Talk:John McCain

This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are clearly not rooted in provable fact, but merely in likelihoods and possibilities (in the case of the Bush rumor, libelous ones). I suggest the author(s) provide news reports or other reliable publications to directly support the claims and speculation in the article. --Daniel B. Douglas 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the "this article needs citations" thingy? This article is *clearly* in need of citations, and, quite frankly, serious editing to remove the gossip. A "citations needed" flag gives readers an extra "heads up" to be extra-critical in their reading - important if the site is to be used by high school students. --Hsmom 01:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed minor spelling mistakes on the page. I also agree that this page is disgraceful to Conservapedia. It has no references cited. It breaks both commandments #2 and #6 as it currently stands, and quite possibly #1. The authors/contributors to the information in this article need to add their citations and make certain they are also not adding their own opinions. Serious revision must be undertaken quickly. --Dikaiosune 00:23, 12 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with all of the above. The article also participates in speculation (what the media and Democrats will bring up regarding his health) and it is factually inaccurate (Reagan was 70 when he assumed office, not 72, and so most Republicans would not use that as a defense). Myk 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok... so no one cared enough to remove the uncited opinion from the article so I went ahead and did it. I left the uncited fact because that is less egregious. I have no idea how to make references look nice. Myk 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Myk, it's lookin' good to me. You're building an article of facts with citations, rather than gossip, opinions, and speculation - much improved, IMHO. --Hsmom 21:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

What is this page going to be?

Aschafly, all of the things you just listed under electability may be true and verifiable but are they encyclopedic? What encyclopedia has items on how electable someone is? Is this going to be a biography of the man or a list of reasons why not to vote.

His age at primary time is easily discernible by subtracting the year of his birth from the year of his election. His cancer is something easily added to his personal life section (or create a personal life section as I didn't add one thinking it would be gossipy). His conduct during the Keating Five incidient could be cited and sourced and put in his political career section. And, as he is a public figure, the Dobson quote can be placed in a "criticism" section. There is a way to make this at least look like an encyclopedia article rather than a "reason why Aschlafly doesn't want him nominated" page. Myk 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

• Perhaps, Andy, you would entertain the idea of changing the title block from "Electability" to something else? Or, in fairness, we should add the same, highly subjective information to each of the potential candidates? Personally I think that would be pissing on our own shoes. If you agree, I can create a "Quick Facts" area for your information, incorporate other pertinent information, and present it as I did in the Margaret Thatcher page. Let me know your thoughts. --TK 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

We could add Electability as one of the Conservapedia debates, such as "Which of the Republican candidates is most electable?" At the very least, it's something I would be interested in discussing. MountainDew 01:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, looks as if Geo beat you to it, dude, lol --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 05:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Sources

This is a featured article. The unsourced comment should either be removed or given a citation. It is a clear violation of the Second Commandment. There are only seven commandments, we should follow them. Especially on featured articles. Myk 02:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

• Gee, I wonder who made it the featured article? If he doesn't care, or doesn't think its that big of deal, and it's his place, why do you? What comment are you talking about? Maybe it was removed before I read this? --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 05:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Political Record 1-10. And if he doesn't feel it's a problem, great, but I never want to see any other "facts" removed because they didn't have a source. Conservapedia would lend an awfully bad name for conservatives if the leader of the site could just flaunt the rules like that.

Also, there's no mention that his cancer is in remission, no source for cancer hurting Paul Tsongas, and no where in the article cited does it mention anything about poor fundraising being a sign of weakness. That's commentary.Myk 11:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Need for personal/family section

The article should mention that McCain has seven children, of whom two are today in the U. S. military. Duncan Hunter is the only other candidate who can claim even one. Amyz 18:17, June 8, 2007 (EDT)

Article says he is Baptist. Does that mean he is a member of a Baptist church? If so, which one. And which denomination was he a member of before. This is only important if Obama's UCC affilation is deemed important.

RE: Political Record

I'm not doubting that there are sources for the information in this section, however considering much of it is in opposition to what his election platform is, I think it might be a good idea to show sources. In fact, it would lend a lot of credibility to this site, and raise usefulness. Any intelligent person would have to realize that McCain's position is inconsistent with his track-record. This is what killed Kerry for a lot of people, including me. Who knows what he's going to do when gets to be president, nothing is truthful. At the very least his platform could be considered deceitful being that it would be in conflict with his actual behavior. I would say, it would be out right lying! --Puellanivis 18:37, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Fundraising

The "Fundraising" section is really irrelevant at this point. Delete it? Dadsnagem2 12:34, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces

“

McCain is a living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces, and has the greatest claim of any of the candidates to be Commander-in-Chief.

”

This... doesn't look encyclopedic, I'm sorry. Why don't we say "He is the second-greatest American who ever lived (just after Ronald Reagan)" while we're at it?

I normally would have reworded it (or tried to find a source so we can say "X said that he can be considered..."), but I see that some other bloke just got a 1-week block for edit warring in this sentence, and I don't really want to join him. So I'll just file my protest here and hope that somebody will pick it up. --DHayes 18:07, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Another Image

Not that it's a big deal, but I was wondering if a Sysop can add one or two small images for McCain. Like McCain with Reagan, or McCain campaigning for President.Chippeterson

I agree, Chip...I will find some, and ask someone to upload them, unless you have something in mind. --₮K^/Talk 22:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Hate speech laws

McCain supports hate speech laws. Is this really the guy today's conservatives want? CaptainRoemer 11:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, is the vocal opposition to McCain by some conservative political commentators significant enough to merit mention in the article? --Benp 19:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Don't know if any are criticizing him now. We keep current here.--Aschlafly 19:52, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Ann Coulter's still pretty critical of him. Her most recent column, after mentioning that it's the end of the road for Hillary, follows with "Now we just have to get rid of the other two" and describes the remaining choice as being between "a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy." Again, not sure if it's significant enough to merit inclusion, but she's a fairly influential media personality.

