Talk:Public image of John McCain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Gooks" is not "colorful"[edit]

Let's get real here. Is it ok for someone attacked by a black guy to be using the N word in describing the perpetrator for 30 years after the attack? Would you call that "colorful" ? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If people have tortured you for five years, "Gooks" is hardly a terrible word to call them; it is colorful compared to what he could have used. 69.245.80.218 (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Gook" is a racial slur & just as if someone who had been attacked by a black man 30 years ago were to refer to that individual attacker as a "n__gg_r", the term would STILL be a racial slur. If Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee were, in 1999, to have been making public reference to some "N_gg_er" who slashed them or robbed them or raped their sister in the early 70's, I suppose that could be called colorful too but let's get real here. A racial slur is exactly that, especially when meant to be derogatory towards the person or group called the name. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote should be used - "I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. "I will hate them as long as I live." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL 62.131.79.96 (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gook is not a racial slur, it depends on the usage. It is derived from Hangook, which means "Korean" in Korean. It is also used for the word American--"Mi gook", and it can mean soup. The N word is quite different, because it is racially charged. Since gook was a common term after the Korean war, it wasn't seen as a racial slur, especially by McCain's generation. In addition, McCain made it clear even in that article you quoted, that he hates his captors for torturing him and his friends, NOT Asian-Americans. This is not an "attack" on Asian-Americans, it is an attack on the captors who did use torture, and is perfectly acceptable by any standards. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gook is a racial slur. I have had many people calling me on the phone and say gook just because my last name is Asian in the phone book that was before caller ID was invented. McCain is NOT entitled to insult me. I have never been to Vietnam. The South Vietnamese are Asian too. If this is how McCain treat his allies then he's not fit to be President. 69.227.66.45 (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Hammer 10/2008[reply]

Vietnamese American reactions to "gook"[edit]

As numerous articles cited made clear, most Vietnamese Americans were supportive of McCain and opposition to his use of "gook" was a tiny minority. Saying that "reaction was divided" is putting undue weight on this minority. Exit polling during the primary also showed that they overwhelmingly supported him if you want further proof. DHN (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the fact that he is not directing it at any people, but the specific people who conducted the torturing and beatings. It would actually be corrupt, to pretend that one does not hate their captors or torturers. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction was divided. How do I know? One of the sources we're using says so [1] "Though [McCain] said that he only directed those comments at his captors during his 5-year imprisonment at a North Vietnamese camp, he nevertheless offended and infuriated many Asian Americans." IronDuke 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he infuriated many Asian Americans is not disputed. However, your change was made to a sentence specifically referring to Vietnamese American reaction, which was hardly "mixed": "for the most part, first-generation Vietnamese Americans, including Joe Tran, admitted that they are likely to support [McCain]", "Some Vietnamese protest senator's slur but most cheer candidate", "McCain's visit stirs admiration". DHN (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dang, Janet (2000-02-24). "Vietnamese American Reaction Divided". Asian Week. Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

A lot POV in this article[edit]

I find the whole first paragraph filled with POV about John McCain, but perhaps it is the nature of the article? Since it is a living person, could we at least eliminate redundant and unnecessary lines like "personal connections to lobbyists" (something Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and McCain has). Or like this line "his admitted propensity for controversial or ill-advised remarks", which isn't exactly cited, but may be a slight observation. I mean, I understand the "temper" thing, but admitted propensity, seems far-fetched.

