version of this? ^8thstar 05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess that would be something to suggest at the HRC article.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor Philip Stevens has expanded the infobox at the top right of the article, to include info about McCain’s status as a presidential candidate.[5] Such info is not included in the info boxes for Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, or any of the other presidential candidates that I’m aware of.

I don’t know if there is a Wikipedia guideline or policy about this, but I do know that expanding the infobox like that makes it too big, and material is now slopping into the next section of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain will be the nominee, even if he isn't just yet, and so will run for President in November. Ralph Nader also has such fields as he too is certain to contest the presidency; Obama and Clinton are not. Also, there are fair bigger infoboxes around, Lyndon B. Johnson and Alistair Darling for example. I don't think it makes the page look sloppy. I'll return the infobox to how it was but if anyone else objects to them I suggest having a fuller discussion here. --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the utility of a "presidential candidate" section of an infobox. Basically, I think that infoboxes are better suited for positions rather than titles, if that makes any sense. A position is something you hold/are, while titles are grab-bag. I'm not denying that McCain functionally is the nominee - that has nothing to do with this - but "nominee" is not something worth sticking in an infobox. He is a Senator and will be referred to by the media and in the debates as "Senator McCain." That is his identity, and should be the focus of the infobox. I know the infobox used to include random committe chairmanships and the like, and those were removed as well (by someone else) a long time ago as just not that important and clutter. It's the same problem with this section; it doesn't say much useful and is clutter. (The other candidates section is particularly clunky; he'll only be running against one of Hillary and Obama, and "and numerous others" sounds odd.)

As an example... an infobox for "baseball player" makes sense, but would an infobox for "Season MVP" make any sense? I mean, you could list the people who most recently held that title ("incumbent"), runner-ups in voting ("other candidates"), maybe some random season statistics, but I think most people would agree that this is something better suited for a succession box at the bottom, not the infobox which is supposed to encapsulate someone's career quickly. Just leave it as baseball player.

Furthermore, as bad as it looks here on a current candidate, this kind of infobox would look even sillier on historical candidates. Any winning candidate obviously should have a President's infobox instead, but even for losing ones... should Walter Mondale be introduced as "Vice President" or "Presidential Candidate?" Obviously Vice President, in my mind. William Jennings Bryan is even more problematic - he ran for office repeatedly but in non-consecutive years (1896, 1900, and 1908). Does he get three infobox sections? One confused and crowded section? The only possible exception I can think of would be for someone who isn't known for anything other than being a presidential candidate- say, Ross Perot. But that's extremely rare, and I'd say that an infobox is simply not required or need be used then. SnowFire (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think the fields should be used on historical candidates, but I don't see why the infobox should only be for offices and not titles. Surely the object of the infobox is to quickly inform the reader of the most important information in the rest of the article. To not mention of the fact he is the presumptive nominee seems to leave out the most important piece of information about the man at this time. There are examples of the infobox being used for titles, President-elect Dmitry Medvedev and First Lady Laura Bush for example. I think the infobox works well in those cases as it does with McCain. --Philip Stevens (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SnowFire. The "presidential candidate" part of the infobox makes it look sloppy and cluttered. Also, it raises another issue: how do we know where to draw a line? Are we going to have infobox sections for every office a single person ever runs for? Or for every current action a politician is taking? Tsk070 (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How does it look sloppy, surely that's a matter of taste? I like the section, its informative which is what the infobox is for. With respect to the other users, I think some people criticize anything that they haven't seen before just for the sake of it. I do agree though, that the section should not be put on any past election pages, as that would look cluttered, and when this election is over, the section should either be removed or replace with a president-elect section. --Hera1187 (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So... Is this to be removed or added to the other candidates articles? ^8thstar 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus not to add the section to candidates from past elections. As for current elections, when the Democrats pick their nominee, the section should be added to his/her infobox. On November 5, the section should either be removed or replaced with a president-elect section depending on who won. --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I still very, very strongly disagree with this infobox existing at all, and consensus seems split on it. What useful information does it offer? Mevedev had an infobox for being president-elect, which is a whole different kettle of fish. As I said before, McCain is a Senator, and he'll still be a Senator when the election comes. Plus, the Senatorial infobox has actually useful information; are Clinton and Obama somehow part of McCain's history? SnowFire (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there isn't consensus on this infobox yet, I just said there was consensus not to add the section to candidates from past elections. As I see it, the opinion here is split about 50-50, and you have to take into account that it takes a lot more effort to come here and put a comment when you agree with something than when you disagree. Also, Clinton and Obama are a part of his history, and at least one of them will be a big part of his future. --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain is not the Republican Nominee for President. As fun as it is for those of you editing the article to pretend you know American politics, his position is still contested until the Republican Nominating Convention, at which time the delegates (pledged to anyone) can vote for anyone else. It would be nice if Wikipedia actually stated factually accurate material regarding some well known things. C₃H₅N₃O₉2010 17:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree, he's the presumptive nomineee. The Republicans don't pick their presidential nominee until September. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe somebody from Arizona would know more... anyway, Ed Ranger and Claire Sargent currently don't have articles. Most Senatorial candidates are notable; does anybody know anything more about these two and is willing to write a stub? Figure that since this article is set to become rather important, there'd be some benefit to reducing redlinks.

