Talk:Political positions of John McCain/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC: Should a 2004 yes/no survey be included in the free trade section

I feel strongly that it doesn't warrant inclusion. We establish that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements. That's all that needs said. The inclusion of a non-elaborated yes/no survey establishes an NPOV situation in which there is contextual bias against McCain--it'd be comparable to if we included in an anti-death penalty politician, "xyz opposes the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden." By establishing that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements for ANY reason, this survey is a moot point at best. Trilemma (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. McCain was asked a specific and important question, about including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements, and he gave his answer. Our article quotes the question and the answer verbatim (noting that they are from 2004; not noting that a 2008 update is unavailable because in 2008 McCain refused to answer the question). Trilemma persists in assuming, utterly without support, that the issue arises only in the context of renegotiation of trade agreements. Trilemma's view is, "The specific 2004 survey appears to be in regards to proposed renegotiations of NAFTA and other trade agreements." That interpretation is fanciful. The cited source doesn't contain the word "renegotiation" or any of its variants. In the real world the question of labor and environmental protection is actually raised in the context of whether to grant initial approval to a trade agreement. See, for example, this letter from environmentalists urging rejection of the proposed U.S. - Columbia Free Trade Agreement ("Despite the inclusion of some essential environmental and labor safeguards, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement none-the-less contains provisions that encourage the relocation of industry in pursuit of the least stringent environmental and social standards and continues to prioritize the rights of private corporations over the public good."). McCain's express disagreement with this standard for evaluating proposed FTA's is part of his position and merits inclusion. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support thoroughly, as equivalent to standard procedure at political positions of Ron Paul. Quoting question and answer exactly is pretty much the only way to give correct context, and that is done; "he declined to answer in 2008" may also be added. As an inclusionist, I think that during the campaign this article should be a catchall for any reasonable statements of position because each is nuanced differently (excluding indiscriminately collected info, of course, which this is very probably not). The allegedly stronger statement does not require exclusion of the nuanced statement; it may be culled in a well-balanced trim of all sections, but certainly not as a separate RfC. To argue that one moots the other is to apply a weighting argument which might work in the bio but has very very little utility in the positions article; and there is no clear evidence one does moot the other. JJB 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid when possible. The current article text reads: In 2004, when McCain was asked, "Should trade agreements include provisions to address environmental concerns and to protect workers' rights?", he answered, "No."[87] This text doesn't make clear that the context was a written survey in which a one-word yes or no answer was required. That's different from if he said this in an interview and was so adamant about his response that he didn't follow it up with any further explanation. He had been able to give a longer response in the survey, the answer might have been 'Usually not, but there might be exceptions on a case-by-case basis' or something like that. That's why forced short responses of this kind should be avoided when possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. McCain wasn't strictly confined to "a one-word yes or no answer". If you look at the cited source, you'll see that each section of the survey, including the cited section on "International Trade", concluded with an open-ended invitation to the candidate to expound "Other or expanded principles". McCain used this option several times to provide the kind of nuance you mention. For example, in the "National Security Issues" section, he answered "Yes" to the question about pre-emptive strikes, but then took advantage of the "Other or expanded principles" question to add, "Pre-emptive strikes should be evaluated on a case by case basis depending on the severity of the threat". He chose not to make any such elaboration with regard to his opposition to including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements. JamesMLane t c 02:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• OUTSIDE OPINION Support inclusion. The article currently states the question verbatim; we're presenting the fact. Contrary to the initial statement of the RfC, we're not making hypothetical scenarios. If we were, that would be a problem, but as it is, it's factual. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Sounds like McCain had a chance to explain himself and chose not to. I think the sentence should be written more specifically. Too many statistics or political responses are thrown around without explanation of the way they were obtained. I suggest including the response but also that the survey is yes/no with the option of expanding further. Basically just explain everything that has been said here. AzureFury (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion -- note on general grounds that McCain opposes renegotiating free trade agreements; if you must mention the question, fairness demands a recounting of the context, specifically, that it was a yes/no survey. There are rare politicians who don't attach detailed 35-point caveats and explanations to every yes/no question; this should not be viewed as license to portray their reply in the most negative light possible. RayAYang (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH says we can't edit based on what we think he opposes. AzureFury (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Wiretap Provision

Trilemma decided that McCain's position on wiretapping did not warrant inclusion and has insisted on its deletion. It seems to me that since the preceding paragraph mentions amendments to the bill which might potentially be opposed to wiretapping, inclusion can be based simply on clarity. In addition, wiretapping is an extremely controvesial issue, thus making it trivially notable. AzureFury (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What I decided is that the paragraph-long explanation does not warrant inclusion. Not every bill warrants a broad explanation. Furthermore, it appears that the paragraph was copied wholesale from a site, as it reads like a talking point. One of our goals is to be concise. My edit is aimed at that. Trilemma (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE says our goal is not to be concise, especially on such high profile issues. Where is the paragraph copied from? AzureFury (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to track down where it's copied from; either the editor who initially added it has no clue about sentence construction, or was copying verbatim from talking points. And, the secondary wiretapping measure is not a high profile issue. Please prove that it is. Do you have significant coverage on major news networks or newspapers? This is an issue dominant on the left-wing netroots, not the mainstream news, and it's receiving undue weight. Trilemma (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Waste Transportation

I removed the comment about his comment regarding Nuclear Waste Transportation for a few reasons. One the source is The Sierra Club, which should not qualify as a RS. They are a very biased extremist group and in no way could be considered to be neutral. Additionally, if you go and actually listen to the video, the connection that the Sierra Club makes regarding the question is marginal at best. It appears that McCain is not even answering the question which the reporter appears to be asking. The reporter as if he would be comfortable with nuclear waste be transported through Arizona, through Pheonix, to which he replies "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe, and again, we have two options here...." , but the way it cuts back to McCain it appears almost like he is answering a different question, I suspect the video may have been edited. In any case, The Sierra Club doing OR on a YouTube video is no better than some random editor doing the same thing. Thus this fails WP:RS WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Additionally, The Sierra Club is actively campainging against McCain. Arzel (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To call the Sierra Club "extremist" in the context of WP:RS is ludicrous. Neutrality of a source isn't required. In any event, the Sierra Club statement links to a video of McCain making the comment. If you think that was an actor portraying McCain, provide some evidence. Your personal suspicion that the video was edited is irrelevant for this purpose. I don't understand your interpretation of the video, but if some prominent spokesperson has articulated that interpretation, or has argued that the video was edited, feel free to include that point, with a citation. Finally, to say that a prominent outside source is "doing OR" is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NOR.

Given that, AFAIK, there is no good-faith dispute whatsoever that McCain actually said this, the passage I wrote is perfectly acceptable. Nevertheless, in an attempt to avoid another edit war, I'll reword it to make it clear that this statement is advanced by the Sierra Club. I think that the McCain campaign responded by attacking Obama but not by denying the quotation. If so, perhaps we should include that as well, as it's additional evidence (by omission) that the quotation is accurate. (Of course, that elaboration would be unnecessary if we followed the sensible course of stating the fact about which there's no good-faith dispute.) JamesMLane t c 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement cannot be included per WP:WEIGHT. Do you have evidence that this statement was given coverage by many reliable sources? This article doesn't purport to present the answer to every question McCain has ever been asked, and cherry picking this one is undue weight. Oren0 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

James, I didn't say it was an actor, I said that it looks like the video was edited. Regardless, if YouTube cannont be used as a source, then why would the Sierra Club simply commenting on the YouTube video be a reliable source?...from the source you listed they didn't do any fact finding or clarrification of this issue, and the source of the video wasn't the station, just some guy that uploaded it to the internet. Additionally, Verifiability and Neutrality go hand and hand. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean is passes neutrality. I've noticed that you have done this a few times now, presenting a fact from a biased source without attribuation. Finally, do you even know what question he supposedly answered? The reporter asked first about Arizona and then Phoneix, but review of the video indicates that McCain would have to be referring to the second question, but even then his answer doesn't make sense "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe..." What can be made safe? Transportation of NW?...If it can why would he say no? Transportation in general to Yucca Mountain?...That makes more sense, but it is not clear. I think if you can get past your admitted right-wing bias, you will see that this fails on a number of levels. Arzel (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sierra Club press release was picked up by some general media sources, such as YubaNet.com ([1]) and The Daily Kenoshan ([2]); by environment-oriented sources, including a political reporter for Grist ([3]) and a writer for Treehugger, another environmental website ([4]); by WisPolitics.com ([5]), which appears to be a neutral site devoted to political news; and by some Democratic Party sites, such as in Ohio ([6]) and the National Jewish Democratic Council ([7]). Without specific reference to the Sierra Club press release, the Obama campaign included the McCain clip in an ad, which was covered by CBS News ([8]) in a story that included a link to the clip, so if you think there's a conspiracy afoot to edit the tape so as to make McCain look stupid, you'd have to think that CBS is in on it, too. JamesMLane t c 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're still not addressing the core issue, which is due weight. The fact that you're pointing to Yubanet and The Daily Kenoshan as sources that "picked up" this story indicates to me that it was likely not widely reported (I also believe this because I've never heard of this until now). Unless you can demonstrate that this was reported in the mainsteam media (not by partisan groups, small town newspapers, and blogs) then it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT and therefore doesn't merit inclusion imo. Oren0 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now added links to CBS News and The New York Times. There was an AP story that was published by, among others, Forbes ([9]), the Houston Chronicle ([10]), Salon ([11]), and that well-known bastion of left-wing extremism, Fox News ([12]). If I were to keep Googling I'm sure I could give you plenty more such sources. JamesMLane t c 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A transcript of an Obama ad in and of itself lends no additional weight to the underlying quote as a McCain policy. The question isn't who reported Obama's ad, the question is who reported the original quote, specifically as a relevant position of McCain. Oren0 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of no basis in Wikipedia policy for such a restriction. The purpose of the article is to provide information to readers who want to know about McCain's political positions. Presumably, some of his positions are on subjects of such limited interest that there'd be no point in including them here. This topic, however, is now being widely reported, more so than many of the other positions elucidated in this article. JamesMLane t c 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The basis is the core policies of WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and common sense. The sources you've provided only show that Obama has attacked McCain for a certain position. They don't show that anyone is reporting this as an important or relevant position of McCain. If indeed the topic "is being widely reported" as a defining/important/notable position of McCain then it would merit inclusion but I haven't seen any source claiming this. Oren0 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

These two quotes are from Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

WP:UNDUE says include. To say that the video is editted is WP:OR, and can not contribute to our decision of whether or not to include these statements. Accusations are trivially verifiable, so WP:VERIFY is not an issue here, only perhaps notability. Since the Obama campaign has also made these allegations, the comments are indeed notable. They should be included. AzureFury (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed that the video was edited. And to say that any accusation made in a campaign ad instantly becomes a notable position of the other party is ludicrous. I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page? Of course not. Notability must be demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which the McCain quote has not gotten. Oren0 (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I stated that the video appeared to be edited. In anycase Verfiability and Neutrality go hand in hand. Just because some can be verified does not mean that it passes neutrality. This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral, not to mention a whole host of other problems like weight and the fact that the whole basis is a YouTube video which is not a reliable source. The fact that Obama and others are using the video to attack McCain does not make the video a reliable source per common sense. Arzel (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You like to answer your own questions don't you? Again, there is a difference between the present situation and your wanna-be analogy. In this case we have solid proof of McCain making these statements. If you don't dispute the accuracy of the video then we don't need attribution to the Sierra Club or Obama campaign. Regarding notability, perhaps you missed the two paragraphs by James listing source after source? AzureFury (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, does McCain dispute the accuracy of the video? Unless he does then your claim that the video is editted is baseless. See above for my refutation of weight issues. WP:PRESERVE says that WP:NPOV does not justify deletion of facts that are fairly weighted. AzureFury (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When the scale is tipped so far over that one end is resting on the ground, I would hardly consider that to be fairly weighted. Neutrality is a core policy, and trumps preserve with minority views. You have one marginal source which is simply parroting a YouTube video, and Obama using it to attack McCain, and you want to use it to state an official McCain position? As I stated earlier McCain's answer was not clear. If you listen to the video it his position can only be obtained by interpreting what he is saying. The Obama camp and The Sierra Club are doing the same thing. If you can not see the partisan bias in this then I don't know what else to tell you. Even if one does not dispute the video, the video itself cannot be used because it is not a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is youtube not a reliable source? If videos are satisfactory to sentence someone to death, then they are satisfactory to quote someone.

"Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Phoenix on its way to Yucca Mountain?"

"No I would not." - McCain

Explain to me a contrary interpretation derived from that quote. If need be we can quote him directly. AzureFury (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) "Source after source?" Every source I see above is one or more of: inherently partisan (democratic party, Sierra Club, etc), an op-ed (not RS, see Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations), or only reporting a transcript of an Obama ad (lends no weight to this being a position of McCain). Oren0 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability, No Original Research and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections

Notability does not apply here. AzureFury (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just Wikilawyering. I'm using the dictionary definition of notability rather than the Wikipedia one. This page can't list everything McCain has ever said. Therefore, we choose the most notable (read: most covered by reliable sources) positions to list here. There has been no evidence that this quote has been covered in reliable sources at all (making WP:V an additional concern), much less covered enough to warrant mention here. Even if it had been covered, it's still unclear that this is a position. If it was demonstrated that this comment demonstrated significant controversy, keeping in mind that this hasn't been demonstrated yet, it would be a better fit at Cultural and political image of John McCain because it's not a position. Oren0 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is more appropriate in Wikipedia than Lawyerlawyering. You say only thing covered in objective (? I assume this is what you mean by reliable) sources is worth mentioning. I say it isn't. You say this isn't one of his most notable positions. I say it's more important than his position on transportation. You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it. You say it's not a position. I say it is. We use Wiki policies when we can't agree. Welp, we can't agree. AzureFury (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When I say "objective," I mean not the democratic party, Obama's ads, partisan groups, etc. You say it's important; our opinions don't matter. If it was important (not his policy on nuclear energy in general, his policy on waste in Arizona specifically), you'd think that it would be mentioned often in reliable sources. As it stands, not one source meeting WP:RS has been presented for this. Let's contrast that with transportation; the current page lists three sources (and I could certainly present dozens more). That's how we measure importance, and for this issue the sources objectively don't stack up. Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it." - No, that's not how it works. There is no reason to include it as it wasn't reported in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is "ya huh." AzureFury (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The pretexts for trying to censor this information are becoming very threadbare.

• Oren0 wrote, "I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page?" That depends on two specific issues involved, importance and verifiability:

Importance. If McCain makes a big deal about an issue, that fact would indeed affect its importance. A McCain attack might justify including something on Obama's page that otherwise would be too minor. Each campaign has some ability to set the agenda and to influence what's important.

Verifiability. Here's the clear difference between the two cases. The question is whether there's a good-faith dispute about what the candidate's position is. In the case you mention, there is a dispute. The Obama campaign has released a video setting forth why the McCain ad is a lie. You can watch it here. You'll see that the Obama campaign has specifically and in great detail disputed the accuracy of McCain's characterization of Obama's position. Therefore, we would not report McCain's characterization as if it were fact. By contrast, as I pointed out above, the McCain campaign has not denied that McCain made the statements attributed to him by the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign. And it's not because McCain's staffers have been too busy hunting for good pictures of Britney Spears and so haven't had time to respond to the Obama ad -- the McCain campaign did respond to the ad, going negative on Obama as per usual and distorting his record as per usual, but didn't dispute the accuracy of the video clip or of the quotation. The revised passage I wrote for our article includes the McCain campaign's response, cited to this article, although my edit charitably avoids pointing out that the McCain response was itself a distortion of Obama's position.

• It was Arzel who suggested, entirely without evidence, that the video might have been edited. I think we're entitled to assume that CBS wouldn't have linked to it without checking that. I think we're entitled to further assume that, if it had been edited, the McCain campaign would have jumped to point that out, instead of (as noted immediately above) responding to the Obama ad without disputing the accuracy of the clip.
• For these reasons, Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling. We have well-known organizations asserting that McCain said it. We have a video of McCain saying it. We have CBS News using the video, strongly suggesting that it hasn't been tinkered with. We have the Obama campaign using the video in an ad and the McCain campaign responding to the ad without contesting the accuracy of the quotation. No reasonable person could doubt that McCain actually said this. What kind of verifiability do you think is needed?
• Oren0 says there's no source claiming that this is an important position of McCain's. So what? We need a source for the point that McCain actually said it. We do not need any kind of outside source saying, in effect, "McCain's position on transportation of nuclear waste is important enough to be covered in Wikipedia." That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article.
• Arzel writes, "This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral...." That's not the standard set by NPOV. We write neutrally. That the facts could be used or are being used in a partisan attack doesn't mean that we have to omit those facts. For example, McCain favors offshore drilling, Obama opposes it, and both those facts are being used in partisan attacks over the issue. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't say "McCain favors offshore drilling and tries to bamboozle the voters into thinking that would reduce gas prices anytime soon" or "Obama opposes offshore drilling and therefore cripples the goal of achieving American energy independence". Nevertheless, the existence of these partisan attacks doesn't mean that we omit the issue from Wikipedia. It means that we simply state the facts, maintaining a neutral tone, and let the chips fall where they may.
• Moreover, the attack on the neutrality of McCain's critics is completely beside the point. It would arguably be relevant if there were a good-faith dispute about what McCain actually said (for example, at some unrecorded closed-door meeting), but there is no such dispute. Nevertheless, in an effort to reach a compromise, I treated this subject as if someone had raised some serious question about the tape being edited or about McCain's comments needing interpretation. I reworded the passage to say that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign had "charged" that McCain said what he said. That's a considerable concession because it will lead some careless readers to think that this indisputable fact may be in dispute. At any rate, the revised wording should dispose of this spurious "neutrality" argument. WP:NPOV says that we can, indeed should, report facts about opinions. It's a fact, supported by citations, that the named sources hold the opinion that McCain said this. If some prominent spokesperson expresses the opinion that McCain didn't say it, we should of course report that too. I've read quite a bit about this issue by now, though, and the only such comment that I've seen is Arzel's.

I surely hope we don't have to go to RfC over this. It seems absurd that we have to spend this much effort to get a simple, straightforward, undisputed fact into Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems that RfC is where this is going. It's hard to argue with such fundamental misunderstandings of policy.

• "Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling." - Wikipedia isn't about what's true. It's about what is verifiable and attributable to reliable sources. This is neither.
• "Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is 'ya huh.'" - What are you talking about? Reliable sources are needed to report anything. This is especially true in a WP:BLP page such as this one. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
• "That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article." - Maybe it's clear to you. Maybe if you'd link some of this mysterious "coverage" I'd tend to agree with you. As it stands, you haven't shown one reliable source discussing this quote directly. Assuming we were starting with something attributable (which hasn't been demonstrated yet), it'd still have to be covered in multiple sources to make the cut here, where we're boiling hundreds of statements on an issue down to three sentence paragraphs. You claim, with no evidence to back it up, that this is significant in any way. In order to make that claim, you need sources. I feel like a broken record here, but without attributable and reliable sources this just can't be added. Oren0 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain said it. Are you saying McCain is not a reliable source on quotes by McCain? Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance. AzureFury (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The point about verifiability is that we have a clip of McCain saying it, plus multiple sources saying he said it, plus no source whatsoever denying that he said it or even raising a serious question. That satisfies WP:V. It's not like I'm claiming I was in an elevator with McCain and heard him say it. The sources we rely on are all available to anyone with web access. Beyond that, though, the compromise wording states that certain anti-McCain sources have "charged" that he said it. That's a fact about opinions and it's clearly verifiable. A reader may conclude that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign are all lying through their teeth. Well, we've given the verifiable facts that will let each reader make that judgment for him/herself.

Yes, reliable sources are needed "to report anything", meaning that there must be a reliable source for each factual assertion in the article. The policy does not mean that there must be a reliable source for the correctness of the editorial judgment we exercise. I don't think I've seen a single item in this article backed up by a reliable source saying "This is important enough to be in the Wikipedia article." To take another example, there's also no reliable source saying that it's correct to begin the article with McCain's self-serving defense against the charge that he's a flip-flopping panderer. I have doubts about whether that's appropriate, but that's a matter of judgment, not of sourcing. It's obvious that WP:RS is met by the source confirming that he said it. I would never attack that paragraph by demanding a reliable source for the proposition that what he said should begin our article. I'm confident that no such source could be provided. That's not an argument for deleting the paragraph, though. (edit conflict: While I was writing the long explanation in this paragraph, AzureFury wrote, "Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance." I agree.)

I take you to be conceding that there's extensive coverage about McCain and the transport of nuclear waste. Nevertheless, you're discounting all that coverage simply because it was prompted by the Obama ad. That's a completely artificial distinction. Obviously, this position of McCain's has become more important because Obama has jumped on it. That's why McCain's remark about transporting waste through Arizona can now be found at the websites of Forbes, Fox News, The New York Times, and the like, although two months ago it couldn't be. So what? The importance of things changes as the campaign develops. It's like Terri Schiavo -- Wikipedia doesn't cover every decision to take an individual patient off life support, but the Republicans in Congress made a lot of noise about that case, so it's extensively covered here. JamesMLane t c 04:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain Iran comment, part II

Azurefury, we had a vote. We settled that the comment was not worth including. You then persisted with attempts at fitting it in with alternative phrasings. That doesn't work. The issue has been decided. Continuing to push something that a roll call determined to be not worth including is close to vandalism. Trilemma (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you're in a time warp. More than a month ago, there was an RfC. A majority of the respondents (not a consensus, contrary to your incessantly reiterated assertion) opposed the version that quoted verbatim what McCain said.

That didn't end the matter, though. On Wikipedia, nothing like this is cast in stone even when there is a consensus, but here there wasn't. Therefore, editors working in good faith to improve the article moved on from the RfC to discuss alternatives that might reach or at least approach consensus. The result was a compromise version that was much shorter, that did not quote the comment (which would be my preference and the preference of several other editors) but instead merely referred to its existence, and which also gave McCain's take on what he had in mind.

You appear to be the only active editor who disagrees with this compromise. Note the comments in the earlier thread by Jaysweet and Blaxthos, both of whom opposed the original version but didn't think that the RfC somehow barred this compromise. Under these circumstances, for you to keep reverting, with an ES like "please either seek arbitration or leave the consensus be", has reached the point of being disruptive.

You've been told before that ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes. I restored the compromise language, and if you think that I'm the one who's being disruptive, then that accusation against me (a conduct issue) is the type that ArbCom will hear. You can begin a proceeding against me if you choose. ArbCom will then examine the conduct of all the involved editors. JamesMLane t c 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the previous discussion I think it is clear that it does not belong in this article. It is not a stated position and only conjecture can come to that conclusion. Furthermore is it purely a partisan issue, and any inclusion would be undue weight as it only serves to obfuscate McCain's position on Iran. It is not the job of this article to interpret McCain's positions on anything, only to summarize what those positions are in a neutral manner. To introduce phrasing which would attempt to define McCain's position on anything would be original research and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the conclusion we reached. So far as I can tell, two editors are persisting in the face of the decided verdict, trying to insert something that is clearly not worthy of inclusion. And James, I don't need to accuse you of disruptive edits, as your user page declares your status as a POV warrior: "Biased against the right wing and the parapsychology/quackery mindset."Trilemma (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, it is clear to you that it doesn't belong. It is clear to me that it should be quoted in full. Neither of us gets to impose our unilateral vision, however clear.

Yes, but my vision is based upon WP policies of OR and Undue Weight, which trump any vision. Arzel (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are not self-executing. Our governance method is that the editors working on a particular article try to determine how the policies apply to particular issues. Our governance method is not that one editor can proclaim his or her view to be based upon policies, at which point all other editors must yield to The Wisdom Of Arzel. I believe that the omission of this widely publicized incident would constitute a whitewashing of McCain, trying to help him by censoring facts that make him look bad, and would therefore violate the NPOV policy. The NPOV policy trumps your individual vision.

You see how that works? I can't shut you up just by invoking a policy. My own interpretation of the policy isn't entitled to automatic deference any more than yours is. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you just keep on saying things like "the decided verdict". You completely ignored what I wrote on that subject, so I won't bother repeating it. As for my discussion of my biases on my user page, you're hardly the first right-wing POV warrior to completely misinterpret it. That your characterization is false is quite obvious to anyone who reads my page. JamesMLane t c 19:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Namecalling really isn't helpful. Just because you proudly pronounce yourself biased doesn't mean that other editors would be flattered to be called POV warriors. Oren0 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an initial assumption, not a lifelong guarantee. I've seen enough of Trilemma's edits that I'm comfortable with my characterization of them. There's a huge difference between having (and admitting) a bias, on the one hand, and editing as a POV warrior to push your bias in violation of Wikipedia's policies, on the other hand. I'm in the former category but not the latter. I'm sorry if I didn't make that distinction clear.

Also, I do not "proudly" pronounce my bias. Maybe "resignedly" would be a better word; I'm recognizing that non one (including myself) is completely impartial. Part of my amusement at the comments elicited by my user page is the recurrent suggestion from right-wingers that, because I have opinions, I shouldn't edit political articles. Their implicit assertion is that as long as they don't admit to a bias, they don't have any. I don't accept that logic. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor whose only contributions to this page are substantial contentious deletions is in no position to comment on bias. Needless to say, I agree with everything James has said. Most people who cared enough to check back on the page to see the result of the RfC were satisfied with the compromise. The quote is not included. Inclusion of a reference does not conflict with the survey done previously. AzureFury (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

James, just because I have gone to the trouble of trying to restore neutrality in the face of your continued POV warriorism (per the doctrine you lay out on your user page) doesn't mean that I am a POV warrior. I realize that a common technique of POV warriors is to declare anyone not sharing their philosophy of simply being a POV warrior on the other end of the political spectrum, but that's not going to fly here. From your contentious, partisan editing, to your unsubstantiated slander, to your restoration of a line we had clearly established, through a roll call, that doesn't belong, you are close to being reported to wikiquette or elsewhere. We established the line doesn't go in. Two editors' persistence does NOT circumvent the clear majority opinion. Trilemma (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, I have already corrected Oren0 on this point -- see the latter part of this edit. Your assertion that I lay out a doctrine of continued POV warriorism does not accurately characterize my user page. Please do not continue repeating this false statement. You are, of course, free to hold whatever opinion you like of my edits, as I am free to evaluate yours. On that score, I would love it if you would report this in some fashion that would bring in more uninvolved editors to comment on my conduct and on yours. (I'm not familiar with this idea of reporting "to wikiquette" but if you can find a place to make such a report, go for it -- you have my blessing.) I would also love it if editors familiar with Wikipedia practices would comment to both of us on your assertion that a majority vote in one particular survey "established" that a line wouldn't go in and thereby also "established" that it couldn't even be mentioned, let alone included, and "established" these points in perpetuity. You adhere strongly to that interpretation and reiterate it at every opportunity. I believe that that interpretation is indefensible. One of us is greatly in need of enlightenment. JamesMLane t c 14:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a lot more than two editors and you know it. Every editor except you still discussing it was satisfied. AzureFury (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "aap-08" :
  • {{cite book | title = ''Almanac of American Politics (2008)'' | author = Barone, Michael and Cohen, Richard | publisher = National Journal | date=2008 | page = 95}}
  • {{cite book | title =[[The Almanac of American Politics]] | edition=2008 | last=Barone | first=Michael | authorlink=Michael Barone (pundit) | coauthors=[[Richard E. Cohen|Cohen, Richard E.]] | publisher = [[National Journal]] |location= Washington, D.C. | year=2007 |isbn=0-8923-4117-3}} pp. 95–100.
• "Sweeney" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney}}
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney|publisher=''[[The San Diego Union-Tribune]]''|date=2006-09-11|accessdate=2008-07-01}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed up. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth Control

Ok, so I noticed that someone added:

McCain's pro-life position on abortion, his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade[214], and his position that human life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized has raised concerns[215] that McCain would seek to outlaw the pill and other forms of birth control considered to be abortifacients.