Things like the rumored/reported joke he made at some dinner conference, seems to be simply POV. Because, it is there to create some sort of conclusion even though many politicians make bad jokes amongst friends. This is like me saying "well Obama told me, football is the worst sport ever." It would affect Obama's voting record if it were true and proven, but it's simply a rumor reported by individuals, and it doesn't mean that Obama is a bad person. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 16:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lobbyist bit in the intro was put in by another editor; it is unsupported by the article, and is off-topic and does not belong here. I've removed it. (McCain's relationships to lobbyists is a legitimate topic that should be traced in the biographical sections as they developed.)
The "admitted propensity for controversial or ill-advised remarks" isn't cited in the lead because the style of the McCain articles is not to have footnotes in the leads, but instead support all lead statements in the body, cited to the gills.
The Chelsea joke is not rumored or made among friends; it was made in a public speech at a fundraiser and was later acknowledged as having happened by McCain. I've added text and another cite to make that even clearer. It's relevant because one aspect of McCain's character, the subject of this multi-subarticle sequence, is the "bad boy" that he attributes the joke too. This is part of McCain, just as much as the POW resister is and the successful commanding officer is and the guy who got McCain-Feingold passed after many years of rejection is. Indeed, all these aspects are related, and we describe all of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it was a private joke at dinner, not a speech. Thus, I believe it's sort of slander to make it seem like it was a speech, people say many odd things to friends/privately. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see "private joke"? Salon article: "it was delivered to a Republican crowd." NYT article: "He [McCain] said the Senator who spoke just before he did to the Republican fat cats made a tasteless joke about Viagra. 'So I got up and said, "You think that was a tasteless joke? Listen to this one."'" Clearly there was a series of speakers at this fundraiser, and McCain was one of them, and made the joke at that time. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you include that last statement you just made in the article? Perhaps it's because it would be more objective than saying something like "The joke was thought so offensive that many newspapers declined to print it verbatim" which is clearly NOT WP:NPOV, I recommend that it should be changed to "many newspapers did not print the joke verbatim". — talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the speakers said before him does not seem relevant here, unless you're writing the Standards of taste at political fundraisers article. The characterization of why newspapers didn't print it comes from the source (the Salon article), e.g. "the Washington Post, in its personality section, noted the apology but said the joke 'was too vicious to print.'" Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded lead[edit]

The lead for this article is pretty short. How about if we add a few paragraphs? For example:

McCain’s political appeal has been more nonpartisan and less ideological than that of many other national politicians. He has emphasized personal character in his message to voters, including the character he showed during his military service. McCain carries not only the physical vestiges of war wounds, but also of the treatment he received for skin cancer (which has not returned).
McCain considers himself to be an ambitious and straightforward public servant, but an impatient one. He has not shied away from addressing negative aspects of his life, which include a sense of humor that has sometimes backfired spectacularly.
McCain can be prickly, but his relations with his own Senate staff have reflected less tension, and have inspired considerable loyalty towards him. He has devotedly defended his wife and children against some of the negative consequences of his high-profile political lifestyle, and has sought to honor his family’s tradition of service to country.
McCain’s father battled alchoholism, and his wife battled addiction to painkillers; their efforts at self-improvement have become part of McCain’s family tradition as well. The McCains’ military tradition has extended to his own children. His son John Sidney IV ("Jack") is enrolled in the U.S. Naval Academy, his son James has served with the Marines in Iraq, and his son Doug flew jets in the Navy. McCain is on good terms with all of his many family members.

Any problem if I add this material to the lead?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more important to add something to the summary section in John McCain. In general I'm trying to keep the lead sections of the subarticles light, since people will have usually come from the main article and this will just be repeating the same summary over again, better to get to the detail stuff. In terms of content, you've significantly skewed it in McCain's favor; it's not a balanced summary of this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I began work on this is because of your comment that the corresponding section at the John McCain article was too short. You wrote the section in the John McCain article,[1] and I agree it's too short. I still think a good place for us to start now is the lead of this article.
Lead sections are supposed to be concise encyclopedic articles in their own right, and I don't think that the lead of this article qualifies. See WP:Lead section and WP:Summary style.
In any event, please be more specific about why you think the above draft lead is skewed. It does leave out specific examples and specific quotes, but I think that's what a lead is supposed to do. At the very least, we should be able to come up with some added paragraphs for the John McCain article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved this discussion over to the John McCain talk page, since there seems to be agreement that the corresponding section of that article should be expanded.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggeration[edit]