Also, McCain's opponents for his House seat in the 80s are also redlinks. It's more likely that these may be non-notable people who ran in one race and then retired from public life, but beats me. Maybe they had interesting careers in Arizona State politics and are notable after all. If anybody knows more on this, either stubs or else simply removing the link if they're non-notable can get rid of those redlinks. SnowFire (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that his father is the creator of McCains oven chips? This should be added if so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No. You want Harrison McCain. -- Zsero (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's the source for this information?? I want proof.

134.121.247.116 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No sources are cited in the lead paragraphs, because they just summarize the rest of the article. The cited source that you're looking for is at the end of the section titled "2008 presidential campaign."Ferrylodge (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, only contentious information needs to be sourced. Something that nobody can honestly challenge does not need a source. -- Zsero (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Something that nobody can honestly challenge does not need a source"? That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. Everything needs a source. Otherwise I could write in the article the McCain has had sex with farm animals, and (being that nobody has any information on that) nobody could challenge it. Great idea Zsero. Open mouth, insert foot. 128.205.147.192 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Why don't you actually read the policies and guidelines instead of making things up? Uncontentious facts do not need to be sourced. This isn't some new idea, it's the current rule on Wikipedia. And it has to be the rule; otherwise we'd end up with nothing but sources. -- Zsero (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. And the mere existence of this line of discussion shows it. The actual policy of wikipedia, direct from Wikipedia:Verifiability is simple, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Quite basically, Zsero, 134.121.247.116 challenged the information and now anyone with relevant proof must provide a source for it. Perhaps it is you who should read the policies of Wikipedia. And by the way, in a respectable encyclopedia-- having too many sources is much better than having unsourced material(s).C₃H₅N₃O₉2010 15:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That anonymous editor did not challenge it at all; s/he didn't say s/he doubted its truth, s/he merely demanded a source just to be annoying. It is almost impossible for any editor to honestly challenge it; any challenge to such a well-known fact would be very strong evidence of bad faith. -- Zsero (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "Presumptive nominee" is sourced in the body of the article, by this cite which says "Sen. John McCain swept all four Republican contests on Tuesday to become his party's presumptive nominee." The style of the article is that the intro section at the top doesn't use any footnotes, because it only summarizes material that is cited in the body of the article. So what exactly is the problem here? Do you think McCain isn't the presumptive nominee? If so, what cites do you have to back up that position? Wasted Time R (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Where in WP:MOS precludes citations in the lede? Check with the various WikiProjects and you'll find one consistency: if the citations aren't nailed down, they'll be challenged regardless of where it is in the article. So... "better safe than sorry" is the popular adage regarding citations. If you doubt that, take a gander of the last several featured articles. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presumptive:

Main Entry: pre·sump·tive
Function: adjective

1 : based on probability or presumption <the presumptive nominee>
2 : giving grounds for reasonable opinion or belief

That's the sense we're using it in. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This article has been vandalized. Can someone investigate? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.110.197 (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently read of the (official) G.O.P nominee's dad who also happens to go by the name John Sydney McCain. I also read that McCain's dad also had a father who also both went by the name John Sydney McCain and also happened to have a father going by the same name as well. I think someone needs to correct this. Moreover I also have some proof from the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain%2C_Sr.

http://www.wargs.com/political/mccain.html

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In this area, people are what they use, not what you count. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that John McCain chose to be named John Sydney McCain the 3rd rather than the 4th?