--Benp 19:58, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but Ann Coulter is a joke of a media personality. Every time she opens her mouth people wince. Darkmind1970 11:49, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

This is not the Ann Coulter article. And whatever he supports he's what we have so we gotta stick by him.

Technically

He hasn't clinched. Regardless of the difference in numbers, as you said yourself ASchlafly---the media can't appoint the nominee. He isn't the nominee until the convention or until he has no further opponents. --Jareddr 21:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

He is technically the 'presumptive nominee', the same status as Obama. Can we change the wording so that it is accurate? I would do it myself, but I've seen too many people get banned for changing articles like this. FernoKlump 18:40, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Abortion

This section is not flattering, maybe the reality of his position. However, I just read the article on Life News that is credible. As it currently stands, no reference points are made and a different subject, embryonic stem cell is inserted. Please advise for I am to completely change this section unless told not to.--jp 09:53, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Because it's not flattering, but true, you want to remove it? Keep the quote, and I'll find a reference for it now. --Jareddr 09:58, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Jareddr, you still need a reference "McCain is also against government funding of birth control and sex education." This section does not reflect his true record on abortion. I will add to but will not replace current article. I can clearly tell you have nothing but discontent for McCain.--jp 14:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

About the same as your discontent with Barack Obama. --Jareddr 14:51, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

touché--jp 14:54, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Jared from Subway, like the changes?--jp 22:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, since they were complete copy and pastes and none of it was your own original work, no, I don't like the changes. First clue that it was a copy and paste---your first edit after pasting it was going through and changing all the "anti-choice" phrases to "anti-abortion". Why, I asked myself, would you write an entire section using one phrase and then change it? Quick google search took me to the NARAL source of the material. If you would like to do a complete rewrite to bring within the guidelines, that would be acceptable. But as it was, it was a violation of CP Commandment #1. --Jareddr 23:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, you are wrong and I'll fight to change it back.--jp 23:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

You are claiming you wrote the entire section you added here on your own? --Jareddr 23:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

You can't take from the article the sentences with umbiguous meaning and claim copy. e.g. 'McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues'. Do I have to change to 'McCain voted 11 times on abortion and other child-in-womb measures'. ? No Way. Next you'll be claiming I have turn 11 into eleven because of plagarism.--jp 23:50, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

You seem to be backing up to a position of unambiguous statements. Are you admitting the greater point that the passage was taken whole from another publication in violation of CP Commandment #1? --Jareddr 23:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, it is a cite reference needed issue and not a delete.--jp 00:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

2nd paragraph, first sentence

"John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues" this is a common democrat strategy to link Bush and McCain. I had changed it to John McCain and the Republican party... Reverted back to original. --jp 20:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, the citation showed that the change I made was properly referenced. And speaking of common strategies---it's Democratic, not democrat, when using as an adjective. --Jareddr 23:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Proof a democrat has edited this section to show the connection between Bush and McCain. When in fact, McCain has had more than two decades of relationship with Republicans in congress and only 7.5 years with Bush. Change required without warring please.--jp 22:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Happy to have both statements in there. You provide your citation about the voting relationship of McCain and his party, (and of course, remove any "Maverick" references, if there are any), and I'll provide my citation about the Bush relationship---which is important information since he is the incumbent president. --Jareddr 22:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Well John McCain has voted alongside George W. Bush 90% of the time. That's pretty close. That's not a liberal bias, that's just how it is.

2007 Fundraising

This paragraph is complete liberal bias and should be removed--jp 22:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Re: Reversion

"I'm not sure we should create a new category; the article extols his honors" I didn't. The category was already there. That's also not the purpose of categories. DannyRedful 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

The only other person in the category was a Russian astronaut who never fought in a war. If it was in wide use, I would understand. It's not meant to say anything negative about your choice to put it in, only that it doesn't seem appropriate in the wider picture. Learn together 20:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Immigration

Jareddr seems to think Huffington post citations are exceptable for CP. We don't simply repeat self-serving liberal claims here and I am not talking Minute-men. Find another citation or I delete again.--jp 11:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Re-read the section. I've added AP report, USA Today, and ABC News. They all repeated the same remarks by the woman in question. I'm going to be adding further remarks the she made in an interview with ABC News. --Jareddr 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Fine with me--jp 11:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Conflicting Facts

Which of the following is true? John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues -or- After George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, McCain began to disagree with the President on many issues. Both of these on the same page are conflicting. Anyone beside jareddr want to comment?--jp 15:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Polygamist

Whoa. He was married to his first wife at the same time that he recieved a marriage certificate? Does this mean that, legally speaking, he was married to two people at the same time? Or, at the very least, does it mean he was in(volved with) Cindy before he had divorced his wife? I'm not trying to stir up controversy here, I swear on that, but I was just curious because if so, I think it speaks a lot about his commitment to her and creates a better picture of his character. Thanks. LinusWilson 20:30, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

The technical term is bigamy, since he was only married to two women at the same time. And yes, he was married to both of them at the same time. Knullmaskin 12:36, 12 July 2008 (EDT)