I haven't got time right at the moment, but I think this article should mention that some people (e.g. McCain, Lieberman, et cetera) assert that certain aspects of McCain's public image are incorrect. For example, they say his temper has been exaggerated, and that, to the extent he has become angry with colleagues, it is a controlled anger rather than a loss of control.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lieberman's assertion is one of the things I added this morning. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, but there's still no discussion about exaggeration in this article. See what Mark Salter says here. I'm not saying this is a neutral or reliable source, but it's the tip of the iceberg, and many RS's do discuss that McCain's temper has been exaggerated.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use any of the things from the WaPo story that Salter is complaining about. I didn't include Bob Smith at all, because I know from working on POW/MIA articles that Smith is out there. I double-sourced the Shelby and Grassley episodes between this and the Boston Globe story. I didn't put in that McCain holds grudges, and I put in his staff loyalty and long terms of service some time ago. I'm not out to do this unfairly! But I must say that Salter's claim that there are 20-25 senators with worse tempers is belied by the Purdum quote ("atop") and Washingtonian #2 temper ranking that we reference at the beginning of the section. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FTR, I'm not out to do it unfairly either. The point here is that sometimes there's a disconnect between image and reality, and it might be worthwhile to mention that possibility. If McCain is a mean grouch, then we ought to say so, but if he has an exaggerated image as a mean grouch then we ought to mention that too.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as Bob Smith is concerned, he's one of several Senators who say that McCain is being given a bum rap. Bob Kerrey says so too.[2] As do other Senators including Joe Lieberman, and McCain himself. Kerrey says the story that you double-sourced about the Grassley matter has often been exaggerated. Here's Kerrey's account:
"Since I was mentioned in the Post story I can offer my account of the McCain-Grassley argument. First, I did nothing to intervene; the two Senators worked it out on their own. Second, the subject of the debate - the status of Americans held as prisoner in Vietnam - was one that always provoked violent, ugly debates. The precise point of disagreement between the Senators was over a man name Robert Garwood. Senator Grassley believed he was a hero whose reputation was destroyed by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Senator McCain believed him to a traitor who caused prisoners (like Senator McCain) to receive additional encounters with torture. Both Senators were extremely angry. Senator McCain was explosive (who wouldn't be?) but at no time threatening. Most important: McCain won the argument. My experience is that his anger always has a purpose and in this case the purpose was to defeat Senator Grassley's argument which he did decisively." Ferrylodge (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Kerrey says doesn't contradict anything I wrote, although when I have time later perhaps I'll modify it to indicate they were arguing over Robert Garwood, who is indeed one of the flashpoints of the POW/MIA business. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WTR, do you agree that the "temper charges" against McCain have been characterized by notable people (other than yourself and myself!) as exaggerated? If so, I'd like that to be mentioned in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to put together a draft, or you can. Please let me know. It just seems that there have been a lot of very high-profile charges of exaggeration, and they ought to be mentioned here in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) No, I don't think we should do this. I think this article should describe reality, as best as we/WP:RS can determine it. Most of what you're talking about has occurred in campaign contexts. The worst exaggeration came in late 1999, when Bushies and/or Senate rivals spread the word that McCain's outbursts were due to his being mentally unstable from his POW days. McCain was forced to make public 1500 pages of his health records to counter this junk. This is all described in John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2000#Campaign_developments_1999; I don't see the merit of introducing it here. If the same stuff comes up in this campaign, then John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 should cover it. Let's just describe McCain as he is, here. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree with you, but for the title of this article, which includes the word "image". Should we describe his actual image, whether the image corresponds to reality or not? Or should we describe what he's really like, notwithstanding the contrary image? Or maybe we shuold rename the article to something like "Cultural and political role of John McCain."