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Mac's great-grandfather John Sydney McCain, the originator of four generations of namesakes (assuming Mac's son, Jack the IVth doesn't have a son) didn't himself get an ordinal number, what should Wikipedia term him? John Sydney McCain, grandSr.? (Note that while Pres. Andew Jackson's father is known to history as Andrew Jackson, Sr., it is Old Hickory (Pres. Jackson's) son who's known to history as Andrew Jackon, Jr.)--Justmeherenow (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that may an appropiate term to use for his great grandfather, though I personally believe that an ordinal number would be more appropiate when trying to distinguish the (official) G.O.P candidate from his other ancestors.

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Most biographers use "Slew" and "Jack" for the Senator's grandfather and father, while he is "John" or "Johnny". Wasted Time R (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So it breaks down, uh, "ordinalizationally" like this:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mac's son, Midshipman Jack is John Sydney McCain IV;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."Johnny" Mac the Nominee is John Sydney McCain...the 3rd;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mac's papa, Admiral Jack is John Sydney McCain, Jr.;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mac's grandpop, Vice Admiral Slew is John Sydney McCain, Sr.; and
Mac's greatgrandfather, John McCain of Mississippi is John McCain...the 1st---"b.f." ("before familial 'ordinalizations'")?

--Justmeherenow (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The last is named simply as "yet another John Sidney McCain" by the Senator in Faith of My Fathers'. So you could give him the suffix Y.A. ... Wasted Time R (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC) And by the way, all these "Sydney"s should be "Sidney". Wasted Time R (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And presumably they all subscribe to the family motto: felis demulcta mitis.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this all can be settled by finding a source that verifies his complete legal name (say, one that shows his birth certificate, marriage license, automobile license, and so forth). Until such official documentation is presented, either we accept the affirmation of Sen. McCain or indulge in (anti-Wiki policy) original research. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to make a correction here. The name is John Sidney McCain III. Enigma ^msg! 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but the lead photo on the top right is not very flattering at all! I realize that John McCain is not the most photogenic person in the world, but there has GOT to be a better pic of him out there somewhere. Is there not an official Senate file photo of him available? Or anything where he doesn't look like he just got through sucking on a lemon?

I read the "new image" comments about halfway up, and I realize it was generous for Mr. Dan Raustadt to offer the use of these photos for Wikipedia, but in all honesty -- great quality side -- both Raustadt photos (scroll up) are not very good. He is making weird facial expressions in both of them. :-\

Added/Comment: And please, before anyone gets all huffy and pissed... please understand I am not trying to knock Mr. Raustadt's photography skills. They are great quality, but the Senator simply does not look flattering in either of them. McCain has a serious problem with making weird or bland facial expressions in photos and on television, as we can see here.

Added/Suggestion: here is one from his campaign website's "Press Room," so is assumably going to be public domain. It is vastly superior to what is there currently. John McCain American Flag There is also a full press gallery (John McCain Print Quality Photos) at his campaign website, where even the worst photos are better than what is here in this article. For goodness sakes, there are better pics out there! I am 100% in favor of replacing the lead photo. Thoughts? Please? LOL 72.213.129.138 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The photo currently at the top is the best we've got, and I don't think it's bad at all. By the way, it's also recently been used at the main page for Wikipedia. I don't think that the photo you suggest is particularly good; he looks tired, and isn't even wearing a necktie. Additionally, we shouldn't use a photo where the top of his head is chopped off, nor should we use a photo that doesn't meet Wikipedia's rules against using copyrighted photos.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it's a pretty good photo. Currently, our choices are limited to commons:Category:John McCain, or, if you can find any others created by the Federal government, then you can upload them and we'll use them. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

@Ferrylodge & Evil Spartan - First, the links I provided are free use with proper attribution. The gallery page provides in very clear wording that they can be used for whatever reason deemed appropriate. Second, even without the release/disclaimer (which is extremely clear in stating the photos may be used for any purpose) on McCain's gallery page, the items would be considered fair use under common corporate/organizational/journalistic practices. They provide high-resolution download links, are collectively labeled as "Media Kit," and are accessed through the "Press Room" section of his website. The only restriction for them is (verbatim) "Please Credit: John McCain 2008 - www.JohnMcCain.com". The Wikipedia guidelines really do not mean a lot in this matter: the clearly-worded release on the gallery webpage, and the context of the gallery, unquestionably releases all of the images into public domain.

