Jump to content

Talk:John McCain 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Re: Campaign Advisors

I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers. Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected. I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character. I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president. Your input would be greatly appreciated. ----Rawkcuf. (This is the same 'form letter' I've sent to all the other dicussion pages for candidate' articles. I understand that there is some major upheaval going on with John McCain's staff, so that it may make this issue irrelevant. I noticed that there was a lot of mention given to departing staff members-- perhaps it would help to put things on a more positive note, and mention those that remain. Just an observation. -R.) [04:39, 20 September 2007 Rawkcuf]

Graphs, Diagrams, polls, I am getting dizzy

I noticed these on Thompson's, Romney's and Guliani's articles as well. As far as I know normal articles don't present these many graphs in excess. You don't write scientific articles this way. You refer to images in the text. These images are just pasted blatanly filling more than half the article. It is very annoying, disruptive for reading and actually not very informative either in the context and layout they are presented. Lord Metroid 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. There are plenty of references which include those graphs. It's hard enough to keep up with the poll numbers without throwing all those charts and graphs in there.Paisan30 (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Smears in South Carolina

As some of you may know there have been flyers found around South Carolina which make "claims" that John McCain was a "songbird" who turned on other POWs while imprisoned in North Vietnam supposedly in order to get better treatment. Following the smears that happened in the 2000 campaign against McCain he set up a "truth squad" in South Carolina and quickly disavowed these "claims". The following are the front and back of these flyers both in pdf format:

In the bottom-right of the back of the flyer there are two links which take you to the following sites:

The first is run by Jerry Kiley and the second is run by Ted Sampley. Here is an AP piece on CBS News that talks about the Kiley connection to this incident and also here is the Sourcewatch article on Ted Sampley. I don't regularly edit the John McCain article but I thought I might as well leave this information here so that other regulars on this article could consider how to add this information on the article. Thanks.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've incorporated a mention of this junk. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ross Perot

Ross Perot attacked McCain pretty badly. Shouldn't this be added? --STX 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This goes back to Perot's feud with McCain (and even more with John Kerry) during the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs hearings in 1991-1993. I need to work on that article more when I get a chance ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Radio Talkshows

Can anyone comfirm that the radio talkshows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been attacking John McCain lately? I don't get it. Spongefan (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they've been ripping into him. There's a snarling lunatic on at night who's been even worse. Why? McCain's departed from movement conservative orthodoxy too many times. And the talk show guys fear they're losing their influence on the Republican part of the process. The section on South Carolina in this article discusses the talk show role a bit, but it may need further treatment. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC) mod Wasted Time R (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Much of talk radio is against McCain. John and Ken in California had the "Hour of Rage Against McCain". Bytebear (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fix

I think that the fact that the Florida Governor endorsed John McCain, this should be added to this article or another one.

Reed Ebarb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.179.35 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Was subsequently done. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Louisiana?

I thought McCain won the closed caucus in Louisiana; how come it isn't mentioned in this article? -134.50.75.114 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Last I saw, nobody was sure who had won in Louisiana. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

Trying to figure out how to set up Super Tuesday... this article is already pretty long. If McCain gets the nomination, are we going to separate into primary/general election articles? I guess this applies to whoever gets the nominations. Paisan30 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, keep all of Super Tuesday in one section, and just give results in succinct form ("McCain won a majority of delegates in New Jersey, New York, blah blah, while losing in delegate counts in Georgia, Alabama, blah blah"). And yes, I agree there may need to be a separate general election article for the two that move on. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Too much like a story"

User:Bytebear has placed a cleanup tag on the "Caucuses and primaries 2008" section of the article, with the edit summary "sounds too much like a story, and not an encycolpedia article". Which raises the question, what would be a useful encyclopedia article about McCain's campaign? Most encyclopedias don't have separate articles on campaigns, so there isn't much prior art to go by. But to me, it should read like a narrative history of the campaign, describing what happened when and outlining the general themes and strategies of the campaign and why they led to eventual success or failure. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I read this and it is very well-written, informative and encyclopedic. This is exactly how these sections should read. On an unrelated topic, I placed a "fact" tag on the bit about Schwarzenegger being a Giuliani supporter before he endorsed McCain. Is there a source for that? --STX 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
NYT had quote from Ahnuld saying he was friends with and admired both Giuliani and McCain, and so didn't endorse anyone. Once one dropped out, he was happy to endorse the other. Don't have the url but you should be able to find it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think my biggest issue is that things are presented as facts, when in fact most of the things written are more opionion. I would like to see more "according to so-and-so..." and "comentators say..." Bytebear (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

California Primary

McCain won all the delegates? I thought this primary was proportional? GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says "winning nearly all of California's 173 delegates." According to the cite given for the paragraph, McCain won 155, Romney 6. Not sure about the other 12, but "nearly all" certainly seems an accurate description. Maybe you're thinking of the Dems.... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman

So--which section of the article should be put her in? 4.246.120.240 (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a subsection of the "Caucuses and Primaries 2008" section, since it's another occurrence in the campaign at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal from Vicki Iseman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wrap up — this grew inactive; there was no consensus to merge; the bio article on her still exists. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


We have an article at Vicki Iseman. I have proposed it should be merged here, as she is unremarkable outside of gossip in this campaign, interested parties may wish to comment on the talk page of that article.--Docg 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: One of Wikipedia's strengths is immediate access to breaking news, and Iseman is real news. Readers want details of her life that illuminate access to political power. Time will tell whether her entry bears removing. Immediately consigning her identity to the heading John McCain lobbyist controversy is premature and does a disservice to readers.˜˜˜˜maestrodad, February 24, 2008
Support: I do not believe that Vicki Ismeman is all that notable sans the John McCain controversy. One controversy does not make a person notable, and I feel that the content can be merged here with no consequence. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Your argument: She is not notable WP:INN. Why? She wouldn't be notable without McCain? Where is that policy/guideline? Brian McNamee is one of 1000s of valid articles where person X wouldn't be notable without person Y.
Your recommendation: Merge. Could you state what you want merged? All of the text concerning Iseman to be included in this article? If so, then I can see your argument. If merging = redirecting = de facto deletion with little carry forward of information, then this process is already happening at the AfD. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Support: Presently a textbook Wikipedia:BLP1E, barring future events. Quatloo (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you clarify your understanding of WP:BLP1E? It reads: "such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election". Is your argument that she falls under this category? Are you arguing that the information in the Iseman article, personal, career, clients, lobbying activities, be merged into a section in this article to provide the reader with her background? WP:BLP1E makes these exceptions: "unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy", which it woruld, or "sources have written primarily about the person" which in the Iseman article, is the case. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Support: She's not notable on her own unless she starts writing a book about it, or making the daytime talk show circut or makes news beyond this McCain thing (which may or may not be true anyway)Mr mark taylor (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Books? Oprah? Where is that requirement in WP:BIO? I see:

is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Where does she fail the test of notability? Should we have waited for Brian McNamee to appear on Ellen before including an article? What is the relevance whether the "thing" is true or not? Which part are you referring to? The ethical conflicts or the report that two advisers feared that she was romantically involved? The source doesn't state she was romantically involved. Regardless, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And the details of the controversy are given only a mention in Iseman. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the material is now at John McCain lobbyist controversy, however attempts to redirect the so called "biography" are being resisted and reverted. Active support welcome.--Docg 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me put forward an alternative framing: a merge discussion at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Merge this with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 was initiated by the good doctor who then participated in the discussion along with TS -- no mention that a parallel discussion was occurring here. Doc failed to come to consensus. He and TS then attempted to redirect it here (i.e., deleting all the information on the page, including the biographical and controversial material and not redirecting to John McCain lobbyist controversy which didn't even exist yet) on their own and were, yes, resisted as consensus had not yet been reached contrary to consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Doc justified his actions by saying, uncivilly: "We remove them, until/unless there's a consensus to keep them - a few politically motivated users on a talk page is not a consensus." As one of the editors who worked diligently to add in criticism of The New York Times and balance throughout the article, I presume he believes that I'm a conservative and hence doesn't have the right to participate in consensus. I, respectively, disagree. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Support merging the article on Ms. Iseman to the article John McCain lobbyist controversy, which is a more appropriate arget than this article. This merge proposal should be terminated in favor of a proposal to merge to that article. Edison (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree, (as a compromise position) to merge the Iseman article to John McCain lobbyist controversy as long as merging means, well, merging. That all the salient biographical material is shifted to this article and "Vicki Iseman" is redirected. Doesn't seem necessary and personally, as the Iseman article stands, I think it is fine. WP:BLP says:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events ... biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This article is properly sourced, pared down and entirely neutral. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Question Oppose (plus my rationale for action) Why wasn't a similar "vote" conducted at Vicki Iseman? I want to make clear I'm not invested deeply in the "so-called" biography, I was just an editor studying speedy deletion policy when I saw Vicki Iseman get speedied twice in a few minutes, and I clicked on the still extant talk page just as an editor started rewriting. Still disinterested but intrigued, I googled and found a few links, and decided if the page still existed, that we'd build it responsibly, to provide rocky ground for vandals (just like I normally try to do in 19th century biographies, my field of interest; I edit BLP pages rarely). I have resisted, but not reverted the redirect, because no consensus had been reached at Talk:Vicki Iseman (as a matter of fact I was unaware of this discussion until hours after the AfD was nominated; it might have been linked at the appropriate section on talk to gather consensus of apparent outliers like myself and User:Therefore). I agree 100% in moving the controversy stuff to the John McCain lobbyist controversy space, and I assert the bare bio stub which remains after is well-cited and contains very little of harm to the pedia or to the subject. In its current version, the article represents exactly what most bio stubs represent: a good-faith attempt to depict a life based on reputable sources. BusterD (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Your question seems to ignore the fact that the discussion was conducted at Vicki Iseman, and Doc's announcement asks people to conduct it there. Just to make it plain: there is no vote, and those who think there is a vote are wrong. --TS 23:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"Your statement seems to ignore the fact that" you and the Doc created and participated in the discussion at Vicki Iseman, giving no indication that a parallel effort was made here. I wish that your answer to the merge question at the Iseman talk page, was more than "Yes. --TS 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"; might give you more credibility about not being a vote. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded a bit terse (and used the v-word), but as I was reading the discussion, consensus there for merging seemed quite mixed, yet the redirects were applied anyway. As I've said there, it appeared to me that page consensus was reached here to redirect the page. I don't doubt for a moment the importance of experienced page editors here in deciding whether to absorb material of any kind. I'm glad that Doc called my bluff and nominated Iseman to AfD. I have confidence that consensus will resolve this dispute. I reserve the right, however, to agree with arguments to review deletion later. I suspect that eventually en.wikipedia will have an article on the subject; I just want to make sure if so, it's a fair article. So we're all doing the right thing. BusterD (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia consensus is based in policy. If a bunch of us one day decided,for instance, that the content of a given article must never be sold for profit, that would not countermand Wikipedia policy and would not prevail even if a thousand or so of us said that it should. There were some opinions compatible with existing policy and they prevailed. --TS 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, Wikipedia policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it. Thank you all for your indulgence. I'll now return myself to my normal 19th century programming. BusterD (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears, given the extended discussion, that the previous repeated attempts to merge were premature and aren't supported by consensus at either talk page; neither does it seem likely as of this timestamp that either the Vicki Iseman or John McCain lobbyist controversy will face deletion. All this written knowing that any crow to be eaten might eventually be gnawed by me. BusterD (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose For all the reasons stated at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Merge this with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman. Unless this merge proposal is to actually merge the two texts together so that the information on the Iseman page is preserved, then this is a third attempt at a de facto and de jure AfD. Let the AfD take its course as this is the proper avenue for deletion. Here are my specific reasons for keeping the Iseman page as is: The article provides background personal and career information on Iseman referenced from other sources that are not in the two other pages. Iseman is a public figure and now notable per WP:BIO. WP:BLP1E addresses the case when "relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election" is discussed which is not the case here. Paula Jones and Brian McNamee similarly are "one event" articles but have risen to notability. WP:COATRACK relates to "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." The controversy receives only a mention in the Iseman article. There is no bias nor cover. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If Afd decides not to delete the page, a consensus to merge may still be constructed here.--Docg 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That is true -- and it may still occur at the Iseman talk page. Or at AfD 2 or or at John McCain lobbyist controversy etc. There are many avenues an indefatigable editor may take to delete this page. What would be helpful is if you could define what you mean by merging -- de facto deletion or do you have a concrete proposal on preserving her biographical and professional information? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A merger means we redirect the page to the target. How much of it's text goes on the target is matter for those working on the target to decide. Whatever is put on initially can be increased, or decreased over time. The information on the merged article remains accessible in the history for those who wish to use it. A merge has no static effect, it is entirely a variable editorial decision as to what to include.--Docg 17:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That is your take of the merge process. From WP:MM:

You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. That is fine; you can feel free to delete the redundant information and only add the new stuff [emphasis mine].

If you are proposing to bring forward the personal and career details of the Iseman page, then you are recommending a merger. I'm all for a merger discussion as long as we are actually stating that the "stuff from the Iseman page be brought forward -- at this point, there is little redundancy. It is best left where it is per WP:BLP:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

The bio is pared, sourced, neutral and on-topic (re: Iseman). ∴ Therefore | talk 18:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, many others seem to think a merger is better.--Docg 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. But not a consensus. You think merger = redirect. It doesn't. Redirection is one of the technical elements of the process. Merging means combining the text of the two articles to avoid redundancy and not an end run around AfD. Adding Iseman's bio details here wouldn't make much sense. It would make more sense to merge (*merge*) to the John McCain lobbyist controversy. Even so, I see no problem with the bio as it stands since it follows the guidelines of WP:BLP as noted above -- sourced, neutral and on-topic and falls within the guidelines of WP:BLP1E (sources independent of event and too much to merge into the event article).∴ Therefore | talk 18:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You've stated your case, let's see what emerges. I'm happy with a merge to either the campaign or controversy article, indeed I agree the controversy one is perhaps better. And yes, we can indeed move all the information there. But from that point it will be for those working on that article to decide what to do with it, and to trim it if they wish. A merge (even if it is only a redirect) is not a deletion, for the simple reason that it can be reversed at any time by any editor. It is just like any other edit, anyone can change it, but if controversial one should seek talk page support to do or reverse. It is not an end run about AfD.--Docg 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
CommentHere's another one; and they both do look,quack and walk like a de facto and de jure AfD, in my opinion. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons stated on the AfD. Important information about this newly-notable individual - who will continue to surface in prominent places in the major media for a good while to come, and will likely play an individual role in future events - will be lost in a merge, as always. People will be looking to the encyclopedia for specific biographical, past, and career information on this woman who has suddenly been catapulted to prominence. Everything from her birthdate to her lobbying history will be sought out specifically, and that is the sort of individual information that is best covered in a biographical article. Mr. IP (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The Iseman events happened long before this campaign and belongs in the main article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Despite all the statements that the Iseman bio is a coatrack, the article, if one actually bothers to read it, is about her career as a lobbyist as it should be. The "controversy" discussed here is a minor part of Iseman's career and I think it is far more respectful to have a full biography for her, covering her real importance (i.e. her lobbying activities), than to reduce her importance to a single, minor, and fictitious event by redirecting to this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Should we merge every person's whose primary notability related to the McCain campaign into that article? His campaign staff? Wife? This is one merger that really doesn't seem very rational. Dgf32 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. It's not just gossip: she is a central figure in what was for at least a few days a major news story. And the original story in the New York Times was credible and well-researched. Ironically, if the story wasn't politically controversial, no one would be calling for its deletion. The mere fact that so many are calling (for political rather than encyclopedic reasons) for its deletion proves that she is a figure of enough significance to warrant at least a small article. (I might add by the way, that Obama's infamous acquaintance Tony Rezko still has his own article, as do numerous individuals associated negatively with Hillary Clinton.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Material about age in the lead

Does this really deserve such promenence in the article? Same for his birthplace? I would rather see those maybe at the end of the introduction as they appear more as trivia rather than details about the actual campaign. Thoughts? Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This material establishes "what's different about this campaign" before getting into the actual campaign itself. The age is likely to be a real factor in the contest, especially if it's contrasted with Obama's much younger age. The place of birth attracts a lot of interest from WP commenters here and in the main article, who think he isn't constitutionally eligible to become prez. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal from John McCain lobbyist controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wrap up — this grew inactive; there was no consensus to merge; the lobbyist controversy article still exists. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


The article prior to blanking and redirection

This event was too abruptly made into its own article. The media has already stopped covering it almost entirely. No major consequences occurred because of the Times' article. John McCain denied the allegations the same day; the media made a fuss for two days about the Times' credibility and John McCain's lobbying record; the controversy ended. It's not like, for examples, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal or the Burr-Hamilton duel, which had a marked history and the events went on for a marked period of time and had lasting ramifications. Unless this story later proves to become a much bigger and important aspect of the 2008 elections, it should only remain as a subsection under McCain's presidential run and in the 2008 U.S. elections in general. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and was trying to get that across in the AfD debate. I dont believe that the full concensus was keep, but those decision are made above my head. I'm not doubting that this is a notable event, however it can be summed up easily in 4 or 5 sentances, and put into the main candidacy article. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The article just went through an AfD which had a 22-8 majority vote for it to be kept separate and not abbreviated nor merged. I actually prefer it to be in the main BLP but let's please just accept the strong consensus. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - per what I said above. Enigma msg! 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - what is with people wanting to keep the controversy article? This is a presidential candidate, we need to be especially careful. Will (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per my earlier comment referring to New York Times' own ombudsman's criticism concerning the insubstantiality of the piece run by the newspaper. [1] --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, in which there was a clear consensus to retain the article, and an administrative judgment that the article did not constitute a WP:BLP violation. Furthermore, the extensive coverage in third-party reliable sources cited in the article clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this topic per the general notability guideline. John254 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose (1) This is procedurally wrong: Consensus to keep was already obtained at the AfD. This is forum shopping. Wikipedia editors should not be forced into going from forum to forum because some don't like the result. (2) Enough has already been written about this incident to establish that it is worth longer treatment than the section of an article can provide: (a) The issue of New York Times journalistic judgment is worth a section itself; (b) the Washington Post stated that it did an independent investigtion and came up with the same essential findings, so the basic facts of the case have reliable sourcing; (c) The more unreliable insinuation that there was an affair is not the only issue here concerning McCain's judgment: Simply being seen so often with this lobbyist (an attractive woman later able to boast about her access to McCain and who was a lobbyist with matters before McCain's committee and who did apparently get McCain's support urging the FCC to take a vote) should be explained in the detail that an article affords and a section doesn't, because (d) this is a campaign for the most important public office in the world, and a serious encyclopedia with our breadth needs to cover in detail the important matters that voters may use in deciding how to vote. No BLP conceerns that are present here override (d). None. Not one. We can revisit deletion or merger after the campaign is over. Before election day, we should lean toward inclusion.Noroton (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose is a separate topic that deserves large discussion. To put it in here is essentially whitewashing for both McCain and the New York Times. Claims that the Times ombudsman criticized the Times article misses the point; that aspects of the NYT coverage were problematic doesn't mean this isn't a valid topic (indeed, it might almost make sense to retitle it something like the Mccain-New York Times lobbyist controversy to reflect the Times' role). Scepter/Will's comment above that this is a presidential candidate and therefore we need to be careful is correct but misses two points: First, we need to be careful about all content related to BLPs or anything similar - that isn't an argument by itself to delete articles. Second, we cannot cover this well in a short section in the general campaign article and to cover it with the appropriate level of detail requires a separate article. To do so otherwise could be unfair to a variety of participants, possibly including the Times, McCain, the reporters, and Iseman. Furthermore, there has been discussion about merging the Iseman artciel into lobbyist article which would make the section here unreasonably long by far in an already long article. Let's not go against a clear AfD consensus JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This matters: From the "Well-known public figures" section of WP:BLP: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. This can also be used as a justification for having a separate article, if important enough. Tne NYT and Washington Post investigations showed we have reliable sourcing that there was significant concern about McCain's relationship with the lobbyist (whatever the nature of that relationship), that McCain admitted to something "inappropriate" (either an affair or perpetuating the appearance of a conflict of interest -- especially given his image, that could be considered inappropriate). This is an appropriate matter for voters to consider when judging the character and judgment of McCain, and it deserves nuanced treatment not available in the short length of a section. This was basically Bill Keller's justification of the article to the NYT public editor, and it's a good defense of our own article. (It happens to be a lousy defense of an article on the lobbyist.) Noroton (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support - merits a mention at the McCain campaign page but hardly requires its own article at this stage. Eusebeus (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If this level of coverage in third party reliable sources doesn't establish a presumption of notability per the general notability guideline, then what would? John254 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Won the nomination