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title is for conformance with HRC, which mimicked Obama's same section. But the approach is different in each case. Political science research tells us that the public reacts to McCain in a character-based way, rather than partisan or ideological. Thus we explore the character, as it has been exposed to cultural and political norms. If there's an academic paper that tells us his perceived character is out of whack with his actual character, we could include that. I'm hoping to find more things along those lines. Some steady polling data on what the electorate likes/dislikes about McCain would also be useful. But if hack op-ed writer X says McCain is more temperamental than he really is, I don't see that we should bother with that here. I don't think the temper issue has really "stuck" with the people; I see Leno making "old" jokes about McCain, not "blows his stack" jokes. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salter, Sen. Kerrey, Sen. Smith, Sen. Lieberman, Sen. McCain and others aren't responding to Jay Leno or to hack op-ed writers. They're responding to what we would ordinarily characterize as reliable sources (e.g. the Wash. Post). Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're saying that this article should cover the difference between McCain's perceived character and his actual character. Yet, this article presently does not give any hint that such a difference might exist (as Salter, Kerrey, Smith, Lieberman, and McCain contend it does).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give a draft of what you have in mind adding. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WTR, if I write a draft, it would be helpful for me to first have a clue about what this article is supposed to be about. What kind of image would you like this article to address? There's McCain's public image, and then there's his image among colleagues, his image among friends, and his self-image. Which of those is this article supposed to focus on? If only the public image should be dealt with here, then why discuss a long list of incidents about which John Q. Public has never heard?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You're getting thrown by the word "image". One basic purpose of this section/article for political figures is to answer the question, "Okay, I read the whole biographical article up to now. Do I have a full picture of the role this person plays in American public life and American culture? Or is there more I should know?" A second is to cover significant topics that are important but that extend across the political figure's whole career (and thus don't slot neatly into the biographical narrative). A third is to include what academia has to say about the political figure, which again tends to not slot nearly into the chrono. The temperament section deals with the second purpose mostly; I agree that JQP mostly hasn't heard about the fight with Senator X, which is why I'm not too worried about whether some WaPo article exaggerated it or not. As long as we get it right, that's what matters. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be very useful to add a paragraph to the lead, in order to explain the scope of the article. This would help the article develop in the future, and help prevent it from becoming just an aimless jumble of information. Your third purpose (i.e. how academia views McCain) seems kind of arbitrary, in that it excludes how lots of other segments of the population view him (e.g. reporters, Arizonans, senators, family members, friends, John Q. Public, himself, et cetera). The word "image" in the article title is just plain confusing, because it does not specify whose eye we're talking about. A better title might be: "Major themes in the life of John McCain."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're a lawyer and you think and argue too much :-) You misunderstand about the purpose of the academic studies — they measure the responses you list. For example, Jacobson (the top guy in the field for polarization studies, FWIW) measures how Arizonans view him, in terms of party alignment. There should be some good media studies we can use to get measurements there. There used to be a Pol Sci guy who measured senators' effectiveness in dealing with other senators, have to see if I can find that. And so forth. WP:V and WP:RS value scholarly articles/books highest, so it behooves us to avail ourselves of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this temper thing is likely going to be the main weapon against McCain in the general election, and it's important that we get it right. Bill Clinton used to fly into purple rages at Stephanopolous, but the media didn't make a big fuss about his temperament. Eisenhower and Truman both learned a few choice words during their military careers, and they repeated them freely in the White House. And if McCain ever did anything remotely as rude or foul as LBJ, then the media would have already banished McCain to oblivion.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to see, I suspect bigger issues will be Bush III, lobbyists everywhere, Iraq 100 years, and flip flops on past straight talk such as Bush tax cuts. I agree Bill was a huge stack blower, and it's hurt HRC a few times during the campaign this year (why she didn't send him on a permanent humanitarian mission to Outer Mongolia at the start of the year is beyond me). Your media analysis is faulty though; McCain has long benefited from media fondness for him. It's not the national media that introduced and pushed the temper meme, but GOP rivals and the Arizona Republic (which has never liked him that much). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation format[edit]