And I am not sure what you are talking about, really. The photo I suggested may be subject to individual perception as to the setting and the Senator's appearance, but there is a considerable amount of space above his head, and to both of his sides. You might be better off to download the photo and view it from your desktop, where it is not subject to bandwidth limitations that might make it appear "chopped off."

I'm also not really sure what a necktie has to do with this, but okay... whatever. There are several others on the gallery page where he is wearing a necktie. My main problem with the current photo is that he is making a very awkward facial expression. Showing it to a colleague sparked the question, "Is he being blown by a large fan?", although my personal opinion is that in the current photo, his smile looks forced, he looks far more wrinkled than he really is, and there is no contrast between his body and the background (a big photography no-no, which even if used as a style element is considered dated). As I said, I have nothing against the photo quality or the photographer... I just feel like – for the Senator – that the current photo was victim of inopportune timing. :)

I should also note the the press photos at his website have no doubt been specifically selected by his high-level campaign advisers as being of masterful quality, to such extent that these campaign/gallery press photos are how the Senator wishes to be represented at this critical time in his career. I don't really care. From a PR standpoint, however, the current pic is not a good reflection of McCain on a number of levels.

As well, I am not dead-set attempting to convince you use one of his campaign/press photos – it was only a suggestion. I think there are probably a number of public domain photos from various sources that are better. I respect a consensus if this is what people truly want here as the lead photo, but I would love to see a few more people pipe in on this issue. I admit that my concern over the current lead photo may be a personal opinion exclusive to me only, but I very highly doubt it. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think there are better photos out there. Enigma ^msg! 04:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Several of the photos in the gallery you point to have the top of his head chopped off. I once put such a picture at the top of this Wikipedia article, and was criticized for it. The general feeling is that a Wikipedia article like this should not have the top of the subject's head chopped off. Additionally, a formal picture is the norm, and that means a necktie. Anyway, if you find a picture that you think is best, feel free to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and we can go from there, but be forewarned that Wikimedia Commons has fairly strict rules about copyright. Again, I think the present image is pretty good, and I say that as someone who fully intends to vote for John McCain in November.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a good point about a "formal" picture being the norm, and I have no problem looking for a necktie pic... although I feel that in general this particular biographical formality is a trend that goes rightfully unenforced in pop culture. As for copyrights, I can say authoritatively that if Wikipedia prohibits upload of a press photo which is quite clearly released for use with proper attribution, that the policies are flawed and inaccurate. Voting for McCain is something I am not doing, so rest assured that my opinion here is unbiased. I simply feel that the current photo is an inaccurate and unflattering representation of the Senator, and that anyone notable enough for their own Wikipedia listing... especially someone so high-profile... should have his best face put forward. More to come if I find something, but I would still love to see other opinions as to whether or not this is the best public domain photo available. :) 72.213.129.138 (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

SUGGESTIONS FOR REPLACEMENT - THOUGHTS?

1 - (Extremely Good – Photo credit indicates this pic is subject to the same guidelines I mentioned for my initial suggestions.)

2 - (A Bit Better – Already in Wikipedia Commons)

3 - (Better – Already in Wikipedia Commons)

