Difference between revisions of "Talk:John McCain"

Revision as of 06:30, April 3, 2007

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)

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)