FL, your recent changes aren't using the "cite" template. I know you don't like it, but the result is that we've got two different citation styles being rendered in the references section. See for example how dates of newspaper articles are displayed. We need to use one or the other. I believe we should stick with the "cite" template, since it enforces a constant presentation style that is hard to achieve with manual formats from different editors. The slowness that some articles get with hundreds of "cite" uses won't be an issue here, as this article will never get that long. I'm willing to rewrite your additions into "cite" format, if that will help. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, feel free to use the cite template. I've never used it, and would rather not start doing so myself.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy once you do it a few times. I went from being a total resister to a total user in the space of a couple dozen edits. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Sandy on this one.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temperament ordering[edit]

This section now has ordering issues. As it stands, it responds to and analyzes things before it introduces those things in the first place. I think it needs to be reshuffled accordingly. I'll take a stab at it if it's ok with you. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Wasted Time R/Sandbox/mcc-temper for my proposed ordering. This is a strict cut-and-paste reordering, not a byte changed otherwise. Obviously some introducing, transitioning, smoothing, and duplication reduction will be necessary. But want to see if you agree the order is more logical. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is now done here, with smoothing and cite work, still no content changes. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novak[edit]

It's fine to relegate Novak to a footnote, but the idea that Cochran was really ticked off at McCain regarding earmarks most definitely should not be relegated to a footnote. You're implying in the article that Cochran was characterizing McCain based on decades of knowing the McCain family. Actually, there are neutral and reliable sources that attribute Cochran's stance to earmarks. I can find lots more, but here are two for starters:

  • "Mr. McCain’s absolutist stance on earmarks reportedly brought him the enmity of at least one powerful colleague, Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi....Senator Cochran told The Boston Globe in January that he was endorsing Mr. Romney, and mentioned that the thought of Senator McCain as president 'sends a cold chill down my spine'...."Chronicle of Higher Education
  • "Cochran recently gave McCain a half-hearted endorsement, a couple weeks after telling reporters: 'He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.' (They've had brutal battles over earmarks.)"CBS news. Ferrylodge (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the two are tied together. There's two separate issues: why Cochran didn't endorse McCain for political reasons, such as earmarks, and why Cochran doesn't think McCain is suitable to be president, for psychological reasons. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the Chronicle source just recycles Novak. And the CBS source implies that Cochran thinks McCain is unsuitable due to the temper shown in the battles over earmarks, not the position on earmarks themselves. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got a lot of time now, but will revisit this if need be. Have you looked to see if other sources attribute Cochran's blast at McCain to Cochran's fondness for earmarks? Even if Cochran was criticizing the temper McCain showed in the battles over earmarks, that is very legitimate context. Look, one of McCain's biggest issues is pork. He used to have a big animated image of a pig at his website for years, feeding at a trough. Obviously, Cochran and he got into fights about it, and there's ample evidence that Cochran is one of the biggest pork barrel fans in Congress. You shouldn't just relegate the word "earmarks" to the footnotes, here. You're giving the impression that Cochran is just some concerned family friend.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously they disagree over some issues. But it's pretty unusual for an issue disagreement to manifest itself this kind of public statement, within the same party. No Republican said the idea of Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson becoming president sent cold shivers down their spine. Even Hillary and Obama haven't said this about each other, and no one said it about Edwards or Biden or Dodd. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to quoting Cochran. What I object to is giving the impression that he's just speaking as a concerned family friend. He's speaking as the biggest GOP pork fan in the Senate, to the biggest opponent. You can find lots of nasty remarks if you look hard enough. Carville called Richardson "Judas" but Carville wasn't speaking as an old family friend of the Richardsons either (he was speaking as Hillary's agent to scare people from endorsing Obama).Ferrylodge (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the earmarks in front of the quote. I'm just trying to distinguish between two cases: (a) McCain and Cochran battle over earmarks, McCain's behavior is such that Cochran sincerely says he thinks McCain shouldn't be prez; (b) McCain and Cochran battle over earmarks, Cochran is ticked off and concocts a quote he doesn't really believe. I don't see any evidence for (b). Of course there's a gray area in between the two that might also be true. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I hope it's okay that I replaced an image of his old flight suit with an image of him at Memorial Day 2008. The flight suit alone, without him in the picture, does not seem particularly informative. However, the image of him wearing a purple heart on Memorial Day seems much more current and interesting. You actually see McCain, rather than some old clothes. Also, I've noted in the caption that his range of arm motion is limited; i.e. he can't raise his arm higher than shown.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should use both. The flight suit image portrays that he was an aviator, that he had to bail out, and that his time as a POW was memorable enough that the North Vietnamese, as well as Americans who visit the prison-turned-museum, take note of it. This article is short on images, so the more of them the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle McCain's insulting his wife in public?[edit]