Now, this claim links back to an opinion piece in Time which argues that McCain's certainty on the abortion issue might lead to problems of logical consistency since the BCP might prevent implantation. Nowhere is there a claim that McCain himself believes this; no where is the claim that McCain actually plans to seek outlawing the BCP. The op-ed's claim is that it might create an issue of logical consistency and the dangers of being too blunt in your answers. Thus, I propose that the section either be removed or changed to indicate that no one has actually voiced said concerns, just theoretical comments about potential implications of a position. JEB90 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should stick to things McCain has said. Theoretical extrapolations of what those things might mean if taken to the utmost point of philosophical consistency are pointless; no politician tries to do that, except maybe some hard-core libertarians. The sentence in question should be removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The preceding sentences imply this already. One op-ed is not enough to include as a criticism of McCain's policies. Maybe if a notable democrat says this, we can include it, but until then, the implication is sufficient, I think. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It would still be irrelevant even if a Democrat said the same thing as the Time piece. The point is, politicians don't do "logical consistency". They happily hold opposite and contradictory positions regarding trade with Cuba and China, to pick a well-known example. If McCain says he wants to outlaw X, then report it here. But don't extrapolate outlawing X from positions A and B. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the WP:SYNTH policy, thanks for explaining that. Quoting someone making the interpretation is not a violation of SYNTH. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the thing here, at least to some degree, is that the op-ed doesn't even claim that he does believe it. Just that his views, if taken to an extreme, might someday lead to it. I think that if a notable democrat (or even a notable op-ed writer) claimed that McCain believed these things, it might be worth quoting. JEB90 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article on the pill and abortifacients leads me to believe calling the pill an abortifacients requires citation. It can only be said that some people consider the pill an abortifacient. I'll go along with the change by JEB until better sources are found. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Has McCain spoken expressly to the question of contraception? The piece pointing out the logical implications of his statement to Warren does indeed raise a valid point. I agree with Wasted Time R that McCain isn't always consistent, but if he has expressly addressed this subject one way or the other, that would be worth including. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Conscription"

Isn't it more common to call this the "Draft."? That's what people are going to be looking for (it's what I was looking for just a few minutes ago). Maybe we should change the section name? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Either/or. Note that I've removed most of the section because it doesn't come close to meeting WP:RS (neither a partisan blog nor youtube comes even close to qualifying). As with previous sections, you need reliable sources to demonstrate that these comments have WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, you're just cherrypicking quotes that fit your POV. Oren0 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not debating this with you again. When we have a video of McCain saying it, then it goes in. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should reread the relevant policies. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Especially in a WP:BLP page, we specifically cannot include material that is unpublished in reliable sources. This is doubly true as significant editor consensus has ruled that YouTube is explicity disallowed as a reliable source unless confirmed by other reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The one relevant "policy" you've given is an essay. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to the last paragraph in this section. Why is that persons question notable when it is not even logical? How would the draft even solve the problems that this person was stating? Furthermore it doesn't flow well, it is just hanging out there without any context for why this particular question was important. I would say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information would cover this. Arzel (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Some editors don't seem to grasp the idea that these pages simply cannot list everything the candidates ever say. Nor can they list only quotes cherrypicked by editors to push their POV. These pages must list the relevant major positions based on coverage in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to delete everything except "how do we get Bin Laden without re-instating the draft?" that would be fine with me. I think the reason it's included is to show that the lady was rambling and McCain sweepingly agreed with everything. Some people take this as an edorsement of the draft and some do not. We leave it to the reader to decided. Having her rambling question is supportive of McCain. I don't think you want to delete it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're presenting a false dichotomy. The question isn't "should we include the whole question or just part of the question?" The question is "Is there any evidence that this question is significant enough to be mentioned at all?" To me, the answer is clearly no. Oren0 (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Huge surprise there. To me, the answer is clearly yes. Equally surprising, right? The lead to the section states that McCain's responses have always been ambiguous, thus we take what few quotes we can get. He's given two that liberals think are important. The "I don't disagree" comment was only 4 days ago and it's already overflowing in google hits. Include quotes that conservatives think are important. Include something from his website, I'm sure he's denied he would ever issue a draft there. But don't delete these trivially verifiable facts that are so wildly popular. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If indeed it's "overflowing in Google hits" and they meet WP:RS (ie, not blogs or youtube as you've currently listed and not op-eds either) then cite those and you won't hear any complaints from me. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to argue that a candidate's position on the draft is not a major issue. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'm sure there's a "draft" section on the candidates' websites then. I'm sure lots of sources have covered this. What's a major issue has nothing to do with what you and I think, it has to do with what is covered in sources. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's important because McCain hasn't directly addressed it. If he unequivocally opposed the draft, he would have no problem mentioning it on his campaign site. Since he doesn't (and since his staff has not issued a statement clarifying his comments)... JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that I or AzureFury have covered up quotes where McCain has unequivocally opposed the draft, feel free to add them. Otherwise your claim of "cherrypicking" is baseless. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's someone saying that he said what we already know he said, objectively: [13]. Here's a copy/paste of that story by another organization (they seem to think it's trustworthy): [14] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I hesitate to get into this, I cannot find one mention of this in a reliable source. It's all op-eds, blogs, etc. For what it's worth, I tend to agree with the assessment here [15] that he was answering to the "meat of the question" rather than the exclamation at the end. Still, that's also in a blog. I think that including the sentence definitely violates undue weight but, before we get to that, it's not mentioned in a single reliable source that I can find. JEB90 (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I hadn't seen the Keith Olberman link (which is still op-ed, if you ask me, but seems an accurate representation of the quote). Still, I do feel that the quote does violate undue weight. Particularly once you see the rest of his answer, with the George Washington quote, he was clearly responding to the question as if it were: "unless we fix these problems, we won't have anyone volunteer for the army" and he agreed. But that's just my two cents. JEB90 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My personal guess is that McCain didn't intend to endorse the draft, and was instead just having a senior moment. On that theory, I expected McCain's handlers to issue a statement "clarifying" that he didn't really mean he favored a draft. Had they done so this would be a nonissue -- he didn't pay enough attention to the question, so it was a minor gaffe, not a statement of a political position. In the absence of such a clarification, however, we're left with what McCain said. The YouTube video is a reliable source for the fact that he said it, unless someone wants to claim that some sinister force has hired an actor to pretend to be McCain and to stage a fake town hall meeting. The most accurate way to present it is to report what he said but, for the reason stated by AzureFury, to include the context (that the reference to the draft came at the end of a long, rambling question.)

AFAIK, McCain hasn't answered the substantive question -- does he have any bright ideas for maintaining the armed forces, given the demands he apparently intends to place on them, without resorting to conscription. If he's addressed that topic, we should include his position here. JamesMLane t c 09:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just try responding to a question like that yourself, it is nearly impossible. It is one thing to read it and then form a response, but to hear it and then try to answer what is in reality several different questions is nat easy. As for McCain's plan, he has stated part of it. Offer increasing amounts of education benefits for longer service. Remember he was accused of not being supportive of the military because of that plan.... Arzel (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a December 2007 statement on it, while campaigning for the New Hampshire primary, captured by the Valley News:

McCain has spoken often on the campaign trail about his desire to expand the armed forces. In a recent essay published in the journal Foreign Affairs, he says he would increase the combined size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps from 750,000 to 900,000 troops.

At the same time, McCain says he is opposed to reinstating a national draft. "It would be a terrific mistake," McCain said in an interview, citing, among other problems with forced conscription, the historic ease with which the wealthy and privileged have escaped service. "The all-volunteer force is working, and it's the most professional and best trained and equipped we've ever had."

The Foreign Affairs essay says:

In 1947, the Truman administration launched a massive overhaul of the nation's foreign policy, defense, and intelligence agencies to meet the challenges of the Cold War. Today, we must do the same to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. Our armed forces are seriously overstretched and underresourced. As president, I will increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps from the currently planned level of roughly 750,000 troops to 900,000 troops. Enhancing recruitment will require more resources and will take time, but it must be done as soon as possible.

So his plan is to "enhance recruitment", which generally means better pay, better job training programs, better post-service benefits, sometimes shorter enlistment periods, a bigger recruiter budget, more or better advertising ("Be all you can be"), etc. Not conscription. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Is that clear enough? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add the quotes. I won't whitewash them like some of the McCain supporters on here have done to the quotes that I have added. However, I think it's questionable that McCain wants to "enhance recruitment." He's voted against minimum time periods between deployments and against the Democrats' new GI Bill (as it was too generous). JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. His opposition to the Webb GI bill was on grounds that too many service people would take advantage of it and leave; he wanted an alternative that would promote retention. So he thought his approach would increased overall servicepeople levels. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also added a 1999 NYT bit about how McCain had "mused publicly about reinstating the draft". The more (good) data points, the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think people are reading WAY to much into this. McCain was presented with a long rambling rant about the general state of the military, to which McCain appears to be polite and give basically a non-answer of general agreement with the questioneer that there are current problems within the military. The attempt to parse out the questioneers last sentence as McCain's view on the draft is sysnthesis of material for this section. I am being bold and removing it under undue weight, indiscriminate, and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You realize that if they don't read it here, people will just go to the liberal blogs and op-eds sites for the information, right? They don't include the whole rambling question, frequently. That's why I think it should be included, mostly as a refutation of the rumor. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a little backwards and a very weak reason, by that annalogy we should go and put everything being reported by right wing blog on the Obama page so that people can get it from here instead of the right wing blog. I suspect that people will see it on a liberal blog and then come here and try to add it. Since there are not any RS that talk about it people not in the know already would not even know about it. KO is the only thing remotely close to a RS that has brought it up, but he is already talking to the choir. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We do report most of it on the Obama page, including his supposedly being a Muslim. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. That which has been covered extensively by RS's is, but blog information is not. This is clearly an attempt to lead the reader to believe that McCain is in favour of the Draft when it is not clear that this was his intent. Common sense should dictate, not partisan beliefs. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What language is attempting to lead the reader? JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of any other language. Only one conclusion can be made, thus the intent is clear. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, please cite the policy showing that Countdown with Keith Olbermann is not a reliable source. This is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Under | BLP Sources we have the following section.

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.

KO repeating the same non-reliable source doesn't make it reliable. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Keith Olbermann was using the Youtube video? As an MSNBC anchor, he would surely have access to the raw video. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did I attempt to parse the last sentence? I gave the entire statement and McCain's entire reply, without commentary. It's up to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I said Partisan beliefs, this is being used in a partisan way to try and show that McCain is for the draft when it is not clear. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it being used in a partisan way? It doesn't show anything. It allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My problems with the YouTube video

This just can't be included for the following reasons:

1. YouTube isn't a reliable source. It doesn't meet the threshold of attributability. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." To anyone who's ever been to YouTube, the idea that it meets this bar is laughable. Maybe that's why YouTube is explicitly listed as a non-source at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. Also note that as a WP:BLP page we're held to an even higher standard than normal pages here in regards to sourcing material.
2. There is no context because we don't hear what the question was. Go watch the video. What if the question was: "Do you think the military is strong and would you support a draft if we were simultaneously attacked by Russia and China on American soil?" In that case, any sensible person would say "I'd have to consider a draft." Without the question, we just don't know. That's why we need reliable sources to corroborate the video and show us that it's not out of context.

For these reasons, I believe the material must be removed. Oren0 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR says that primary sources can be used as long as easily verifiable information is all that is presented in the article. Your WP:Reliable_source_examples is an essay. I choose not to adhere to it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the lead to the section includes him saying he would only start a draft in WWIII. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Choose to ignore what you want; the consensus on excluding YouTube as a reliable source is a longstanding and strong one. I was going to post RSN links indicating this until I saw, to my surprise, that you have already taken this there! Wikipedia:RSN#YouTube. Common courtesy would've been to inform us here that you've posted this discussion in another forum. But since the editors there have largely echoed my point that you can't use YouTube in this way, I'm re-removing that section. Oren0 (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary is a joke, right? Let's summarize the position of every person who has responded to you at Wikipedia:RSN#YouTube so far:

• "Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research." - User:Ngchen (against inclusion)
• "It isn't original research as long as one treats it appropriately as a primary source, which is to say that it's used only for objective, descriptive, and uncontroversial claims" - User:Girolamo Savonarola (for inclusion)
• "The problems with You Tube are many...these are the primary reasons why You Tube is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia" - User:Blueboar (against inclusion)
• "Using primary material such as this is fraught with the danger of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and point of view pushing. Find some mainstream media sources that have noted this incident you will be fine, and avoid all the youtube and the primary sourcing problems...The main point is that no, the Youtube video is not a reliable source. Sorry." - User:S1p1 (against inclusion)
• "Ok, I'm telling you, the consensus is going to be that youtube is largely not going to be considered a reliable source, especially on such a contentious issue and such a notable subject. Youtube is the WP:SPS example. there is no compelling reason to add this to an article on a national politician." - User:Protonk (against inclusion)

In what universe is four opposes against one support not a consensus? Oren0 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Initially I was ambivalent to this section, but after viewing the video, it is clearly not a reliable source. The actual question that was asked was not included, thus the context of the answer is not clear. Furthermore it appears to be a personal recording, it was clearly not a reliable newssource as the quality is quite poor (the panning is jerky and shows of low quality). Arzel (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oren, please review 1. Note that it is preceded by 0 and followed by 2. The statement by Girolamo is in support. This was also said by Ngchen, "I would argue that yes, youtube is reliable for what is in the content of a questioned video." Including me, that makes 3 people in support of inclusion. Note that 1 is not the same as 3. You may wish to review 3 as well. Your continued lies are inspiring examples of good faith. Essays do not reflect the consensus of the community, that's why I'm ignoring it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly getting desperate when you're counting someone who says "I would say that the material stays out as original research" as "for inclusion." Counting yourself is a tad disingenuous as well, but that's fine. Counting you and me the count is still 5-2 against at RSN. Adding other editors here, Arzel and JEB90 oppose and JamesMLane and JCDenton2052 support. That makes a grand total of 7 (8 if you count Wasted Time R, who's unclear) -4 opposing. Combine that with the fact that in BLP pages we default to excluding contentious information, and at this point this is a no-brainer.

"Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research." Another lie, this one by omission! You're getting crafty, kudos. Please quote the policy that says the default is exclude undisputed quotes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source hasn't commented on the first video that you've cited. As for the policy you seek, see WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP. Specifically, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion," and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material...Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons". Since you apparently respect nothing less, note that both of these are policies. Oren0 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're calling YouTube a "poor source." That is currently under dispute. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't under dispute. Look through the RSN archives. This comes up a lot; there is wide community consensus that YouTube is unacceptable. Oren0 (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

--->Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard = dispute. Nothing on Wiki is set in stone. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as an outsider looking in (I've never edited this page, and only noticed a dispute because Protonk's talk page is on my watchlist -- I left a comment there on a topic wholly unrelated to this): 1) YouTube has long been recognized by the community as an unreliable source -- there are bots that go around removing even external links to YouTube, and EL has a much lower threshold for acceptability than sources 2) original research can be implicit, and the current inclusion *and phrasing* of this material is an implicit suggestion that McCain now supports a draft or would more readily support a draft than he's previously suggested. I suggest editors here ditch the YouTube ref -- it's a primary source, the content of which was covered repeatedly by various outlets -- and rephrase those couple of paragraphs not in terms of what he might have suggested, but instead citing what the professional/critical response was. My two cents. --EEMIV (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the new sources satisfactory? Is the dispute resolved? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, dispute is not resolved. we continue to use interpretation of his answer to an unknown question to extrapolate his views on the draft. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The way it is now, the quote immediately follows "I don't know what would make a draft happen unless we were in an all-out World War III." The natural implication from this ordering is "McCain would consider a draft in WWIII." This is the best case scenario from the perspective of the right. Every single source simply says "when asked about the draft" he said that. The quote does contain important information about his position on the draft. We simply can't delete that one.

How about this, for weight reasons, we condense the "I might consider" quote to a link and cover it fully at the Political Image article. In that case, we have several statements by McCain against the draft and one possibly in favor of it. I think that's fair considering how ambiguous he's been and the fact that he's never really explained where he's going to get the troops to do everything he wants to do if he becomes president. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "I don't disagree" quote to controversial remarks here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. It's not a controversial remark in the sense of the others there. It's McCain making a generic politic response to a long-winded, somewhat incoherent ramble by a citizen at a town hall. It's a big nothing. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, regardless of his actual intentions, a lot of people are taking that as an endorsement of the draft in Iraq. That is the exact definition of a controversy! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's willful misinterpretation for partisan purposes during a campaign. Something else entirely. It's like people wanting to make a big deal out of Obama's "57 states" remark. That's not a controversy either. Just because American political campaigns collectively approach an IQ of zero, doesn't mean we have to also. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama doesn't even have a "controversial statements" section, so you can't use him as a comparison. McCain's comment is trivially notable. Where would you put it? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain's comment is trivial. Have you ever seen town halls? Joe and Jane Citizen get up and unleash all sorts of weird, longwinded, rambling statements or personal complaints. John Politico then has to concoct some sort of response that's respectful without saying anything. This was such a case. Look, this article and this section is the right place to discuss McCain's views on the draft. McCain is a guy who probably has contradictory impulses on this issue: on one hand, he believes in service to a greater cause as a crucial element of national being; on the other, he believes in military professionalism and tradition. The first might cause him to possibly consider draft reinstatement, the second would push back against that. I'm sure if you go back through all his legitimate public statements, you can find some of the first. Indeed, I added the "In 1999, when the U.S. military was experiencing significant recruiting shortfalls, McCain was one of several members of Congress who mused publicly about reinstating the draft" material that's in the article now. Research what and where those musings were, and add that. Or other statements he's made. But this town hall thing is meaningless. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with deleting "I don't disagree" if "I might consider it" stays. Deal? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I would disagree completely -- the "I don't disagree" has been covered by MSNBC and other reliable sources; wasn't the other comment just a youtube video (i.e. a primary source)? There are definitely some synthesis / original research issues if we go inserting unsourced or primary source (i.e. youtube videos not from a reliable source); however statements (especially ones generating controversial or multiple interpretations) from reliable secondary sources should (must) be included. Sorry I haven't followed along completely, but I don't think it's fair to say that inclusion of the material constitutes a "willful misinterpretation" -- controversial statements should be presented with reliably sourced statements, readers should be allowed to value the comments themselves. In no case should wikipedia editors decide what the comments mean, or if readers should be allowed to see them. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have enough reliable sources for both that sourcing is not the issue. I think the only thing left to debate is WP:WEIGHT. The ambiguity of the "I don't disagree" statement is what makes me want to condense it to a link and cover it at controversial comments. Wasted debates the fact that it's controversial. I'm getting too Wiki-sausted too argue. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's misleading to say "I don't disagree" has been covered by MSNBC. The cite isn't to any regular MSNBC news report, but instead to Keith Olbermann's show. That's equivalent to something being on the New York Times op-ed page versus in its regular news section. The same with the other two cites; they are to political opinion blogs. All of these people are in the business of making mountains out of molehills, if it might hurt the other side. That's fine for them, that's their business, but that's not what we do. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What we (as in Wikipedia editors) do not do is decide which criticisms are valid and which are not. We do report controversies when they're reliably sourced and both viewpoints are presented neutrally. I agree that blogs don't belong, however MSNBC certainly is a reliable source, as is Olbermann's show. We're not going to cull a controversy because you think it's not a big deal when it's reliably sourced and neutrally presented. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that Arzel has been bold and deleted the "I don't disagree" remark. Really there was no policy-based argument given, but I'm not going to revert. Looks like this is implied consent to the proposed compromise, and hopefully we the page will remain stable now. I do think this deserves to go into his controversial comments though. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia-Russia Comment

This is the quote from John McCain, and there is no "since the entire war on terror" in it. It must be taken out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLEZ5AZL5BE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeppelin462 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Material from campaign article

Here is some material that was in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. It doesn't belong there, since none of these speeches had much of an impact on the campaign itself. But this may be useful for this article; parked here until unlock occurs. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[snip]

Material has now been merged in to the appropriate places. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Length

I see the article's been tagged for length. Is there anything we can do to make the article shorter? It seems to me that everything is already a summary. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm content with the current length. I have temporary problems with my high-speed connection, so I'm editing on dial-up and really feeling the pain of long articles, but I think trying to shorten this one significantly would be even worse. JamesMLane t c 04:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles like these are supposed to be long. Readers typically look up material in them they are interested in by using the table of contents, not read them top to bottom in one sitting. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with WTR. Happyme22 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Split

Without any consensus to do so, User:Yellowbounder has split the article into a half-dozen different pieces. (And done it badly; the pieces have no leads, backlinks, categories, or references.) It's well-known from looking at readership stats that the further down in the subarticle chain you get, the fewer readers there are, often by a factor of 10. So now many readers will just see the interest group ratings and nothing else. Bleah. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to voice the same concerns as WTR. The issue is threefold: (1) Is the article too long to manage? (2) Is the best solution to split the article? (3) What logical flow will be used to split the content? I haven't seen a real consensus on any of those questions as of yet; WP:BOLD aside, I think the split is premature and does more harm than good -- the split was very poorly executed and the resulting subordinate articles are severely lacking. I strongly support reverting the changes and subsequent debate on the three points I've raised before another split. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see you've restored this article back to its full state. I've redirected all the pieces that were created back to here as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is fine the way it is. The longer the better, because that means more issues have been added (assuming they all remain properly summarized).Chastayo (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Does John McCain support a two-state solution?

Does John McCain support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This point was raised in a number of sources today and it would be great to get clarification. This is a major issue in that both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have supported this policy since 1993. Is John McCain following in their footsteps? --John Bahrain (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sources are cited in this take on things from a PAC: http://www.jstreet.org/campaigns/does-john-mccain-support-a-two-state-solution

--John Bahrain (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This McCain speech doesn't explicitly say so, but the line "The recent talks between the Israeli government and the government led by President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank are encouraging, and the United States should support this effort" kind of suggests it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

the last para of the FP section. Sentence is: Many even argue that McCain's statements, such as "100 years in Iraq," "there will be other wars," and "I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically- elected governments.", approach imperialistic over-tones like that reflected in the PNAC.[92] Many say that this statement is a biased opinion about his policy. Plus the link is an op-ed piece. I am deleting. --Pt1978 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty junky. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I just reverted Pt1978's edit because it didn't have an edit summary without checking here. Let me review the stuff before I undo my undo. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Energy

The sentence that reads "In a June 2008 analysis of McCain's positions, the Los Angeles Times said that "the Arizona senator has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the federal government's role in energy policy."[185]" the source is no longer valid as it is a broken link. I suggest that this be removed unless a new source can be found. JenWSU (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your action was incorrect, and I've restored the material in question. A valid source remains valid regardless of whether it is freely available online or not. If you look at WP:V and WP:RS, you'll see that the most highly-valued sources are books and scholarly journals, and these are usually not freely available online. Newspapers often shuffle their current news articles into their pay archives after a while, which is what happened here. If you really want to check the source, you can pay for LA Times archives access. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and stem cell research

A new editorial discussing this subject can be found here. There is a hot debate about wording this going on at Sarah Palin's talk pages. I'm including this link here in case anyone's interested. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this say regarding McCain's views that isn't already in this article? Wasted Time R (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know, since I haven't worked on this article. I posted the link here as a possible source of interest to those who are working on it. If not, feel free to ignore it. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Financial Deregulation

According to the WP McCain said this. But he has usually reverted to the role of an unabashed deregulator. In 2007, he told a group of bloggers on a conference call that he regretted his vote on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which has been castigated by many executives as too heavy-handed. This was included as a factual statement in the section, but I have a lot of problems with this. One, it doesn't say when in 2007, it doesn't say what group of bloggers, or what conference call. Unless a better source for this statement can be made I find it a little dubious for inclusion here. Arzel (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the Washington Post? Sources don't get much better than that. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I said it was the WP. The problem is that it is a second hand account. It is not in quotes therefore we cannot list it as a quoted statement by McCain. Arzel (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason that publications like The Washington Post are accepted under WP:RS is that we trust a statement when the publication stands behind it. It is frequent -- indeed, nearly universal -- for the media to report information like this without publishing every little detail about the circumstances of the statement. The reporter would have much or all of that information; the reporter would usually be asked about it by an editor or fact checker, and if not asked in this particular case, nevertheless retains a job as a reporter because he or she doesn't make up quotations. It's also frequent for the media to publish, and for Wikipedia to rely on, paraphrases of a public figure's statements. As Arzel says, we can't list it as "a quoted statement" -- which is why I didn't enclose it in quotation marks, as compared with the verbatim quotation later in the subsection.

The Wikipedia standard is to use information like this. We make no exception for presidential candidates. I am restoring the material. JamesMLane t c 01:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying the WP cannot be used, only that that statement cannot be used in this manner. Regardless of how you present it it will read as if McCain made that statement, however it is only a second hand account of what happened. To this point all you have is that the WP reported that, but not that he actually said that. As it is you have some blogger claiming that sometime in 2007 McCain said on a conference call. This is all heresay and with your background you should know that this is not something to rely on. Arzel (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Another article in which McCain, through his aides, claims to still back Sarbanes-Oxley. [16] Arzel (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, Arzel. We don't need to quote McCain to attribute a statement to him. See WP:V. This is a non-issue. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?!? So if someone makes a claim that someone else said then we treat that as gospel unless that person can prove he didn't say it? What kind of logic is that? Arzel (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, McCain doesn't have to "prove" anything. If McCain now says he didn't say it, and the Washington Post says he did, then we can print both assertions. McCain has a press secretary and is capable of asserting his position, including any disagreement he has with the Washington Post. Meanwhile, your edit to "some bloggers claim" is unacceptable. Aside from "claim" being a WP:WTA, you have no evidence for the implication that this is just some bloggers claiming it. Maybe the reporter was in on the call. Maybe someone taped it. Maybe the reporter later confirmed it with enough different participants and/or McCain's office to be satisfied. We don't know. That's the whole point of WP:RS, as I explained above. If some anonymous blogger phoned up the Washington Post and said this happened, the paper probably wouldn't print it, or at most would print it as "one blogger claims...." If the paper prints it as a fact, then we can take it that the provenance -- tape recording, reporter participation, whatever -- satisfied the editors and fact checkers at the Washington Post. Wikipedia is not a news agency and we aren't going to go out and grill people about stuff like this. In fact, if you and Blaxthos and Jimbo and I had all been on the call, and we all heard McCain say something else interesting, but the something else wasn't printed, then we couldn't use it in Wikipedia; even though we would know it to be true, it wouldn't be verifiable per WP:V. That's how an encyclopedia differs from a newspaper. JamesMLane t c 02:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironic that you would quote WTA and violate it at the same time with your "However" statement. You have to attribute this to someone when the actual source is dubious. Arzel (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly not the first person to imply that WP:WTA prohibits the use of "however". If you read it a bit more carefully, however, you'll see that it doesn't. I believe that the language in the current version of this article is consistent with WTA. JamesMLane t c 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the WaPo story to source McCain's thinking about Sarbines-Oxley in 2007. It's quite possible WaPo had a blogger on their staff on the call, so I wouldn't assume it's hearsay. As for "however", I've gotten in arguments about using that word too. I don't mind it, but I think the text would still work even if you took it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WT, even if that was true it is still hearsay. Unless you have an actual citation to back up your claim it is hearsay. In an case I reworded it to summarize completely what the WP reported regarding that section. The reader shouldn't have to read the link to find out how this information supposedly came about. Arzel (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Including this kind of information is contrary to our usual practice. I assume the reason you want such detail in this particular case is that McCain's 2007 position contradicts his current spin, so you want it downplayed as much as possible, and you hope that invoking the word "bloggers" will make it seem comparatively lightweight. To that end, I note that your revision said that McCain "remarked" -- another choice of words that seeks to downplay the statement by conveying the impression that it was just some offhand comment not meant to be taken seriously. I didn't remember "remarked" being in the original and, lo and behold, it isn't. Your zeal for adherence to the source seemed to flag a little here, when it came to a campaign statement that McCain has now flipflopped away from in light of what's currently to his political advantage.