I just saw on Fox News that he won the Repub nomination; I'll provide a cite in a minute. Happyme22 (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction: He has won enough delegates to get the nom, but will not bre 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) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The opposing forces section

This should not be there. Every candidate's campaign has a group of people who oppose it for one reason or another. Be it a political or personal reason those people are always there. However, they should not be mentioned in this article. There was a section in the Clinton campaign article about opposition to her campaign and it was removed becuase it was believed to create bias. The same set of rules should hold true for all candidates. If McCain has it Clinton should have and if she doesn't neither should he. ---

I don't think that including an opposing forces section necessarily creates bias. I do agree that a uniform rule should apply to all candidates, but I'm guessing that not the same people visit (and thus edit) McCain's article and Clinton's, so that seems like wishful thinking. Regardless, I removed the "citizens" (which claimed that McCain was a racist and didn't care about certain states) from the list of opposing forces because that was clearly biased. Lv99redwizard (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section is basically bogus. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It may be, but the current edit war over how to describe Lieberman is silly. He self-identifies as an Independent Democrat, so that's the most concise way to label him. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I can call my self whatever I want, but if I run against the Green Party in an election and beat that candidate, I wouldn't actually myself BE the congressman representing the green party even if I called myself that. And since there seems to be some sort of consensus here about the opposing forces section, I'm going to take it out. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Split into two new articles

I suggest we split this article into John McCain presidential primary campaign, 2008 with information about the primary contests, and an article under the title John McCain general election presidential campaign, 2008 based on the general election. The article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 should remain but should be very vague in its coverage and link to the two new more indepth articles. --STX 04:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Paisan30 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. This article isn't that long right now, and we could probably pare it down a bit further. Not much is going to happen in McCain's campaign from now until the convention ... the next big event is when he picks a vice presidential candidate. I'd say we leave it as just one article and see how it goes. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another approach is to split out the endorsements section into a separate subarticle, as was done for the Hillary and Obama endorsements. This would reduce the article size, and would especially reduce the number of references, which is the thing that impacts article load time the most. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I started paring down the primary results. I don't think it's necessary to have all that much detail, since those can be found in the cited sources. I'm also planning to start a General Election section, although the Primary sections can still be cut more. Paisan30 (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Veepstakes section

Seeing as McCain has a majority of the delegates pledged to him for the Republican presidential nomination. I wonder if it would be too early to have a section concerning speculative vice presidential running-mates (with reliable sources provided). I'm assuming a speculative based section isn't a good idea though. Any thoughts? GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's already a separate article on this, United States Republican vice presidential candidates, 2008. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WT. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that major developments, specifically announcements from the campaign, should get a mention in this article. I agree that for now it's best left in the other article since McCain has indicated that the selection process hasn't even officially begun yet. Paisan30 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem to have a wikilink to United States Republican vice presidential candidates, 2008. Why not?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I went ahead and added it.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements

I think we can stop adding all of the Representatives, Governors, etc. McCain is the Republican nominee. Nearly every Republican on the national and state level will endorse him. Paisan30 (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; the last one that should be mentioned is GWB on March 5. The only significant endorsements now are from independents and Democrats, from celebrity figures, etc. And Republicans who explicitly don't endorse him would be significant too. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Plus yours, WTR.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wasted is a Hillary guy. Or so someone says on her campaign talk page. :-) Redddogg (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements was created on March 12 by User:Iamwisesun, akin to the breakouts that were done for Hillary and Obama. Good idea. But he/she failed to remove the contents from this article, or to do a "main" template link from this article to the new one, so people kept updating this article in ignorance of that one (while some people discovered the subarticle and were updating that one). I've now removed the endorsement contents from here, after reapplying those updates made here after March 12 (there weren't too many, fortunately) to the subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Speeches as Self-Contained Articles

Just doing a comparison between various sets of articles on wikipedia. Does the McCain set of articles have anything like the Obama's set of A More Perfect Union (An apparently minor campaign development as its own article)? --Firefly322 (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not on speeches. But then, he hasn't made any crucial, major speeches like that. There was a Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech article for a while, although it later was modified and renamed to Mitt Romney's Mormonism. But the McCain articles do have John McCain lobbyist controversy, which some argued was in the same class. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential eligibility

The article John McCain presidential eligibility has been nominated for deletion by myself here. -- Naerii 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As shown by the comments here, the consensus was to include the information in this article. Is that still agreeable or do some prefer to keep the reliably sourced information[2] [3][4] ,about the issue of McCain's presidential eligibility, completely out of the encyclopedia ? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that was not the result of the deletion discussion. The result was to delete the article. Happyme22 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the decision maker chose delete because that is the 1st. step to be taken when the consensus is to delete and redirect/merge. Hold on, I'll count the comments: ok 22 people want to merge/redirect the info and 2 want to delete it entirely. This is starting to smell like a determination by a very small non-consensus to just keep this information out of the encyclopedia regardless of the general consensus. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not against putting it in the article; I am afraid that this issue is being blown out of proportion and is being given far too much undue weight. Only a slight mention of it merits inclusion, in my humble opinion, because McCain is already the presumptive nominee and this article will eventually cover upcoming campaign events and the general election; it cannot be bogged down by claims that he isn't even eligible in the first place. Happyme22 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Where is the slight mention of it (in the article)? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I just added some slight mention of it in the media section. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hagee

i was just wondering why this article contains no mention of mccain seeking and gaining the endorsement of controversial preacher john hagee. the obama article spends a while discussing jeremiah wright and i think its only fair that the mccain article contain information about this much looked over endorsement. ps sorry about the formatting issues with this post, im relatively new to wikipedia and havent completely gotten the hang of it yet. g.j.g (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be in here. Consider making it so, your first assignment. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

i added a paragraph on it, im still not quite sure how to put in foot notes and linmks so here are my two main sources http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html and http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/03/new_video_revea.php g.j.g (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) also i think i kinda messed up with the formatting any advise would be appreciaed :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef (talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, well I admire you, friend, for trying, but both the Huffington Post and democrats.org are blatantly biased sources. Take a look at what the Huffington Post said about Nancy Reagan and her husband after she fell two months ago, and tell me if that's neutral. Democrats.org is a site maintained by the Democratic party and should probably only be used on the article Democratic party (United States) to help define their postions. Again, I admire you for trying to include this, because it does merit inclusion, but you should probably find some more verifiable and neutral sources. --Happyme22 (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

the democrat homepage is for the "john mccain garnerd criticism from democrats" part of what i wrote. whether or not it would be considered a biased source normally is irrelevant what matters is that this IS what the democrats are saying. as for the huffington post it was just the first link that i could find. you want more ok http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2749859920080228?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 , http://youtube.com/watch?v=HS9F7O2lhWg&feature=related (normally not a reliable source but its a video of cnn which is), http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/mccain-hagee-hewitt/ (this (which i only used for 1 of mccains quotes is probabely not the most reliable so if u ccan get me another quotewhere mccain discusses hagges quotes being taken out of contest please do), for the controversial statements e said you can use the same things listed in the john hagee article if u need anymore please tell me and ill give you more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef (talk • contribs) 11:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job finding more; I would go with the Reuters source, because the point is well covered. When writing, be careful not to give too much undue weight the subject. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of stuff in the John Hagee article itself that could be quoted here, or summarized with a link to that article or sections of it. Hagee has been accused of "hate speech" (in those very words) by William Donohue, the head of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights. ([5]) Donohue also expressly called the issue to McCain's attention. See John Hagee#Accusations of anti-Catholicism.
The Hagee article also includes this passage, cited to The Forward, which is not a blog or a partisan source:

Hagee has endorsed Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. McCain said, "I’m very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support."[1]

I've edited the McCain campaign article to include McCain's reaction to the Hagee endorsement, with the Forward citation. Alas, I don't have time right now to try to mine the Hagee article for citations for the various assertions about him in this article. JamesMLane t c 19:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As i stated earlier in this discussion i have all of the nesscacary sources but im not sure how to insert them, if anybody else wants to insert them and/or teach me how to i would greatly appreciate itg.j.g (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

their are two things that confuse me about recent edits, first off perhaps the best place to put the hagee section wasnt under controversies but how IS the best place "allegations of innapropriate involvement with lobbyists"? and two i think that the george bush thing is very relevant, not only is it one of the main reasons that the dems r criticising mccain but it also helps provide background for why people are so angered by mccain. this is my personal humble opinion on the article but in order to avoid a revert war and actiong under the assumption that the people who editted this wouldnt have done so without a reason im going to wait for a day or so (or until i get a response) to give the editors a chance to explain themselves g.j.g (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay friend, the George Bush-McCain thing is not relevant. It is just another example of taking a shot at President Bush. It actualy portrays McCain as "the good guy", who called out Bush and launched a telephone campaign against him. How is that remotely relevant to this? If anywhere (if), it belongs in the John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 article. Happyme22 (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

first off its one of the leasing criticisms that the dems have towards mccain second off how is it a shot at bush, its saying that mccain scalded bush back in 2000 for doing the exact same thing that mccain did with hagee??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake; you are indeed correct. Perhaps it was worded poorly. I don't think this is the right place for the phrases, however, because it is not central to McCain's current 2008 campaign. Happyme22 (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

would you mnd clarifying on that statement please??? which phrases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef (talk • contribs) 10:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd, ALL of Hagee's article does not mention anti-black, nor anti-women, however this article includes it (unsourced ofc) If you are having problems inserting references, use the last icon above the editing window or use: <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref> 195.216.82.210 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

an encyclopedia is not interesting in who endorses who + this whole "who's your preacher" phobia is too silly and trite for words. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If a presidential candidate calls one bigot a "spiritual guide", and says that he's proud to have another bigot's endorsement, then those are facts about the candidate that will interest enough readers to merit being reported. (Of course, we wouldn't assert that Parsley and Hagee are bigots, but we would report the facts that lead some people to accuse them of bigotry.) JamesMLane t c 06:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. If Jeremiah Wright is notable, so are these guys. However, there is a matter of weight. Wright is more notable due to his close relationship with Obama. Hagee is just an endorsement. It would be more of an issue if Hagee and Mac are best friends and close like Wright and Obama. It should be included, but it shouldn't be more than one line as per weight. Arnabdas (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not "just an endorsement". If Charles Manson endorsed McCain from his jail cell, McCain would denounce him and that would be that. Here's what the Forward article reports that takes Hagee well out of the "just an endorsement" category:

My concern here is with Hagee and those who have endorsed him, but I pause to note that the Hagee-McCain association antedates Hagee’s formal endorsement last week. In fact, in South Carolina back in September, Hagee was invited to introduce McCain at a pre-primary rally titled “No Surrender”; his full-throated introduction was until recently featured on McCain’s campaign Web site.