In 1992, McCain grew angry about a comment his wife made about his physical appearance and said "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." It was reported in a book about McCain called The Real McCain and widely reported elsewhere when the book came out. [3] So, does it belong in this article? If it does, should it go in Controversial Remarks, Temperament, or Family sections? I haven't been an editor here nor have I dealt with highly controversial statements like this in a BLP-ish article, so I thought I'd ask. I'm not aware of any denial that the statement was made. If McCain does deny it, that might change my opinion as to whether it should be included.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed several times at Talk:John McCain and Talk:Cindy Hensley McCain, and no it is not being included. It's way too weakly sourced to qualify under WP:BLP or WP:RS grounds. Three reporters allegedly hear it, yet they don't report it at the time? Then they wait 16 years and tell it to some guy writing a book? And they still want to be anonymous? Reporters are in the business to report things, under their byline. Not hide behind anonymity and sit on stories for decades. And the book that this appears in is titled The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't, meaning it's blatantly skewed towards promoting a particular agenda. No good. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see it at Talk: John McCain - maybe it's been archived? I did see it at Cindy's page - a link there says the McCain Campaign denies the story. I'm not sure a denial by itself should keep it out - lies are cheap - but I'm not going to put it in without something more.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's discussed in both Talk:John_McCain/archive7 and Talk:John_McCain/archive8. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The book has been peer-reviewed and qualifies as WP:RS. If we're worried about neutrality, we weasel it by saying, "According to the controversial book The Real John McCain" and explain the circumstances for the claim. It's the same thing when we include the fact that mailer accuse Obama of being a Muslim.--Loodog (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


And the first archive you mention doesn't have it in there and the second has two posts in it, hardly time-cured consensus.--Loodog (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wasted Time R on this one, for the reasons given. Incidentally, Schecter's book was indeed discussed at Archive 7 and Archive 8.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Loodog's comment, it's a bit fanciful to think that a book with the title of The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't has been "peer-reviewed" ... who would be the peers, other writers writing attack books against McCain? Books like these, no matter who they are attacking, are mostly reviewed by the publisher's in-house lawyers to make sure they can't be sued for libel. Quite different. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Peer Review applies to research journals, hence the name. A group of your peers reviews your work to see if it is worthy of inclusion in a given journal. Arzel (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCain's "I don't disagree" statement[edit]

I'm re-adding this to controversial remarks. I checked the sources for the other "controversial remarks." None of them include the word "controversy" or "controversial," so clearly a precedent has already been set here for the editor to decide what is controversial. Given that this phrase has already passed the notability test by being reported in multiple reiable sources, we know that it is notable, so the only question remains as to where it belongs. It belongs in this section and there is no reason to delete it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the other entries in this section. Do you really think this is the same kind of remark? Do you really think this is the same kind of controversy? First, of course, McCain isn't saying he wants to reinstate the draft here; he's just giving a polite response to a long-winded, rambling, somewhat incoherent statement by a citizen at a town hall event. But even if his statement was really clear, like "Yes ma'am, I think you're right, it's time we reinstate the draft," why would that belong here? This section is for remarks that are controversial because they are crude, vulgar, mean, offensive, in poor taste, etc. It's not for statements that are controversial because some people don't agree with them politically. If we included those, then practically everything he says would be here. "Drill baby drill" and "I will appoint more Roberts and Alitos" and "We must do the surge" and "Obama's tax hikes will take away jobs" and a thousand others. Surely you can see that that's not what this section's about. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok, fair point. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla Joke[edit]