There's still no reason to single out this statement for including the details about the circumstances. I don't want to edit-war over it; I'll support other editors who want to remove this blatant POV-pushing, but, in the meantime, if the stated rationale is to be accurate about what the Post reported, then we might as well just quote the story verbatim. JamesMLane t c 17:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Addendum: The POV language was reverted while I was writing this, so I won't re-add the details. JamesMLane t c 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD) This is a laugh considering your previously stated bias against conservatives. This is not a vote, and my additional information is clearly backed up by the source you provided. You claim I am POV pushing, I claim you are cherry picking this one sentence to make him look like a hypocrite. Either attribute the information correctly or leave out the sentence. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true this is not a vote, but we can't always please everyone. We are supposed to consider the weight of the arguments, not the weight of the numbers. In this case, you seem to be the only person who finds your argument heavier. How can you be so sure of your own objectivity in the face of this evidence? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you tell me that I'm biased. I told you that a specific edit of yours was biased. The difference between those two points may seem minor, but it's crucial. I've left untouched plenty of edits of yours that clearly flowed from your pro-McCain bias. An ardent McCain partisan is allowed to edit Wikipedia. As long as the edit itself comports with Wikipedia principles, including NPOV, then the bias of its author is immaterial. JamesMLane t c 19:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how being specific is biased and your cherry picking of that quote without attribution is not biased. There is one simple question to answer, when and where did McCain make that comment? If you cannot answer it then you have no case for your reason for non-inclusion. Additionally, what is so POV about simply repeating what the WP said? I am not taking it out of context in any manner. Arzel (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that "being specific" at this level of detail is not our normal practice. We have many quotations and paraphrases from McCain in this article that don't include the date, time, place, nature of audience, color of tie McCain was wearing at the time, etc. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book, so we can't put in every detail that's in the source material. That's what the hyperlink is for. JamesMLane t c 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That is all fine and dandy when you are using actual quotes, but here you are paraphrasing a paraphrase. I think the reader has the right to know that WP is paraphrasing a second-hand account. Do you know exactly what McCain said? No, you don't. I have done alot of checking on this, and I can't find a single other mention of him saying this anywhere. Arzel (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

changes in posistions

is it appropriate to have a seperate, short table listing changes in posistion ? eg, from anti to pro bush tax cut, from pro deregulation for economy and health care to pro regulation, from Falwell is agent of intolerance to not, etc. This is not exactly a political position, but it seems relevant - sort of meta political posistions.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Each section describes the positions on a given topic, generally in chronological order. Readers can decide for themselves if the positions have changed and why. What you are advocating would be unworkable. For example, McCain would say each of his votes on tax cuts has had its own rationale at that time, and they are consistent overall. It's up to the reader to decide whether this is reasonably true or a heap of malarkey. If the table presented the tax cuts votes as just contradictions without their rationales, it would be oversimplistic. If the table added the rationales, it would quickly become very unwieldy and no improvement over what we have now. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should a 2004 yes/no survey be included in the free trade section

I feel strongly that it doesn't warrant inclusion. We establish that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements. That's all that needs said. The inclusion of a non-elaborated yes/no survey establishes an NPOV situation in which there is contextual bias against McCain--it'd be comparable to if we included in an anti-death penalty politician, "xyz opposes the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden." By establishing that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements for ANY reason, this survey is a moot point at best. Trilemma (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. McCain was asked a specific and important question, about including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements, and he gave his answer. Our article quotes the question and the answer verbatim (noting that they are from 2004; not noting that a 2008 update is unavailable because in 2008 McCain refused to answer the question). Trilemma persists in assuming, utterly without support, that the issue arises only in the context of renegotiation of trade agreements. Trilemma's view is, "The specific 2004 survey appears to be in regards to proposed renegotiations of NAFTA and other trade agreements." That interpretation is fanciful. The cited source doesn't contain the word "renegotiation" or any of its variants. In the real world the question of labor and environmental protection is actually raised in the context of whether to grant initial approval to a trade agreement. See, for example, this letter from environmentalists urging rejection of the proposed U.S. - Columbia Free Trade Agreement ("Despite the inclusion of some essential environmental and labor safeguards, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement none-the-less contains provisions that encourage the relocation of industry in pursuit of the least stringent environmental and social standards and continues to prioritize the rights of private corporations over the public good."). McCain's express disagreement with this standard for evaluating proposed FTA's is part of his position and merits inclusion. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support thoroughly, as equivalent to standard procedure at political positions of Ron Paul. Quoting question and answer exactly is pretty much the only way to give correct context, and that is done; "he declined to answer in 2008" may also be added. As an inclusionist, I think that during the campaign this article should be a catchall for any reasonable statements of position because each is nuanced differently (excluding indiscriminately collected info, of course, which this is very probably not). The allegedly stronger statement does not require exclusion of the nuanced statement; it may be culled in a well-balanced trim of all sections, but certainly not as a separate RfC. To argue that one moots the other is to apply a weighting argument which might work in the bio but has very very little utility in the positions article; and there is no clear evidence one does moot the other. JJB 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid when possible. The current article text reads: In 2004, when McCain was asked, "Should trade agreements include provisions to address environmental concerns and to protect workers' rights?", he answered, "No."[87] This text doesn't make clear that the context was a written survey in which a one-word yes or no answer was required. That's different from if he said this in an interview and was so adamant about his response that he didn't follow it up with any further explanation. He had been able to give a longer response in the survey, the answer might have been 'Usually not, but there might be exceptions on a case-by-case basis' or something like that. That's why forced short responses of this kind should be avoided when possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. McCain wasn't strictly confined to "a one-word yes or no answer". If you look at the cited source, you'll see that each section of the survey, including the cited section on "International Trade", concluded with an open-ended invitation to the candidate to expound "Other or expanded principles". McCain used this option several times to provide the kind of nuance you mention. For example, in the "National Security Issues" section, he answered "Yes" to the question about pre-emptive strikes, but then took advantage of the "Other or expanded principles" question to add, "Pre-emptive strikes should be evaluated on a case by case basis depending on the severity of the threat". He chose not to make any such elaboration with regard to his opposition to including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements. JamesMLane t c 02:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• OUTSIDE OPINION Support inclusion. The article currently states the question verbatim; we're presenting the fact. Contrary to the initial statement of the RfC, we're not making hypothetical scenarios. If we were, that would be a problem, but as it is, it's factual. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Sounds like McCain had a chance to explain himself and chose not to. I think the sentence should be written more specifically. Too many statistics or political responses are thrown around without explanation of the way they were obtained. I suggest including the response but also that the survey is yes/no with the option of expanding further. Basically just explain everything that has been said here. AzureFury (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion -- note on general grounds that McCain opposes renegotiating free trade agreements; if you must mention the question, fairness demands a recounting of the context, specifically, that it was a yes/no survey. There are rare politicians who don't attach detailed 35-point caveats and explanations to every yes/no question; this should not be viewed as license to portray their reply in the most negative light possible. RayAYang (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH says we can't edit based on what we think he opposes. AzureFury (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Wiretap Provision

Trilemma decided that McCain's position on wiretapping did not warrant inclusion and has insisted on its deletion. It seems to me that since the preceding paragraph mentions amendments to the bill which might potentially be opposed to wiretapping, inclusion can be based simply on clarity. In addition, wiretapping is an extremely controvesial issue, thus making it trivially notable. AzureFury (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What I decided is that the paragraph-long explanation does not warrant inclusion. Not every bill warrants a broad explanation. Furthermore, it appears that the paragraph was copied wholesale from a site, as it reads like a talking point. One of our goals is to be concise. My edit is aimed at that. Trilemma (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE says our goal is not to be concise, especially on such high profile issues. Where is the paragraph copied from? AzureFury (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to track down where it's copied from; either the editor who initially added it has no clue about sentence construction, or was copying verbatim from talking points. And, the secondary wiretapping measure is not a high profile issue. Please prove that it is. Do you have significant coverage on major news networks or newspapers? This is an issue dominant on the left-wing netroots, not the mainstream news, and it's receiving undue weight. Trilemma (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Waste Transportation

I removed the comment about his comment regarding Nuclear Waste Transportation for a few reasons. One the source is The Sierra Club, which should not qualify as a RS. They are a very biased extremist group and in no way could be considered to be neutral. Additionally, if you go and actually listen to the video, the connection that the Sierra Club makes regarding the question is marginal at best. It appears that McCain is not even answering the question which the reporter appears to be asking. The reporter as if he would be comfortable with nuclear waste be transported through Arizona, through Pheonix, to which he replies "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe, and again, we have two options here...." , but the way it cuts back to McCain it appears almost like he is answering a different question, I suspect the video may have been edited. In any case, The Sierra Club doing OR on a YouTube video is no better than some random editor doing the same thing. Thus this fails WP:RS WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Additionally, The Sierra Club is actively campainging against McCain. Arzel (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To call the Sierra Club "extremist" in the context of WP:RS is ludicrous. Neutrality of a source isn't required. In any event, the Sierra Club statement links to a video of McCain making the comment. If you think that was an actor portraying McCain, provide some evidence. Your personal suspicion that the video was edited is irrelevant for this purpose. I don't understand your interpretation of the video, but if some prominent spokesperson has articulated that interpretation, or has argued that the video was edited, feel free to include that point, with a citation. Finally, to say that a prominent outside source is "doing OR" is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NOR.

Given that, AFAIK, there is no good-faith dispute whatsoever that McCain actually said this, the passage I wrote is perfectly acceptable. Nevertheless, in an attempt to avoid another edit war, I'll reword it to make it clear that this statement is advanced by the Sierra Club. I think that the McCain campaign responded by attacking Obama but not by denying the quotation. If so, perhaps we should include that as well, as it's additional evidence (by omission) that the quotation is accurate. (Of course, that elaboration would be unnecessary if we followed the sensible course of stating the fact about which there's no good-faith dispute.) JamesMLane t c 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement cannot be included per WP:WEIGHT. Do you have evidence that this statement was given coverage by many reliable sources? This article doesn't purport to present the answer to every question McCain has ever been asked, and cherry picking this one is undue weight. Oren0 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

James, I didn't say it was an actor, I said that it looks like the video was edited. Regardless, if YouTube cannont be used as a source, then why would the Sierra Club simply commenting on the YouTube video be a reliable source?...from the source you listed they didn't do any fact finding or clarrification of this issue, and the source of the video wasn't the station, just some guy that uploaded it to the internet. Additionally, Verifiability and Neutrality go hand and hand. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean is passes neutrality. I've noticed that you have done this a few times now, presenting a fact from a biased source without attribuation. Finally, do you even know what question he supposedly answered? The reporter asked first about Arizona and then Phoneix, but review of the video indicates that McCain would have to be referring to the second question, but even then his answer doesn't make sense "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe..." What can be made safe? Transportation of NW?...If it can why would he say no? Transportation in general to Yucca Mountain?...That makes more sense, but it is not clear. I think if you can get past your admitted right-wing bias, you will see that this fails on a number of levels. Arzel (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sierra Club press release was picked up by some general media sources, such as YubaNet.com ([17]) and The Daily Kenoshan ([18]); by environment-oriented sources, including a political reporter for Grist ([19]) and a writer for Treehugger, another environmental website ([20]); by WisPolitics.com ([21]), which appears to be a neutral site devoted to political news; and by some Democratic Party sites, such as in Ohio ([22]) and the National Jewish Democratic Council ([23]). Without specific reference to the Sierra Club press release, the Obama campaign included the McCain clip in an ad, which was covered by CBS News ([24]) in a story that included a link to the clip, so if you think there's a conspiracy afoot to edit the tape so as to make McCain look stupid, you'd have to think that CBS is in on it, too. JamesMLane t c 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're still not addressing the core issue, which is due weight. The fact that you're pointing to Yubanet and The Daily Kenoshan as sources that "picked up" this story indicates to me that it was likely not widely reported (I also believe this because I've never heard of this until now). Unless you can demonstrate that this was reported in the mainsteam media (not by partisan groups, small town newspapers, and blogs) then it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT and therefore doesn't merit inclusion imo. Oren0 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now added links to CBS News and The New York Times. There was an AP story that was published by, among others, Forbes ([25]), the Houston Chronicle ([26]), Salon ([27]), and that well-known bastion of left-wing extremism, Fox News ([28]). If I were to keep Googling I'm sure I could give you plenty more such sources. JamesMLane t c 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A transcript of an Obama ad in and of itself lends no additional weight to the underlying quote as a McCain policy. The question isn't who reported Obama's ad, the question is who reported the original quote, specifically as a relevant position of McCain. Oren0 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of no basis in Wikipedia policy for such a restriction. The purpose of the article is to provide information to readers who want to know about McCain's political positions. Presumably, some of his positions are on subjects of such limited interest that there'd be no point in including them here. This topic, however, is now being widely reported, more so than many of the other positions elucidated in this article. JamesMLane t c 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The basis is the core policies of WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and common sense. The sources you've provided only show that Obama has attacked McCain for a certain position. They don't show that anyone is reporting this as an important or relevant position of McCain. If indeed the topic "is being widely reported" as a defining/important/notable position of McCain then it would merit inclusion but I haven't seen any source claiming this. Oren0 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

These two quotes are from Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

WP:UNDUE says include. To say that the video is editted is WP:OR, and can not contribute to our decision of whether or not to include these statements. Accusations are trivially verifiable, so WP:VERIFY is not an issue here, only perhaps notability. Since the Obama campaign has also made these allegations, the comments are indeed notable. They should be included. AzureFury (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed that the video was edited. And to say that any accusation made in a campaign ad instantly becomes a notable position of the other party is ludicrous. I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page? Of course not. Notability must be demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which the McCain quote has not gotten. Oren0 (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I stated that the video appeared to be edited. In anycase Verfiability and Neutrality go hand in hand. Just because some can be verified does not mean that it passes neutrality. This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral, not to mention a whole host of other problems like weight and the fact that the whole basis is a YouTube video which is not a reliable source. The fact that Obama and others are using the video to attack McCain does not make the video a reliable source per common sense. Arzel (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You like to answer your own questions don't you? Again, there is a difference between the present situation and your wanna-be analogy. In this case we have solid proof of McCain making these statements. If you don't dispute the accuracy of the video then we don't need attribution to the Sierra Club or Obama campaign. Regarding notability, perhaps you missed the two paragraphs by James listing source after source? AzureFury (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, does McCain dispute the accuracy of the video? Unless he does then your claim that the video is editted is baseless. See above for my refutation of weight issues. WP:PRESERVE says that WP:NPOV does not justify deletion of facts that are fairly weighted. AzureFury (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When the scale is tipped so far over that one end is resting on the ground, I would hardly consider that to be fairly weighted. Neutrality is a core policy, and trumps preserve with minority views. You have one marginal source which is simply parroting a YouTube video, and Obama using it to attack McCain, and you want to use it to state an official McCain position? As I stated earlier McCain's answer was not clear. If you listen to the video it his position can only be obtained by interpreting what he is saying. The Obama camp and The Sierra Club are doing the same thing. If you can not see the partisan bias in this then I don't know what else to tell you. Even if one does not dispute the video, the video itself cannot be used because it is not a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is youtube not a reliable source? If videos are satisfactory to sentence someone to death, then they are satisfactory to quote someone.

"Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Phoenix on its way to Yucca Mountain?"

"No I would not." - McCain

Explain to me a contrary interpretation derived from that quote. If need be we can quote him directly. AzureFury (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) "Source after source?" Every source I see above is one or more of: inherently partisan (democratic party, Sierra Club, etc), an op-ed (not RS, see Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations), or only reporting a transcript of an Obama ad (lends no weight to this being a position of McCain). Oren0 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability, No Original Research and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections

Notability does not apply here. AzureFury (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just Wikilawyering. I'm using the dictionary definition of notability rather than the Wikipedia one. This page can't list everything McCain has ever said. Therefore, we choose the most notable (read: most covered by reliable sources) positions to list here. There has been no evidence that this quote has been covered in reliable sources at all (making WP:V an additional concern), much less covered enough to warrant mention here. Even if it had been covered, it's still unclear that this is a position. If it was demonstrated that this comment demonstrated significant controversy, keeping in mind that this hasn't been demonstrated yet, it would be a better fit at Cultural and political image of John McCain because it's not a position. Oren0 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is more appropriate in Wikipedia than Lawyerlawyering. You say only thing covered in objective (? I assume this is what you mean by reliable) sources is worth mentioning. I say it isn't. You say this isn't one of his most notable positions. I say it's more important than his position on transportation. You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it. You say it's not a position. I say it is. We use Wiki policies when we can't agree. Welp, we can't agree. AzureFury (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When I say "objective," I mean not the democratic party, Obama's ads, partisan groups, etc. You say it's important; our opinions don't matter. If it was important (not his policy on nuclear energy in general, his policy on waste in Arizona specifically), you'd think that it would be mentioned often in reliable sources. As it stands, not one source meeting WP:RS has been presented for this. Let's contrast that with transportation; the current page lists three sources (and I could certainly present dozens more). That's how we measure importance, and for this issue the sources objectively don't stack up. Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it." - No, that's not how it works. There is no reason to include it as it wasn't reported in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is "ya huh." AzureFury (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The pretexts for trying to censor this information are becoming very threadbare.

• Oren0 wrote, "I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page?" That depends on two specific issues involved, importance and verifiability:

Importance. If McCain makes a big deal about an issue, that fact would indeed affect its importance. A McCain attack might justify including something on Obama's page that otherwise would be too minor. Each campaign has some ability to set the agenda and to influence what's important.

Verifiability. Here's the clear difference between the two cases. The question is whether there's a good-faith dispute about what the candidate's position is. In the case you mention, there is a dispute. The Obama campaign has released a video setting forth why the McCain ad is a lie. You can watch it here. You'll see that the Obama campaign has specifically and in great detail disputed the accuracy of McCain's characterization of Obama's position. Therefore, we would not report McCain's characterization as if it were fact. By contrast, as I pointed out above, the McCain campaign has not denied that McCain made the statements attributed to him by the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign. And it's not because McCain's staffers have been too busy hunting for good pictures of Britney Spears and so haven't had time to respond to the Obama ad -- the McCain campaign did respond to the ad, going negative on Obama as per usual and distorting his record as per usual, but didn't dispute the accuracy of the video clip or of the quotation. The revised passage I wrote for our article includes the McCain campaign's response, cited to this article, although my edit charitably avoids pointing out that the McCain response was itself a distortion of Obama's position.

• It was Arzel who suggested, entirely without evidence, that the video might have been edited. I think we're entitled to assume that CBS wouldn't have linked to it without checking that. I think we're entitled to further assume that, if it had been edited, the McCain campaign would have jumped to point that out, instead of (as noted immediately above) responding to the Obama ad without disputing the accuracy of the clip.
• For these reasons, Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling. We have well-known organizations asserting that McCain said it. We have a video of McCain saying it. We have CBS News using the video, strongly suggesting that it hasn't been tinkered with. We have the Obama campaign using the video in an ad and the McCain campaign responding to the ad without contesting the accuracy of the quotation. No reasonable person could doubt that McCain actually said this. What kind of verifiability do you think is needed?
• Oren0 says there's no source claiming that this is an important position of McCain's. So what? We need a source for the point that McCain actually said it. We do not need any kind of outside source saying, in effect, "McCain's position on transportation of nuclear waste is important enough to be covered in Wikipedia." That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article.
• Arzel writes, "This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral...." That's not the standard set by NPOV. We write neutrally. That the facts could be used or are being used in a partisan attack doesn't mean that we have to omit those facts. For example, McCain favors offshore drilling, Obama opposes it, and both those facts are being used in partisan attacks over the issue. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't say "McCain favors offshore drilling and tries to bamboozle the voters into thinking that would reduce gas prices anytime soon" or "Obama opposes offshore drilling and therefore cripples the goal of achieving American energy independence". Nevertheless, the existence of these partisan attacks doesn't mean that we omit the issue from Wikipedia. It means that we simply state the facts, maintaining a neutral tone, and let the chips fall where they may.
• Moreover, the attack on the neutrality of McCain's critics is completely beside the point. It would arguably be relevant if there were a good-faith dispute about what McCain actually said (for example, at some unrecorded closed-door meeting), but there is no such dispute. Nevertheless, in an effort to reach a compromise, I treated this subject as if someone had raised some serious question about the tape being edited or about McCain's comments needing interpretation. I reworded the passage to say that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign had "charged" that McCain said what he said. That's a considerable concession because it will lead some careless readers to think that this indisputable fact may be in dispute. At any rate, the revised wording should dispose of this spurious "neutrality" argument. WP:NPOV says that we can, indeed should, report facts about opinions. It's a fact, supported by citations, that the named sources hold the opinion that McCain said this. If some prominent spokesperson expresses the opinion that McCain didn't say it, we should of course report that too. I've read quite a bit about this issue by now, though, and the only such comment that I've seen is Arzel's.

I surely hope we don't have to go to RfC over this. It seems absurd that we have to spend this much effort to get a simple, straightforward, undisputed fact into Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems that RfC is where this is going. It's hard to argue with such fundamental misunderstandings of policy.

• "Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling." - Wikipedia isn't about what's true. It's about what is verifiable and attributable to reliable sources. This is neither.
• "Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is 'ya huh.'" - What are you talking about? Reliable sources are needed to report anything. This is especially true in a WP:BLP page such as this one. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
• "That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article." - Maybe it's clear to you. Maybe if you'd link some of this mysterious "coverage" I'd tend to agree with you. As it stands, you haven't shown one reliable source discussing this quote directly. Assuming we were starting with something attributable (which hasn't been demonstrated yet), it'd still have to be covered in multiple sources to make the cut here, where we're boiling hundreds of statements on an issue down to three sentence paragraphs. You claim, with no evidence to back it up, that this is significant in any way. In order to make that claim, you need sources. I feel like a broken record here, but without attributable and reliable sources this just can't be added. Oren0 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain said it. Are you saying McCain is not a reliable source on quotes by McCain? Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance. AzureFury (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The point about verifiability is that we have a clip of McCain saying it, plus multiple sources saying he said it, plus no source whatsoever denying that he said it or even raising a serious question. That satisfies WP:V. It's not like I'm claiming I was in an elevator with McCain and heard him say it. The sources we rely on are all available to anyone with web access. Beyond that, though, the compromise wording states that certain anti-McCain sources have "charged" that he said it. That's a fact about opinions and it's clearly verifiable. A reader may conclude that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign are all lying through their teeth. Well, we've given the verifiable facts that will let each reader make that judgment for him/herself.

Yes, reliable sources are needed "to report anything", meaning that there must be a reliable source for each factual assertion in the article. The policy does not mean that there must be a reliable source for the correctness of the editorial judgment we exercise. I don't think I've seen a single item in this article backed up by a reliable source saying "This is important enough to be in the Wikipedia article." To take another example, there's also no reliable source saying that it's correct to begin the article with McCain's self-serving defense against the charge that he's a flip-flopping panderer. I have doubts about whether that's appropriate, but that's a matter of judgment, not of sourcing. It's obvious that WP:RS is met by the source confirming that he said it. I would never attack that paragraph by demanding a reliable source for the proposition that what he said should begin our article. I'm confident that no such source could be provided. That's not an argument for deleting the paragraph, though. (edit conflict: While I was writing the long explanation in this paragraph, AzureFury wrote, "Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance." I agree.)

I take you to be conceding that there's extensive coverage about McCain and the transport of nuclear waste. Nevertheless, you're discounting all that coverage simply because it was prompted by the Obama ad. That's a completely artificial distinction. Obviously, this position of McCain's has become more important because Obama has jumped on it. That's why McCain's remark about transporting waste through Arizona can now be found at the websites of Forbes, Fox News, The New York Times, and the like, although two months ago it couldn't be. So what? The importance of things changes as the campaign develops. It's like Terri Schiavo -- Wikipedia doesn't cover every decision to take an individual patient off life support, but the Republicans in Congress made a lot of noise about that case, so it's extensively covered here. JamesMLane t c 04:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain Iran comment, part II

Azurefury, we had a vote. We settled that the comment was not worth including. You then persisted with attempts at fitting it in with alternative phrasings. That doesn't work. The issue has been decided. Continuing to push something that a roll call determined to be not worth including is close to vandalism. Trilemma (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you're in a time warp. More than a month ago, there was an RfC. A majority of the respondents (not a consensus, contrary to your incessantly reiterated assertion) opposed the version that quoted verbatim what McCain said.

That didn't end the matter, though. On Wikipedia, nothing like this is cast in stone even when there is a consensus, but here there wasn't. Therefore, editors working in good faith to improve the article moved on from the RfC to discuss alternatives that might reach or at least approach consensus. The result was a compromise version that was much shorter, that did not quote the comment (which would be my preference and the preference of several other editors) but instead merely referred to its existence, and which also gave McCain's take on what he had in mind.

You appear to be the only active editor who disagrees with this compromise. Note the comments in the earlier thread by Jaysweet and Blaxthos, both of whom opposed the original version but didn't think that the RfC somehow barred this compromise. Under these circumstances, for you to keep reverting, with an ES like "please either seek arbitration or leave the consensus be", has reached the point of being disruptive.

You've been told before that ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes. I restored the compromise language, and if you think that I'm the one who's being disruptive, then that accusation against me (a conduct issue) is the type that ArbCom will hear. You can begin a proceeding against me if you choose. ArbCom will then examine the conduct of all the involved editors. JamesMLane t c 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the previous discussion I think it is clear that it does not belong in this article. It is not a stated position and only conjecture can come to that conclusion. Furthermore is it purely a partisan issue, and any inclusion would be undue weight as it only serves to obfuscate McCain's position on Iran. It is not the job of this article to interpret McCain's positions on anything, only to summarize what those positions are in a neutral manner. To introduce phrasing which would attempt to define McCain's position on anything would be original research and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the conclusion we reached. So far as I can tell, two editors are persisting in the face of the decided verdict, trying to insert something that is clearly not worthy of inclusion. And James, I don't need to accuse you of disruptive edits, as your user page declares your status as a POV warrior: "Biased against the right wing and the parapsychology/quackery mindset."Trilemma (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, it is clear to you that it doesn't belong. It is clear to me that it should be quoted in full. Neither of us gets to impose our unilateral vision, however clear.

Yes, but my vision is based upon WP policies of OR and Undue Weight, which trump any vision. Arzel (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are not self-executing. Our governance method is that the editors working on a particular article try to determine how the policies apply to particular issues. Our governance method is not that one editor can proclaim his or her view to be based upon policies, at which point all other editors must yield to The Wisdom Of Arzel. I believe that the omission of this widely publicized incident would constitute a whitewashing of McCain, trying to help him by censoring facts that make him look bad, and would therefore violate the NPOV policy. The NPOV policy trumps your individual vision.

You see how that works? I can't shut you up just by invoking a policy. My own interpretation of the policy isn't entitled to automatic deference any more than yours is. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you just keep on saying things like "the decided verdict". You completely ignored what I wrote on that subject, so I won't bother repeating it. As for my discussion of my biases on my user page, you're hardly the first right-wing POV warrior to completely misinterpret it. That your characterization is false is quite obvious to anyone who reads my page. JamesMLane t c 19:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Namecalling really isn't helpful. Just because you proudly pronounce yourself biased doesn't mean that other editors would be flattered to be called POV warriors. Oren0 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an initial assumption, not a lifelong guarantee. I've seen enough of Trilemma's edits that I'm comfortable with my characterization of them. There's a huge difference between having (and admitting) a bias, on the one hand, and editing as a POV warrior to push your bias in violation of Wikipedia's policies, on the other hand. I'm in the former category but not the latter. I'm sorry if I didn't make that distinction clear.

Also, I do not "proudly" pronounce my bias. Maybe "resignedly" would be a better word; I'm recognizing that non one (including myself) is completely impartial. Part of my amusement at the comments elicited by my user page is the recurrent suggestion from right-wingers that, because I have opinions, I shouldn't edit political articles. Their implicit assertion is that as long as they don't admit to a bias, they don't have any. I don't accept that logic. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor whose only contributions to this page are substantial contentious deletions is in no position to comment on bias. Needless to say, I agree with everything James has said. Most people who cared enough to check back on the page to see the result of the RfC were satisfied with the compromise. The quote is not included. Inclusion of a reference does not conflict with the survey done previously. AzureFury (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

James, just because I have gone to the trouble of trying to restore neutrality in the face of your continued POV warriorism (per the doctrine you lay out on your user page) doesn't mean that I am a POV warrior. I realize that a common technique of POV warriors is to declare anyone not sharing their philosophy of simply being a POV warrior on the other end of the political spectrum, but that's not going to fly here. From your contentious, partisan editing, to your unsubstantiated slander, to your restoration of a line we had clearly established, through a roll call, that doesn't belong, you are close to being reported to wikiquette or elsewhere. We established the line doesn't go in. Two editors' persistence does NOT circumvent the clear majority opinion. Trilemma (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, I have already corrected Oren0 on this point -- see the latter part of this edit. Your assertion that I lay out a doctrine of continued POV warriorism does not accurately characterize my user page. Please do not continue repeating this false statement. You are, of course, free to hold whatever opinion you like of my edits, as I am free to evaluate yours. On that score, I would love it if you would report this in some fashion that would bring in more uninvolved editors to comment on my conduct and on yours. (I'm not familiar with this idea of reporting "to wikiquette" but if you can find a place to make such a report, go for it -- you have my blessing.) I would also love it if editors familiar with Wikipedia practices would comment to both of us on your assertion that a majority vote in one particular survey "established" that a line wouldn't go in and thereby also "established" that it couldn't even be mentioned, let alone included, and "established" these points in perpetuity. You adhere strongly to that interpretation and reiterate it at every opportunity. I believe that that interpretation is indefensible. One of us is greatly in need of enlightenment. JamesMLane t c 14:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a lot more than two editors and you know it. Every editor except you still discussing it was satisfied. AzureFury (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "aap-08" :
  • {{cite book | title = ''Almanac of American Politics (2008)'' | author = Barone, Michael and Cohen, Richard | publisher = National Journal | date=2008 | page = 95}}
  • {{cite book | title =[[The Almanac of American Politics]] | edition=2008 | last=Barone | first=Michael | authorlink=Michael Barone (pundit) | coauthors=[[Richard E. Cohen|Cohen, Richard E.]] | publisher = [[National Journal]] |location= Washington, D.C. | year=2007 |isbn=0-8923-4117-3}} pp. 95–100.
• "Sweeney" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney}}
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney|publisher=''[[The San Diego Union-Tribune]]''|date=2006-09-11|accessdate=2008-07-01}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed up. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth Control

Ok, so I noticed that someone added:

McCain's pro-life position on abortion, his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade[214], and his position that human life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized has raised concerns[215] that McCain would seek to outlaw the pill and other forms of birth control considered to be abortifacients.