McCain’s immediate response, later partially modified, to the Hagee endorsement was all smiles: “I’m very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support.” (Just imagine that Obama had invited Farrakhan for a joint appearance and had spoken of his pride in obtaining Farrakhan’s endorsement.)

They're not best friends (though I don't think Obama and Wright are, either), but McCain was actively seeking the endorsement and voluntarily chose to make Hagee prominent in his campaign. JamesMLane t c 21:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem adding a mention on Hagee, but I *know* that a large controversy didn't erupt over the endorsement, the opposite of what happened with Wright and Obama. So let's not try to blow this up into a large scandal and place undue weight on the matter. There is currently a paragraph mentioning the endorsement (I think it is POV and OR to label it as being "more than an endorsement") but that paragraph needs citations. Happyme22 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
My comment that it was "more than an endorsement" was for the talk page only, for purposes of editorial decisions; I agree that the phrase shouldn't be in the article. As for the controversy level, you're certainly correct that the corporate media didn't give it nearly so much play as the similar incident involving Obama. Nevertheless, as detailed in the Hagee article, the head of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights explicitly attacked McCain over the matter. Thus, a prominent spokesperson is on the case; it's not as if this is being manufactured out of nothing by POV-pushing Wikipedians. There's also been some media coverage of McCain's praise for Rod Parsley. Perhaps one section covering both these controversial religious figures would be appropriate, instead of giving each his own section. JamesMLane t c 08:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If there's this much agreement about its low value/weight, I'd say just leave it out all together because as time goes by they'll be even less interest in this non-event. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with a "corporate" media that is actually in love with Obama. Wright and Obama had an on-going relationship for 20 years, that's what it was about along with the public not knowing much about Obama and his core beliefs. People know who McCain and Clinton are because they have been in the national eye for a long time and have an extensive federal record to look upon. Inclusion of the Hagee stuff should be notable, but not overblown. Arnabdas (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Media "in love with Obama"? McCain himself has joked that the press constitutes his base -- an accurate assessment in light of the fawning portrayals of him and the glossing over of his negatives. My personal opinion is that his ardent pursuit of these two cretinous preachers is far more important than Obama's flag lapel pin or lack thereof, but you tell me which has gotten more coverage.
Anyway, my personal opinion of the candidates is irrelevant, as is yours. In terms of the article, we seem to agree that this deserves mention but not a major exposition. What would you think of a "Controversial religious figures" section that would address both Hagee and Parsley, as they relate to McCain? As to each, it would report the minister's endorsement, report McCain's praise of the minister, and summarize the minister's controversial views (with full exposition left to his bio article, but the reader here must be given some indication of why this minister has drawn flak). In the case of Hagee, the McCain campaign article should also include the Catholic League's attack on McCain and McCain's response (his disavowal of any anti-Catholic comments). JamesMLane t c 22:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't create a separate section at all because, as we all seem to agree, this is only a minor issue that deserves mention, but not an over-mention. So I would place it under the "Endorsements" section, because they were endorsements, and that's all they were. It can start out with a general sentence such as "McCain has received the endorsements of many high profile figures, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former President George H. W. Bush, and former First Lady Nancy Reagan." and then go into "but some of his endorsements have also generated controversy." and then explain what was the matter with Hagee (the Catholic comments, etc.) and Parsley. Happyme22 (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, I forgot how the press just loves McCain. I need to read the New York Times more to understand how much they really do love him. That said, I agree with Happyme22's proposal. Arnabdas (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain's Lobbyist Supporters

The Washington Times reports on April 11,2008,on page A1(top article),about the extensive and lucrative ties of John McCain's top advisors and fund raisers to foreign governments including Communist China and Saudi Arabia. The supporters include: Charles Black, who has received more than $700,000 to lobby for the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Thomas Loeffler, who has received more than $10 million to advance the interests of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Rob Allyn, who was paid $720,000 to promote the cause of Mexican nationals who are in the U.S. illegally. Peter T. Madigan, a top Washington lobbyist whose clients include the trade bureau of the nation of Columbia. Kirk Blalock, national chairman of Young Professionals for McCain, whose lobbying firm which was established in 1978 represents Peru, Vietnam and Bahrain. These ties are significant in any relevant context, from politics to macroeconomics, and speak to Mcain's fundamental goals and ethics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind having this included, but I would prefer some other corroborative sources too. Arnabdas (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The current--May--issue of Harper's Magazine has a lead article entitled "My Lobby Myself: How John McCain's Hypocrisy Is Laundered as Reform. "The article deconstruct's McCain's Reform Institute and shows how it violates nearly every reform it claims to advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Extra "|}" before McCain's name to begin article

My quick survey of the boxes didn't reveal what the problem was. Can someone please look into this and fix it? Thanks Enigma message 00:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

diff that screwed it up Enigma message 00:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten rid of the use of Template:MedalBottom, I have no idea why it was there. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Eligibility criticism

So far as I can tell, only liberal groups raised questions over McCain's eligibility. Is there a reference for an actual non-left leaning group (not coverage of, but an actual non partisan group) raising questions? If so, then the current version would work. If not, however, then the partisan motives of the questioners warrants inclusion. Trilemma (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, if it's a matter of objection to the use of the term 'liberal', it could be changed to "Obama supporters". Trilemma (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not a mainstream issue, liberal or conservative. It's a fringe issue, held by a bunch of fringe types, who are super-constitutionalists, literalists, conspiracy theorisists, libertarian/Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul types, and so forth. Look at a few dozen links in this google search and you'll get the idea. And it's got nothing to do with Obama, this came up during the primaries as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The very fact that it's such a fringe issue makes me question whether the section is worth including at all--to me it'd be like including the phony controversy over Obama's birth certificate. Trilemma (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No, this is different (and has a long history on Wikipedia, you're just catching the tail end of it). Two things are true here: (1) as a theoretical legal issue, it is not completely clear-cut; per the NYT quote, “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”; as the NBC article says, "But many legal scholars and government lawyers say it's a serious question with no clear answer." This is not unusual; many areas of the law and the constitution are murky in places. (2) as a practical situation, it is clear: both the legal establishment and the political establishment are fully behind McCain's elibility, and there's zero chance that he would be denied the presidency on this ground. That's what this very brief treatment of the question is trying to get across. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
American Bar Association Journal, UPI, NYT — goethean ॐ 16:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Books Section

I don't have a problem with the books section being removed, though some others may desire its inclusion. So, just in case they want to make a case for its inclusion, I'll open a discussion area for it. Trilemma (talk)

I meant to delete it when it first appeared, but forgot. It was just a vehicle for someone to list two anti-McCain books. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama v. McCain charts in battleground states

Using Wikipedia data from a related article Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008 and Excel, I crunched the numbers in states where the lead in the polls for any one candidate is close or has shown signs of swinging back and forth between Obama and McCain. At this point, I've selected Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana and Missouri for additional analysis using charts and trendlines. I believe that these seven states are, as it happens, a good representative example, because three of the states are currently leaning toward Obama (Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania), three are currently leaning toward McCain (Florida, Indiana and Missouri) and Virginia is virtually tied. Incidentally, between these seven states, there are 120 electoral votes at stake, which represents 44% of the total (270) needed to secure the nomination. In most of the states, there are still at least about 10% of the voters with no opinion yet between the two candidates (or are supporting a third candidate). Your thoughts, suggestions and general input are greatly appreciated. If time is available, I will work to create these charts in the more visually friendly PNG format.--Robapalooza (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sen. Straight Talk" and his flurry of false accusations

Paisan30 states "we're not going to report on every campaign ad nor every controversy. save it for major stories about ad campaigns, if there are any." I might agree with Paisan30 if it were an isolated incident. However, there is an obvious pattern that has emerged recently:

All of the above links are from FactCheck.org. On their home page I see a few reports critical of Obama (but nowhere near as many as those critical of McCain), so FactCheck appears to cut both ways when they see lies in campaign ads. I think we owe the Wikipedia reader to provide reliable verifiable information about this controversy. --Art Smart (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many controversies, and although some are notable, the majority gained traction in the media for a few days. Perhaps the reason why factcheck.org has less critical things to say about Obama is because they are not a reliable source. I do think, however, that an up-to-date paragraph on the McCain campaign, their current strategies, etc. is overdo. I can start working on something. Happyme22 (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please do. After I wrote my comments above, I've seen tons of buzz in the media about how negative and false McCain has gone. According to MSNBC, Ex-McCain strategist John Weaver called one ad "childish" and "tomfoolery." So this issue is clearly notable. Thanks in advance, Happyme22. --Art Smart (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well we cannot outright say that McCain's campaign is more negative than positive and only focusing on the negatives, for that is a violation of WP:NPOV. We can say that the Obama camp has chided McCain for being what they perceive as negative. And I've done that in a new section in the General election focusing on Obama's foreign trip, its effect on McCain, and campaign advertisements. Happyme22 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute of 7/31/08

Regarding the section above, I hereby retract my thanks. Your additions aren't the least bit neutral, and they totally ignore the well-documented lies in McCain's attack ads, as evaluated by neutral third parties. Please revise to improve neutrality ASAP. --Art Smart (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Smart, you inserted the following:

A recent ad run by McCain alleged that Obama chose to skip a chance to meet with wounded troops because media was not allowed. The claims are being disputed.[6]

Then, User:Happyme22 replaced it with the following:

McCain attacked Obama for canceling a visit to an American military base to visit wounded U.S. troops while in Germany.[7] This was the subject of a McCain television advertisement, which chided Obama for making "time to go to the gym" instead of visiting with wounded troops. The Obama campaign responded, saying that it would be "innapropriate" to "have injured soldiers get pulled into the back-and-forth of a political campaign", which led a McCain spokesman to respond, "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."