72.213.129.138 (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The photo that you say is "extremely good" is a photo that I emailed the McCain campaign requesting permission to use. The permission was not granted. The other two pictures you suggest are very old. For example, this one is from the 1990s, as you can see here.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The first of the three is the one I think the article should use. I don't understand why the campaign would say no. The second, as Ferry said, looks very outdated. Enigma ^msg! 05:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested to know how you presented your request, or why you even requested permission for that matter given the clear release provided. In any major newsroom, an editor would not even contact the campaign to use these photos... they would slap it in with the proper attribution and forget about it - and be well protected legally. The only reason I could think of for a denial would have been in the event that the campaign staff was unaware that Wikipedia Commons will hold the prescribed attribution in the file information. But if you tell me the current lead photo is the best usable picture of a man who has been a high-profile figure in the Senate since 1986, I have to call B.S. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you've said that you're going to vote against McCain, I find your efforts here somewhat curious. In any event, I requested permission because I doubt that the statements at McCain's web site are sufficiently unambiguous to persuade the folks at Wikimedia Commons to accept the photo.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a better image on Wikimedia commons or if you would like to upload one, please provide a link to the image you prefer that we use. Yahel Guhan 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This one is a few years old, but I think it's also preferable to the current one. Enigma ^msg! 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Enigma, I think that picture makes McCain look lousy. Moreover, that picture is at least four years old, and has already been rejected as a Featured Wikipedia picture for a variety of very good reasons.[6]Ferrylodge (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also uploaded This One, and feel I got the attribution correct... although the image page looks a little wacky as if I perhaps forgot to add something in the image summary. I would vote for Enigma's, though, too. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon, please sign in. Yahel Guhan 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to go to Wikimedia, not Wikipedia, if you want to upload a picture that might be suitable at the top of this article. Additionally, the photo would have to be cropped, or else his head would be puny in comparison to screen size. Additionally, this photo illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, and thus fair use is not an adequate rationale.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, we'll do a straw poll over the image choices. Please vote for your favorate image (feel free to add images). Yahel Guhan 06:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• 
  1 (current image)
• 
  2
• 3
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

(undent)How about if we agree on some basic principles first. The photo at the top of this article should not be more than a couple years old. It should be formal, in that a necktie ought to be included like for all the other male candidates that have run this year. Part of his head ought not to be chopped off. It should be accepted at Wikimedia Commons. These principles ought to rule out most of those photos.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Edited: Yahel Guhan, I have signed in for this comment at your request but in general I prefer to edit and comment with my IP. I will agree to any of them (except the current one), but my preferences are 3 and 2 in that order. Timdlocklear (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

3,6,5, and 2, in that order. Enigma ^msg! 06:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)People, we all agree that 3 is a nice photo. However, it's not available at Wikimedia Commons. Additionally, the photo would have to be cropped, or else his head would be puny in comparison to screen size. Additionally, this photo illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, and thus fair use is not an adequate rationale.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I alter my vote. I go for 3 and 5 in that order. In photo 2, he would be facing away from the text towards the edge of the page, which is a stylistic no-no... albeit a picky one. Also, cropping image #3 could POTENTIALLY nullify its fair use as directed by the McCain campaign website - that should not be an option (in general, never physically alter a photo where someone asks for credit). As far as fair use, you are getting a bit too Wiki with your rationale... if you use the pic and provide the credit prescribed at the website, its place here should not be arguable. The link for that photo I originally provided went back to Encyclopedia Brittanica. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to contact them and see of you can convince them to make the image public domein. You never know. They might just do it. Yahel Guhan 06:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as the cropping, I see that as a very small issue that should be given little consideration compared to say, facial expression. If you look at Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul (both candidates in the '08 election), it is evident that "zoomed-out" photos showing more of the torso are accepted in other articles. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The images from his campaign website would never be made public domain in the middle of a campaign. The attribution request is what's keeping his competitors from using the images. But as far as media – and call me progressive, but I *do* see Wikipedia as "media" - I think the clearly-prescribed fair use with photo credit should be adequate for allowing placement in the article. It's good enough for the largest daily newspapers you read each day, and the blogs... and although I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on television... I think that release should work here, too. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not make up the rules to WP:FU, so I cannot respond here on that, but I highly doubt the general wikipedia community will accept a fair use image when there are other free images. If they do, I will be suprised, and if we can use the image, we will, otherwise I guess we won't. We'd best have a backup plan. Good luck there. Yahel Guhan 06:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think my argument on that front is just, but it is also probably centric on old media. I'm sure the infinite shelf life and free distribution nature of Wikipedia content play a bit differently with traditional procedures for using a press photo. Oh well, rules are rules. It's just sad that such a good pic is hitting a road block. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Generally speaking, why would Wikipedia editors who vocally support other candidates want to play around with the McCain image? Just curious. And I'll vote for image #1.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "play around with the McCain image"? Yahel Guhan 06:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I take extreme offense to your comment. If you want to make it a political argument, go right ahead. I'm not going to be part of that. I've said nothing anti-McCain or pro-anybody-else in this section. I'm making this observation for historic purposes. The lead photo is a disservice to this listing, which is actually separate from the article about his presidential candidacy. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee maybe I hit a nerve. Sorry. I'll retract the comment. But I'll still vote for image #1.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not eloquently reply, as well. But on a personal note I see this single talk page as a shining example of why most major universities prohibit students from citing Wikipedia sources in assignments, and why most major researchers and scholars warn individuals against using it for important studies. It's difficult to keep opinions and point of view from being injected into articles here. That being said, the usefulness and mainstream acceptance of Wikipedia warrants a high-profile article to have a quality photo that accurately represents its subject, in my opinion. I vote for 3 and 5 respectively... for 5 solely if there are questions about how well Wikipedia rules will cooperate with 3, and with the release provided at the campaign website. And I leave it at that. :) 72.213.129.138 (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a ninth image. Image #5 was taken in the 1990s. Why not use a photo taken last month?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