Now, this claim links back to an opinion piece in Time which argues that McCain's certainty on the abortion issue might lead to problems of logical consistency since the BCP might prevent implantation. Nowhere is there a claim that McCain himself believes this; no where is the claim that McCain actually plans to seek outlawing the BCP. The op-ed's claim is that it might create an issue of logical consistency and the dangers of being too blunt in your answers. Thus, I propose that the section either be removed or changed to indicate that no one has actually voiced said concerns, just theoretical comments about potential implications of a position. JEB90 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should stick to things McCain has said. Theoretical extrapolations of what those things might mean if taken to the utmost point of philosophical consistency are pointless; no politician tries to do that, except maybe some hard-core libertarians. The sentence in question should be removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The preceding sentences imply this already. One op-ed is not enough to include as a criticism of McCain's policies. Maybe if a notable democrat says this, we can include it, but until then, the implication is sufficient, I think. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It would still be irrelevant even if a Democrat said the same thing as the Time piece. The point is, politicians don't do "logical consistency". They happily hold opposite and contradictory positions regarding trade with Cuba and China, to pick a well-known example. If McCain says he wants to outlaw X, then report it here. But don't extrapolate outlawing X from positions A and B. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the WP:SYNTH policy, thanks for explaining that. Quoting someone making the interpretation is not a violation of SYNTH. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the thing here, at least to some degree, is that the op-ed doesn't even claim that he does believe it. Just that his views, if taken to an extreme, might someday lead to it. I think that if a notable democrat (or even a notable op-ed writer) claimed that McCain believed these things, it might be worth quoting. JEB90 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article on the pill and abortifacients leads me to believe calling the pill an abortifacients requires citation. It can only be said that some people consider the pill an abortifacient. I'll go along with the change by JEB until better sources are found. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Has McCain spoken expressly to the question of contraception? The piece pointing out the logical implications of his statement to Warren does indeed raise a valid point. I agree with Wasted Time R that McCain isn't always consistent, but if he has expressly addressed this subject one way or the other, that would be worth including. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Conscription"

Isn't it more common to call this the "Draft."? That's what people are going to be looking for (it's what I was looking for just a few minutes ago). Maybe we should change the section name? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Either/or. Note that I've removed most of the section because it doesn't come close to meeting WP:RS (neither a partisan blog nor youtube comes even close to qualifying). As with previous sections, you need reliable sources to demonstrate that these comments have WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, you're just cherrypicking quotes that fit your POV. Oren0 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not debating this with you again. When we have a video of McCain saying it, then it goes in. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should reread the relevant policies. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Especially in a WP:BLP page, we specifically cannot include material that is unpublished in reliable sources. This is doubly true as significant editor consensus has ruled that YouTube is explicity disallowed as a reliable source unless confirmed by other reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The one relevant "policy" you've given is an essay. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to the last paragraph in this section. Why is that persons question notable when it is not even logical? How would the draft even solve the problems that this person was stating? Furthermore it doesn't flow well, it is just hanging out there without any context for why this particular question was important. I would say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information would cover this. Arzel (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Some editors don't seem to grasp the idea that these pages simply cannot list everything the candidates ever say. Nor can they list only quotes cherrypicked by editors to push their POV. These pages must list the relevant major positions based on coverage in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to delete everything except "how do we get Bin Laden without re-instating the draft?" that would be fine with me. I think the reason it's included is to show that the lady was rambling and McCain sweepingly agreed with everything. Some people take this as an edorsement of the draft and some do not. We leave it to the reader to decided. Having her rambling question is supportive of McCain. I don't think you want to delete it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're presenting a false dichotomy. The question isn't "should we include the whole question or just part of the question?" The question is "Is there any evidence that this question is significant enough to be mentioned at all?" To me, the answer is clearly no. Oren0 (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Huge surprise there. To me, the answer is clearly yes. Equally surprising, right? The lead to the section states that McCain's responses have always been ambiguous, thus we take what few quotes we can get. He's given two that liberals think are important. The "I don't disagree" comment was only 4 days ago and it's already overflowing in google hits. Include quotes that conservatives think are important. Include something from his website, I'm sure he's denied he would ever issue a draft there. But don't delete these trivially verifiable facts that are so wildly popular. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If indeed it's "overflowing in Google hits" and they meet WP:RS (ie, not blogs or youtube as you've currently listed and not op-eds either) then cite those and you won't hear any complaints from me. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to argue that a candidate's position on the draft is not a major issue. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'm sure there's a "draft" section on the candidates' websites then. I'm sure lots of sources have covered this. What's a major issue has nothing to do with what you and I think, it has to do with what is covered in sources. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's important because McCain hasn't directly addressed it. If he unequivocally opposed the draft, he would have no problem mentioning it on his campaign site. Since he doesn't (and since his staff has not issued a statement clarifying his comments)... JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that I or AzureFury have covered up quotes where McCain has unequivocally opposed the draft, feel free to add them. Otherwise your claim of "cherrypicking" is baseless. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's someone saying that he said what we already know he said, objectively: [29]. Here's a copy/paste of that story by another organization (they seem to think it's trustworthy): [30] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I hesitate to get into this, I cannot find one mention of this in a reliable source. It's all op-eds, blogs, etc. For what it's worth, I tend to agree with the assessment here [31] that he was answering to the "meat of the question" rather than the exclamation at the end. Still, that's also in a blog. I think that including the sentence definitely violates undue weight but, before we get to that, it's not mentioned in a single reliable source that I can find. JEB90 (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I hadn't seen the Keith Olberman link (which is still op-ed, if you ask me, but seems an accurate representation of the quote). Still, I do feel that the quote does violate undue weight. Particularly once you see the rest of his answer, with the George Washington quote, he was clearly responding to the question as if it were: "unless we fix these problems, we won't have anyone volunteer for the army" and he agreed. But that's just my two cents. JEB90 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My personal guess is that McCain didn't intend to endorse the draft, and was instead just having a senior moment. On that theory, I expected McCain's handlers to issue a statement "clarifying" that he didn't really mean he favored a draft. Had they done so this would be a nonissue -- he didn't pay enough attention to the question, so it was a minor gaffe, not a statement of a political position. In the absence of such a clarification, however, we're left with what McCain said. The YouTube video is a reliable source for the fact that he said it, unless someone wants to claim that some sinister force has hired an actor to pretend to be McCain and to stage a fake town hall meeting. The most accurate way to present it is to report what he said but, for the reason stated by AzureFury, to include the context (that the reference to the draft came at the end of a long, rambling question.)

AFAIK, McCain hasn't answered the substantive question -- does he have any bright ideas for maintaining the armed forces, given the demands he apparently intends to place on them, without resorting to conscription. If he's addressed that topic, we should include his position here. JamesMLane t c 09:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just try responding to a question like that yourself, it is nearly impossible. It is one thing to read it and then form a response, but to hear it and then try to answer what is in reality several different questions is nat easy. As for McCain's plan, he has stated part of it. Offer increasing amounts of education benefits for longer service. Remember he was accused of not being supportive of the military because of that plan.... Arzel (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a December 2007 statement on it, while campaigning for the New Hampshire primary, captured by the Valley News:

McCain has spoken often on the campaign trail about his desire to expand the armed forces. In a recent essay published in the journal Foreign Affairs, he says he would increase the combined size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps from 750,000 to 900,000 troops.

At the same time, McCain says he is opposed to reinstating a national draft. "It would be a terrific mistake," McCain said in an interview, citing, among other problems with forced conscription, the historic ease with which the wealthy and privileged have escaped service. "The all-volunteer force is working, and it's the most professional and best trained and equipped we've ever had."

The Foreign Affairs essay says:

In 1947, the Truman administration launched a massive overhaul of the nation's foreign policy, defense, and intelligence agencies to meet the challenges of the Cold War. Today, we must do the same to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. Our armed forces are seriously overstretched and underresourced. As president, I will increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps from the currently planned level of roughly 750,000 troops to 900,000 troops. Enhancing recruitment will require more resources and will take time, but it must be done as soon as possible.

So his plan is to "enhance recruitment", which generally means better pay, better job training programs, better post-service benefits, sometimes shorter enlistment periods, a bigger recruiter budget, more or better advertising ("Be all you can be"), etc. Not conscription. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Is that clear enough? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add the quotes. I won't whitewash them like some of the McCain supporters on here have done to the quotes that I have added. However, I think it's questionable that McCain wants to "enhance recruitment." He's voted against minimum time periods between deployments and against the Democrats' new GI Bill (as it was too generous). JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. His opposition to the Webb GI bill was on grounds that too many service people would take advantage of it and leave; he wanted an alternative that would promote retention. So he thought his approach would increased overall servicepeople levels. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also added a 1999 NYT bit about how McCain had "mused publicly about reinstating the draft". The more (good) data points, the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think people are reading WAY to much into this. McCain was presented with a long rambling rant about the general state of the military, to which McCain appears to be polite and give basically a non-answer of general agreement with the questioneer that there are current problems within the military. The attempt to parse out the questioneers last sentence as McCain's view on the draft is sysnthesis of material for this section. I am being bold and removing it under undue weight, indiscriminate, and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You realize that if they don't read it here, people will just go to the liberal blogs and op-eds sites for the information, right? They don't include the whole rambling question, frequently. That's why I think it should be included, mostly as a refutation of the rumor. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a little backwards and a very weak reason, by that annalogy we should go and put everything being reported by right wing blog on the Obama page so that people can get it from here instead of the right wing blog. I suspect that people will see it on a liberal blog and then come here and try to add it. Since there are not any RS that talk about it people not in the know already would not even know about it. KO is the only thing remotely close to a RS that has brought it up, but he is already talking to the choir. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We do report most of it on the Obama page, including his supposedly being a Muslim. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. That which has been covered extensively by RS's is, but blog information is not. This is clearly an attempt to lead the reader to believe that McCain is in favour of the Draft when it is not clear that this was his intent. Common sense should dictate, not partisan beliefs. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What language is attempting to lead the reader? JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of any other language. Only one conclusion can be made, thus the intent is clear. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, please cite the policy showing that Countdown with Keith Olbermann is not a reliable source. This is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Under | BLP Sources we have the following section.

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.

KO repeating the same non-reliable source doesn't make it reliable. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Keith Olbermann was using the Youtube video? As an MSNBC anchor, he would surely have access to the raw video. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did I attempt to parse the last sentence? I gave the entire statement and McCain's entire reply, without commentary. It's up to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I said Partisan beliefs, this is being used in a partisan way to try and show that McCain is for the draft when it is not clear. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it being used in a partisan way? It doesn't show anything. It allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My problems with the YouTube video

This just can't be included for the following reasons:

1. YouTube isn't a reliable source. It doesn't meet the threshold of attributability. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." To anyone who's ever been to YouTube, the idea that it meets this bar is laughable. Maybe that's why YouTube is explicitly listed as a non-source at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. Also note that as a WP:BLP page we're held to an even higher standard than normal pages here in regards to sourcing material.
2. There is no context because we don't hear what the question was. Go watch the video. What if the question was: "Do you think the military is strong and would you support a draft if we were simultaneously attacked by Russia and China on American soil?" In that case, any sensible person would say "I'd have to consider a draft." Without the question, we just don't know. That's why we need reliable sources to corroborate the video and show us that it's not out of context.

For these reasons, I believe the material must be removed. Oren0 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR says that primary sources can be used as long as easily verifiable information is all that is presented in the article. Your WP:Reliable_source_examples is an essay. I choose not to adhere to it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the lead to the section includes him saying he would only start a draft in WWIII. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Choose to ignore what you want; the consensus on excluding YouTube as a reliable source is a longstanding and strong one. I was going to post RSN links indicating this until I saw, to my surprise, that you have already taken this there! Wikipedia:RSN#YouTube. Common courtesy would've been to inform us here that you've posted this discussion in another forum. But since the editors there have largely echoed my point that you can't use YouTube in this way, I'm re-removing that section. Oren0 (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary is a joke, right? Let's summarize the position of every person who has responded to you at Wikipedia:RSN#YouTube so far:

• "Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research." - User:Ngchen (against inclusion)
• "It isn't original research as long as one treats it appropriately as a primary source, which is to say that it's used only for objective, descriptive, and uncontroversial claims" - User:Girolamo Savonarola (for inclusion)
• "The problems with You Tube are many...these are the primary reasons why You Tube is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia" - User:Blueboar (against inclusion)
• "Using primary material such as this is fraught with the danger of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and point of view pushing. Find some mainstream media sources that have noted this incident you will be fine, and avoid all the youtube and the primary sourcing problems...The main point is that no, the Youtube video is not a reliable source. Sorry." - User:S1p1 (against inclusion)
• "Ok, I'm telling you, the consensus is going to be that youtube is largely not going to be considered a reliable source, especially on such a contentious issue and such a notable subject. Youtube is the WP:SPS example. there is no compelling reason to add this to an article on a national politician." - User:Protonk (against inclusion)

In what universe is four opposes against one support not a consensus? Oren0 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Initially I was ambivalent to this section, but after viewing the video, it is clearly not a reliable source. The actual question that was asked was not included, thus the context of the answer is not clear. Furthermore it appears to be a personal recording, it was clearly not a reliable newssource as the quality is quite poor (the panning is jerky and shows of low quality). Arzel (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oren, please review 1. Note that it is preceded by 0 and followed by 2. The statement by Girolamo is in support. This was also said by Ngchen, "I would argue that yes, youtube is reliable for what is in the content of a questioned video." Including me, that makes 3 people in support of inclusion. Note that 1 is not the same as 3. You may wish to review 3 as well. Your continued lies are inspiring examples of good faith. Essays do not reflect the consensus of the community, that's why I'm ignoring it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly getting desperate when you're counting someone who says "I would say that the material stays out as original research" as "for inclusion." Counting yourself is a tad disingenuous as well, but that's fine. Counting you and me the count is still 5-2 against at RSN. Adding other editors here, Arzel and JEB90 oppose and JamesMLane and JCDenton2052 support. That makes a grand total of 7 (8 if you count Wasted Time R, who's unclear) -4 opposing. Combine that with the fact that in BLP pages we default to excluding contentious information, and at this point this is a no-brainer.

"Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research." Another lie, this one by omission! You're getting crafty, kudos. Please quote the policy that says the default is exclude undisputed quotes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source hasn't commented on the first video that you've cited. As for the policy you seek, see WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP. Specifically, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion," and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material...Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons". Since you apparently respect nothing less, note that both of these are policies. Oren0 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're calling YouTube a "poor source." That is currently under dispute. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't under dispute. Look through the RSN archives. This comes up a lot; there is wide community consensus that YouTube is unacceptable. Oren0 (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

--->Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard = dispute. Nothing on Wiki is set in stone. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as an outsider looking in (I've never edited this page, and only noticed a dispute because Protonk's talk page is on my watchlist -- I left a comment there on a topic wholly unrelated to this): 1) YouTube has long been recognized by the community as an unreliable source -- there are bots that go around removing even external links to YouTube, and EL has a much lower threshold for acceptability than sources 2) original research can be implicit, and the current inclusion *and phrasing* of this material is an implicit suggestion that McCain now supports a draft or would more readily support a draft than he's previously suggested. I suggest editors here ditch the YouTube ref -- it's a primary source, the content of which was covered repeatedly by various outlets -- and rephrase those couple of paragraphs not in terms of what he might have suggested, but instead citing what the professional/critical response was. My two cents. --EEMIV (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the new sources satisfactory? Is the dispute resolved? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, dispute is not resolved. we continue to use interpretation of his answer to an unknown question to extrapolate his views on the draft. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The way it is now, the quote immediately follows "I don't know what would make a draft happen unless we were in an all-out World War III." The natural implication from this ordering is "McCain would consider a draft in WWIII." This is the best case scenario from the perspective of the right. Every single source simply says "when asked about the draft" he said that. The quote does contain important information about his position on the draft. We simply can't delete that one.

How about this, for weight reasons, we condense the "I might consider" quote to a link and cover it fully at the Political Image article. In that case, we have several statements by McCain against the draft and one possibly in favor of it. I think that's fair considering how ambiguous he's been and the fact that he's never really explained where he's going to get the troops to do everything he wants to do if he becomes president. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "I don't disagree" quote to controversial remarks here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. It's not a controversial remark in the sense of the others there. It's McCain making a generic politic response to a long-winded, somewhat incoherent ramble by a citizen at a town hall. It's a big nothing. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, regardless of his actual intentions, a lot of people are taking that as an endorsement of the draft in Iraq. That is the exact definition of a controversy! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's willful misinterpretation for partisan purposes during a campaign. Something else entirely. It's like people wanting to make a big deal out of Obama's "57 states" remark. That's not a controversy either. Just because American political campaigns collectively approach an IQ of zero, doesn't mean we have to also. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama doesn't even have a "controversial statements" section, so you can't use him as a comparison. McCain's comment is trivially notable. Where would you put it? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain's comment is trivial. Have you ever seen town halls? Joe and Jane Citizen get up and unleash all sorts of weird, longwinded, rambling statements or personal complaints. John Politico then has to concoct some sort of response that's respectful without saying anything. This was such a case. Look, this article and this section is the right place to discuss McCain's views on the draft. McCain is a guy who probably has contradictory impulses on this issue: on one hand, he believes in service to a greater cause as a crucial element of national being; on the other, he believes in military professionalism and tradition. The first might cause him to possibly consider draft reinstatement, the second would push back against that. I'm sure if you go back through all his legitimate public statements, you can find some of the first. Indeed, I added the "In 1999, when the U.S. military was experiencing significant recruiting shortfalls, McCain was one of several members of Congress who mused publicly about reinstating the draft" material that's in the article now. Research what and where those musings were, and add that. Or other statements he's made. But this town hall thing is meaningless. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with deleting "I don't disagree" if "I might consider it" stays. Deal? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I would disagree completely -- the "I don't disagree" has been covered by MSNBC and other reliable sources; wasn't the other comment just a youtube video (i.e. a primary source)? There are definitely some synthesis / original research issues if we go inserting unsourced or primary source (i.e. youtube videos not from a reliable source); however statements (especially ones generating controversial or multiple interpretations) from reliable secondary sources should (must) be included. Sorry I haven't followed along completely, but I don't think it's fair to say that inclusion of the material constitutes a "willful misinterpretation" -- controversial statements should be presented with reliably sourced statements, readers should be allowed to value the comments themselves. In no case should wikipedia editors decide what the comments mean, or if readers should be allowed to see them. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have enough reliable sources for both that sourcing is not the issue. I think the only thing left to debate is WP:WEIGHT. The ambiguity of the "I don't disagree" statement is what makes me want to condense it to a link and cover it at controversial comments. Wasted debates the fact that it's controversial. I'm getting too Wiki-sausted too argue. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's misleading to say "I don't disagree" has been covered by MSNBC. The cite isn't to any regular MSNBC news report, but instead to Keith Olbermann's show. That's equivalent to something being on the New York Times op-ed page versus in its regular news section. The same with the other two cites; they are to political opinion blogs. All of these people are in the business of making mountains out of molehills, if it might hurt the other side. That's fine for them, that's their business, but that's not what we do. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What we (as in Wikipedia editors) do not do is decide which criticisms are valid and which are not. We do report controversies when they're reliably sourced and both viewpoints are presented neutrally. I agree that blogs don't belong, however MSNBC certainly is a reliable source, as is Olbermann's show. We're not going to cull a controversy because you think it's not a big deal when it's reliably sourced and neutrally presented. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that Arzel has been bold and deleted the "I don't disagree" remark. Really there was no policy-based argument given, but I'm not going to revert. Looks like this is implied consent to the proposed compromise, and hopefully we the page will remain stable now. I do think this deserves to go into his controversial comments though. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia-Russia Comment

This is the quote from John McCain, and there is no "since the entire war on terror" in it. It must be taken out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLEZ5AZL5BE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeppelin462 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Material from campaign article

Here is some material that was in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. It doesn't belong there, since none of these speeches had much of an impact on the campaign itself. But this may be useful for this article; parked here until unlock occurs. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[snip]

Material has now been merged in to the appropriate places. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Length

I see the article's been tagged for length. Is there anything we can do to make the article shorter? It seems to me that everything is already a summary. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm content with the current length. I have temporary problems with my high-speed connection, so I'm editing on dial-up and really feeling the pain of long articles, but I think trying to shorten this one significantly would be even worse. JamesMLane t c 04:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles like these are supposed to be long. Readers typically look up material in them they are interested in by using the table of contents, not read them top to bottom in one sitting. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with WTR. Happyme22 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Split

Without any consensus to do so, User:Yellowbounder has split the article into a half-dozen different pieces. (And done it badly; the pieces have no leads, backlinks, categories, or references.) It's well-known from looking at readership stats that the further down in the subarticle chain you get, the fewer readers there are, often by a factor of 10. So now many readers will just see the interest group ratings and nothing else. Bleah. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to voice the same concerns as WTR. The issue is threefold: (1) Is the article too long to manage? (2) Is the best solution to split the article? (3) What logical flow will be used to split the content? I haven't seen a real consensus on any of those questions as of yet; WP:BOLD aside, I think the split is premature and does more harm than good -- the split was very poorly executed and the resulting subordinate articles are severely lacking. I strongly support reverting the changes and subsequent debate on the three points I've raised before another split. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see you've restored this article back to its full state. I've redirected all the pieces that were created back to here as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is fine the way it is. The longer the better, because that means more issues have been added (assuming they all remain properly summarized).Chastayo (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Does John McCain support a two-state solution?

Does John McCain support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This point was raised in a number of sources today and it would be great to get clarification. This is a major issue in that both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have supported this policy since 1993. Is John McCain following in their footsteps? --John Bahrain (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sources are cited in this take on things from a PAC: http://www.jstreet.org/campaigns/does-john-mccain-support-a-two-state-solution

--John Bahrain (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This McCain speech doesn't explicitly say so, but the line "The recent talks between the Israeli government and the government led by President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank are encouraging, and the United States should support this effort" kind of suggests it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

the last para of the FP section. Sentence is: Many even argue that McCain's statements, such as "100 years in Iraq," "there will be other wars," and "I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically- elected governments.", approach imperialistic over-tones like that reflected in the PNAC.[92] Many say that this statement is a biased opinion about his policy. Plus the link is an op-ed piece. I am deleting. --Pt1978 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty junky. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I just reverted Pt1978's edit because it didn't have an edit summary without checking here. Let me review the stuff before I undo my undo. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Energy

The sentence that reads "In a June 2008 analysis of McCain's positions, the Los Angeles Times said that "the Arizona senator has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the federal government's role in energy policy."[185]" the source is no longer valid as it is a broken link. I suggest that this be removed unless a new source can be found. JenWSU (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your action was incorrect, and I've restored the material in question. A valid source remains valid regardless of whether it is freely available online or not. If you look at WP:V and WP:RS, you'll see that the most highly-valued sources are books and scholarly journals, and these are usually not freely available online. Newspapers often shuffle their current news articles into their pay archives after a while, which is what happened here. If you really want to check the source, you can pay for LA Times archives access. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and stem cell research

A new editorial discussing this subject can be found here. There is a hot debate about wording this going on at Sarah Palin's talk pages. I'm including this link here in case anyone's interested. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this say regarding McCain's views that isn't already in this article? Wasted Time R (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know, since I haven't worked on this article. I posted the link here as a possible source of interest to those who are working on it. If not, feel free to ignore it. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Financial Deregulation

According to the WP McCain said this. But he has usually reverted to the role of an unabashed deregulator. In 2007, he told a group of bloggers on a conference call that he regretted his vote on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which has been castigated by many executives as too heavy-handed. This was included as a factual statement in the section, but I have a lot of problems with this. One, it doesn't say when in 2007, it doesn't say what group of bloggers, or what conference call. Unless a better source for this statement can be made I find it a little dubious for inclusion here. Arzel (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the Washington Post? Sources don't get much better than that. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I said it was the WP. The problem is that it is a second hand account. It is not in quotes therefore we cannot list it as a quoted statement by McCain. Arzel (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason that publications like The Washington Post are accepted under WP:RS is that we trust a statement when the publication stands behind it. It is frequent -- indeed, nearly universal -- for the media to report information like this without publishing every little detail about the circumstances of the statement. The reporter would have much or all of that information; the reporter would usually be asked about it by an editor or fact checker, and if not asked in this particular case, nevertheless retains a job as a reporter because he or she doesn't make up quotations. It's also frequent for the media to publish, and for Wikipedia to rely on, paraphrases of a public figure's statements. As Arzel says, we can't list it as "a quoted statement" -- which is why I didn't enclose it in quotation marks, as compared with the verbatim quotation later in the subsection.

The Wikipedia standard is to use information like this. We make no exception for presidential candidates. I am restoring the material. JamesMLane t c 01:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying the WP cannot be used, only that that statement cannot be used in this manner. Regardless of how you present it it will read as if McCain made that statement, however it is only a second hand account of what happened. To this point all you have is that the WP reported that, but not that he actually said that. As it is you have some blogger claiming that sometime in 2007 McCain said on a conference call. This is all heresay and with your background you should know that this is not something to rely on. Arzel (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Another article in which McCain, through his aides, claims to still back Sarbanes-Oxley. [32] Arzel (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, Arzel. We don't need to quote McCain to attribute a statement to him. See WP:V. This is a non-issue. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?!? So if someone makes a claim that someone else said then we treat that as gospel unless that person can prove he didn't say it? What kind of logic is that? Arzel (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, McCain doesn't have to "prove" anything. If McCain now says he didn't say it, and the Washington Post says he did, then we can print both assertions. McCain has a press secretary and is capable of asserting his position, including any disagreement he has with the Washington Post. Meanwhile, your edit to "some bloggers claim" is unacceptable. Aside from "claim" being a WP:WTA, you have no evidence for the implication that this is just some bloggers claiming it. Maybe the reporter was in on the call. Maybe someone taped it. Maybe the reporter later confirmed it with enough different participants and/or McCain's office to be satisfied. We don't know. That's the whole point of WP:RS, as I explained above. If some anonymous blogger phoned up the Washington Post and said this happened, the paper probably wouldn't print it, or at most would print it as "one blogger claims...." If the paper prints it as a fact, then we can take it that the provenance -- tape recording, reporter participation, whatever -- satisfied the editors and fact checkers at the Washington Post. Wikipedia is not a news agency and we aren't going to go out and grill people about stuff like this. In fact, if you and Blaxthos and Jimbo and I had all been on the call, and we all heard McCain say something else interesting, but the something else wasn't printed, then we couldn't use it in Wikipedia; even though we would know it to be true, it wouldn't be verifiable per WP:V. That's how an encyclopedia differs from a newspaper. JamesMLane t c 02:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironic that you would quote WTA and violate it at the same time with your "However" statement. You have to attribute this to someone when the actual source is dubious. Arzel (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly not the first person to imply that WP:WTA prohibits the use of "however". If you read it a bit more carefully, however, you'll see that it doesn't. I believe that the language in the current version of this article is consistent with WTA. JamesMLane t c 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the WaPo story to source McCain's thinking about Sarbines-Oxley in 2007. It's quite possible WaPo had a blogger on their staff on the call, so I wouldn't assume it's hearsay. As for "however", I've gotten in arguments about using that word too. I don't mind it, but I think the text would still work even if you took it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WT, even if that was true it is still hearsay. Unless you have an actual citation to back up your claim it is hearsay. In an case I reworded it to summarize completely what the WP reported regarding that section. The reader shouldn't have to read the link to find out how this information supposedly came about. Arzel (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Including this kind of information is contrary to our usual practice. I assume the reason you want such detail in this particular case is that McCain's 2007 position contradicts his current spin, so you want it downplayed as much as possible, and you hope that invoking the word "bloggers" will make it seem comparatively lightweight. To that end, I note that your revision said that McCain "remarked" -- another choice of words that seeks to downplay the statement by conveying the impression that it was just some offhand comment not meant to be taken seriously. I didn't remember "remarked" being in the original and, lo and behold, it isn't. Your zeal for adherence to the source seemed to flag a little here, when it came to a campaign statement that McCain has now flipflopped away from in light of what's currently to his political advantage.