Seems to me that the material by Happyme22 is neutral, and more detailed than what you inserted. What's the problem? This article cannot address every dispute in a campaign, but this was a big one, and it seems to be handled neutrally by Happyme22.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I too am a bit perplexed. As I said to you in the section above, we as Wikipedia editors cannot label McCain's ads as "attack ads" or his campaign as "negative", for that is in violation of WP:NPOV. But we can say that the Obama camp perceived the ads as negative, which is mentioned in the paragraph below this one, regarding the Obama celebrity ad. Also adhering to WP:NPOV, I added to the paragraph above what the McCain ad was about, how the Obama camp responded, and how the McCain camp responded to that. It is, simply, balanced. Happyme22 (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict -- let me start over) Every statement in Happyme22's new section concludes with McCain's point of view, and there is not a single word about the documented falsehoods in his recent ads (see list in section above). I propose moving Happyme22's section to this talk page, hammer out a consensus, and only then reinserting into the article. If that's agreeable, I am willing to remove the tag, even though I now see other elements of the article that are not neutral (but I'm willing to deal with them on a case-by-case basis). Agreeable temporary solution? Please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and take my proposed action. --Art Smart (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of above proposed section

Above is the content originally added today by Happyme22. Let's argue the specifics below. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Some coverage of the fact that several media outlets reported McCain's claims to be transparently false would be nice. — goethean ॐ 20:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

1. Why no mention that the whole trip was at the instigation of McCain himself? How else could it be "international?"
2. The NewsHour segment answered all the questions about why Obama canceled visiting the wounded, and the truth differs markedly from the characterizations in McCain's ads. In that segment, both of the NewsHour's guests were neutral (one with FactCheck and the other being a news reporter), so their input is much more neutral then Happyme22's imperfect interpretations of the campaigns' backs-and-forths.

I don't understand this "instigation" comment. Are you referring to the fact that Obama had not been to Iraq in years, and that McCain urged him to go, without preconceived notions? "Instigation" seems like quite a non-neutral word to characterize this. And I don't think McCain urged Obama to go to Iraq (or Europe) to campaign, but rather to learn about the situation. I don't understand your remark "How else could it be 'international?'"Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The issue about what may be true and untrue in the ad goes back and forth, and we will probably see no end to it. Please see this piece. It's best to say what the ad said and avoid any of the back and forth, so we don't tread further into WP:RECENTISM. Happyme22 (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph

1. The Spears/Hilton ad has been widely criticized by journalists on multiple news outlets today (Good Morning America, Today show, local news). The Today Show's Matt Lauer was especially critical in his questions of the McCain surrogate. I've never seen him so offended by a guest.
2. On "The View" today, Whoopi Goldberg was highly critical of McCain's use of white girls in the Obama comparison, instead of celebrities like Will Smith. She repeatedly shouted "it was a junk ad" over Hasselbeck's objections. "The View" is just a symptom of widespread criticism of the Spears/Hilton ad. I'm sure there are tons of URLs out there equally critical of the ad, some of which would meet Wikipedia's RS guidelines.

I'll take a break for now, and give others the chance to chime in. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:Recentism. This article isn't supposed to be a play-by-play of all recent campaign developments, but rather is supposed to give a more enduring overview of the major points. It's true that images of some white people have appeared in some of McCain's ads (e.g. Paris Hilton and Britney Spears), and it's true that some critics view the selection of those images as racist, just as some of those very same people might view it as racist if the McCain ads contained some black people instead of those particular white people. But really, do we have to go into this? Let's please just try to stick with neutral facts that everyone can agree about and that everyone thinks are very notable. It seems much more notable that McCain is now being accused by Obama of saying that Obama's "got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." This seems like a very serious accusation from Obama. Or we can just stick with the issues covered by Happyme22.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me, Art, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you only want to mention the criticisms of the ad. Well frankly, that is not allowed on Wikipedia in accordance with our policy of writing with a neutral point of view. You will see in the paragraph that the ad is criticized - by Obama no less (in fact, there are two quotes from Obama, the other picking up on McCain's perceived negative campaign). But with that criticism, we also need a supportive view, which comes from a McCain spokesman. A summary giving both pros and cons is included, written by Stuart Rothenberg. Of course the ad was discussed all over television, but we cannot judge negative reception based on Matt Lauer and The View. Happyme22 (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM

Probably best to leave Happyme22's proposed new subsection out completely. The issues are changing so fast that by the time we reach a consensus (assuming that is possible), new issues will have overtaken them.

I agree that we need to avoid WP:RECENTISM. However, I suspect that long after this election is over, pundits will look back on McCain's sudden attack of negativism (to most) and prevarication (to some) as a key event in the arc of the election -- not a turning point, unless he ultimate wins, but obviously a high-stakes roll of the dice (possibly destroying his "straight talk" brand, which I've always thought was his greatest asset). For that reason I think these recent ads satisfy the requirement to avoid WP:RECENTISM. I just think we are too close to it time-wise, and of too divergent a set of opinions on how to interpret lessons from the exact same set reliable sources, to reach a consensus.

When I read Happyme22's proposed new subsection, I saw not the least bit of neutrality, though I'll grant he probably acted completely in good faith. For example, I can read the exact same reliable source and see a phrase like, "Overall, the media sees McCain's move as a sign that he is going negative on Obama," which Happyme22 certainly didn't quote in his proposed new subsection. For another example, Happyme22 has dismissed FactCheck.org as an unreliable source, but I'm unconvinced of his belief. And if it turns out that is a reliable source, then we owe it to our readers to reveal FactCheck's questioning of the honesty of McCain's campaign in multiple instances.

No doubt the two campaigns have now turned negative, and unfortunately, that is to be expected as inevitable (e.g., Kerry's slowness to respond to being swift boated is a mistake that Obama will not repeat). Any two opposing campaigns naturally will always differ as to who started the negativity. And as others have pointed out, our neutrality requires we tread with extreme caution on the subject of negativity, if at all.

But on the issue of honesty, when relable third parties have done the fact-checking, that's an area that meets all guidelines for inclusion in the article. That's why I originally stated, "A recent ad run by McCain alleged that Obama chose to skip a chance to meet with wounded troops because media was not allowed. The claims are being disputed." I cited the PBS NewsHour segment which used FactCheck's neutral research on the subject, as well as a Washington Post reporter who had first-hand knowledge of the events in question. I'm not sure how more neutral and reliable one could get on this or any other matter.

But while I would welcome a fuller exposition on the subject, in my opinion Happyme22's good-faith attempt at neutrality fell far short of the mark. I'm doubtful we could wordsmith it into something we could all agree upon, and even if we could, by then the issue would be overtaken with other notable events. Therefore, I say let's drop this whole proposed section. Anyone other ideas? Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the material is completely relevant so I do not think that it should be left out completely. However, I also do not think that User:Hvalross's good-faith contributions were neutral and they did not come from completely reliable sources (Youtube videos, funnyordie.com). I reverted the edits. Perhaps my version and this version could be combined in some fashion. I'll look into that. Happyme22 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
A comment on the general problem here. Trying to write a history of something as it's happening is a fool's errand. At least during the primary season, we periodically had real events with real consequences we could cover — results of the primaries and caucuses, candidates dropping out, major new endorsements. During the general election season we don't have much. All campaign long we're going to have the back-and-forth of charges, charges about charges, complaints about going negative, etc. Eventually, after November, we'll know whether "pundits will look back on McCain's sudden attack of negativism (to most) and prevarication (to some) as a key event in the arc of the election". But we don't know it now. So my general advice would be to stick to the election facts (who gets picked for veep, what the polling bounce is after the convention, what happens in the three debates, what states get fought over most as battlegrounds) for now, then add descriptive material about 'key events in the arc' once we know what they are. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagerism?

How is this notable? Furthermore, how is this not a wikipedia self-reference? A wiki editor emails a blogger and says these phrases look similar which is then picked up by a couple of bloggers. Additionally, is it even possible to plagerize historical facts which one would expect him to know....How many different ways could you possibly even say this information? This should be removed per undue weight, and lack of RS that actually show plagerism. Arzel (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern American political campaigns are full of this kind of silly stuff, and bloggers earn their keep (if indeed they earn anything) by analyzing it endlessly. Unless this has more staying power than the usual one or two day kerfuffle, no it's not worth including. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


The Georgia Connection - Randy Scheunemann

Shouldn't Randy Scheunemann be mentioned? While it's relevant to recent events, it certainly seems like an enduring relevant issue rather than the gaffe of the day - and it was in the news last spring. Some recent articles on it: in the NYT [[8]] and the Wash Post [[9]]. Eeblet (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

I'm not sure I understand this edit. It's purely an issue of grammar and syntax, and doesn't affect neutrality one way or the other.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Contiguous

The article has been edited like so: "In the event of his victory in 2008, he would also become the first President of the United States not to be born within the contiguous United States (he was born in Panama within the Panama Canal Zone)...."

Why remove the word "contiguous"? If it's removed, then the sentence appears to say that McCain was not born in the U.S. whereas this is debateable given that the Canal was at that time a U.S. possession. Isn't it true that McCain would be the first President not born in what are now the contiguous 48 states?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A possession is different from a state. When people talk about the "contiguous United States", the purpose is almost always to distinguish the first 48 from Alaska and Hawaii. It might make sense to say this about Obama (born in Hawaii), for instance, but not McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain lawsuit in Pennsylvania

This should remain in the article because it is accurate and verifiable and newsworthy.