RE # 9 - It's better than the current image. It's still a less favorable facial expression than any of the others. I would vote for 5 and 9 respectively if 3 is not an option. I don't see a 1990s photo as extremely dated considering his physical appearance has changed little. I do believe that a photo from the campaign website should be considered more "official" than one from a random photographer with unverifiable professional history. As well, I would personally consider campaign photos' website availability and release to be approval by proxy from the Senator himself. However, given the questions about press photo attribution... campaign website photos probably aren't an option. Sigh... it would make this a lot easier if these people would update their official gov't portraits more often than once a decade. I defer argument on my end to anyone else wanting to use something other than 9, but in the event there is no majority opinion for something else, I would take 9. 72.213.129.138 (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets give it a day to let some of the other editors vote on this issue. We might have a consensus after that. Yahel Guhan 07:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of our articles on sitting senators use the most recent conventional, face forward, formal or official portrait available on the subject's senate web site. Thus, Chris Dodd uses the photo pointed to by this, Joe Biden uses the one on the right side of this, Hillary Clinton uses the full version of this, Barack Obama uses this. So by this logic, I support the most recent such photo from McCain's senate website, which if you go to "About Senator McCain" then "Biography" is this one on the right, which is #2/#4 above (same photo, different croppings and darkness). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding a photo #10 to the gallery above. This seems to be the most recent conventional, face forward, formal or official portrait available on the subject's senate web site. But, again, I think #1 is far and away the best photo currently available.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's half of a joint photo with his wife, so I didn't include it in my consideration. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please vote for the best 3-4 images for the lead (in order). Choose the numbers from the gallary above. Feel free to add proposals. Following my example. Comment in the discussion section. Yahel Guhan 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• 3,5,4,1 Yahel Guhan 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• 2 We need to use official photos. I don't really think it matters if the official portrait is a few years older, the official portrait is the only standard we should rely on. I can understand arguments that posting a "younger" looking picture is POV, but I don't recall its use being an big issue before he ran for president? A lot of members of congress have outdated official photos. Look at Daniel Inouye. That picture has to be from the mid-1980s. By relying on non-official, candid photos, we risk including the photographers POV in the picture. I agree that the current picture is nice looking, but use of official portrait allows for consistency across articles.Dcmacnut (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• 2 or 4 I agree with Dcmacnut. ^8thstar 00:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• 2, 4 per my reasoning above. But I don't have strong feelings on the matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• 1, 3, 10, 9, 7 in that order. They're all recent. 3, 10 and 7 seem to be official photos (from his web sites).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• 3,6,5 Enigma ^msg! 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• 1, 3, 2. Coemgenus 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• #1 and only #1. I am hoping he does not win so if #1 is removed, I'll be glad for that reason. #1 does what no other has ever done which is make him look downright happy and friendly and someone you'd want to invite for dinner or elect to a high office. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not surprising... Enigma ^msg! 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• 2. Happyme22 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• 2, as it is a high-res professional photo portrait, and consistent with other senators' articles. --Tom (talk - email) 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also, it was the lead photo for ~1.5 years, until someone changed it a few weeks ago. --Tom (talk - email) 01:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding what DCmacnut said, if we should use the photo that was used before he ran for President, then wouldn't that be 5?[7] There are several official photos here, so I'm unclear why 2 would be best. I admit that there are risks in relying on non-official, candid photos but the same logic would dictate that we also rely on his official biography instead of writing our own.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like some responses here:

First issue

Is it a problem that image 3 is fair use (and not free). Is that a problem? Yahel Guhan 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Since there are many free images of McCain, that image does not qualify for fair use and should actually be deleted. Happyme22 (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

second issue

Interpriting the results:

The result of the straw poll so far shows 3 votes for #1 ,3 for #2, and 2 for #3 for first choice. And for second choice, 2 for #4, and 2 for #3, 1 for #5 and 1 for #6. Based on the results so far, I'd say image #2 seems to be the best choice at this time. Any thoughts? Yahel Guhan 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since #1 and #2 seem to be basically tied, and #1 is currently in the article, I'd suggest leaving things as they are, unless there's more input that things should be changed. Also, note that another editor has previously supported #1 instead of #2.[8]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we can give it a week in case others who are watching this page wish to vote. Hopefully then we'll have a better consensus. Yahel Guhan 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Timdlocklear voted for 3 and 2 (below the gallery). Votes:
Picture One 1,1,1,4, ... Picture two 1,1,1,2,3, ... Picture three 1,1,1,2,2,
So, picture #3 would be in the lead, followed by #2, followed by #1. ^8thstar 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Timdlocklear subsequently logged in as an IP (72.213.129.138) and changed his vote. And why include that vote while excluding that of Evil Spartan?[9]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Evil Spartan did not a vote in this poll. And 3 people also had picture #4 (which is just an uncropped version of #2) as their second and third choice. ^8thstar 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, let's wait until March 18 as suggested above, and then we can see if it's necessary to figure out how to read the results.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've casted my votes above for either 2, 4, or 9; seeing as image 2 is a very good, cropped, recent and professional looking photo of McCain, I feel that it is probably best served to be the main image (and apparently others feel the same). The fascinating issue to me (and I'm very suprised that this did not come up before) is that image 3 is a fair use image. Like I mentioned above in discussion topic one, technically, it shouldn't even be allowed on any of the Wikimedia projects because it is in blatant violation of contention one of the Wikipedia fair use policy. There are many free equivalents available (including image 2) which should be substituted in its place. Happyme22 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is a concern over how recent the official photo is. Afterall, I received this photo from McCain's press people before it was even posted on his website. Not that it really matters; the official photo has the consensus (counting both cropped and uncropped votes). --Tom (talk - email) 01:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This quote says pretty much about a presidential candidate. Why is there not one sentence about this affair in the article? 91.66.201.71 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It used to be here, but now with the article size reduction work, it's made reference to in Cultural and political image of John McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure are a lot of nasty and disturbing quotes from McCain, e.g. "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?..." stuck over there that will never be seen by 99% of the readers who come to Wikipedia for information about the candidates. Those McCain quotes are categorized in a pretty blatant pov way as "colorful" whereas they just as easily could be labeled "sociopathic" if pov was stretched that far in the other direction. Reminds me of how sexist and racist comments used to be dismissed as "colorful" language. But seriously, when he made that remark about Chelsea, she was 18 years old. What kind of would-be President would say that publicly about an 18 year old girl/woman? ...and maybe that quote,at least, shouldn't be buried off in the wikipedia hinterlands because I sure think it's important. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to Wikipedia:Be bold and move that section to this BLP. If someone disagrees, feel free to explain why and move it back. Mr.grantevans2 (talk)

And I'm going to have to disagree with you. By inserting that section, you are showing your own POV. I'm sure that the editors of this article placed it on the other page for a reason (most likely size concerns) and nitpicking certain specifics to place on this page is POV. This page, due to its size, is meant to generalize certain aspects of McCain's life and career. And just because this information you are talking about is on another Wikipedia page rather than the main one (as well as a lot of other stuff regarding McCain) does not mean that it's off in "Wikipedia hinterland". Happyme22 (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you are right because I do have a definite pov about a possible leader of the world with his finger on the button making public jokes calling an 18 year old girl "ugly", publicly calling anybody "gooks" and joking in public about bombing a country.