There's still no reason to single out this statement for including the details about the circumstances. I don't want to edit-war over it; I'll support other editors who want to remove this blatant POV-pushing, but, in the meantime, if the stated rationale is to be accurate about what the Post reported, then we might as well just quote the story verbatim. JamesMLane t c 17:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Addendum: The POV language was reverted while I was writing this, so I won't re-add the details. JamesMLane t c 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD) This is a laugh considering your previously stated bias against conservatives. This is not a vote, and my additional information is clearly backed up by the source you provided. You claim I am POV pushing, I claim you are cherry picking this one sentence to make him look like a hypocrite. Either attribute the information correctly or leave out the sentence. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true this is not a vote, but we can't always please everyone. We are supposed to consider the weight of the arguments, not the weight of the numbers. In this case, you seem to be the only person who finds your argument heavier. How can you be so sure of your own objectivity in the face of this evidence? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you tell me that I'm biased. I told you that a specific edit of yours was biased. The difference between those two points may seem minor, but it's crucial. I've left untouched plenty of edits of yours that clearly flowed from your pro-McCain bias. An ardent McCain partisan is allowed to edit Wikipedia. As long as the edit itself comports with Wikipedia principles, including NPOV, then the bias of its author is immaterial. JamesMLane t c 19:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how being specific is biased and your cherry picking of that quote without attribution is not biased. There is one simple question to answer, when and where did McCain make that comment? If you cannot answer it then you have no case for your reason for non-inclusion. Additionally, what is so POV about simply repeating what the WP said? I am not taking it out of context in any manner. Arzel (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that "being specific" at this level of detail is not our normal practice. We have many quotations and paraphrases from McCain in this article that don't include the date, time, place, nature of audience, color of tie McCain was wearing at the time, etc. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book, so we can't put in every detail that's in the source material. That's what the hyperlink is for. JamesMLane t c 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That is all fine and dandy when you are using actual quotes, but here you are paraphrasing a paraphrase. I think the reader has the right to know that WP is paraphrasing a second-hand account. Do you know exactly what McCain said? No, you don't. I have done alot of checking on this, and I can't find a single other mention of him saying this anywhere. Arzel (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

changes in posistions

is it appropriate to have a seperate, short table listing changes in posistion ? eg, from anti to pro bush tax cut, from pro deregulation for economy and health care to pro regulation, from Falwell is agent of intolerance to not, etc. This is not exactly a political position, but it seems relevant - sort of meta political posistions.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Each section describes the positions on a given topic, generally in chronological order. Readers can decide for themselves if the positions have changed and why. What you are advocating would be unworkable. For example, McCain would say each of his votes on tax cuts has had its own rationale at that time, and they are consistent overall. It's up to the reader to decide whether this is reasonably true or a heap of malarkey. If the table presented the tax cuts votes as just contradictions without their rationales, it would be oversimplistic. If the table added the rationales, it would quickly become very unwieldy and no improvement over what we have now. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should a 2004 yes/no survey be included in the free trade section

I feel strongly that it doesn't warrant inclusion. We establish that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements. That's all that needs said. The inclusion of a non-elaborated yes/no survey establishes an NPOV situation in which there is contextual bias against McCain--it'd be comparable to if we included in an anti-death penalty politician, "xyz opposes the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden." By establishing that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements for ANY reason, this survey is a moot point at best. Trilemma (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. McCain was asked a specific and important question, about including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements, and he gave his answer. Our article quotes the question and the answer verbatim (noting that they are from 2004; not noting that a 2008 update is unavailable because in 2008 McCain refused to answer the question). Trilemma persists in assuming, utterly without support, that the issue arises only in the context of renegotiation of trade agreements. Trilemma's view is, "The specific 2004 survey appears to be in regards to proposed renegotiations of NAFTA and other trade agreements." That interpretation is fanciful. The cited source doesn't contain the word "renegotiation" or any of its variants. In the real world the question of labor and environmental protection is actually raised in the context of whether to grant initial approval to a trade agreement. See, for example, this letter from environmentalists urging rejection of the proposed U.S. - Columbia Free Trade Agreement ("Despite the inclusion of some essential environmental and labor safeguards, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement none-the-less contains provisions that encourage the relocation of industry in pursuit of the least stringent environmental and social standards and continues to prioritize the rights of private corporations over the public good."). McCain's express disagreement with this standard for evaluating proposed FTA's is part of his position and merits inclusion. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support thoroughly, as equivalent to standard procedure at political positions of Ron Paul. Quoting question and answer exactly is pretty much the only way to give correct context, and that is done; "he declined to answer in 2008" may also be added. As an inclusionist, I think that during the campaign this article should be a catchall for any reasonable statements of position because each is nuanced differently (excluding indiscriminately collected info, of course, which this is very probably not). The allegedly stronger statement does not require exclusion of the nuanced statement; it may be culled in a well-balanced trim of all sections, but certainly not as a separate RfC. To argue that one moots the other is to apply a weighting argument which might work in the bio but has very very little utility in the positions article; and there is no clear evidence one does moot the other. JJB 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid when possible. The current article text reads: In 2004, when McCain was asked, "Should trade agreements include provisions to address environmental concerns and to protect workers' rights?", he answered, "No."[87] This text doesn't make clear that the context was a written survey in which a one-word yes or no answer was required. That's different from if he said this in an interview and was so adamant about his response that he didn't follow it up with any further explanation. He had been able to give a longer response in the survey, the answer might have been 'Usually not, but there might be exceptions on a case-by-case basis' or something like that. That's why forced short responses of this kind should be avoided when possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. McCain wasn't strictly confined to "a one-word yes or no answer". If you look at the cited source, you'll see that each section of the survey, including the cited section on "International Trade", concluded with an open-ended invitation to the candidate to expound "Other or expanded principles". McCain used this option several times to provide the kind of nuance you mention. For example, in the "National Security Issues" section, he answered "Yes" to the question about pre-emptive strikes, but then took advantage of the "Other or expanded principles" question to add, "Pre-emptive strikes should be evaluated on a case by case basis depending on the severity of the threat". He chose not to make any such elaboration with regard to his opposition to including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements. JamesMLane t c 02:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• OUTSIDE OPINION Support inclusion. The article currently states the question verbatim; we're presenting the fact. Contrary to the initial statement of the RfC, we're not making hypothetical scenarios. If we were, that would be a problem, but as it is, it's factual. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Sounds like McCain had a chance to explain himself and chose not to. I think the sentence should be written more specifically. Too many statistics or political responses are thrown around without explanation of the way they were obtained. I suggest including the response but also that the survey is yes/no with the option of expanding further. Basically just explain everything that has been said here. AzureFury (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion -- note on general grounds that McCain opposes renegotiating free trade agreements; if you must mention the question, fairness demands a recounting of the context, specifically, that it was a yes/no survey. There are rare politicians who don't attach detailed 35-point caveats and explanations to every yes/no question; this should not be viewed as license to portray their reply in the most negative light possible. RayAYang (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH says we can't edit based on what we think he opposes. AzureFury (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Wiretap Provision

Trilemma decided that McCain's position on wiretapping did not warrant inclusion and has insisted on its deletion. It seems to me that since the preceding paragraph mentions amendments to the bill which might potentially be opposed to wiretapping, inclusion can be based simply on clarity. In addition, wiretapping is an extremely controvesial issue, thus making it trivially notable. AzureFury (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What I decided is that the paragraph-long explanation does not warrant inclusion. Not every bill warrants a broad explanation. Furthermore, it appears that the paragraph was copied wholesale from a site, as it reads like a talking point. One of our goals is to be concise. My edit is aimed at that. Trilemma (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE says our goal is not to be concise, especially on such high profile issues. Where is the paragraph copied from? AzureFury (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to track down where it's copied from; either the editor who initially added it has no clue about sentence construction, or was copying verbatim from talking points. And, the secondary wiretapping measure is not a high profile issue. Please prove that it is. Do you have significant coverage on major news networks or newspapers? This is an issue dominant on the left-wing netroots, not the mainstream news, and it's receiving undue weight. Trilemma (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Waste Transportation

I removed the comment about his comment regarding Nuclear Waste Transportation for a few reasons. One the source is The Sierra Club, which should not qualify as a RS. They are a very biased extremist group and in no way could be considered to be neutral. Additionally, if you go and actually listen to the video, the connection that the Sierra Club makes regarding the question is marginal at best. It appears that McCain is not even answering the question which the reporter appears to be asking. The reporter as if he would be comfortable with nuclear waste be transported through Arizona, through Pheonix, to which he replies "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe, and again, we have two options here...." , but the way it cuts back to McCain it appears almost like he is answering a different question, I suspect the video may have been edited. In any case, The Sierra Club doing OR on a YouTube video is no better than some random editor doing the same thing. Thus this fails WP:RS WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Additionally, The Sierra Club is actively campainging against McCain. Arzel (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To call the Sierra Club "extremist" in the context of WP:RS is ludicrous. Neutrality of a source isn't required. In any event, the Sierra Club statement links to a video of McCain making the comment. If you think that was an actor portraying McCain, provide some evidence. Your personal suspicion that the video was edited is irrelevant for this purpose. I don't understand your interpretation of the video, but if some prominent spokesperson has articulated that interpretation, or has argued that the video was edited, feel free to include that point, with a citation. Finally, to say that a prominent outside source is "doing OR" is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NOR.

Given that, AFAIK, there is no good-faith dispute whatsoever that McCain actually said this, the passage I wrote is perfectly acceptable. Nevertheless, in an attempt to avoid another edit war, I'll reword it to make it clear that this statement is advanced by the Sierra Club. I think that the McCain campaign responded by attacking Obama but not by denying the quotation. If so, perhaps we should include that as well, as it's additional evidence (by omission) that the quotation is accurate. (Of course, that elaboration would be unnecessary if we followed the sensible course of stating the fact about which there's no good-faith dispute.) JamesMLane t c 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement cannot be included per WP:WEIGHT. Do you have evidence that this statement was given coverage by many reliable sources? This article doesn't purport to present the answer to every question McCain has ever been asked, and cherry picking this one is undue weight. Oren0 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

James, I didn't say it was an actor, I said that it looks like the video was edited. Regardless, if YouTube cannont be used as a source, then why would the Sierra Club simply commenting on the YouTube video be a reliable source?...from the source you listed they didn't do any fact finding or clarrification of this issue, and the source of the video wasn't the station, just some guy that uploaded it to the internet. Additionally, Verifiability and Neutrality go hand and hand. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean is passes neutrality. I've noticed that you have done this a few times now, presenting a fact from a biased source without attribuation. Finally, do you even know what question he supposedly answered? The reporter asked first about Arizona and then Phoneix, but review of the video indicates that McCain would have to be referring to the second question, but even then his answer doesn't make sense "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe..." What can be made safe? Transportation of NW?...If it can why would he say no? Transportation in general to Yucca Mountain?...That makes more sense, but it is not clear. I think if you can get past your admitted right-wing bias, you will see that this fails on a number of levels. Arzel (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sierra Club press release was picked up by some general media sources, such as YubaNet.com ([33]) and The Daily Kenoshan ([34]); by environment-oriented sources, including a political reporter for Grist ([35]) and a writer for Treehugger, another environmental website ([36]); by WisPolitics.com ([37]), which appears to be a neutral site devoted to political news; and by some Democratic Party sites, such as in Ohio ([38]) and the National Jewish Democratic Council ([39]). Without specific reference to the Sierra Club press release, the Obama campaign included the McCain clip in an ad, which was covered by CBS News ([40]) in a story that included a link to the clip, so if you think there's a conspiracy afoot to edit the tape so as to make McCain look stupid, you'd have to think that CBS is in on it, too. JamesMLane t c 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're still not addressing the core issue, which is due weight. The fact that you're pointing to Yubanet and The Daily Kenoshan as sources that "picked up" this story indicates to me that it was likely not widely reported (I also believe this because I've never heard of this until now). Unless you can demonstrate that this was reported in the mainsteam media (not by partisan groups, small town newspapers, and blogs) then it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT and therefore doesn't merit inclusion imo. Oren0 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now added links to CBS News and The New York Times. There was an AP story that was published by, among others, Forbes ([41]), the Houston Chronicle ([42]), Salon ([43]), and that well-known bastion of left-wing extremism, Fox News ([44]). If I were to keep Googling I'm sure I could give you plenty more such sources. JamesMLane t c 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A transcript of an Obama ad in and of itself lends no additional weight to the underlying quote as a McCain policy. The question isn't who reported Obama's ad, the question is who reported the original quote, specifically as a relevant position of McCain. Oren0 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of no basis in Wikipedia policy for such a restriction. The purpose of the article is to provide information to readers who want to know about McCain's political positions. Presumably, some of his positions are on subjects of such limited interest that there'd be no point in including them here. This topic, however, is now being widely reported, more so than many of the other positions elucidated in this article. JamesMLane t c 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The basis is the core policies of WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and common sense. The sources you've provided only show that Obama has attacked McCain for a certain position. They don't show that anyone is reporting this as an important or relevant position of McCain. If indeed the topic "is being widely reported" as a defining/important/notable position of McCain then it would merit inclusion but I haven't seen any source claiming this. Oren0 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

These two quotes are from Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

WP:UNDUE says include. To say that the video is editted is WP:OR, and can not contribute to our decision of whether or not to include these statements. Accusations are trivially verifiable, so WP:VERIFY is not an issue here, only perhaps notability. Since the Obama campaign has also made these allegations, the comments are indeed notable. They should be included. AzureFury (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed that the video was edited. And to say that any accusation made in a campaign ad instantly becomes a notable position of the other party is ludicrous. I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page? Of course not. Notability must be demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which the McCain quote has not gotten. Oren0 (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I stated that the video appeared to be edited. In anycase Verfiability and Neutrality go hand in hand. Just because some can be verified does not mean that it passes neutrality. This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral, not to mention a whole host of other problems like weight and the fact that the whole basis is a YouTube video which is not a reliable source. The fact that Obama and others are using the video to attack McCain does not make the video a reliable source per common sense. Arzel (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You like to answer your own questions don't you? Again, there is a difference between the present situation and your wanna-be analogy. In this case we have solid proof of McCain making these statements. If you don't dispute the accuracy of the video then we don't need attribution to the Sierra Club or Obama campaign. Regarding notability, perhaps you missed the two paragraphs by James listing source after source? AzureFury (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, does McCain dispute the accuracy of the video? Unless he does then your claim that the video is editted is baseless. See above for my refutation of weight issues. WP:PRESERVE says that WP:NPOV does not justify deletion of facts that are fairly weighted. AzureFury (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When the scale is tipped so far over that one end is resting on the ground, I would hardly consider that to be fairly weighted. Neutrality is a core policy, and trumps preserve with minority views. You have one marginal source which is simply parroting a YouTube video, and Obama using it to attack McCain, and you want to use it to state an official McCain position? As I stated earlier McCain's answer was not clear. If you listen to the video it his position can only be obtained by interpreting what he is saying. The Obama camp and The Sierra Club are doing the same thing. If you can not see the partisan bias in this then I don't know what else to tell you. Even if one does not dispute the video, the video itself cannot be used because it is not a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is youtube not a reliable source? If videos are satisfactory to sentence someone to death, then they are satisfactory to quote someone.

"Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Phoenix on its way to Yucca Mountain?"

"No I would not." - McCain

Explain to me a contrary interpretation derived from that quote. If need be we can quote him directly. AzureFury (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) "Source after source?" Every source I see above is one or more of: inherently partisan (democratic party, Sierra Club, etc), an op-ed (not RS, see Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations), or only reporting a transcript of an Obama ad (lends no weight to this being a position of McCain). Oren0 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability, No Original Research and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections

Notability does not apply here. AzureFury (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just Wikilawyering. I'm using the dictionary definition of notability rather than the Wikipedia one. This page can't list everything McCain has ever said. Therefore, we choose the most notable (read: most covered by reliable sources) positions to list here. There has been no evidence that this quote has been covered in reliable sources at all (making WP:V an additional concern), much less covered enough to warrant mention here. Even if it had been covered, it's still unclear that this is a position. If it was demonstrated that this comment demonstrated significant controversy, keeping in mind that this hasn't been demonstrated yet, it would be a better fit at Cultural and political image of John McCain because it's not a position. Oren0 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is more appropriate in Wikipedia than Lawyerlawyering. You say only thing covered in objective (? I assume this is what you mean by reliable) sources is worth mentioning. I say it isn't. You say this isn't one of his most notable positions. I say it's more important than his position on transportation. You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it. You say it's not a position. I say it is. We use Wiki policies when we can't agree. Welp, we can't agree. AzureFury (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When I say "objective," I mean not the democratic party, Obama's ads, partisan groups, etc. You say it's important; our opinions don't matter. If it was important (not his policy on nuclear energy in general, his policy on waste in Arizona specifically), you'd think that it would be mentioned often in reliable sources. As it stands, not one source meeting WP:RS has been presented for this. Let's contrast that with transportation; the current page lists three sources (and I could certainly present dozens more). That's how we measure importance, and for this issue the sources objectively don't stack up. Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it." - No, that's not how it works. There is no reason to include it as it wasn't reported in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is "ya huh." AzureFury (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The pretexts for trying to censor this information are becoming very threadbare.

• Oren0 wrote, "I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page?" That depends on two specific issues involved, importance and verifiability:

Importance. If McCain makes a big deal about an issue, that fact would indeed affect its importance. A McCain attack might justify including something on Obama's page that otherwise would be too minor. Each campaign has some ability to set the agenda and to influence what's important.

Verifiability. Here's the clear difference between the two cases. The question is whether there's a good-faith dispute about what the candidate's position is. In the case you mention, there is a dispute. The Obama campaign has released a video setting forth why the McCain ad is a lie. You can watch it here. You'll see that the Obama campaign has specifically and in great detail disputed the accuracy of McCain's characterization of Obama's position. Therefore, we would not report McCain's characterization as if it were fact. By contrast, as I pointed out above, the McCain campaign has not denied that McCain made the statements attributed to him by the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign. And it's not because McCain's staffers have been too busy hunting for good pictures of Britney Spears and so haven't had time to respond to the Obama ad -- the McCain campaign did respond to the ad, going negative on Obama as per usual and distorting his record as per usual, but didn't dispute the accuracy of the video clip or of the quotation. The revised passage I wrote for our article includes the McCain campaign's response, cited to this article, although my edit charitably avoids pointing out that the McCain response was itself a distortion of Obama's position.

• It was Arzel who suggested, entirely without evidence, that the video might have been edited. I think we're entitled to assume that CBS wouldn't have linked to it without checking that. I think we're entitled to further assume that, if it had been edited, the McCain campaign would have jumped to point that out, instead of (as noted immediately above) responding to the Obama ad without disputing the accuracy of the clip.
• For these reasons, Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling. We have well-known organizations asserting that McCain said it. We have a video of McCain saying it. We have CBS News using the video, strongly suggesting that it hasn't been tinkered with. We have the Obama campaign using the video in an ad and the McCain campaign responding to the ad without contesting the accuracy of the quotation. No reasonable person could doubt that McCain actually said this. What kind of verifiability do you think is needed?
• Oren0 says there's no source claiming that this is an important position of McCain's. So what? We need a source for the point that McCain actually said it. We do not need any kind of outside source saying, in effect, "McCain's position on transportation of nuclear waste is important enough to be covered in Wikipedia." That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article.
• Arzel writes, "This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral...." That's not the standard set by NPOV. We write neutrally. That the facts could be used or are being used in a partisan attack doesn't mean that we have to omit those facts. For example, McCain favors offshore drilling, Obama opposes it, and both those facts are being used in partisan attacks over the issue. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't say "McCain favors offshore drilling and tries to bamboozle the voters into thinking that would reduce gas prices anytime soon" or "Obama opposes offshore drilling and therefore cripples the goal of achieving American energy independence". Nevertheless, the existence of these partisan attacks doesn't mean that we omit the issue from Wikipedia. It means that we simply state the facts, maintaining a neutral tone, and let the chips fall where they may.
• Moreover, the attack on the neutrality of McCain's critics is completely beside the point. It would arguably be relevant if there were a good-faith dispute about what McCain actually said (for example, at some unrecorded closed-door meeting), but there is no such dispute. Nevertheless, in an effort to reach a compromise, I treated this subject as if someone had raised some serious question about the tape being edited or about McCain's comments needing interpretation. I reworded the passage to say that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign had "charged" that McCain said what he said. That's a considerable concession because it will lead some careless readers to think that this indisputable fact may be in dispute. At any rate, the revised wording should dispose of this spurious "neutrality" argument. WP:NPOV says that we can, indeed should, report facts about opinions. It's a fact, supported by citations, that the named sources hold the opinion that McCain said this. If some prominent spokesperson expresses the opinion that McCain didn't say it, we should of course report that too. I've read quite a bit about this issue by now, though, and the only such comment that I've seen is Arzel's.

I surely hope we don't have to go to RfC over this. It seems absurd that we have to spend this much effort to get a simple, straightforward, undisputed fact into Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems that RfC is where this is going. It's hard to argue with such fundamental misunderstandings of policy.

• "Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling." - Wikipedia isn't about what's true. It's about what is verifiable and attributable to reliable sources. This is neither.
• "Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is 'ya huh.'" - What are you talking about? Reliable sources are needed to report anything. This is especially true in a WP:BLP page such as this one. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
• "That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article." - Maybe it's clear to you. Maybe if you'd link some of this mysterious "coverage" I'd tend to agree with you. As it stands, you haven't shown one reliable source discussing this quote directly. Assuming we were starting with something attributable (which hasn't been demonstrated yet), it'd still have to be covered in multiple sources to make the cut here, where we're boiling hundreds of statements on an issue down to three sentence paragraphs. You claim, with no evidence to back it up, that this is significant in any way. In order to make that claim, you need sources. I feel like a broken record here, but without attributable and reliable sources this just can't be added. Oren0 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain said it. Are you saying McCain is not a reliable source on quotes by McCain? Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance. AzureFury (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The point about verifiability is that we have a clip of McCain saying it, plus multiple sources saying he said it, plus no source whatsoever denying that he said it or even raising a serious question. That satisfies WP:V. It's not like I'm claiming I was in an elevator with McCain and heard him say it. The sources we rely on are all available to anyone with web access. Beyond that, though, the compromise wording states that certain anti-McCain sources have "charged" that he said it. That's a fact about opinions and it's clearly verifiable. A reader may conclude that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign are all lying through their teeth. Well, we've given the verifiable facts that will let each reader make that judgment for him/herself.

Yes, reliable sources are needed "to report anything", meaning that there must be a reliable source for each factual assertion in the article. The policy does not mean that there must be a reliable source for the correctness of the editorial judgment we exercise. I don't think I've seen a single item in this article backed up by a reliable source saying "This is important enough to be in the Wikipedia article." To take another example, there's also no reliable source saying that it's correct to begin the article with McCain's self-serving defense against the charge that he's a flip-flopping panderer. I have doubts about whether that's appropriate, but that's a matter of judgment, not of sourcing. It's obvious that WP:RS is met by the source confirming that he said it. I would never attack that paragraph by demanding a reliable source for the proposition that what he said should begin our article. I'm confident that no such source could be provided. That's not an argument for deleting the paragraph, though. (edit conflict: While I was writing the long explanation in this paragraph, AzureFury wrote, "Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance." I agree.)

I take you to be conceding that there's extensive coverage about McCain and the transport of nuclear waste. Nevertheless, you're discounting all that coverage simply because it was prompted by the Obama ad. That's a completely artificial distinction. Obviously, this position of McCain's has become more important because Obama has jumped on it. That's why McCain's remark about transporting waste through Arizona can now be found at the websites of Forbes, Fox News, The New York Times, and the like, although two months ago it couldn't be. So what? The importance of things changes as the campaign develops. It's like Terri Schiavo -- Wikipedia doesn't cover every decision to take an individual patient off life support, but the Republicans in Congress made a lot of noise about that case, so it's extensively covered here. JamesMLane t c 04:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain Iran comment, part II

Azurefury, we had a vote. We settled that the comment was not worth including. You then persisted with attempts at fitting it in with alternative phrasings. That doesn't work. The issue has been decided. Continuing to push something that a roll call determined to be not worth including is close to vandalism. Trilemma (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you're in a time warp. More than a month ago, there was an RfC. A majority of the respondents (not a consensus, contrary to your incessantly reiterated assertion) opposed the version that quoted verbatim what McCain said.

That didn't end the matter, though. On Wikipedia, nothing like this is cast in stone even when there is a consensus, but here there wasn't. Therefore, editors working in good faith to improve the article moved on from the RfC to discuss alternatives that might reach or at least approach consensus. The result was a compromise version that was much shorter, that did not quote the comment (which would be my preference and the preference of several other editors) but instead merely referred to its existence, and which also gave McCain's take on what he had in mind.

You appear to be the only active editor who disagrees with this compromise. Note the comments in the earlier thread by Jaysweet and Blaxthos, both of whom opposed the original version but didn't think that the RfC somehow barred this compromise. Under these circumstances, for you to keep reverting, with an ES like "please either seek arbitration or leave the consensus be", has reached the point of being disruptive.

You've been told before that ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes. I restored the compromise language, and if you think that I'm the one who's being disruptive, then that accusation against me (a conduct issue) is the type that ArbCom will hear. You can begin a proceeding against me if you choose. ArbCom will then examine the conduct of all the involved editors. JamesMLane t c 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the previous discussion I think it is clear that it does not belong in this article. It is not a stated position and only conjecture can come to that conclusion. Furthermore is it purely a partisan issue, and any inclusion would be undue weight as it only serves to obfuscate McCain's position on Iran. It is not the job of this article to interpret McCain's positions on anything, only to summarize what those positions are in a neutral manner. To introduce phrasing which would attempt to define McCain's position on anything would be original research and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the conclusion we reached. So far as I can tell, two editors are persisting in the face of the decided verdict, trying to insert something that is clearly not worthy of inclusion. And James, I don't need to accuse you of disruptive edits, as your user page declares your status as a POV warrior: "Biased against the right wing and the parapsychology/quackery mindset."Trilemma (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, it is clear to you that it doesn't belong. It is clear to me that it should be quoted in full. Neither of us gets to impose our unilateral vision, however clear.

Yes, but my vision is based upon WP policies of OR and Undue Weight, which trump any vision. Arzel (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are not self-executing. Our governance method is that the editors working on a particular article try to determine how the policies apply to particular issues. Our governance method is not that one editor can proclaim his or her view to be based upon policies, at which point all other editors must yield to The Wisdom Of Arzel. I believe that the omission of this widely publicized incident would constitute a whitewashing of McCain, trying to help him by censoring facts that make him look bad, and would therefore violate the NPOV policy. The NPOV policy trumps your individual vision.

You see how that works? I can't shut you up just by invoking a policy. My own interpretation of the policy isn't entitled to automatic deference any more than yours is. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you just keep on saying things like "the decided verdict". You completely ignored what I wrote on that subject, so I won't bother repeating it. As for my discussion of my biases on my user page, you're hardly the first right-wing POV warrior to completely misinterpret it. That your characterization is false is quite obvious to anyone who reads my page. JamesMLane t c 19:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Namecalling really isn't helpful. Just because you proudly pronounce yourself biased doesn't mean that other editors would be flattered to be called POV warriors. Oren0 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an initial assumption, not a lifelong guarantee. I've seen enough of Trilemma's edits that I'm comfortable with my characterization of them. There's a huge difference between having (and admitting) a bias, on the one hand, and editing as a POV warrior to push your bias in violation of Wikipedia's policies, on the other hand. I'm in the former category but not the latter. I'm sorry if I didn't make that distinction clear.

Also, I do not "proudly" pronounce my bias. Maybe "resignedly" would be a better word; I'm recognizing that non one (including myself) is completely impartial. Part of my amusement at the comments elicited by my user page is the recurrent suggestion from right-wingers that, because I have opinions, I shouldn't edit political articles. Their implicit assertion is that as long as they don't admit to a bias, they don't have any. I don't accept that logic. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor whose only contributions to this page are substantial contentious deletions is in no position to comment on bias. Needless to say, I agree with everything James has said. Most people who cared enough to check back on the page to see the result of the RfC were satisfied with the compromise. The quote is not included. Inclusion of a reference does not conflict with the survey done previously. AzureFury (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

James, just because I have gone to the trouble of trying to restore neutrality in the face of your continued POV warriorism (per the doctrine you lay out on your user page) doesn't mean that I am a POV warrior. I realize that a common technique of POV warriors is to declare anyone not sharing their philosophy of simply being a POV warrior on the other end of the political spectrum, but that's not going to fly here. From your contentious, partisan editing, to your unsubstantiated slander, to your restoration of a line we had clearly established, through a roll call, that doesn't belong, you are close to being reported to wikiquette or elsewhere. We established the line doesn't go in. Two editors' persistence does NOT circumvent the clear majority opinion. Trilemma (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, I have already corrected Oren0 on this point -- see the latter part of this edit. Your assertion that I lay out a doctrine of continued POV warriorism does not accurately characterize my user page. Please do not continue repeating this false statement. You are, of course, free to hold whatever opinion you like of my edits, as I am free to evaluate yours. On that score, I would love it if you would report this in some fashion that would bring in more uninvolved editors to comment on my conduct and on yours. (I'm not familiar with this idea of reporting "to wikiquette" but if you can find a place to make such a report, go for it -- you have my blessing.) I would also love it if editors familiar with Wikipedia practices would comment to both of us on your assertion that a majority vote in one particular survey "established" that a line wouldn't go in and thereby also "established" that it couldn't even be mentioned, let alone included, and "established" these points in perpetuity. You adhere strongly to that interpretation and reiterate it at every opportunity. I believe that that interpretation is indefensible. One of us is greatly in need of enlightenment. JamesMLane t c 14:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a lot more than two editors and you know it. Every editor except you still discussing it was satisfied. AzureFury (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "aap-08" :
  • {{cite book | title = ''Almanac of American Politics (2008)'' | author = Barone, Michael and Cohen, Richard | publisher = National Journal | date=2008 | page = 95}}
  • {{cite book | title =[[The Almanac of American Politics]] | edition=2008 | last=Barone | first=Michael | authorlink=Michael Barone (pundit) | coauthors=[[Richard E. Cohen|Cohen, Richard E.]] | publisher = [[National Journal]] |location= Washington, D.C. | year=2007 |isbn=0-8923-4117-3}} pp. 95–100.
• "Sweeney" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney}}
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney|publisher=''[[The San Diego Union-Tribune]]''|date=2006-09-11|accessdate=2008-07-01}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed up. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth Control

Ok, so I noticed that someone added:

McCain's pro-life position on abortion, his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade[214], and his position that human life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized has raised concerns[215] that McCain would seek to outlaw the pill and other forms of birth control considered to be abortifacients.