In August of 2008, McCain supporters in the Pennsylvania GOP filed a lawsuit to remove Bob Barr from the ballot in Pennsylvania.[2] The suit says Libertarians waited too long to substitute Barr's name for the stand-in candidate whose name had appeared on petitions, although Barr's substitution fell well within the historically permitted period. Barr has called this the actions of a "dictator." Barr points out that in 2000, when New York GOP supporters of George W. Bush tried to remove McCain from the New York primary ballot, McCain spoke forcefully against trying to remove another candidate from the ballot, saying "We all know that the Berlin wall is down ... People should be able to get on the ballot in states," also describing it as something "I would never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of mine to challenge Governor Bush's right to be on the ballot in all 50 states."[3]

This action can be criticized as showing that:

  1. McCain is afraid to face a true conservative in Barr
  2. it is undemocratic to try to limit the choices of Pennsylvania voters
  3. it is a dirty trick in general that shows McCain up as a typical Washington politician
  4. it is a waste of precious campaign resources to press a lawsuit on such flimsy grounds
  5. it unnecessarily shines attention on the candidacy of Bob Barr in a sympathetic light
  6. it insulates Obama from claims that Obama made a similar challenge against a competitor when he ran for the Illinois legislature
  7. it is a major betrayal of the principles that McCain spoke out about in 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.132.31 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it should not. Much of what you have here is OR. Furthermore, the two actions are not the same. Bush/McCain was a primary issue, this is not. Finally, this is not something that is being directed by McCain, there is an assumption of guilt, and an attempt to paint hypocrisy on McCain. Arzel (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The whole "This action can be criticized" passage is manifestly inappropriate for the article. A neutral report of the litigation should be included, however, regardless of who is directing it. Pennsylvania is likely to be close. It's far from inconceivable that, if Barr is on the ballot there, he'll pull more votes from McCain than from Obama, which could cost McCain the state, which could cost McCain the presidency. (Nader, Florida, 2000) Regardless of who is formally directing the suit, it's clearly aimed at helping McCain's campaign. (For the same reason, I'd expect the Democrats to cynically try to help Barr get on the ballot, the way the Republicans have cynically helped Nader in several states.) This article should include brief factual updates on such pro-McCain efforts.
One problem, of course, is that the anon who inserted and re-inserted the editorializing follows the usual unfortunate practice of using the term "vandalism" to mean "an edit I disagree with", thus throwing the whole section into disrepute through guilt by association. JamesMLane t c 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Arzel. Regarding the numbered list, it is completely WP:OR and does not belong. Plus, this action to remove Bob Barr from the ballot was not orchestrated by McCain or his campaign staff at all. I think even mentioning this low-profile, not highly publicized story at this time is a mistake, as it may put too much undue weight on the matter. Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the original cite, I don't see much here. There's no real tie to the McCain campaign, and the law (as unfair as it seems to be) may be on the state GOP's side. It's SOP for third-party candidates to claim they're being screwed by the majors, and yes, they're usually right, in the sense that American ballot laws are heavily skewed towards protecting the two-party system. A brief mention at most, but probably more suited to the Barr campaign article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
But look at the 2000 New York Times Article, McCain lays the responsibility for the ballot removal effort on Bush, though the action was by Bush supporters. He said: "I'm sure that if Governor Bush told them, don't do that, don't remove McCain's name, they would respond." And he also said: "I would never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of mine to challenge [his opponent's] right to be on the ballot in all 50 states." What kind of double standard is it to now say "no real tie to the McCain campaign"? Barr has called for McCain to publicly call for the withdraw the suit and McCain has remained silent when he was earlier vocal. Hypocrisy, especially when it comes to reversal of a position of principal, is very relevant to the campaign. 128.164.132.31 (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hypocrisy is intrinsic to politics. Complaints like this are always of the "whose ox is gored" variety; welcome to the real world. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
That this wouldn't be the first instance of a politican's hypocrisy doesn't mean that it should be omitted from Wikipedia. Barr is currently polling third in every poll I've seen, and is drawing a higher percentage than Nader drew on Election Day 2000. Even though Barr, like Nader, will probably do worse in the election than in pre-election polls, his candidacy will still create a significant issue for McCain's candidacy. The article can certainly cover that point. Of course, it should be done from a stance of reporting what the relevant actors say and do, not from a stance of nailing McCain for hypocrisy and inconsistency. If a prominent spokesperson accuses McCain of hypocrisy, we can report that. If McCain or a prominent supporter retorts that it's the Democrats who are hypocrites, given their efforts (including lawsuits) to keep Nader off the ballot, we can report that, too. JamesMLane t c 07:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Bob Barr and his campaign manager, Russ Verney, have both publicly accused McCain of hypocrisy, so you can report that. If someone wants to retort that the Dems do it to, fine, both the Republicans and Democrats are hypocrites. That's why we have third parties, and why they're polling farther ahead in this election than they have in over a decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.132.31 (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Parallelism with similar article for Obama

Looking at the parallel article here Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008, it seems to me that way to much puffery has crept into this McCain article, most notably in its summary. I think in the interest of WP:NPOV we should be careful to keep the two articles similar in their tone and amount of detail. betsythedevine (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because the Obama presidential campaign article was split into two articles: Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. I brought up the idea of splitting this one into two articles, though the primary editor of the page, User:Wasted Time R, suggested against it. Happyme22 (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Alleged romantic involvement with lobbyists section

I have removed the paragraph "The closeness of the relationship recalls McCain's earlier and continued contacts with corporate lobbyists including Charles Keating, Phil Gramm, Richard Davis, and Charlie Black. Black and Davis, like Iseman, are telcom lobbyists. Davis ran McCain's previous presidential campaign and Black is a senior advisor to McCain's 2008 campaign.[167]" The politico article cited [10] does not mention Iseman at all, making this paragraph a violation of WP:SYNTH. It is also off-topic in this section, as the section discusses the alleged romantic involvement. Finally, it seems to me than the synthesis was a violation of WP:NPOV which conflated one attack with another, leading to a greater negative impression of the subject. RayAYang (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've further boiled down this section. It was too big relative to what turned out to be its minimal importance in the campaign, especially given that there's a dedicated article to it underneath. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Sarah Palin

What on earth is the picture of Sarah Palin from 1984 doing in the article? It serves no conceivable purpose. If there's no counter-arguments, I'll remove it. ---Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 20:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, never mind, someone else already has. Thanks! --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 20:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Inside Knowledge of VP Nomination

I think it is important that somebody cracked (or betrayed) their security and prereleased that Sarah Palin was to be his running-mate the night before his official announcement. Inspite of extremely intense media pressure and scrutiny, no news outlets uncovered this information. Contrary to Wasted Time R's assertion, after checking his article's history, I see no wikipedians labelling Mitt Romney as the VP choice. People speculated that the VP choice night be Mitt, but nobody claimed that he was. --Bertrc (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source? You brought this up at Talk:Sarah Palin as well where myself and another edit have objected on the grouns of WP:OR. Happyme22 (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Wasted Time R convinced me, but, if you still care, here is the posting that surprised me --Bertrc (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, looks like I read the Time/Date wrong. It wasn't Lobbynoise who spilled the beans Thursday night. It was an unregistered IP. --Bertrc (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
There were many edits to the Tim Pawlenty article claiming he had been picked, for example this and this and this and this and this and this and this and so on. People were going around doing this to a bunch of possible contenders. That someone did it to the Palin article doesn't prove anything. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
And this on the Mitt Romney article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Wasted Time R - Well, your Mitt romney link doesn't quite hold up (saying that rumors exist isn't quite the same as saying he is chosen) but your Tim Pawlenty links are good. In spite of the coincidence, Lobbynoise may just have had a lucky guess. --Bertrc (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That would be my first assumption at least. There's also the User talk:Young Trigg saga, which I'm not quite sure what to think about. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

opinion polling map

This opinion polling map includes another wikipedia article as it's reference. My understanding is that Wikipedia articles may not be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles per WP:SPS. Am I missing something? Shouldn't this kind of information be readily availabile from verifiable sources?--Rtphokie (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on reaction to Sarah Palin as VP pick

Wikipedia Neutral Point of View States: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each"

I feel the reactions against McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as VP are grossly under-represented. There are far more positive reactions noted, and very few negative. I think the bias in the article could be reduced or eliminated simply by adding more references to negative reactions to McCain's choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.166.250 (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming national reaction as people discover more about Palin -- her undisclosed links to disgraced ex-Senator Ted Stevens, to the Bridge to Nowhere scandal, and to an Alaska secession group plus the news that her teenage daughter will soon have a baby--has both sides of the fence casting doubt on McCain's good judgment. "McCain defends Palin selection process" says Reuters. Palin vetted or not vetted? " asks the Christian Science Monitor. "John McCain more likely to drop Sarah Palin" says the NY Daily News. Sorry, this section as it stands is just funny, a perfect reflection of what happens when enthusiasts and spinmeisters get to work on unbalancing Wikipedia. Fortunately, this section as it stands is a snapshot, and people on both sides will work to make it better. 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The reactions material currently there is largely useless and should be removed, as several editors have said in the above section. The real verdict on the Palin pick will come as polls (and after the election, exit polls) indicate whether it helped McCain, hurt him, or was a wash. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Are we aware of Rasmussen and Gallup's early polling? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd wait awhile before including any polls, since they tend to jump around when someone is first in the news, and during conventions. See if a stable trend develops. And bear in mind that for all the hubbub that surrounds veep picks, most of the time they end up having no effect. Presidential elections are usually won or lost at the top of the ticket. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So are we going out of our way to not mention that "reactions" to the Palin pick involve questions about her vendetta against her brother-in-law, about her judgment in getting on a plane leaking amniotic fluid, about her husband's involvement in a secessionist party, about her daughter's pregnancy... when I scan Google News, probably 75% of the "reactions" to the Palin pick fall into one of these categories. The fact that they're entirely absent suggests that this section has truly been whitewashed. 71.83.118.171 (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming response in the public sphere (i.e. mainstream media and public discussion) focuses on these aspects of her personal history and the process story on inadequate vetting. This should be given due prominence. The first paragraph which details an estimate of money raised, presented by a McCain aide on a blog, is given especially undue prominence. As a first start, I propose to reverse the order of this paragraph with that of the paragraph covering the vetting story in the MSM 79.74.148.122 (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about chronological events. No "undo prominence" is given to any event. Also it's a story from the Wasington Post not from a blog. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now the Palin article's in full lockdown. Just great, now more of them will come here to fight it out.... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Split Proposals

1. Primary and General Campaigns as stand-alone articles
2. Split off polling graphics charts for battleground states

Proposal: Split out Primary and General Campaigns into separate articles

This article will not be getting any smaller. Time to consider splitting out the two major parts into subarticles. Let's get the Primary and General elections floated out into their own articles, and make this more of a summary-style article. Proposed titles, criticism in -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Counter proposals, comments, criticisms, etc., below.
Discussion