There is a rumor that McCain told an off key joke in 1986 about a gorilla raping a girl. The source is a blog which has a pdf scanned image of a Tuscon paper of very poor quality, and not completely legible. Now I should remind people of WP:BLP which states that poorly sourced material of a contentious nature should be removed immediately. There is absolutely no proof that this happened, and the only closely reliable source is a Washington Post opinion by Kurtz reporting on the blog rumor. There should really be no discussion as to why this should not be included, and unless solid reliable sources are found it should not be included. Arzel (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCain knows of the rumor and does not deny saying it. There is no BLP concern here. It's been reported in reliable sources. You have no excuse to delete this. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the supposed source? There is no evidence he said this joke, and he supposedly said it in March, but yet it was "reported" 11 days prior to the Novmeber election by NOW who were campaigning against him. Look, if you find some actual evidence that he said it fine, but this type of rumor pushing is in violation of WP:BLP. Furthermore this primary source for the "joke" is a blog site, and to have two anti-McCain people report on the blog site does not improve the reliability for the blog site. You have no reliable source, you have no cause, put it back in an I will report it to the BLP noticeboard. Arzel (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You choose to ignore evidence. Attribute it to the article, mention when it was released, whatever. But it's going in. Go ahead and report it to the BLP noticeboard. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not blogs, but two newspaper articles:
  • Norma Coile (October 27, 1986). "Women Call McCain Sexist for Rape 'Joke'", Tucson Citizen.
  • Bodfield, Rhonda. “McCain's gaffes no joke as 2000 looms”, Arizona Daily Star (June 16, 1998).
The blog entry showing the scan of the newspaper is merely included for convenience. The scan is legible for the salient parts of the article. Nobody that I know of is challenging that the newspaper story was printed or that it had these contents. So the "blog source" argument is a red herring. As for the story itself, I agree that the delay from March to October is troublesome, but not prohibitive. To me, the most telling part is the non-denial denial issued by the McCain campaign at the time. To say you don't recollect telling this joke means that you can't outright deny it because you're afraid somebody taped it and can directly contradict you. If he really didn't say it, he would have made a much stronger denial, saying it's outrageous to think that I could even think such a thing much less say it blah blah. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Olbermann covered this as well, should you be needing additional sources. You'll have to dig to find the airdate for that particular Countdown episode. There is little question that McCain told the joke, and there is no issue with sourcing as far as I can tell. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did find that episode and included it as a reference. Arzel thought he was a better judge of reliability than Olbermann. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Countdown is pretty much a partisan infotainment show, and as such isn't a WP:RS. But the segment doesn't really add much to the picture anyway; it just adds another lame non-denial response from the McCain camp. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So then The O'reilly factor, is more of a partisan show by your standards. Yet it is still used as a source. So is countdown. I do not see any logical reason that countdown can not be used. In fact, all shows would be as no anchor is purely objective. The Washington post source should alleviate any claims of citation anyway. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very disturbing. This event happened over 20 years ago, and you are telling me that the only relibale source is a single newspaper based on second reports of what a few women claimed to have heard 8 months prior to be reported only days prior to the 1986 senate election. On top of this it was presented by NOW who at the time was actively supporting McCain's opponent for the senate seat. This was a rumor in 1986 and it is a rumor now and per BLP has no place in this article. Arzel (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the McCain articles, you know that I've kept the "'c' word story" out about a dozen times. So I'm not an easy mark. But you're wrong in saying this case here was a rumor, it was a claim, which is different. And McCain didn't actually deny the claim, which shows me that he was afraid someone had a tape of it, and he knew as all politicos do that the damage from making a demonstrably false denial about the joke would be a lot worse than the joke itself. I mean, I would have no trouble "recollecting" whether I said something like this or not – not in a million years would I say it! My "feel" as a McCain biographer tells me this happened ... but I guess you're right, WP:BLP always decides in favor of the biographee, and out it should go. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean you can't have it. You just need both sides of the argument. Also, keep in mind of WP:IAR and WP:RAP. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLP clearly states that if something is reported in the MSM that we can include it, no matter how questionable. That McCain knows of it and does not deny it trivially alleviates BLP concerns. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be ...[edit]