Now, this claim links back to an opinion piece in Time which argues that McCain's certainty on the abortion issue might lead to problems of logical consistency since the BCP might prevent implantation. Nowhere is there a claim that McCain himself believes this; no where is the claim that McCain actually plans to seek outlawing the BCP. The op-ed's claim is that it might create an issue of logical consistency and the dangers of being too blunt in your answers. Thus, I propose that the section either be removed or changed to indicate that no one has actually voiced said concerns, just theoretical comments about potential implications of a position. JEB90 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should stick to things McCain has said. Theoretical extrapolations of what those things might mean if taken to the utmost point of philosophical consistency are pointless; no politician tries to do that, except maybe some hard-core libertarians. The sentence in question should be removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The preceding sentences imply this already. One op-ed is not enough to include as a criticism of McCain's policies. Maybe if a notable democrat says this, we can include it, but until then, the implication is sufficient, I think. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It would still be irrelevant even if a Democrat said the same thing as the Time piece. The point is, politicians don't do "logical consistency". They happily hold opposite and contradictory positions regarding trade with Cuba and China, to pick a well-known example. If McCain says he wants to outlaw X, then report it here. But don't extrapolate outlawing X from positions A and B. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the WP:SYNTH policy, thanks for explaining that. Quoting someone making the interpretation is not a violation of SYNTH. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the thing here, at least to some degree, is that the op-ed doesn't even claim that he does believe it. Just that his views, if taken to an extreme, might someday lead to it. I think that if a notable democrat (or even a notable op-ed writer) claimed that McCain believed these things, it might be worth quoting. JEB90 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article on the pill and abortifacients leads me to believe calling the pill an abortifacients requires citation. It can only be said that some people consider the pill an abortifacient. I'll go along with the change by JEB until better sources are found. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Has McCain spoken expressly to the question of contraception? The piece pointing out the logical implications of his statement to Warren does indeed raise a valid point. I agree with Wasted Time R that McCain isn't always consistent, but if he has expressly addressed this subject one way or the other, that would be worth including. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Conscription"

Isn't it more common to call this the "Draft."? That's what people are going to be looking for (it's what I was looking for just a few minutes ago). Maybe we should change the section name? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Either/or. Note that I've removed most of the section because it doesn't come close to meeting WP:RS (neither a partisan blog nor youtube comes even close to qualifying). As with previous sections, you need reliable sources to demonstrate that these comments have WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, you're just cherrypicking quotes that fit your POV. Oren0 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not debating this with you again. When we have a video of McCain saying it, then it goes in. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should reread the relevant policies. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Especially in a WP:BLP page, we specifically cannot include material that is unpublished in reliable sources. This is doubly true as significant editor consensus has ruled that YouTube is explicity disallowed as a reliable source unless confirmed by other reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The one relevant "policy" you've given is an essay. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to the last paragraph in this section. Why is that persons question notable when it is not even logical? How would the draft even solve the problems that this person was stating? Furthermore it doesn't flow well, it is just hanging out there without any context for why this particular question was important. I would say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information would cover this. Arzel (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Some editors don't seem to grasp the idea that these pages simply cannot list everything the candidates ever say. Nor can they list only quotes cherrypicked by editors to push their POV. These pages must list the relevant major positions based on coverage in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to delete everything except "how do we get Bin Laden without re-instating the draft?" that would be fine with me. I think the reason it's included is to show that the lady was rambling and McCain sweepingly agreed with everything. Some people take this as an edorsement of the draft and some do not. We leave it to the reader to decided. Having her rambling question is supportive of McCain. I don't think you want to delete it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're presenting a false dichotomy. The question isn't "should we include the whole question or just part of the question?" The question is "Is there any evidence that this question is significant enough to be mentioned at all?" To me, the answer is clearly no. Oren0 (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Huge surprise there. To me, the answer is clearly yes. Equally surprising, right? The lead to the section states that McCain's responses have always been ambiguous, thus we take what few quotes we can get. He's given two that liberals think are important. The "I don't disagree" comment was only 4 days ago and it's already overflowing in google hits. Include quotes that conservatives think are important. Include something from his website, I'm sure he's denied he would ever issue a draft there. But don't delete these trivially verifiable facts that are so wildly popular. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If indeed it's "overflowing in Google hits" and they meet WP:RS (ie, not blogs or youtube as you've currently listed and not op-eds either) then cite those and you won't hear any complaints from me. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to argue that a candidate's position on the draft is not a major issue. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'm sure there's a "draft" section on the candidates' websites then. I'm sure lots of sources have covered this. What's a major issue has nothing to do with what you and I think, it has to do with what is covered in sources. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's important because McCain hasn't directly addressed it. If he unequivocally opposed the draft, he would have no problem mentioning it on his campaign site. Since he doesn't (and since his staff has not issued a statement clarifying his comments)... JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that I or AzureFury have covered up quotes where McCain has unequivocally opposed the draft, feel free to add them. Otherwise your claim of "cherrypicking" is baseless. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's someone saying that he said what we already know he said, objectively: [45]. Here's a copy/paste of that story by another organization (they seem to think it's trustworthy): [46] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I hesitate to get into this, I cannot find one mention of this in a reliable source. It's all op-eds, blogs, etc. For what it's worth, I tend to agree with the assessment here [47] that he was answering to the "meat of the question" rather than the exclamation at the end. Still, that's also in a blog. I think that including the sentence definitely violates undue weight but, before we get to that, it's not mentioned in a single reliable source that I can find. JEB90 (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I hadn't seen the Keith Olberman link (which is still op-ed, if you ask me, but seems an accurate representation of the quote). Still, I do feel that the quote does violate undue weight. Particularly once you see the rest of his answer, with the George Washington quote, he was clearly responding to the question as if it were: "unless we fix these problems, we won't have anyone volunteer for the army" and he agreed. But that's just my two cents. JEB90 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My personal guess is that McCain didn't intend to endorse the draft, and was instead just having a senior moment. On that theory, I expected McCain's handlers to issue a statement "clarifying" that he didn't really mean he favored a draft. Had they done so this would be a nonissue -- he didn't pay enough attention to the question, so it was a minor gaffe, not a statement of a political position. In the absence of such a clarification, however, we're left with what McCain said. The YouTube video is a reliable source for the fact that he said it, unless someone wants to claim that some sinister force has hired an actor to pretend to be McCain and to stage a fake town hall meeting. The most accurate way to present it is to report what he said but, for the reason stated by AzureFury, to include the context (that the reference to the draft came at the end of a long, rambling question.)

AFAIK, McCain hasn't answered the substantive question -- does he have any bright ideas for maintaining the armed forces, given the demands he apparently intends to place on them, without resorting to conscription. If he's addressed that topic, we should include his position here. JamesMLane t c 09:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just try responding to a question like that yourself, it is nearly impossible. It is one thing to read it and then form a response, but to hear it and then try to answer what is in reality several different questions is nat easy. As for McCain's plan, he has stated part of it. Offer increasing amounts of education benefits for longer service. Remember he was accused of not being supportive of the military because of that plan.... Arzel (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a December 2007 statement on it, while campaigning for the New Hampshire primary, captured by the Valley News:

McCain has spoken often on the campaign trail about his desire to expand the armed forces. In a recent essay published in the journal Foreign Affairs, he says he would increase the combined size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps from 750,000 to 900,000 troops.

At the same time, McCain says he is opposed to reinstating a national draft. "It would be a terrific mistake," McCain said in an interview, citing, among other problems with forced conscription, the historic ease with which the wealthy and privileged have escaped service. "The all-volunteer force is working, and it's the most professional and best trained and equipped we've ever had."

The Foreign Affairs essay says:

In 1947, the Truman administration launched a massive overhaul of the nation's foreign policy, defense, and intelligence agencies to meet the challenges of the Cold War. Today, we must do the same to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. Our armed forces are seriously overstretched and underresourced. As president, I will increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps from the currently planned level of roughly 750,000 troops to 900,000 troops. Enhancing recruitment will require more resources and will take time, but it must be done as soon as possible.

So his plan is to "enhance recruitment", which generally means better pay, better job training programs, better post-service benefits, sometimes shorter enlistment periods, a bigger recruiter budget, more or better advertising ("Be all you can be"), etc. Not conscription. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Is that clear enough? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add the quotes. I won't whitewash them like some of the McCain supporters on here have done to the quotes that I have added. However, I think it's questionable that McCain wants to "enhance recruitment." He's voted against minimum time periods between deployments and against the Democrats' new GI Bill (as it was too generous). JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. His opposition to the Webb GI bill was on grounds that too many service people would take advantage of it and leave; he wanted an alternative that would promote retention. So he thought his approach would increased overall servicepeople levels. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also added a 1999 NYT bit about how McCain had "mused publicly about reinstating the draft". The more (good) data points, the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think people are reading WAY to much into this. McCain was presented with a long rambling rant about the general state of the military, to which McCain appears to be polite and give basically a non-answer of general agreement with the questioneer that there are current problems within the military. The attempt to parse out the questioneers last sentence as McCain's view on the draft is sysnthesis of material for this section. I am being bold and removing it under undue weight, indiscriminate, and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You realize that if they don't read it here, people will just go to the liberal blogs and op-eds sites for the information, right? They don't include the whole rambling question, frequently. That's why I think it should be included, mostly as a refutation of the rumor. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a little backwards and a very weak reason, by that annalogy we should go and put everything being reported by right wing blog on the Obama page so that people can get it from here instead of the right wing blog. I suspect that people will see it on a liberal blog and then come here and try to add it. Since there are not any RS that talk about it people not in the know already would not even know about it. KO is the only thing remotely close to a RS that has brought it up, but he is already talking to the choir. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We do report most of it on the Obama page, including his supposedly being a Muslim. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. That which has been covered extensively by RS's is, but blog information is not. This is clearly an attempt to lead the reader to believe that McCain is in favour of the Draft when it is not clear that this was his intent. Common sense should dictate, not partisan beliefs. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What language is attempting to lead the reader? JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of any other language. Only one conclusion can be made, thus the intent is clear. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, please cite the policy showing that Countdown with Keith Olbermann is not a reliable source. This is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Under | BLP Sources we have the following section.

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.

KO repeating the same non-reliable source doesn't make it reliable. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Keith Olbermann was using the Youtube video? As an MSNBC anchor, he would surely have access to the raw video. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did I attempt to parse the last sentence? I gave the entire statement and McCain's entire reply, without commentary. It's up to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I said Partisan beliefs, this is being used in a partisan way to try and show that McCain is for the draft when it is not clear. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it being used in a partisan way? It doesn't show anything. It allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My problems with the YouTube video

This just can't be included for the following reasons:

1. YouTube isn't a reliable source. It doesn't meet the threshold of attributability. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." To anyone who's ever been to YouTube, the idea that it meets this bar is laughable. Maybe that's why YouTube is explicitly listed as a non-source at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. Also note that as a WP:BLP page we're held to an even higher standard than normal pages here in regards to sourcing material.
2. There is no context because we don't hear what the question was. Go watch the video. What if the question was: "Do you think the military is strong and would you support a draft if we were simultaneously attacked by Russia and China on American soil?" In that case, any sensible person would say "I'd have to consider a draft." Without the question, we just don't know. That's why we need reliable sources to corroborate the video and show us that it's not out of context.

For these reasons, I believe the material must be removed. Oren0 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR says that primary sources can be used as long as easily verifiable information is all that is presented in the article. Your WP:Reliable_source_examples is an essay. I choose not to adhere to it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the lead to the section includes him saying he would only start a draft in WWIII. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Choose to ignore what you want; the consensus on excluding YouTube as a reliable source is a longstanding and strong one. I was going to post RSN links indicating this until I saw, to my surprise, that you have already taken this there! Wikipedia:RSN#YouTube. Common courtesy would've been to inform us here that you've posted this discussion in another forum. But since the editors there have largely echoed my point that you can't use YouTube in this way, I'm re-removing that section. Oren0 (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary is a joke, right? Let's summarize the position of every person who has responded to you at Wikipedia:RSN#YouTube so far:

• "Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research." - User:Ngchen (against inclusion)
• "It isn't original research as long as one treats it appropriately as a primary source, which is to say that it's used only for objective, descriptive, and uncontroversial claims" - User:Girolamo Savonarola (for inclusion)
• "The problems with You Tube are many...these are the primary reasons why You Tube is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia" - User:Blueboar (against inclusion)
• "Using primary material such as this is fraught with the danger of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and point of view pushing. Find some mainstream media sources that have noted this incident you will be fine, and avoid all the youtube and the primary sourcing problems...The main point is that no, the Youtube video is not a reliable source. Sorry." - User:S1p1 (against inclusion)
• "Ok, I'm telling you, the consensus is going to be that youtube is largely not going to be considered a reliable source, especially on such a contentious issue and such a notable subject. Youtube is the WP:SPS example. there is no compelling reason to add this to an article on a national politician." - User:Protonk (against inclusion)

In what universe is four opposes against one support not a consensus? Oren0 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Initially I was ambivalent to this section, but after viewing the video, it is clearly not a reliable source. The actual question that was asked was not included, thus the context of the answer is not clear. Furthermore it appears to be a personal recording, it was clearly not a reliable newssource as the quality is quite poor (the panning is jerky and shows of low quality). Arzel (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oren, please review 1. Note that it is preceded by 0 and followed by 2. The statement by Girolamo is in support. This was also said by Ngchen, "I would argue that yes, youtube is reliable for what is in the content of a questioned video." Including me, that makes 3 people in support of inclusion. Note that 1 is not the same as 3. You may wish to review 3 as well. Your continued lies are inspiring examples of good faith. Essays do not reflect the consensus of the community, that's why I'm ignoring it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly getting desperate when you're counting someone who says "I would say that the material stays out as original research" as "for inclusion." Counting yourself is a tad disingenuous as well, but that's fine. Counting you and me the count is still 5-2 against at RSN. Adding other editors here, Arzel and JEB90 oppose and JamesMLane and JCDenton2052 support. That makes a grand total of 7 (8 if you count Wasted Time R, who's unclear) -4 opposing. Combine that with the fact that in BLP pages we default to excluding contentious information, and at this point this is a no-brainer.

"Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research." Another lie, this one by omission! You're getting crafty, kudos. Please quote the policy that says the default is exclude undisputed quotes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source hasn't commented on the first video that you've cited. As for the policy you seek, see WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP. Specifically, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion," and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material...Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons". Since you apparently respect nothing less, note that both of these are policies. Oren0 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're calling YouTube a "poor source." That is currently under dispute. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't under dispute. Look through the RSN archives. This comes up a lot; there is wide community consensus that YouTube is unacceptable. Oren0 (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

--->Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard = dispute. Nothing on Wiki is set in stone. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as an outsider looking in (I've never edited this page, and only noticed a dispute because Protonk's talk page is on my watchlist -- I left a comment there on a topic wholly unrelated to this): 1) YouTube has long been recognized by the community as an unreliable source -- there are bots that go around removing even external links to YouTube, and EL has a much lower threshold for acceptability than sources 2) original research can be implicit, and the current inclusion *and phrasing* of this material is an implicit suggestion that McCain now supports a draft or would more readily support a draft than he's previously suggested. I suggest editors here ditch the YouTube ref -- it's a primary source, the content of which was covered repeatedly by various outlets -- and rephrase those couple of paragraphs not in terms of what he might have suggested, but instead citing what the professional/critical response was. My two cents. --EEMIV (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the new sources satisfactory? Is the dispute resolved? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, dispute is not resolved. we continue to use interpretation of his answer to an unknown question to extrapolate his views on the draft. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The way it is now, the quote immediately follows "I don't know what would make a draft happen unless we were in an all-out World War III." The natural implication from this ordering is "McCain would consider a draft in WWIII." This is the best case scenario from the perspective of the right. Every single source simply says "when asked about the draft" he said that. The quote does contain important information about his position on the draft. We simply can't delete that one.

How about this, for weight reasons, we condense the "I might consider" quote to a link and cover it fully at the Political Image article. In that case, we have several statements by McCain against the draft and one possibly in favor of it. I think that's fair considering how ambiguous he's been and the fact that he's never really explained where he's going to get the troops to do everything he wants to do if he becomes president. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "I don't disagree" quote to controversial remarks here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. It's not a controversial remark in the sense of the others there. It's McCain making a generic politic response to a long-winded, somewhat incoherent ramble by a citizen at a town hall. It's a big nothing. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, regardless of his actual intentions, a lot of people are taking that as an endorsement of the draft in Iraq. That is the exact definition of a controversy! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's willful misinterpretation for partisan purposes during a campaign. Something else entirely. It's like people wanting to make a big deal out of Obama's "57 states" remark. That's not a controversy either. Just because American political campaigns collectively approach an IQ of zero, doesn't mean we have to also. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama doesn't even have a "controversial statements" section, so you can't use him as a comparison. McCain's comment is trivially notable. Where would you put it? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain's comment is trivial. Have you ever seen town halls? Joe and Jane Citizen get up and unleash all sorts of weird, longwinded, rambling statements or personal complaints. John Politico then has to concoct some sort of response that's respectful without saying anything. This was such a case. Look, this article and this section is the right place to discuss McCain's views on the draft. McCain is a guy who probably has contradictory impulses on this issue: on one hand, he believes in service to a greater cause as a crucial element of national being; on the other, he believes in military professionalism and tradition. The first might cause him to possibly consider draft reinstatement, the second would push back against that. I'm sure if you go back through all his legitimate public statements, you can find some of the first. Indeed, I added the "In 1999, when the U.S. military was experiencing significant recruiting shortfalls, McCain was one of several members of Congress who mused publicly about reinstating the draft" material that's in the article now. Research what and where those musings were, and add that. Or other statements he's made. But this town hall thing is meaningless. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with deleting "I don't disagree" if "I might consider it" stays. Deal? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I would disagree completely -- the "I don't disagree" has been covered by MSNBC and other reliable sources; wasn't the other comment just a youtube video (i.e. a primary source)? There are definitely some synthesis / original research issues if we go inserting unsourced or primary source (i.e. youtube videos not from a reliable source); however statements (especially ones generating controversial or multiple interpretations) from reliable secondary sources should (must) be included. Sorry I haven't followed along completely, but I don't think it's fair to say that inclusion of the material constitutes a "willful misinterpretation" -- controversial statements should be presented with reliably sourced statements, readers should be allowed to value the comments themselves. In no case should wikipedia editors decide what the comments mean, or if readers should be allowed to see them. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have enough reliable sources for both that sourcing is not the issue. I think the only thing left to debate is WP:WEIGHT. The ambiguity of the "I don't disagree" statement is what makes me want to condense it to a link and cover it at controversial comments. Wasted debates the fact that it's controversial. I'm getting too Wiki-sausted too argue. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's misleading to say "I don't disagree" has been covered by MSNBC. The cite isn't to any regular MSNBC news report, but instead to Keith Olbermann's show. That's equivalent to something being on the New York Times op-ed page versus in its regular news section. The same with the other two cites; they are to political opinion blogs. All of these people are in the business of making mountains out of molehills, if it might hurt the other side. That's fine for them, that's their business, but that's not what we do. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What we (as in Wikipedia editors) do not do is decide which criticisms are valid and which are not. We do report controversies when they're reliably sourced and both viewpoints are presented neutrally. I agree that blogs don't belong, however MSNBC certainly is a reliable source, as is Olbermann's show. We're not going to cull a controversy because you think it's not a big deal when it's reliably sourced and neutrally presented. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that Arzel has been bold and deleted the "I don't disagree" remark. Really there was no policy-based argument given, but I'm not going to revert. Looks like this is implied consent to the proposed compromise, and hopefully we the page will remain stable now. I do think this deserves to go into his controversial comments though. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia-Russia Comment

This is the quote from John McCain, and there is no "since the entire war on terror" in it. It must be taken out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLEZ5AZL5BE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeppelin462 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Material from campaign article

Here is some material that was in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. It doesn't belong there, since none of these speeches had much of an impact on the campaign itself. But this may be useful for this article; parked here until unlock occurs. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[snip]

Material has now been merged in to the appropriate places. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Length

I see the article's been tagged for length. Is there anything we can do to make the article shorter? It seems to me that everything is already a summary. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm content with the current length. I have temporary problems with my high-speed connection, so I'm editing on dial-up and really feeling the pain of long articles, but I think trying to shorten this one significantly would be even worse. JamesMLane t c 04:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles like these are supposed to be long. Readers typically look up material in them they are interested in by using the table of contents, not read them top to bottom in one sitting. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with WTR. Happyme22 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Split

Without any consensus to do so, User:Yellowbounder has split the article into a half-dozen different pieces. (And done it badly; the pieces have no leads, backlinks, categories, or references.) It's well-known from looking at readership stats that the further down in the subarticle chain you get, the fewer readers there are, often by a factor of 10. So now many readers will just see the interest group ratings and nothing else. Bleah. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to voice the same concerns as WTR. The issue is threefold: (1) Is the article too long to manage? (2) Is the best solution to split the article? (3) What logical flow will be used to split the content? I haven't seen a real consensus on any of those questions as of yet; WP:BOLD aside, I think the split is premature and does more harm than good -- the split was very poorly executed and the resulting subordinate articles are severely lacking. I strongly support reverting the changes and subsequent debate on the three points I've raised before another split. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see you've restored this article back to its full state. I've redirected all the pieces that were created back to here as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is fine the way it is. The longer the better, because that means more issues have been added (assuming they all remain properly summarized).Chastayo (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Does John McCain support a two-state solution?

Does John McCain support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This point was raised in a number of sources today and it would be great to get clarification. This is a major issue in that both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have supported this policy since 1993. Is John McCain following in their footsteps? --John Bahrain (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sources are cited in this take on things from a PAC: http://www.jstreet.org/campaigns/does-john-mccain-support-a-two-state-solution

--John Bahrain (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This McCain speech doesn't explicitly say so, but the line "The recent talks between the Israeli government and the government led by President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank are encouraging, and the United States should support this effort" kind of suggests it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

the last para of the FP section. Sentence is: Many even argue that McCain's statements, such as "100 years in Iraq," "there will be other wars," and "I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically- elected governments.", approach imperialistic over-tones like that reflected in the PNAC.[92] Many say that this statement is a biased opinion about his policy. Plus the link is an op-ed piece. I am deleting. --Pt1978 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty junky. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I just reverted Pt1978's edit because it didn't have an edit summary without checking here. Let me review the stuff before I undo my undo. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Energy

The sentence that reads "In a June 2008 analysis of McCain's positions, the Los Angeles Times said that "the Arizona senator has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the federal government's role in energy policy."[185]" the source is no longer valid as it is a broken link. I suggest that this be removed unless a new source can be found. JenWSU (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your action was incorrect, and I've restored the material in question. A valid source remains valid regardless of whether it is freely available online or not. If you look at WP:V and WP:RS, you'll see that the most highly-valued sources are books and scholarly journals, and these are usually not freely available online. Newspapers often shuffle their current news articles into their pay archives after a while, which is what happened here. If you really want to check the source, you can pay for LA Times archives access. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and stem cell research

A new editorial discussing this subject can be found here. There is a hot debate about wording this going on at Sarah Palin's talk pages. I'm including this link here in case anyone's interested. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this say regarding McCain's views that isn't already in this article? Wasted Time R (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know, since I haven't worked on this article. I posted the link here as a possible source of interest to those who are working on it. If not, feel free to ignore it. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Financial Deregulation

According to the WP McCain said this. But he has usually reverted to the role of an unabashed deregulator. In 2007, he told a group of bloggers on a conference call that he regretted his vote on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which has been castigated by many executives as too heavy-handed. This was included as a factual statement in the section, but I have a lot of problems with this. One, it doesn't say when in 2007, it doesn't say what group of bloggers, or what conference call. Unless a better source for this statement can be made I find it a little dubious for inclusion here. Arzel (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the Washington Post? Sources don't get much better than that. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I said it was the WP. The problem is that it is a second hand account. It is not in quotes therefore we cannot list it as a quoted statement by McCain. Arzel (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason that publications like The Washington Post are accepted under WP:RS is that we trust a statement when the publication stands behind it. It is frequent -- indeed, nearly universal -- for the media to report information like this without publishing every little detail about the circumstances of the statement. The reporter would have much or all of that information; the reporter would usually be asked about it by an editor or fact checker, and if not asked in this particular case, nevertheless retains a job as a reporter because he or she doesn't make up quotations. It's also frequent for the media to publish, and for Wikipedia to rely on, paraphrases of a public figure's statements. As Arzel says, we can't list it as "a quoted statement" -- which is why I didn't enclose it in quotation marks, as compared with the verbatim quotation later in the subsection.

The Wikipedia standard is to use information like this. We make no exception for presidential candidates. I am restoring the material. JamesMLane t c 01:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying the WP cannot be used, only that that statement cannot be used in this manner. Regardless of how you present it it will read as if McCain made that statement, however it is only a second hand account of what happened. To this point all you have is that the WP reported that, but not that he actually said that. As it is you have some blogger claiming that sometime in 2007 McCain said on a conference call. This is all heresay and with your background you should know that this is not something to rely on. Arzel (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Another article in which McCain, through his aides, claims to still back Sarbanes-Oxley. [48] Arzel (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, Arzel. We don't need to quote McCain to attribute a statement to him. See WP:V. This is a non-issue. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?!? So if someone makes a claim that someone else said then we treat that as gospel unless that person can prove he didn't say it? What kind of logic is that? Arzel (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, McCain doesn't have to "prove" anything. If McCain now says he didn't say it, and the Washington Post says he did, then we can print both assertions. McCain has a press secretary and is capable of asserting his position, including any disagreement he has with the Washington Post. Meanwhile, your edit to "some bloggers claim" is unacceptable. Aside from "claim" being a WP:WTA, you have no evidence for the implication that this is just some bloggers claiming it. Maybe the reporter was in on the call. Maybe someone taped it. Maybe the reporter later confirmed it with enough different participants and/or McCain's office to be satisfied. We don't know. That's the whole point of WP:RS, as I explained above. If some anonymous blogger phoned up the Washington Post and said this happened, the paper probably wouldn't print it, or at most would print it as "one blogger claims...." If the paper prints it as a fact, then we can take it that the provenance -- tape recording, reporter participation, whatever -- satisfied the editors and fact checkers at the Washington Post. Wikipedia is not a news agency and we aren't going to go out and grill people about stuff like this. In fact, if you and Blaxthos and Jimbo and I had all been on the call, and we all heard McCain say something else interesting, but the something else wasn't printed, then we couldn't use it in Wikipedia; even though we would know it to be true, it wouldn't be verifiable per WP:V. That's how an encyclopedia differs from a newspaper. JamesMLane t c 02:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironic that you would quote WTA and violate it at the same time with your "However" statement. You have to attribute this to someone when the actual source is dubious. Arzel (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly not the first person to imply that WP:WTA prohibits the use of "however". If you read it a bit more carefully, however, you'll see that it doesn't. I believe that the language in the current version of this article is consistent with WTA. JamesMLane t c 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the WaPo story to source McCain's thinking about Sarbines-Oxley in 2007. It's quite possible WaPo had a blogger on their staff on the call, so I wouldn't assume it's hearsay. As for "however", I've gotten in arguments about using that word too. I don't mind it, but I think the text would still work even if you took it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WT, even if that was true it is still hearsay. Unless you have an actual citation to back up your claim it is hearsay. In an case I reworded it to summarize completely what the WP reported regarding that section. The reader shouldn't have to read the link to find out how this information supposedly came about. Arzel (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Including this kind of information is contrary to our usual practice. I assume the reason you want such detail in this particular case is that McCain's 2007 position contradicts his current spin, so you want it downplayed as much as possible, and you hope that invoking the word "bloggers" will make it seem comparatively lightweight. To that end, I note that your revision said that McCain "remarked" -- another choice of words that seeks to downplay the statement by conveying the impression that it was just some offhand comment not meant to be taken seriously. I didn't remember "remarked" being in the original and, lo and behold, it isn't. Your zeal for adherence to the source seemed to flag a little here, when it came to a campaign statement that McCain has now flipflopped away from in light of what's currently to his political advantage.