Approve
Opposed
  • Opposed. It's pathetic if we can't cover one person's campaign for one election in one article. Are there any cases of this needing more than one article anywhere in WP for years before 2008? No. What does that tell us? WP:RECENTISM. The recent addition of reams of predictable pundit commentary about the Palin pick is a good example of stuff that just doesn't belong here. (And even if we did split them, I disagree with the summary proposal. The campaign section in the John McCain main article should be the summary of both, which would give us a two-tier article structure. Having a three-tier article structure as proposed involves massive extra duplication of material and lots more drudge maintenance work to keep them all in synch, not to mention readers seeing the same material over and over.) Wasted Time R (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I always did want to have a pathetic proposal to my credit. I see the Obama system of articles has instead of tiering again, ran the presidential periods at the same tier. What do you think of that? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't say your proposal was pathetic, I said the state of these campaign articles is pathetic ... and yes I'm one of the editors responsible for that. But if you look at John McCain presidential campaign, 2000, that's my idea of about the right size for a campaign article. Yes, that one ended during the primary season, but it still covers later events, and I believe a full-to-November campaign covered in the same style could be done in one article. Admittedly it's a lot easier (and saner) to write campaign articles in retrospect than as they are happening. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • How about same-tier Primary and General articles, as mentioned? (Does it count in your book that this is the longest presidential campaign ever? )-- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to take this opportunity to agree with WTR that the reams of predictable pundit commentary about the Palin pick do not belong here, nor in the Sarah Palin article. They should be removed (or we can start an article Reams of predictable pundit commentary about the Palin pick).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutral

Proposal to move polling charts to a separate article

The battleground states polling charts are in both this article, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008
What a surprise.
It's time to take these enormous graphics out of the article, and put them in a suitable location which both of these campaign articles would link to. I propose something like U.S. presidential election 2008 polling charts in battleground states.
Comments, amendments, suggestions, complaints, counter-proposals below. I propose the same at the Obama campaign article talk page.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
  • I would submit that we're not Wikinews, the AP, or FiveThirtyEight.com; It's inappropriate to have battleground state polling data at all. While the article will (and should) discuss polling results and how they change over time, having multiple graphs here implies that we are providing up-to-date information, which we're not. The polls in place currently are from August 20 - prior to both conventions and, I believe, both Vice Presidential selections. If we have to keep them, though, I would agree to forking them into their own article - and I stress that both this section and the matching section at the Obama campaign article should be cross-merged into one article, for neutrality purposes. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Approve
Oppose
Neutral


Referencing Online Polls

In the section on the reaction to the pick of Sarah Palin, I was struck by a rather interesting statistic.

Zogby reported that the announcement pushed the McCain/Palin ticket ahead of Obama/Biden, with 47% to 45% the margin of error being 2.2%.

That poll was an online, interactive poll. While Zogby appears to be standing behind it, I think it should be policy on this page, and on all political pages, to explain when a poll is am online one. If it were up to me, I'd remove that poll completely. Internet polls are not truly scientific. They are easy to manipulate. Sites that track polling data do not include them. The Rasmussen poll after it looks fine to me, and carries a similar perspective. I'm going to remove the Zogby poll.Porvida (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, online polls are junk. (Reminds me of all the arguments I had with Ron Paul supporter-editors at the beginning of the year regarding straw polls, which are also junk.) And as I tried to argue above, any poll on this matter is too soon to reference right now; wait until a stable trend develops, if any. But it looks like Palinsanity has hit this article for a while ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In accordance with these comments I propose removing all direct reference to individual poll results until sufficient pattern has emerged that they can be usefully summarized, in line with WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The above criticism refers to online polls. Even there I see no reliable source stating that these polls are "junk" it's merely the opinion of the above editors. I highly doubt that large polling companies would stand with their credibility behind "junk". Besides the above poll that showed 2% lead for McCain is not that different from the other non-online polls that all show a (bigger) lead for McCain. Hobartimus (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how including information from these polls is consistent with WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. I could mention that your quotations from them are pretty selective. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Reverting your deletion of a large amount of text doesn't make the text "my qoutations". But if you have some other concerns feel free to add something from the next fresh poll that'll come out and pick the quotation from it yourself. I'm sure there will be some stuff soon (convention bounce evening out etc). Hobartimus (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You're not justifying your insertions too well here. They got kicked from the Sarah Palin page for similar reasons, despite your repeated reverts. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Since this discussion appears to be going nowhere, I've copyedited the section and removed the {{unbalanced}} tag. If anyone here thinks that online polls are problematic, please be bold and remove them. If someone objects to that, then hopefully the discussion will carry on. Happyme22 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

British English?

I noticed parts of the article are written in British English. They should be written in American English since this is an article most likely viewed by Americans. Does anyone dis/agree?--75.164.119.47 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I think I switched them all over. Happyme22 (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

split sections

This should be split into two pages: a primary campaign page and general campaign. It is way to long. Also the individual state polls should also get their own page.--Levineps (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion a couple of sections above. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Campaign lies notable?

Is it time to start thinking about adding something about the claims that the McCain campaign is outright lying? For example (I know it's not a reliable source itself) see the rather impressive list at [11]. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. See also the high-profile coverage of the general changes in the campaign's tone (preformatted for use as references):
  • Scherer, Michael (Sep. 15, 2008). "McCain's Outraged and Outrageous Campaign". Time.com. Retrieved 2008-09-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Cooper, Michael (Sep. 12, 2008). "McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions". nytimes.com. Retrieved 2008-09-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Babington, Charles (Sep. 12, 2008). "Analysis: McCain's claims skirt facts, test voters". AP. Retrieved 2008-09-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Everyme 16:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Another good source:
Tmct (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Campaign

I was over at the Barack Obama presidential campaign article and noticed that the section entitled: 

* 5 Media campaign
   * 5.1 Television advertisements
   * 5.2 Campaign song
   * 5.3 Counter-campaign

Has no comparable section in the John Mccain presidential campaign. This should be resolved.Qutorial (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and see above at #Campaign lies notable? Everyme 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reaction section

Wow - 5 paragraphs of 'hurray!" and one neutral response from Obama. You didn't even try to give a balanced impression of the reaction, did you? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You exaggerate the one-sidedness of the contents (note opinions like Krauthammer's stuck in there) ... but in actuality, it wasn't this article's editors who put this material here, it was Sarah Palin article editors who were looking for a dumping-off place for a bunch of stuff they were fighting about over there. I consider the whole section predictable and useless and would be happy to see it go. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick comment on the commentor: he has tried something similar at Talk:George W. Bush#Quick observation, claiming POV and failing to give specifics. I agree with WTR, though I feel something about the reaction needs to stay. The long quotes should go but a general response would be good. Happyme22 (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
What is your problem? I didn't do anything there, did not edit the article, just left my 2cents. Nothing you should get all wound up about.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The section is perfectly fine. The fact that Palin moved the polls to the point where McCain is leading is a good indicator of the overall reaction of the people. Some hate her exactly for that, that she hugely boosted McCain's chance to win. There is nothing remarkable in that predictable reaction. That's also not a reason to misrepresent the reaction to something it was not. Hobartimus (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It's fine to reference the polls. If it turns out that she does indeed win the election for McCain, then a whole high-level section in this article would be warranted, with a lengthy description of the effect she had. But quoting Giuliani saying she's more qualified than Obama to be president, Obama's never run a business, blah blah, that's utterly meaningless, of course he's going to say that, that's just standard campaign spiel. That tells us absolutely nothing. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of "Financial crisis" section

Happy, in one of your edit summaries you say "... while I question if this section should even remain here ..." I don't understand your reluctance to incorporate material on this. This is a major, major news event that's happening at the peak of the campaign; instead of the candidates talking about how many houses or lipsticks on pigs or the other usual daily campaign silliness, this is something that actually matters. Furthermore it may have a major effect on the outcome of the campaign, just as the Palin pick did, and we're certainly covering that extensively here. So I say, the more the better on how the McCain campaign has responded to the financial crisis. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My reluctance is not an issue of POV or cherry-picking, rather WP:RECENTISM, as the facts in this section may change depending on the economic situation. I see your logic, however, and I am more comfortable with the section now. Happyme22 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe in the case of the campaign articles for the upcoming U.S. presidential election, WP:RECENT does not apply in the same way as it does for most other areas. We'd be doing a bad job if we let a strict application of WP:RECENT prevent us from keeping track of the media attention devoted to topics of particular popular interest and thus great relevance to the race. (Clarification: Yes, RECENT is 'just an essay'. Nevertheless, its spirit should imho be loosely followed most of the time; so I basically agree with Happyme's concern that recent events shouldn't be given UNDUE WEIGHT. Otoh, media attention to the economic sitatuation and particularly the relation to the presidential race was immense and deserves DUE mention. Just a question of keeping the balance.) Everyme 12:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)



I think that this should be added to the financial crisis section where McCain's economic comment is mentioned. http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/17/economists-mccain-right-on-fundamentals/.It talks about the large number of economists who agree with McCain that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. This would only be fair and if this is not added I see a bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.58.172 (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be removed, "As President, McCain would not have the power to fire Cox; the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled such an action unconstitutional." It's wrong . The source used is a blog as well. Theosis4u (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that considering the recent surge of stock markets, the huge gains seem to contradict the "financial crisis" meme. Hobartimus (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Reaction to Palin II

Such a section needs to express reactions both positive and negative. The section basically only lists off supporters' views of the matter. That's why I changed the heading to "Reaction to Palin among supporters", thinking in good faith that maybe that's what someone actually meant. Now that the heading has been reverted, I see that there was no attempt at neutrality - thus, the need for the POV tag. You have a choice between keeping the heading intact, or the content intact. If you want the content of the section to stay as is, I would recommend restoring the heading, "Reaction to Palin among supporters". Otherwise, if you want the heading to stay as is, I will be coming back inserting reactions of equal weight, opposing Palin, to create the NPOV that is absent at present. After all, half the country can't stand her, so listing off glowing republican statements of support is wildly inaccurate in the absence of a list of outraged democratic/green/other statements of opposition. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, have you read the section? If you did, you will see that it contains unflattering/negative quotes about Palin by Lydia Green, Larry Persily, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Peggy Noonan, etc. In my honest opinion, I think that much of the section could go, specifically most of the quotes, and instead summarize what happened. We can then get rid of the "Reaction" section heading, and move the summary into the "Running mate" section. Happyme22 (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok., so in a 9 paragraph section, you have the opposition of several conservatives buried in paragraphs with entirely different topic sentences. I skimmed it, and I did not see those comments, because apparently there is no topic sentence for the opposition. Also, while conservative criticism speaks heavily against her, it's strange that democrats are not quoted here.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I'd accept the elimination of most of the section as a possible compromise. Much of this is should instead be in the article on perceptions of Sarah Palin.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Only by conservatives? Did you see the blockquote by Barack Obama? Much of the quotes are meaningless as they were most likely said only for political purposes. Happyme22 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it, an empty quote. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
If you saw it do you maintain your statement that "The section basically only lists off supporters' views" do you consider Obama as a Palin supporter? Hobartimus (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the single quote by a democrat is Obama. Of course he's not going to love palin. But meanwhile, his quote doesn;t even say that, because of course he's trying very hard to be neutral and avoid negative language. Otherwise, yes, there are some good quotes, buried and only findable if you read every line with total devotion - and they are all from conservatives. Hey, I like that, but it certainly doesn't seem NPOV. Half the country is voting democratic - where are their views? (by the way, I'm not a democrat or a republican - but I want to sxee both sides represented) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
"(by the way, I'm not a democrat or a republican - but I want to sxee both sides represented)" you took some effort in that comment to hide the real information that might have been pertinent to your editing. Only 70% support a party but about 95% support a candidate. Hobartimus (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Polling in battleground states" section

I have removed this section because:

  1. It takes up roughly a 1/4 of the page and is outdated by over a month; the polling in battleground states has almost certainly changed in every one of the states mentioned.
  2. Similar material is not present at the Obama article.