There should be something about how everyone thinks he's gonna die in office —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.251.38.69 (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He'll continue to be a senator. He's next up for re-election in 2010, we'll see if he runs again, but I would guess he will. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete this article[edit]

i mean i love the fact that john mccain uses his soup spoon twice as often as his tea spoon. o, what? you say that wikipedia sucks anyway, that blind collectivism can be subverted by business interests with hired editors? well, nm then. good job everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.164 (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'spoon' does not appear in the article. Nothing else in your comment was intelligible. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could figure out one other part -- "nm" meant "never mind" and meant that we should ignore the comment, advice I intend to follow. JamesMLane t c 04:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for McCain vs support for him using the term 'gook'[edit]

I was going thorough an old archive looking for something and came across an old issue I had discussed Talk:John McCain/Archive 3#Vietnamese response. I do not like how this was resolved as I feel it lead to a highly misleading outcome. Neither the original reference used, nor the second one added (the third one is offline so I can't read it) support the claim that a majority of Vietnamese Americans support McCain's usage of the term. As I said in my original complaint, unless a scientific poll was done, it's extremely difficult to claim that a majority of Vietnamese Americans support McCain's usage of the term. What is clear, is that the majority of Vietnamese-Americans support McCain. There's nothing wrong with mentioning this but to claim that because they support McCain, they must support the his usage of the term, is pure OR and just plain dumb. There are many people who support someone even if they disagree with something that person says or does. I've therefore removed the claim yet again. Unless someone comes up with at least one reliable source that claims the majority of Vietnamese Americans support the usage of the term, this highly misleading claim should not be added to the article again. I have changed the article to better reflect what the sources we have actually say [4] and also [5] Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with your change to say reaction was "mixed". That's general enough to cover a range of possible reactions. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain is back?[edit]

A lot of commentators have been noting that the old "maverick" John McCain is back with how strongly he has slammed Michele Bachmann for accusing top muslim officials in the Obama administration of having links to radical Islamists, while at the same time campaigning for Mitt Romney. Is this notable to be included in the article? 69.14.36.184 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there have been a few signs lately of the return of the old McCain, but we need to wait for more before deciding it's for real ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what happened to john mccain[edit]

That title is crap. How about: Concerns over change in image ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RocketLauncher2 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a section title that captures and summarizes many of the quotes inside that section. It also does so in an interesting way that will help grab the reader's attention. The best articles are encouraged to have "prose [that] is engaging" and this title engages the reader. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about being encyclopedic? it sounds like a textbook or an article. It shouldn't have to grab a reader's attention with something like that and it's just awkward when none of the other titles do it. What about "Change in image"? The article doesn't describe it, it's just a quote. It should be straightfoward. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cultural and political image of John McCain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cultural and political image of John McCain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cultural and political image of John McCain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 December 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– We have thirteen articles with "Public image of..." titles (e.g., Public image of Barack Obama, Public image of Bill Clinton, Public image of Mike Huckabee, Public image of Mitt Romney, Public image of Sarah Palin), which seem to cover the same ground as these. Public image of John McCain and Public image of Hillary Clinton redirect to these titles, respectively. I see no particular reason for these titles to differ from the rest. BD2412 T 03:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, per CONSISTENCY as per nom, and because "Cultural and political image" seems just a less concise version of "Public image". The Public image definitely includes culture and politics, and I don't think that any cultural and political imagery is not public. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

McCain friendship with Biden[edit]

McCain's friendship with Joe Biden became a significant part of the ethos and narrative of Biden's run in 2020, especially in his advertisements run in the state of Arizona. It even made an appearance in a video narrated by McCain's wife Cindy at the DNC. Not certain where to mention this within the articles related to John McCain, but seems noteworthy. Would it not fit in here? It is has become part of his image that was particularly emphasized posthumously. SecretName101 (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_image_of_John_McCain&oldid=1200421923"