There's still no reason to single out this statement for including the details about the circumstances. I don't want to edit-war over it; I'll support other editors who want to remove this blatant POV-pushing, but, in the meantime, if the stated rationale is to be accurate about what the Post reported, then we might as well just quote the story verbatim. JamesMLane t c 17:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Addendum: The POV language was reverted while I was writing this, so I won't re-add the details. JamesMLane t c 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD) This is a laugh considering your previously stated bias against conservatives. This is not a vote, and my additional information is clearly backed up by the source you provided. You claim I am POV pushing, I claim you are cherry picking this one sentence to make him look like a hypocrite. Either attribute the information correctly or leave out the sentence. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true this is not a vote, but we can't always please everyone. We are supposed to consider the weight of the arguments, not the weight of the numbers. In this case, you seem to be the only person who finds your argument heavier. How can you be so sure of your own objectivity in the face of this evidence? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you tell me that I'm biased. I told you that a specific edit of yours was biased. The difference between those two points may seem minor, but it's crucial. I've left untouched plenty of edits of yours that clearly flowed from your pro-McCain bias. An ardent McCain partisan is allowed to edit Wikipedia. As long as the edit itself comports with Wikipedia principles, including NPOV, then the bias of its author is immaterial. JamesMLane t c 19:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how being specific is biased and your cherry picking of that quote without attribution is not biased. There is one simple question to answer, when and where did McCain make that comment? If you cannot answer it then you have no case for your reason for non-inclusion. Additionally, what is so POV about simply repeating what the WP said? I am not taking it out of context in any manner. Arzel (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that "being specific" at this level of detail is not our normal practice. We have many quotations and paraphrases from McCain in this article that don't include the date, time, place, nature of audience, color of tie McCain was wearing at the time, etc. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book, so we can't put in every detail that's in the source material. That's what the hyperlink is for. JamesMLane t c 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That is all fine and dandy when you are using actual quotes, but here you are paraphrasing a paraphrase. I think the reader has the right to know that WP is paraphrasing a second-hand account. Do you know exactly what McCain said? No, you don't. I have done alot of checking on this, and I can't find a single other mention of him saying this anywhere. Arzel (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

changes in posistions

is it appropriate to have a seperate, short table listing changes in posistion ? eg, from anti to pro bush tax cut, from pro deregulation for economy and health care to pro regulation, from Falwell is agent of intolerance to not, etc. This is not exactly a political position, but it seems relevant - sort of meta political posistions.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Each section describes the positions on a given topic, generally in chronological order. Readers can decide for themselves if the positions have changed and why. What you are advocating would be unworkable. For example, McCain would say each of his votes on tax cuts has had its own rationale at that time, and they are consistent overall. It's up to the reader to decide whether this is reasonably true or a heap of malarkey. If the table presented the tax cuts votes as just contradictions without their rationales, it would be oversimplistic. If the table added the rationales, it would quickly become very unwieldy and no improvement over what we have now. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should a 2004 yes/no survey be included in the free trade section

I feel strongly that it doesn't warrant inclusion. We establish that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements. That's all that needs said. The inclusion of a non-elaborated yes/no survey establishes an NPOV situation in which there is contextual bias against McCain--it'd be comparable to if we included in an anti-death penalty politician, "xyz opposes the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden." By establishing that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements for ANY reason, this survey is a moot point at best. Trilemma (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. McCain was asked a specific and important question, about including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements, and he gave his answer. Our article quotes the question and the answer verbatim (noting that they are from 2004; not noting that a 2008 update is unavailable because in 2008 McCain refused to answer the question). Trilemma persists in assuming, utterly without support, that the issue arises only in the context of renegotiation of trade agreements. Trilemma's view is, "The specific 2004 survey appears to be in regards to proposed renegotiations of NAFTA and other trade agreements." That interpretation is fanciful. The cited source doesn't contain the word "renegotiation" or any of its variants. In the real world the question of labor and environmental protection is actually raised in the context of whether to grant initial approval to a trade agreement. See, for example, this letter from environmentalists urging rejection of the proposed U.S. - Columbia Free Trade Agreement ("Despite the inclusion of some essential environmental and labor safeguards, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement none-the-less contains provisions that encourage the relocation of industry in pursuit of the least stringent environmental and social standards and continues to prioritize the rights of private corporations over the public good."). McCain's express disagreement with this standard for evaluating proposed FTA's is part of his position and merits inclusion. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support thoroughly, as equivalent to standard procedure at political positions of Ron Paul. Quoting question and answer exactly is pretty much the only way to give correct context, and that is done; "he declined to answer in 2008" may also be added. As an inclusionist, I think that during the campaign this article should be a catchall for any reasonable statements of position because each is nuanced differently (excluding indiscriminately collected info, of course, which this is very probably not). The allegedly stronger statement does not require exclusion of the nuanced statement; it may be culled in a well-balanced trim of all sections, but certainly not as a separate RfC. To argue that one moots the other is to apply a weighting argument which might work in the bio but has very very little utility in the positions article; and there is no clear evidence one does moot the other. JJB 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid when possible. The current article text reads: In 2004, when McCain was asked, "Should trade agreements include provisions to address environmental concerns and to protect workers' rights?", he answered, "No."[87] This text doesn't make clear that the context was a written survey in which a one-word yes or no answer was required. That's different from if he said this in an interview and was so adamant about his response that he didn't follow it up with any further explanation. He had been able to give a longer response in the survey, the answer might have been 'Usually not, but there might be exceptions on a case-by-case basis' or something like that. That's why forced short responses of this kind should be avoided when possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. McCain wasn't strictly confined to "a one-word yes or no answer". If you look at the cited source, you'll see that each section of the survey, including the cited section on "International Trade", concluded with an open-ended invitation to the candidate to expound "Other or expanded principles". McCain used this option several times to provide the kind of nuance you mention. For example, in the "National Security Issues" section, he answered "Yes" to the question about pre-emptive strikes, but then took advantage of the "Other or expanded principles" question to add, "Pre-emptive strikes should be evaluated on a case by case basis depending on the severity of the threat". He chose not to make any such elaboration with regard to his opposition to including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements. JamesMLane t c 02:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• OUTSIDE OPINION Support inclusion. The article currently states the question verbatim; we're presenting the fact. Contrary to the initial statement of the RfC, we're not making hypothetical scenarios. If we were, that would be a problem, but as it is, it's factual. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Sounds like McCain had a chance to explain himself and chose not to. I think the sentence should be written more specifically. Too many statistics or political responses are thrown around without explanation of the way they were obtained. I suggest including the response but also that the survey is yes/no with the option of expanding further. Basically just explain everything that has been said here. AzureFury (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion -- note on general grounds that McCain opposes renegotiating free trade agreements; if you must mention the question, fairness demands a recounting of the context, specifically, that it was a yes/no survey. There are rare politicians who don't attach detailed 35-point caveats and explanations to every yes/no question; this should not be viewed as license to portray their reply in the most negative light possible. RayAYang (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH says we can't edit based on what we think he opposes. AzureFury (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Wiretap Provision

Trilemma decided that McCain's position on wiretapping did not warrant inclusion and has insisted on its deletion. It seems to me that since the preceding paragraph mentions amendments to the bill which might potentially be opposed to wiretapping, inclusion can be based simply on clarity. In addition, wiretapping is an extremely controvesial issue, thus making it trivially notable. AzureFury (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What I decided is that the paragraph-long explanation does not warrant inclusion. Not every bill warrants a broad explanation. Furthermore, it appears that the paragraph was copied wholesale from a site, as it reads like a talking point. One of our goals is to be concise. My edit is aimed at that. Trilemma (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE says our goal is not to be concise, especially on such high profile issues. Where is the paragraph copied from? AzureFury (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to track down where it's copied from; either the editor who initially added it has no clue about sentence construction, or was copying verbatim from talking points. And, the secondary wiretapping measure is not a high profile issue. Please prove that it is. Do you have significant coverage on major news networks or newspapers? This is an issue dominant on the left-wing netroots, not the mainstream news, and it's receiving undue weight. Trilemma (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Waste Transportation

I removed the comment about his comment regarding Nuclear Waste Transportation for a few reasons. One the source is The Sierra Club, which should not qualify as a RS. They are a very biased extremist group and in no way could be considered to be neutral. Additionally, if you go and actually listen to the video, the connection that the Sierra Club makes regarding the question is marginal at best. It appears that McCain is not even answering the question which the reporter appears to be asking. The reporter as if he would be comfortable with nuclear waste be transported through Arizona, through Pheonix, to which he replies "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe, and again, we have two options here...." , but the way it cuts back to McCain it appears almost like he is answering a different question, I suspect the video may have been edited. In any case, The Sierra Club doing OR on a YouTube video is no better than some random editor doing the same thing. Thus this fails WP:RS WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Additionally, The Sierra Club is actively campainging against McCain. Arzel (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To call the Sierra Club "extremist" in the context of WP:RS is ludicrous. Neutrality of a source isn't required. In any event, the Sierra Club statement links to a video of McCain making the comment. If you think that was an actor portraying McCain, provide some evidence. Your personal suspicion that the video was edited is irrelevant for this purpose. I don't understand your interpretation of the video, but if some prominent spokesperson has articulated that interpretation, or has argued that the video was edited, feel free to include that point, with a citation. Finally, to say that a prominent outside source is "doing OR" is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NOR.

Given that, AFAIK, there is no good-faith dispute whatsoever that McCain actually said this, the passage I wrote is perfectly acceptable. Nevertheless, in an attempt to avoid another edit war, I'll reword it to make it clear that this statement is advanced by the Sierra Club. I think that the McCain campaign responded by attacking Obama but not by denying the quotation. If so, perhaps we should include that as well, as it's additional evidence (by omission) that the quotation is accurate. (Of course, that elaboration would be unnecessary if we followed the sensible course of stating the fact about which there's no good-faith dispute.) JamesMLane t c 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement cannot be included per WP:WEIGHT. Do you have evidence that this statement was given coverage by many reliable sources? This article doesn't purport to present the answer to every question McCain has ever been asked, and cherry picking this one is undue weight. Oren0 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

James, I didn't say it was an actor, I said that it looks like the video was edited. Regardless, if YouTube cannont be used as a source, then why would the Sierra Club simply commenting on the YouTube video be a reliable source?...from the source you listed they didn't do any fact finding or clarrification of this issue, and the source of the video wasn't the station, just some guy that uploaded it to the internet. Additionally, Verifiability and Neutrality go hand and hand. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean is passes neutrality. I've noticed that you have done this a few times now, presenting a fact from a biased source without attribuation. Finally, do you even know what question he supposedly answered? The reporter asked first about Arizona and then Phoneix, but review of the video indicates that McCain would have to be referring to the second question, but even then his answer doesn't make sense "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe..." What can be made safe? Transportation of NW?...If it can why would he say no? Transportation in general to Yucca Mountain?...That makes more sense, but it is not clear. I think if you can get past your admitted right-wing bias, you will see that this fails on a number of levels. Arzel (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sierra Club press release was picked up by some general media sources, such as YubaNet.com ([49]) and The Daily Kenoshan ([50]); by environment-oriented sources, including a political reporter for Grist ([51]) and a writer for Treehugger, another environmental website ([52]); by WisPolitics.com ([53]), which appears to be a neutral site devoted to political news; and by some Democratic Party sites, such as in Ohio ([54]) and the National Jewish Democratic Council ([55]). Without specific reference to the Sierra Club press release, the Obama campaign included the McCain clip in an ad, which was covered by CBS News ([56]) in a story that included a link to the clip, so if you think there's a conspiracy afoot to edit the tape so as to make McCain look stupid, you'd have to think that CBS is in on it, too. JamesMLane t c 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're still not addressing the core issue, which is due weight. The fact that you're pointing to Yubanet and The Daily Kenoshan as sources that "picked up" this story indicates to me that it was likely not widely reported (I also believe this because I've never heard of this until now). Unless you can demonstrate that this was reported in the mainsteam media (not by partisan groups, small town newspapers, and blogs) then it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT and therefore doesn't merit inclusion imo. Oren0 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now added links to CBS News and The New York Times. There was an AP story that was published by, among others, Forbes ([57]), the Houston Chronicle ([58]), Salon ([59]), and that well-known bastion of left-wing extremism, Fox News ([60]). If I were to keep Googling I'm sure I could give you plenty more such sources. JamesMLane t c 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A transcript of an Obama ad in and of itself lends no additional weight to the underlying quote as a McCain policy. The question isn't who reported Obama's ad, the question is who reported the original quote, specifically as a relevant position of McCain. Oren0 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of no basis in Wikipedia policy for such a restriction. The purpose of the article is to provide information to readers who want to know about McCain's political positions. Presumably, some of his positions are on subjects of such limited interest that there'd be no point in including them here. This topic, however, is now being widely reported, more so than many of the other positions elucidated in this article. JamesMLane t c 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The basis is the core policies of WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and common sense. The sources you've provided only show that Obama has attacked McCain for a certain position. They don't show that anyone is reporting this as an important or relevant position of McCain. If indeed the topic "is being widely reported" as a defining/important/notable position of McCain then it would merit inclusion but I haven't seen any source claiming this. Oren0 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

These two quotes are from Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

WP:UNDUE says include. To say that the video is editted is WP:OR, and can not contribute to our decision of whether or not to include these statements. Accusations are trivially verifiable, so WP:VERIFY is not an issue here, only perhaps notability. Since the Obama campaign has also made these allegations, the comments are indeed notable. They should be included. AzureFury (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed that the video was edited. And to say that any accusation made in a campaign ad instantly becomes a notable position of the other party is ludicrous. I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page? Of course not. Notability must be demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which the McCain quote has not gotten. Oren0 (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I stated that the video appeared to be edited. In anycase Verfiability and Neutrality go hand in hand. Just because some can be verified does not mean that it passes neutrality. This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral, not to mention a whole host of other problems like weight and the fact that the whole basis is a YouTube video which is not a reliable source. The fact that Obama and others are using the video to attack McCain does not make the video a reliable source per common sense. Arzel (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You like to answer your own questions don't you? Again, there is a difference between the present situation and your wanna-be analogy. In this case we have solid proof of McCain making these statements. If you don't dispute the accuracy of the video then we don't need attribution to the Sierra Club or Obama campaign. Regarding notability, perhaps you missed the two paragraphs by James listing source after source? AzureFury (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, does McCain dispute the accuracy of the video? Unless he does then your claim that the video is editted is baseless. See above for my refutation of weight issues. WP:PRESERVE says that WP:NPOV does not justify deletion of facts that are fairly weighted. AzureFury (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When the scale is tipped so far over that one end is resting on the ground, I would hardly consider that to be fairly weighted. Neutrality is a core policy, and trumps preserve with minority views. You have one marginal source which is simply parroting a YouTube video, and Obama using it to attack McCain, and you want to use it to state an official McCain position? As I stated earlier McCain's answer was not clear. If you listen to the video it his position can only be obtained by interpreting what he is saying. The Obama camp and The Sierra Club are doing the same thing. If you can not see the partisan bias in this then I don't know what else to tell you. Even if one does not dispute the video, the video itself cannot be used because it is not a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is youtube not a reliable source? If videos are satisfactory to sentence someone to death, then they are satisfactory to quote someone.

"Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Phoenix on its way to Yucca Mountain?"

"No I would not." - McCain

Explain to me a contrary interpretation derived from that quote. If need be we can quote him directly. AzureFury (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) "Source after source?" Every source I see above is one or more of: inherently partisan (democratic party, Sierra Club, etc), an op-ed (not RS, see Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations), or only reporting a transcript of an Obama ad (lends no weight to this being a position of McCain). Oren0 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability, No Original Research and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections

Notability does not apply here. AzureFury (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just Wikilawyering. I'm using the dictionary definition of notability rather than the Wikipedia one. This page can't list everything McCain has ever said. Therefore, we choose the most notable (read: most covered by reliable sources) positions to list here. There has been no evidence that this quote has been covered in reliable sources at all (making WP:V an additional concern), much less covered enough to warrant mention here. Even if it had been covered, it's still unclear that this is a position. If it was demonstrated that this comment demonstrated significant controversy, keeping in mind that this hasn't been demonstrated yet, it would be a better fit at Cultural and political image of John McCain because it's not a position. Oren0 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is more appropriate in Wikipedia than Lawyerlawyering. You say only thing covered in objective (? I assume this is what you mean by reliable) sources is worth mentioning. I say it isn't. You say this isn't one of his most notable positions. I say it's more important than his position on transportation. You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it. You say it's not a position. I say it is. We use Wiki policies when we can't agree. Welp, we can't agree. AzureFury (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When I say "objective," I mean not the democratic party, Obama's ads, partisan groups, etc. You say it's important; our opinions don't matter. If it was important (not his policy on nuclear energy in general, his policy on waste in Arizona specifically), you'd think that it would be mentioned often in reliable sources. As it stands, not one source meeting WP:RS has been presented for this. Let's contrast that with transportation; the current page lists three sources (and I could certainly present dozens more). That's how we measure importance, and for this issue the sources objectively don't stack up. Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it." - No, that's not how it works. There is no reason to include it as it wasn't reported in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is "ya huh." AzureFury (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The pretexts for trying to censor this information are becoming very threadbare.

• Oren0 wrote, "I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page?" That depends on two specific issues involved, importance and verifiability:

Importance. If McCain makes a big deal about an issue, that fact would indeed affect its importance. A McCain attack might justify including something on Obama's page that otherwise would be too minor. Each campaign has some ability to set the agenda and to influence what's important.

Verifiability. Here's the clear difference between the two cases. The question is whether there's a good-faith dispute about what the candidate's position is. In the case you mention, there is a dispute. The Obama campaign has released a video setting forth why the McCain ad is a lie. You can watch it here. You'll see that the Obama campaign has specifically and in great detail disputed the accuracy of McCain's characterization of Obama's position. Therefore, we would not report McCain's characterization as if it were fact. By contrast, as I pointed out above, the McCain campaign has not denied that McCain made the statements attributed to him by the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign. And it's not because McCain's staffers have been too busy hunting for good pictures of Britney Spears and so haven't had time to respond to the Obama ad -- the McCain campaign did respond to the ad, going negative on Obama as per usual and distorting his record as per usual, but didn't dispute the accuracy of the video clip or of the quotation. The revised passage I wrote for our article includes the McCain campaign's response, cited to this article, although my edit charitably avoids pointing out that the McCain response was itself a distortion of Obama's position.

• It was Arzel who suggested, entirely without evidence, that the video might have been edited. I think we're entitled to assume that CBS wouldn't have linked to it without checking that. I think we're entitled to further assume that, if it had been edited, the McCain campaign would have jumped to point that out, instead of (as noted immediately above) responding to the Obama ad without disputing the accuracy of the clip.
• For these reasons, Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling. We have well-known organizations asserting that McCain said it. We have a video of McCain saying it. We have CBS News using the video, strongly suggesting that it hasn't been tinkered with. We have the Obama campaign using the video in an ad and the McCain campaign responding to the ad without contesting the accuracy of the quotation. No reasonable person could doubt that McCain actually said this. What kind of verifiability do you think is needed?
• Oren0 says there's no source claiming that this is an important position of McCain's. So what? We need a source for the point that McCain actually said it. We do not need any kind of outside source saying, in effect, "McCain's position on transportation of nuclear waste is important enough to be covered in Wikipedia." That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article.
• Arzel writes, "This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral...." That's not the standard set by NPOV. We write neutrally. That the facts could be used or are being used in a partisan attack doesn't mean that we have to omit those facts. For example, McCain favors offshore drilling, Obama opposes it, and both those facts are being used in partisan attacks over the issue. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't say "McCain favors offshore drilling and tries to bamboozle the voters into thinking that would reduce gas prices anytime soon" or "Obama opposes offshore drilling and therefore cripples the goal of achieving American energy independence". Nevertheless, the existence of these partisan attacks doesn't mean that we omit the issue from Wikipedia. It means that we simply state the facts, maintaining a neutral tone, and let the chips fall where they may.
• Moreover, the attack on the neutrality of McCain's critics is completely beside the point. It would arguably be relevant if there were a good-faith dispute about what McCain actually said (for example, at some unrecorded closed-door meeting), but there is no such dispute. Nevertheless, in an effort to reach a compromise, I treated this subject as if someone had raised some serious question about the tape being edited or about McCain's comments needing interpretation. I reworded the passage to say that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign had "charged" that McCain said what he said. That's a considerable concession because it will lead some careless readers to think that this indisputable fact may be in dispute. At any rate, the revised wording should dispose of this spurious "neutrality" argument. WP:NPOV says that we can, indeed should, report facts about opinions. It's a fact, supported by citations, that the named sources hold the opinion that McCain said this. If some prominent spokesperson expresses the opinion that McCain didn't say it, we should of course report that too. I've read quite a bit about this issue by now, though, and the only such comment that I've seen is Arzel's.

I surely hope we don't have to go to RfC over this. It seems absurd that we have to spend this much effort to get a simple, straightforward, undisputed fact into Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems that RfC is where this is going. It's hard to argue with such fundamental misunderstandings of policy.

• "Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling." - Wikipedia isn't about what's true. It's about what is verifiable and attributable to reliable sources. This is neither.
• "Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is 'ya huh.'" - What are you talking about? Reliable sources are needed to report anything. This is especially true in a WP:BLP page such as this one. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
• "That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article." - Maybe it's clear to you. Maybe if you'd link some of this mysterious "coverage" I'd tend to agree with you. As it stands, you haven't shown one reliable source discussing this quote directly. Assuming we were starting with something attributable (which hasn't been demonstrated yet), it'd still have to be covered in multiple sources to make the cut here, where we're boiling hundreds of statements on an issue down to three sentence paragraphs. You claim, with no evidence to back it up, that this is significant in any way. In order to make that claim, you need sources. I feel like a broken record here, but without attributable and reliable sources this just can't be added. Oren0 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain said it. Are you saying McCain is not a reliable source on quotes by McCain? Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance. AzureFury (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The point about verifiability is that we have a clip of McCain saying it, plus multiple sources saying he said it, plus no source whatsoever denying that he said it or even raising a serious question. That satisfies WP:V. It's not like I'm claiming I was in an elevator with McCain and heard him say it. The sources we rely on are all available to anyone with web access. Beyond that, though, the compromise wording states that certain anti-McCain sources have "charged" that he said it. That's a fact about opinions and it's clearly verifiable. A reader may conclude that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign are all lying through their teeth. Well, we've given the verifiable facts that will let each reader make that judgment for him/herself.

Yes, reliable sources are needed "to report anything", meaning that there must be a reliable source for each factual assertion in the article. The policy does not mean that there must be a reliable source for the correctness of the editorial judgment we exercise. I don't think I've seen a single item in this article backed up by a reliable source saying "This is important enough to be in the Wikipedia article." To take another example, there's also no reliable source saying that it's correct to begin the article with McCain's self-serving defense against the charge that he's a flip-flopping panderer. I have doubts about whether that's appropriate, but that's a matter of judgment, not of sourcing. It's obvious that WP:RS is met by the source confirming that he said it. I would never attack that paragraph by demanding a reliable source for the proposition that what he said should begin our article. I'm confident that no such source could be provided. That's not an argument for deleting the paragraph, though. (edit conflict: While I was writing the long explanation in this paragraph, AzureFury wrote, "Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance." I agree.)

I take you to be conceding that there's extensive coverage about McCain and the transport of nuclear waste. Nevertheless, you're discounting all that coverage simply because it was prompted by the Obama ad. That's a completely artificial distinction. Obviously, this position of McCain's has become more important because Obama has jumped on it. That's why McCain's remark about transporting waste through Arizona can now be found at the websites of Forbes, Fox News, The New York Times, and the like, although two months ago it couldn't be. So what? The importance of things changes as the campaign develops. It's like Terri Schiavo -- Wikipedia doesn't cover every decision to take an individual patient off life support, but the Republicans in Congress made a lot of noise about that case, so it's extensively covered here. JamesMLane t c 04:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain Iran comment, part II

Azurefury, we had a vote. We settled that the comment was not worth including. You then persisted with attempts at fitting it in with alternative phrasings. That doesn't work. The issue has been decided. Continuing to push something that a roll call determined to be not worth including is close to vandalism. Trilemma (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you're in a time warp. More than a month ago, there was an RfC. A majority of the respondents (not a consensus, contrary to your incessantly reiterated assertion) opposed the version that quoted verbatim what McCain said.

That didn't end the matter, though. On Wikipedia, nothing like this is cast in stone even when there is a consensus, but here there wasn't. Therefore, editors working in good faith to improve the article moved on from the RfC to discuss alternatives that might reach or at least approach consensus. The result was a compromise version that was much shorter, that did not quote the comment (which would be my preference and the preference of several other editors) but instead merely referred to its existence, and which also gave McCain's take on what he had in mind.

You appear to be the only active editor who disagrees with this compromise. Note the comments in the earlier thread by Jaysweet and Blaxthos, both of whom opposed the original version but didn't think that the RfC somehow barred this compromise. Under these circumstances, for you to keep reverting, with an ES like "please either seek arbitration or leave the consensus be", has reached the point of being disruptive.

You've been told before that ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes. I restored the compromise language, and if you think that I'm the one who's being disruptive, then that accusation against me (a conduct issue) is the type that ArbCom will hear. You can begin a proceeding against me if you choose. ArbCom will then examine the conduct of all the involved editors. JamesMLane t c 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the previous discussion I think it is clear that it does not belong in this article. It is not a stated position and only conjecture can come to that conclusion. Furthermore is it purely a partisan issue, and any inclusion would be undue weight as it only serves to obfuscate McCain's position on Iran. It is not the job of this article to interpret McCain's positions on anything, only to summarize what those positions are in a neutral manner. To introduce phrasing which would attempt to define McCain's position on anything would be original research and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the conclusion we reached. So far as I can tell, two editors are persisting in the face of the decided verdict, trying to insert something that is clearly not worthy of inclusion. And James, I don't need to accuse you of disruptive edits, as your user page declares your status as a POV warrior: "Biased against the right wing and the parapsychology/quackery mindset."Trilemma (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, it is clear to you that it doesn't belong. It is clear to me that it should be quoted in full. Neither of us gets to impose our unilateral vision, however clear.

Yes, but my vision is based upon WP policies of OR and Undue Weight, which trump any vision. Arzel (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are not self-executing. Our governance method is that the editors working on a particular article try to determine how the policies apply to particular issues. Our governance method is not that one editor can proclaim his or her view to be based upon policies, at which point all other editors must yield to The Wisdom Of Arzel. I believe that the omission of this widely publicized incident would constitute a whitewashing of McCain, trying to help him by censoring facts that make him look bad, and would therefore violate the NPOV policy. The NPOV policy trumps your individual vision.

You see how that works? I can't shut you up just by invoking a policy. My own interpretation of the policy isn't entitled to automatic deference any more than yours is. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you just keep on saying things like "the decided verdict". You completely ignored what I wrote on that subject, so I won't bother repeating it. As for my discussion of my biases on my user page, you're hardly the first right-wing POV warrior to completely misinterpret it. That your characterization is false is quite obvious to anyone who reads my page. JamesMLane t c 19:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Namecalling really isn't helpful. Just because you proudly pronounce yourself biased doesn't mean that other editors would be flattered to be called POV warriors. Oren0 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an initial assumption, not a lifelong guarantee. I've seen enough of Trilemma's edits that I'm comfortable with my characterization of them. There's a huge difference between having (and admitting) a bias, on the one hand, and editing as a POV warrior to push your bias in violation of Wikipedia's policies, on the other hand. I'm in the former category but not the latter. I'm sorry if I didn't make that distinction clear.

Also, I do not "proudly" pronounce my bias. Maybe "resignedly" would be a better word; I'm recognizing that non one (including myself) is completely impartial. Part of my amusement at the comments elicited by my user page is the recurrent suggestion from right-wingers that, because I have opinions, I shouldn't edit political articles. Their implicit assertion is that as long as they don't admit to a bias, they don't have any. I don't accept that logic. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor whose only contributions to this page are substantial contentious deletions is in no position to comment on bias. Needless to say, I agree with everything James has said. Most people who cared enough to check back on the page to see the result of the RfC were satisfied with the compromise. The quote is not included. Inclusion of a reference does not conflict with the survey done previously. AzureFury (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

James, just because I have gone to the trouble of trying to restore neutrality in the face of your continued POV warriorism (per the doctrine you lay out on your user page) doesn't mean that I am a POV warrior. I realize that a common technique of POV warriors is to declare anyone not sharing their philosophy of simply being a POV warrior on the other end of the political spectrum, but that's not going to fly here. From your contentious, partisan editing, to your unsubstantiated slander, to your restoration of a line we had clearly established, through a roll call, that doesn't belong, you are close to being reported to wikiquette or elsewhere. We established the line doesn't go in. Two editors' persistence does NOT circumvent the clear majority opinion. Trilemma (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, I have already corrected Oren0 on this point -- see the latter part of this edit. Your assertion that I lay out a doctrine of continued POV warriorism does not accurately characterize my user page. Please do not continue repeating this false statement. You are, of course, free to hold whatever opinion you like of my edits, as I am free to evaluate yours. On that score, I would love it if you would report this in some fashion that would bring in more uninvolved editors to comment on my conduct and on yours. (I'm not familiar with this idea of reporting "to wikiquette" but if you can find a place to make such a report, go for it -- you have my blessing.) I would also love it if editors familiar with Wikipedia practices would comment to both of us on your assertion that a majority vote in one particular survey "established" that a line wouldn't go in and thereby also "established" that it couldn't even be mentioned, let alone included, and "established" these points in perpetuity. You adhere strongly to that interpretation and reiterate it at every opportunity. I believe that that interpretation is indefensible. One of us is greatly in need of enlightenment. JamesMLane t c 14:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a lot more than two editors and you know it. Every editor except you still discussing it was satisfied. AzureFury (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "aap-08" :
  • {{cite book | title = ''Almanac of American Politics (2008)'' | author = Barone, Michael and Cohen, Richard | publisher = National Journal | date=2008 | page = 95}}
  • {{cite book | title =[[The Almanac of American Politics]] | edition=2008 | last=Barone | first=Michael | authorlink=Michael Barone (pundit) | coauthors=[[Richard E. Cohen|Cohen, Richard E.]] | publisher = [[National Journal]] |location= Washington, D.C. | year=2007 |isbn=0-8923-4117-3}} pp. 95–100.
• "Sweeney" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney}}
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney|publisher=''[[The San Diego Union-Tribune]]''|date=2006-09-11|accessdate=2008-07-01}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed up. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth Control

Ok, so I noticed that someone added:

McCain's pro-life position on abortion, his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade[214], and his position that human life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized has raised concerns[215] that McCain would seek to outlaw the pill and other forms of birth control considered to be abortifacients.