Removing this material was discussed a few threads above, and therefore I hope that this will not result in signifcant objections. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspension

Should "Suspended September 24, 2008" be added to the infobox, considering recent developments? Bflorsheim (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The campaign itself as an ongoing organization and enterprise is not being suspended (which is a FEC technical state that some campaigns go into when they are giving up, so they can continue to collect contributions etc). McCain is merely suspending campaigning in some forms for some amount of time. That's different. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay! When I got home today and heard some aside about his campaign being suspended, I had no idea if that meant the FEC technical state or just kind of, taking a break. So does that mean Palin won't be campaigning either? Or is it literally McCain just saying he's not gonna' be on the road for a while? 24.3.14.157 (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
From what I understand, Palin will be off as well, though he did not mention her when he announced it. Wasted Time R: I understand that the campaign will continue strategizing and functioning as an organization. I also know what the FEC categorization means. But did he not put it in very certain terms: "Tomorrow morning, I'll suspend my campaign," not "I'm going off the campaigning trail"? I know he doesn't mean it in the same way others have meant it in recent past and that he's still very much in the race. But doesn't this event merit some kind of recognition as the "status" of the campaign? "On hiatus"? Bflorsheim (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
From reading accounts today, not much happened to suspend the campaign. TV ads still aired (it does take a while to cancel those), the website was still up and collecting donations, surrogates were still making appearances and on TV, McCain himself spoke at both the Bill CGI event and on all three networks, and so on. We'll see what happens tomorrow, and whether McCain shows up for the debate (I'd be surprised if he doesn't). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
If the campaign ends up not actually being suspended, I'd expect a reliable source will comment on this at which point I think it would be entirely appropriate to add something like "On September 24, McCain announced he would suspend his campaign due to <some quote about why reference to McCain>. This generated an extreme amount of publicity, even though the campaign was not actually suspended[reference]." This certainly looks like nothing more than a publicity stunt. I'm no scholar of presidential elections, but as far as I know use of publicity stunts (one might characterize choosing Palin as VP as a publicity stunt as well) is unprecedented in a presidential election. -- Rick Block (talk)
Unprecedented or not, it has been noted that the campaign shows some hallmarks of Steve Schmidt's work ever since he took over. One might easily argue that the sort of publicity stunt we're seeing is merely an extension of techniques he has applied before. And to date, nothing in the 2008 race has surpassed Karl Rove's evil genius as displayed in the 2000 primaries against McCain, illegitimate black child and all. Unfortunately, reliable sources are scarce for those kinds of things, and can easily be refuted as being biased. Everyme 04:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Definitely a publicity stunt. As recounted in yesterday's column by Frank Rich:

There was no suspension of his campaign. His surrogates and ads remained on television. Huffington Post bloggers, working the phones, couldn’t find a single McCain campaign office that had gone on hiatus.

Rich added: "In truth, the only campaign activity McCain did drop was a Wednesday evening taping with David Letterman." McCain went instead to a Katie Couric interview, hoping to deflect attention from Palin's disastrous appearance with Couric. In light of these facts, (1) our article shouldn't state as a fact that McCain "resumed" his campaign, which gives credence to his spin, but should instead say that he announced a resumption; and (2) the whole episode is trivial and doesn't need to be included in the introductory section. JamesMLane t c 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Katie Couric Interview

... is not mentioned. Jooler (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What, that the Letterman crew included the internal CBS feed that showed McCain getting made up before the interview with her, after he had cancelled with Dave? Amusing, but in the end probably not that important. Wasted Time R (talk)
I think Jooler is refering to the Palin-Couric interview, which took place Sept 25 and 26 (see here). Indeed, it is not included, but since Palin is consenting to more interviews, I say scrap the interview paragraph of the Palin reaction section. It's not that important and won't be in the longrun. Happyme22 (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Tell that to Kathleen Parker. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry I should have been clearer. I meant the Palin interview. As a disinterested observer from the UK, I would have said the interview was disastrous. see for example - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc Jooler (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I might add that the rumour mills suggests that McCain's aides are said to believe that she is "clueless" following mock debate/press conference sessions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/report-mccain-aides-compl_n_129618.html Jooler (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion polling

Isn't the colored map in the opinion polling section sort of the definition of original research? If we want a colored map, shouldn't we use a specific one from a reliable source, perhaps [12]? I strongly suggest this map be referenced to a much more reliable source than a Wikipedia article (which is specifically prohibited by WP:RS). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't just grab some other site's colored map jpg and plonk it here, if that's what you're suggesting; it would be a copyvio. We can bring forward a summary of another WP article to here via blue link, and rely upon that article for providing WP:RS. Now whether that article's method for determining the current lead ranges in states is OR or not, I don't know, haven't looked further at it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The map apparently comes from Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008#Maps of recent polling data. I'll start a thread at talk, there. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

VP debate moderator wrote pro-Obama book which is being released on January 20, 2009

I added this to the article, but someone erased it:

Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a pro-Obama book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is being released on January 20, 2009. [4] [5] [6]

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone has seen an advance-copy, who's to say that the book is "Pro-Obama"? Of your three references, only the Fox piece describes it that way - and that was an opinion piece. Take out the "pro-Obama" description and the Fox News reference, and shorten the section-header, and I think the addition might be OK.--Appraiser (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
We work on verifiabilty here, if all the sources say it's "Pro-Obama" we say pro-obama. Getting an advance copy ourselves and judging it would be OR anyway. Hobartimus (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Amazon.com and FOX News are verifiable sources which describe the book as promoting Obama, so the "pro-Obama" descriptor should not be removed; reworded maybe, but the description is valid and significant. Amazon's description is provided by the publisher, so it's more than fair to say that the book will be pro-Obama without having an advanced copy. The blog source should possibly be removed due to verifiability. --Amwestover (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a separate debate article, so details about debate moderators belong there (if anywhere), not here. —KCinDC (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, belongs in the debate article if anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a major controversy now, it should be in every article where the debate is discussed in some detail. It's pretty much unprecedented that an advocate [13] for one candidate is moderating the debate.Hobartimus (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Why should this article be discussing the vice presidential debate in any detail? That's for the debate article and the Palin and Biden articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
We don't know yet if this article should discuss the debate at length, if it becomes an extra big event within the campaign or not. Hobartimus (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The Fox and Augusta Chronicle citations are both op-ed pieces (making them invalid sources), and the Amazon description does not say that the book is "pro-Obama". I'm sure that the Obama chapter will vary considerably depending on whether he wins the general election or not. That's why the book isn't coming out until January. If widespread perception tomorrow indicates that Ifill was not fair, this story may have more legs than it does today.--Appraiser (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin "revealed her considerable political acumen"?

Last part of final sentence in the "Palin reaction" section reads: ...these commentators believing her responses revealed her considerable political acumen.[254]

I don't seem to be able to find this in the cited reference. Please would some kind soul with better eyesight and/or a longer attention span direct me to it? - Writegeist (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Running mate selection

There is new information about facts on this subject that needs to be added. See the latest issue of The New Yorker, as well as numerous other sources on the subject. Tagged accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, all the Palin material here needs a revisit and rethinking. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What's new in the New Yorker article? Only those who imagined that she was someone nobody had ever heard of, and was picked at the last minute, can be surprised to learn that this wasn't so. Anyone who was paying attention to the right side of the blogosphere was well aware of her months before she was picked. She consistently led the polls on the right-wing blogs, especially if the question was whom McCain should pick rather than whom he would. When the announcement was made, the only reason people on the right were surprised is that many had pessimistically concluded that McCain was going to go with someone like Lindsay Graham or Joe Lieberman. So I don't understand what needs rethinking. -- Zsero (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting doing the revisiting and rethinking now. Campaign articles are best written after the campaigns are over, when passions have cooled and more definitive accounts have been written. Then we'll know why Palin was picked, how Palin was picked, how the McCain and Palin camps did or did not get along, what Palin did or did not know about major issues, and most importantly what effect the Palin pick had on actual McCain election results, both overall and within various demographic/political groups. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, OK, but the New Yorker article just has this breathless air as if they're breaking some giant scoop that the Palin selection wasn't random after all, that they actually had heard of her and vetted her quite early in the process, that she had a large support base lobbying for her. None of which is news, except to the MSM who hadn't done their homework. -- Zsero (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Fein, Leonard (Mar. 03, 2008), "Why Do We Fawn Over John Hagee?", The Forward {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  2. ^ GOP Wants Barr Barred From Pa. Ballot: Candidate Claims McCain Camp Playing Dirty
  3. ^ McCain Urges Bush to Halt New York Ballot Challenge, Jodi Wilgoren, New York Times, January 14, 2000
  4. ^ The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama (Hardcover), amazon.com
  5. ^ PBS Debate Moderator Writes 'Breakthrough' Book About 'Upstanding' Obama, Black Democrats, newsbusters.com, October 1, 2008
  6. ^ VP Debate Moderator Pens Pro-Obama Book, Fox News, October 1, 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_McCain_2008_presidential_campaign/Archive_1&oldid=1148041148"