I wonder if Obama called white people in Alabama "rednecks" it would be off his main page or if Hillary made a joke about McCain's wife being "ugly" it would be off her main page. I think the pov that is in effect here is the view that it's more acceptable for an older man with a reputation for being macho to make racist,sexist and sadistic jokes than say someone like Kramer, ( Michael Richards )an actual comedian, whose stupid and racist remarks are right in the lead to his article. I think McCain's remarks are extremely important and disturbing in both their quantity and ignorance and that there are too many of them not to be recognized as a substantial part of his public personna which should be in this main article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Including this material places undue weight on one part of McCain's life, and showcases your point of view at the expense of the readability of the article. Coemgenus 14:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on second thought I can see where that may be the case. I suppose it's a better fit with policy to leave this stuff where it is. However, it still feels a bit weird that someone can read this main BLP from start to finish and be left not knowing that those comments were ever made by the subject of the BLP. I did not know (before yesterday)about the "gooks" or Chelsea comments myself. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not justifying McCain's comments; I'm saying that choosing certain specific aspects of his cultural and political image to place on this page shows POV. Happyme22 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think this hasn't been easy, wait until November. On 5 November or within a few days after, we will know who the next president will be, and we will have hordes of people rushing to change that person's status from "Democratic/Republican candidate" to "President Elect". But that person will not be the president-elect until the Electoral College meets on 15 December; until then, s/he will merely be the presumptive President-Elect. And this will have to be explained, over and over, just as we've experienced here with McCain's current status. -- Zsero (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How about, President-Presumed Elect? --Justmeherenow (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I combined the infoboxes into one infobox, found at Template:McCainInfobox. This, plus the Template:fixHTML tags, should keep the section edit links from bunching up. If you don't like it, of course, feel free to revert. Coemgenus 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating that template for deletion: it's a single-use template, should be placed as is in the article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that, but the layout and everything is perfect and definetely needs to stay. However, size concerns brings up another issue... Happyme22 (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said at the deletion page: I created this template because I could not find any other way to get the edit boxes from bunching up when it was three separate templates. If anyone with more wiki skills than I can get it to work some other way, I would fully endorse the deletion. Coemgenus 13:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just run across what I've always been looking for, a page view counter for Wikipedia pages, at http://stats.grok.se/en/. In particular, I wanted to know if anyone reads subarticles of these biographies. Here are some results:

In March 2008, so far:

• Views of John McCain: 444,077
• Views of Early life and military career of John McCain: 6,736
• Views of House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999: 2,686
• Views of John McCain presidential campaign, 2000: 1,440
• Views of Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present: 409
• Views of John McCain presidential campaign, 2008: 9,627
• Views of Cultural and political image of John McCain: 1,839
• Views of Political positions of John McCain: 13,453

Let's check January 2008, before the big split but in the heat of the campaign:

• Views of John McCain: 929,544
• Views of John McCain presidential campaign, 2008: 25,479
• Views of Political positions of John McCain: 51,391

Let's check another candidate with subarticles, Hillary, for February 2008:

• Views of Hillary Clinton+Hillary Clinton: 863,642
• Views of United States Senate election in New York, 2000: 1,804
• Views of Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2,910
• Views of United States Senate election in New York, 2000: 2,311
• Views of Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton: 76,624
• Views of Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008+HC variant: 72,070
• Views of List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton: 3,099
• Views of Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors: 2,102

Let's check one more, for February 2008:

• Views of George W. Bush: 563,193
• Views of Early life of George W. Bush: 3,739
• Views of Professional life of George W. Bush: 1,928
• (there are lots of other Bush subarticles ...)

Preliminary conclusions: The click-through rate of subarticles dealing with the current campaign and political positions isn't too bad for Hillary, and ranges from not too bad to pretty bad for McCain. The click-through rate for subarticles dealing with straight biographical material is dreadful for everyone (from one percent down to a tenth of one percent, roughly). More thoughts later ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, and especially for the hit counter. I didn't know one was available.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's another example, for January 2008:

• Rudy Giuliani: 220,785
• Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani: 2,972
• Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 attacks: 1,609
• Giuliani Partners: 2,153
• Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik: 716
• Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008: 24,922
• Political positions of Rudy Giuliani: 25,558

Again, the current presidential campaign article and political positions article are read about a tenth as much as the main article (when I said "click through" for these above I was mistaken, as they have also been available through the 2008 presidential candidates template much of the time), while the straight biographical subarticles are read about a hundredth as much as the main article, if that. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun, the Obama numbers for February 2008:

• Barack Obama: 2,625,243
• Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008: 126,880
• Political positions of Barack Obama: 143,147
• Dreams from My Father: 77,203

Pretty much the same pattern (Obama doesn't have any straight sub articles), but the numbers overall are much higher. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)