Now, this claim links back to an opinion piece in Time which argues that McCain's certainty on the abortion issue might lead to problems of logical consistency since the BCP might prevent implantation. Nowhere is there a claim that McCain himself believes this; no where is the claim that McCain actually plans to seek outlawing the BCP. The op-ed's claim is that it might create an issue of logical consistency and the dangers of being too blunt in your answers. Thus, I propose that the section either be removed or changed to indicate that no one has actually voiced said concerns, just theoretical comments about potential implications of a position. JEB90 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should stick to things McCain has said. Theoretical extrapolations of what those things might mean if taken to the utmost point of philosophical consistency are pointless; no politician tries to do that, except maybe some hard-core libertarians. The sentence in question should be removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The preceding sentences imply this already. One op-ed is not enough to include as a criticism of McCain's policies. Maybe if a notable democrat says this, we can include it, but until then, the implication is sufficient, I think. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It would still be irrelevant even if a Democrat said the same thing as the Time piece. The point is, politicians don't do "logical consistency". They happily hold opposite and contradictory positions regarding trade with Cuba and China, to pick a well-known example. If McCain says he wants to outlaw X, then report it here. But don't extrapolate outlawing X from positions A and B. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the WP:SYNTH policy, thanks for explaining that. Quoting someone making the interpretation is not a violation of SYNTH. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the thing here, at least to some degree, is that the op-ed doesn't even claim that he does believe it. Just that his views, if taken to an extreme, might someday lead to it. I think that if a notable democrat (or even a notable op-ed writer) claimed that McCain believed these things, it might be worth quoting. JEB90 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article on the pill and abortifacients leads me to believe calling the pill an abortifacients requires citation. It can only be said that some people consider the pill an abortifacient. I'll go along with the change by JEB until better sources are found. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Has McCain spoken expressly to the question of contraception? The piece pointing out the logical implications of his statement to Warren does indeed raise a valid point. I agree with Wasted Time R that McCain isn't always consistent, but if he has expressly addressed this subject one way or the other, that would be worth including. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Conscription"

Isn't it more common to call this the "Draft."? That's what people are going to be looking for (it's what I was looking for just a few minutes ago). Maybe we should change the section name? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Either/or. Note that I've removed most of the section because it doesn't come close to meeting WP:RS (neither a partisan blog nor youtube comes even close to qualifying). As with previous sections, you need reliable sources to demonstrate that these comments have WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, you're just cherrypicking quotes that fit your POV. Oren0 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not debating this with you again. When we have a video of McCain saying it, then it goes in. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should reread the relevant policies. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Especially in a WP:BLP page, we specifically cannot include material that is unpublished in reliable sources. This is doubly true as significant editor consensus has ruled that YouTube is explicity disallowed as a reliable source unless confirmed by other reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The one relevant "policy" you've given is an essay. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to the last paragraph in this section. Why is that persons question notable when it is not even logical? How would the draft even solve the problems that this person was stating? Furthermore it doesn't flow well, it is just hanging out there without any context for why this particular question was important. I would say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information would cover this. Arzel (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Some editors don't seem to grasp the idea that these pages simply cannot list everything the candidates ever say. Nor can they list only quotes cherrypicked by editors to push their POV. These pages must list the relevant major positions based on coverage in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to delete everything except "how do we get Bin Laden without re-instating the draft?" that would be fine with me. I think the reason it's included is to show that the lady was rambling and McCain sweepingly agreed with everything. Some people take this as an edorsement of the draft and some do not. We leave it to the reader to decided. Having her rambling question is supportive of McCain. I don't think you want to delete it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're presenting a false dichotomy. The question isn't "should we include the whole question or just part of the question?" The question is "Is there any evidence that this question is significant enough to be mentioned at all?" To me, the answer is clearly no. Oren0 (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Huge surprise there. To me, the answer is clearly yes. Equally surprising, right? The lead to the section states that McCain's responses have always been ambiguous, thus we take what few quotes we can get. He's given two that liberals think are important. The "I don't disagree" comment was only 4 days ago and it's already overflowing in google hits. Include quotes that conservatives think are important. Include something from his website, I'm sure he's denied he would ever issue a draft there. But don't delete these trivially verifiable facts that are so wildly popular. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If indeed it's "overflowing in Google hits" and they meet WP:RS (ie, not blogs or youtube as you've currently listed and not op-eds either) then cite those and you won't hear any complaints from me. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to argue that a candidate's position on the draft is not a major issue. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'm sure there's a "draft" section on the candidates' websites then. I'm sure lots of sources have covered this. What's a major issue has nothing to do with what you and I think, it has to do with what is covered in sources. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's important because McCain hasn't directly addressed it. If he unequivocally opposed the draft, he would have no problem mentioning it on his campaign site. Since he doesn't (and since his staff has not issued a statement clarifying his comments)... JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that I or AzureFury have covered up quotes where McCain has unequivocally opposed the draft, feel free to add them. Otherwise your claim of "cherrypicking" is baseless. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's someone saying that he said what we already know he said, objectively: [61]. Here's a copy/paste of that story by another organization (they seem to think it's trustworthy): [62] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I hesitate to get into this, I cannot find one mention of this in a reliable source. It's all op-eds, blogs, etc. For what it's worth, I tend to agree with the assessment here [63] that he was answering to the "meat of the question" rather than the exclamation at the end. Still, that's also in a blog. I think that including the sentence definitely violates undue weight but, before we get to that, it's not mentioned in a single reliable source that I can find. JEB90 (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I hadn't seen the Keith Olberman link (which is still op-ed, if you ask me, but seems an accurate representation of the quote). Still, I do feel that the quote does violate undue weight. Particularly once you see the rest of his answer, with the George Washington quote, he was clearly responding to the question as if it were: "unless we fix these problems, we won't have anyone volunteer for the army" and he agreed. But that's just my two cents. JEB90 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My personal guess is that McCain didn't intend to endorse the draft, and was instead just having a senior moment. On that theory, I expected McCain's handlers to issue a statement "clarifying" that he didn't really mean he favored a draft. Had they done so this would be a nonissue -- he didn't pay enough attention to the question, so it was a minor gaffe, not a statement of a political position. In the absence of such a clarification, however, we're left with what McCain said. The YouTube video is a reliable source for the fact that he said it, unless someone wants to claim that some sinister force has hired an actor to pretend to be McCain and to stage a fake town hall meeting. The most accurate way to present it is to report what he said but, for the reason stated by AzureFury, to include the context (that the reference to the draft came at the end of a long, rambling question.)

AFAIK, McCain hasn't answered the substantive question -- does he have any bright ideas for maintaining the armed forces, given the demands he apparently intends to place on them, without resorting to conscription. If he's addressed that topic, we should include his position here. JamesMLane t c 09:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just try responding to a question like that yourself, it is nearly impossible. It is one thing to read it and then form a response, but to hear it and then try to answer what is in reality several different questions is nat easy. As for McCain's plan, he has stated part of it. Offer increasing amounts of education benefits for longer service. Remember he was accused of not being supportive of the military because of that plan.... Arzel (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a December 2007 statement on it, while campaigning for the New Hampshire primary, captured by the Valley News:

McCain has spoken often on the campaign trail about his desire to expand the armed forces. In a recent essay published in the journal Foreign Affairs, he says he would increase the combined size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps from 750,000 to 900,000 troops.

At the same time, McCain says he is opposed to reinstating a national draft. "It would be a terrific mistake," McCain said in an interview, citing, among other problems with forced conscription, the historic ease with which the wealthy and privileged have escaped service. "The all-volunteer force is working, and it's the most professional and best trained and equipped we've ever had."

The Foreign Affairs essay says:

In 1947, the Truman administration launched a massive overhaul of the nation's foreign policy, defense, and intelligence agencies to meet the challenges of the Cold War. Today, we must do the same to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. Our armed forces are seriously overstretched and underresourced. As president, I will increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps from the currently planned level of roughly 750,000 troops to 900,000 troops. Enhancing recruitment will require more resources and will take time, but it must be done as soon as possible.

So his plan is to "enhance recruitment", which generally means better pay, better job training programs, better post-service benefits, sometimes shorter enlistment periods, a bigger recruiter budget, more or better advertising ("Be all you can be"), etc. Not conscription. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Is that clear enough? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add the quotes. I won't whitewash them like some of the McCain supporters on here have done to the quotes that I have added. However, I think it's questionable that McCain wants to "enhance recruitment." He's voted against minimum time periods between deployments and against the Democrats' new GI Bill (as it was too generous). JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. His opposition to the Webb GI bill was on grounds that too many service people would take advantage of it and leave; he wanted an alternative that would promote retention. So he thought his approach would increased overall servicepeople levels. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also added a 1999 NYT bit about how McCain had "mused publicly about reinstating the draft". The more (good) data points, the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think people are reading WAY to much into this. McCain was presented with a long rambling rant about the general state of the military, to which McCain appears to be polite and give basically a non-answer of general agreement with the questioneer that there are current problems within the military. The attempt to parse out the questioneers last sentence as McCain's view on the draft is sysnthesis of material for this section. I am being bold and removing it under undue weight, indiscriminate, and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You realize that if they don't read it here, people will just go to the liberal blogs and op-eds sites for the information, right? They don't include the whole rambling question, frequently. That's why I think it should be included, mostly as a refutation of the rumor. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a little backwards and a very weak reason, by that annalogy we should go and put everything being reported by right wing blog on the Obama page so that people can get it from here instead of the right wing blog. I suspect that people will see it on a liberal blog and then come here and try to add it. Since there are not any RS that talk about it people not in the know already would not even know about it. KO is the only thing remotely close to a RS that has brought it up, but he is already talking to the choir. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We do report most of it on the Obama page, including his supposedly being a Muslim. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. That which has been covered extensively by RS's is, but blog information is not. This is clearly an attempt to lead the reader to believe that McCain is in favour of the Draft when it is not clear that this was his intent. Common sense should dictate, not partisan beliefs. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What language is attempting to lead the reader? JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of any other language. Only one conclusion can be made, thus the intent is clear. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, please cite the policy showing that Countdown with Keith Olbermann is not a reliable source. This is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Under | BLP Sources we have the following section.

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.

KO repeating the same non-reliable source doesn't make it reliable. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Keith Olbermann was using the Youtube video? As an MSNBC anchor, he would surely have access to the raw video. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did I attempt to parse the last sentence? I gave the entire statement and McCain's entire reply, without commentary. It's up to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I said Partisan beliefs, this is being used in a partisan way to try and show that McCain is for the draft when it is not clear. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it being used in a partisan way? It doesn't show anything. It allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My problems with the YouTube video

This just can't be included for the following reasons:

1. YouTube isn't a reliable source. It doesn't meet the threshold of attributability. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." To anyone who's ever been to YouTube, the idea that it meets this bar is laughable. Maybe that's why YouTube is explicitly listed as a non-source at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. Also note that as a WP:BLP page we're held to an even higher standard than normal pages here in regards to sourcing material.
2. There is no context because we don't hear what the question was. Go watch the video. What if the question was: "Do you think the military is strong and would you support a draft if we were simultaneously attacked by Russia and China on American soil?" In that case, any sensible person would say "I'd have to consider a draft." Without the question, we just don't know. That's why we need reliable sources to corroborate the video and show us that it's not out of context.

For these reasons, I believe the material must be removed. Oren0 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR says that primary sources can be used as long as easily verifiable information is all that is presented in the article. Your WP:Reliable_source_examples is an essay. I choose not to adhere to it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the lead to the section includes him saying he would only start a draft in WWIII. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Choose to ignore what you want; the consensus on excluding YouTube as a reliable source is a longstanding and strong one. I was going to post RSN links indicating this until I saw, to my surprise, that you have already taken this there! Wikipedia:RSN#YouTube. Common courtesy would've been to inform us here that you've posted this discussion in another forum. But since the editors there have largely echoed my point that you can't use YouTube in this way, I'm re-removing that section. Oren0 (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary is a joke, right? Let's summarize the position of every person who has responded to you at Wikipedia:RSN#YouTube so far:

• "Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research." - User:Ngchen (against inclusion)
• "It isn't original research as long as one treats it appropriately as a primary source, which is to say that it's used only for objective, descriptive, and uncontroversial claims" - User:Girolamo Savonarola (for inclusion)
• "The problems with You Tube are many...these are the primary reasons why You Tube is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia" - User:Blueboar (against inclusion)
• "Using primary material such as this is fraught with the danger of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and point of view pushing. Find some mainstream media sources that have noted this incident you will be fine, and avoid all the youtube and the primary sourcing problems...The main point is that no, the Youtube video is not a reliable source. Sorry." - User:S1p1 (against inclusion)
• "Ok, I'm telling you, the consensus is going to be that youtube is largely not going to be considered a reliable source, especially on such a contentious issue and such a notable subject. Youtube is the WP:SPS example. there is no compelling reason to add this to an article on a national politician." - User:Protonk (against inclusion)

In what universe is four opposes against one support not a consensus? Oren0 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Initially I was ambivalent to this section, but after viewing the video, it is clearly not a reliable source. The actual question that was asked was not included, thus the context of the answer is not clear. Furthermore it appears to be a personal recording, it was clearly not a reliable newssource as the quality is quite poor (the panning is jerky and shows of low quality). Arzel (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oren, please review 1. Note that it is preceded by 0 and followed by 2. The statement by Girolamo is in support. This was also said by Ngchen, "I would argue that yes, youtube is reliable for what is in the content of a questioned video." Including me, that makes 3 people in support of inclusion. Note that 1 is not the same as 3. You may wish to review 3 as well. Your continued lies are inspiring examples of good faith. Essays do not reflect the consensus of the community, that's why I'm ignoring it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly getting desperate when you're counting someone who says "I would say that the material stays out as original research" as "for inclusion." Counting yourself is a tad disingenuous as well, but that's fine. Counting you and me the count is still 5-2 against at RSN. Adding other editors here, Arzel and JEB90 oppose and JamesMLane and JCDenton2052 support. That makes a grand total of 7 (8 if you count Wasted Time R, who's unclear) -4 opposing. Combine that with the fact that in BLP pages we default to excluding contentious information, and at this point this is a no-brainer.

"Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research." Another lie, this one by omission! You're getting crafty, kudos. Please quote the policy that says the default is exclude undisputed quotes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source hasn't commented on the first video that you've cited. As for the policy you seek, see WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP. Specifically, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion," and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material...Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons". Since you apparently respect nothing less, note that both of these are policies. Oren0 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're calling YouTube a "poor source." That is currently under dispute. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't under dispute. Look through the RSN archives. This comes up a lot; there is wide community consensus that YouTube is unacceptable. Oren0 (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

--->Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard = dispute. Nothing on Wiki is set in stone. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as an outsider looking in (I've never edited this page, and only noticed a dispute because Protonk's talk page is on my watchlist -- I left a comment there on a topic wholly unrelated to this): 1) YouTube has long been recognized by the community as an unreliable source -- there are bots that go around removing even external links to YouTube, and EL has a much lower threshold for acceptability than sources 2) original research can be implicit, and the current inclusion *and phrasing* of this material is an implicit suggestion that McCain now supports a draft or would more readily support a draft than he's previously suggested. I suggest editors here ditch the YouTube ref -- it's a primary source, the content of which was covered repeatedly by various outlets -- and rephrase those couple of paragraphs not in terms of what he might have suggested, but instead citing what the professional/critical response was. My two cents. --EEMIV (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the new sources satisfactory? Is the dispute resolved? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, dispute is not resolved. we continue to use interpretation of his answer to an unknown question to extrapolate his views on the draft. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The way it is now, the quote immediately follows "I don't know what would make a draft happen unless we were in an all-out World War III." The natural implication from this ordering is "McCain would consider a draft in WWIII." This is the best case scenario from the perspective of the right. Every single source simply says "when asked about the draft" he said that. The quote does contain important information about his position on the draft. We simply can't delete that one.

How about this, for weight reasons, we condense the "I might consider" quote to a link and cover it fully at the Political Image article. In that case, we have several statements by McCain against the draft and one possibly in favor of it. I think that's fair considering how ambiguous he's been and the fact that he's never really explained where he's going to get the troops to do everything he wants to do if he becomes president. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "I don't disagree" quote to controversial remarks here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. It's not a controversial remark in the sense of the others there. It's McCain making a generic politic response to a long-winded, somewhat incoherent ramble by a citizen at a town hall. It's a big nothing. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, regardless of his actual intentions, a lot of people are taking that as an endorsement of the draft in Iraq. That is the exact definition of a controversy! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's willful misinterpretation for partisan purposes during a campaign. Something else entirely. It's like people wanting to make a big deal out of Obama's "57 states" remark. That's not a controversy either. Just because American political campaigns collectively approach an IQ of zero, doesn't mean we have to also. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama doesn't even have a "controversial statements" section, so you can't use him as a comparison. McCain's comment is trivially notable. Where would you put it? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain's comment is trivial. Have you ever seen town halls? Joe and Jane Citizen get up and unleash all sorts of weird, longwinded, rambling statements or personal complaints. John Politico then has to concoct some sort of response that's respectful without saying anything. This was such a case. Look, this article and this section is the right place to discuss McCain's views on the draft. McCain is a guy who probably has contradictory impulses on this issue: on one hand, he believes in service to a greater cause as a crucial element of national being; on the other, he believes in military professionalism and tradition. The first might cause him to possibly consider draft reinstatement, the second would push back against that. I'm sure if you go back through all his legitimate public statements, you can find some of the first. Indeed, I added the "In 1999, when the U.S. military was experiencing significant recruiting shortfalls, McCain was one of several members of Congress who mused publicly about reinstating the draft" material that's in the article now. Research what and where those musings were, and add that. Or other statements he's made. But this town hall thing is meaningless. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with deleting "I don't disagree" if "I might consider it" stays. Deal? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I would disagree completely -- the "I don't disagree" has been covered by MSNBC and other reliable sources; wasn't the other comment just a youtube video (i.e. a primary source)? There are definitely some synthesis / original research issues if we go inserting unsourced or primary source (i.e. youtube videos not from a reliable source); however statements (especially ones generating controversial or multiple interpretations) from reliable secondary sources should (must) be included. Sorry I haven't followed along completely, but I don't think it's fair to say that inclusion of the material constitutes a "willful misinterpretation" -- controversial statements should be presented with reliably sourced statements, readers should be allowed to value the comments themselves. In no case should wikipedia editors decide what the comments mean, or if readers should be allowed to see them. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have enough reliable sources for both that sourcing is not the issue. I think the only thing left to debate is WP:WEIGHT. The ambiguity of the "I don't disagree" statement is what makes me want to condense it to a link and cover it at controversial comments. Wasted debates the fact that it's controversial. I'm getting too Wiki-sausted too argue. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's misleading to say "I don't disagree" has been covered by MSNBC. The cite isn't to any regular MSNBC news report, but instead to Keith Olbermann's show. That's equivalent to something being on the New York Times op-ed page versus in its regular news section. The same with the other two cites; they are to political opinion blogs. All of these people are in the business of making mountains out of molehills, if it might hurt the other side. That's fine for them, that's their business, but that's not what we do. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What we (as in Wikipedia editors) do not do is decide which criticisms are valid and which are not. We do report controversies when they're reliably sourced and both viewpoints are presented neutrally. I agree that blogs don't belong, however MSNBC certainly is a reliable source, as is Olbermann's show. We're not going to cull a controversy because you think it's not a big deal when it's reliably sourced and neutrally presented. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that Arzel has been bold and deleted the "I don't disagree" remark. Really there was no policy-based argument given, but I'm not going to revert. Looks like this is implied consent to the proposed compromise, and hopefully we the page will remain stable now. I do think this deserves to go into his controversial comments though. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia-Russia Comment

This is the quote from John McCain, and there is no "since the entire war on terror" in it. It must be taken out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLEZ5AZL5BE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeppelin462 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Material from campaign article

Here is some material that was in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. It doesn't belong there, since none of these speeches had much of an impact on the campaign itself. But this may be useful for this article; parked here until unlock occurs. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[snip]

Material has now been merged in to the appropriate places. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Length

I see the article's been tagged for length. Is there anything we can do to make the article shorter? It seems to me that everything is already a summary. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm content with the current length. I have temporary problems with my high-speed connection, so I'm editing on dial-up and really feeling the pain of long articles, but I think trying to shorten this one significantly would be even worse. JamesMLane t c 04:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles like these are supposed to be long. Readers typically look up material in them they are interested in by using the table of contents, not read them top to bottom in one sitting. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with WTR. Happyme22 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Split

Without any consensus to do so, User:Yellowbounder has split the article into a half-dozen different pieces. (And done it badly; the pieces have no leads, backlinks, categories, or references.) It's well-known from looking at readership stats that the further down in the subarticle chain you get, the fewer readers there are, often by a factor of 10. So now many readers will just see the interest group ratings and nothing else. Bleah. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to voice the same concerns as WTR. The issue is threefold: (1) Is the article too long to manage? (2) Is the best solution to split the article? (3) What logical flow will be used to split the content? I haven't seen a real consensus on any of those questions as of yet; WP:BOLD aside, I think the split is premature and does more harm than good -- the split was very poorly executed and the resulting subordinate articles are severely lacking. I strongly support reverting the changes and subsequent debate on the three points I've raised before another split. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see you've restored this article back to its full state. I've redirected all the pieces that were created back to here as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is fine the way it is. The longer the better, because that means more issues have been added (assuming they all remain properly summarized).Chastayo (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Does John McCain support a two-state solution?

Does John McCain support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This point was raised in a number of sources today and it would be great to get clarification. This is a major issue in that both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have supported this policy since 1993. Is John McCain following in their footsteps? --John Bahrain (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sources are cited in this take on things from a PAC: http://www.jstreet.org/campaigns/does-john-mccain-support-a-two-state-solution

--John Bahrain (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This McCain speech doesn't explicitly say so, but the line "The recent talks between the Israeli government and the government led by President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank are encouraging, and the United States should support this effort" kind of suggests it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

the last para of the FP section. Sentence is: Many even argue that McCain's statements, such as "100 years in Iraq," "there will be other wars," and "I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically- elected governments.", approach imperialistic over-tones like that reflected in the PNAC.[92] Many say that this statement is a biased opinion about his policy. Plus the link is an op-ed piece. I am deleting. --Pt1978 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty junky. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I just reverted Pt1978's edit because it didn't have an edit summary without checking here. Let me review the stuff before I undo my undo. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Energy

The sentence that reads "In a June 2008 analysis of McCain's positions, the Los Angeles Times said that "the Arizona senator has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the federal government's role in energy policy."[185]" the source is no longer valid as it is a broken link. I suggest that this be removed unless a new source can be found. JenWSU (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your action was incorrect, and I've restored the material in question. A valid source remains valid regardless of whether it is freely available online or not. If you look at WP:V and WP:RS, you'll see that the most highly-valued sources are books and scholarly journals, and these are usually not freely available online. Newspapers often shuffle their current news articles into their pay archives after a while, which is what happened here. If you really want to check the source, you can pay for LA Times archives access. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and stem cell research

A new editorial discussing this subject can be found here. There is a hot debate about wording this going on at Sarah Palin's talk pages. I'm including this link here in case anyone's interested. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this say regarding McCain's views that isn't already in this article? Wasted Time R (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know, since I haven't worked on this article. I posted the link here as a possible source of interest to those who are working on it. If not, feel free to ignore it. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Financial Deregulation

According to the WP McCain said this. But he has usually reverted to the role of an unabashed deregulator. In 2007, he told a group of bloggers on a conference call that he regretted his vote on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which has been castigated by many executives as too heavy-handed. This was included as a factual statement in the section, but I have a lot of problems with this. One, it doesn't say when in 2007, it doesn't say what group of bloggers, or what conference call. Unless a better source for this statement can be made I find it a little dubious for inclusion here. Arzel (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the Washington Post? Sources don't get much better than that. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I said it was the WP. The problem is that it is a second hand account. It is not in quotes therefore we cannot list it as a quoted statement by McCain. Arzel (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason that publications like The Washington Post are accepted under WP:RS is that we trust a statement when the publication stands behind it. It is frequent -- indeed, nearly universal -- for the media to report information like this without publishing every little detail about the circumstances of the statement. The reporter would have much or all of that information; the reporter would usually be asked about it by an editor or fact checker, and if not asked in this particular case, nevertheless retains a job as a reporter because he or she doesn't make up quotations. It's also frequent for the media to publish, and for Wikipedia to rely on, paraphrases of a public figure's statements. As Arzel says, we can't list it as "a quoted statement" -- which is why I didn't enclose it in quotation marks, as compared with the verbatim quotation later in the subsection.

The Wikipedia standard is to use information like this. We make no exception for presidential candidates. I am restoring the material. JamesMLane t c 01:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying the WP cannot be used, only that that statement cannot be used in this manner. Regardless of how you present it it will read as if McCain made that statement, however it is only a second hand account of what happened. To this point all you have is that the WP reported that, but not that he actually said that. As it is you have some blogger claiming that sometime in 2007 McCain said on a conference call. This is all heresay and with your background you should know that this is not something to rely on. Arzel (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Another article in which McCain, through his aides, claims to still back Sarbanes-Oxley. [64] Arzel (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, Arzel. We don't need to quote McCain to attribute a statement to him. See WP:V. This is a non-issue. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?!? So if someone makes a claim that someone else said then we treat that as gospel unless that person can prove he didn't say it? What kind of logic is that? Arzel (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, McCain doesn't have to "prove" anything. If McCain now says he didn't say it, and the Washington Post says he did, then we can print both assertions. McCain has a press secretary and is capable of asserting his position, including any disagreement he has with the Washington Post. Meanwhile, your edit to "some bloggers claim" is unacceptable. Aside from "claim" being a WP:WTA, you have no evidence for the implication that this is just some bloggers claiming it. Maybe the reporter was in on the call. Maybe someone taped it. Maybe the reporter later confirmed it with enough different participants and/or McCain's office to be satisfied. We don't know. That's the whole point of WP:RS, as I explained above. If some anonymous blogger phoned up the Washington Post and said this happened, the paper probably wouldn't print it, or at most would print it as "one blogger claims...." If the paper prints it as a fact, then we can take it that the provenance -- tape recording, reporter participation, whatever -- satisfied the editors and fact checkers at the Washington Post. Wikipedia is not a news agency and we aren't going to go out and grill people about stuff like this. In fact, if you and Blaxthos and Jimbo and I had all been on the call, and we all heard McCain say something else interesting, but the something else wasn't printed, then we couldn't use it in Wikipedia; even though we would know it to be true, it wouldn't be verifiable per WP:V. That's how an encyclopedia differs from a newspaper. JamesMLane t c 02:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironic that you would quote WTA and violate it at the same time with your "However" statement. You have to attribute this to someone when the actual source is dubious. Arzel (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly not the first person to imply that WP:WTA prohibits the use of "however". If you read it a bit more carefully, however, you'll see that it doesn't. I believe that the language in the current version of this article is consistent with WTA. JamesMLane t c 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the WaPo story to source McCain's thinking about Sarbines-Oxley in 2007. It's quite possible WaPo had a blogger on their staff on the call, so I wouldn't assume it's hearsay. As for "however", I've gotten in arguments about using that word too. I don't mind it, but I think the text would still work even if you took it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WT, even if that was true it is still hearsay. Unless you have an actual citation to back up your claim it is hearsay. In an case I reworded it to summarize completely what the WP reported regarding that section. The reader shouldn't have to read the link to find out how this information supposedly came about. Arzel (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Including this kind of information is contrary to our usual practice. I assume the reason you want such detail in this particular case is that McCain's 2007 position contradicts his current spin, so you want it downplayed as much as possible, and you hope that invoking the word "bloggers" will make it seem comparatively lightweight. To that end, I note that your revision said that McCain "remarked" -- another choice of words that seeks to downplay the statement by conveying the impression that it was just some offhand comment not meant to be taken seriously. I didn't remember "remarked" being in the original and, lo and behold, it isn't. Your zeal for adherence to the source seemed to flag a little here, when it came to a campaign statement that McCain has now flipflopped away from in light of what's currently to his political advantage.

There's still no reason to single out this statement for including the details about the circumstances. I don't want to edit-war over it; I'll support other editors who want to remove this blatant POV-pushing, but, in the meantime, if the stated rationale is to be accurate about what the Post reported, then we might as well just quote the story verbatim. JamesMLane t c 17:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Addendum: The POV language was reverted while I was writing this, so I won't re-add the details. JamesMLane t c 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD) This is a laugh considering your previously stated bias against conservatives. This is not a vote, and my additional information is clearly backed up by the source you provided. You claim I am POV pushing, I claim you are cherry picking this one sentence to make him look like a hypocrite. Either attribute the information correctly or leave out the sentence. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true this is not a vote, but we can't always please everyone. We are supposed to consider the weight of the arguments, not the weight of the numbers. In this case, you seem to be the only person who finds your argument heavier. How can you be so sure of your own objectivity in the face of this evidence? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you tell me that I'm biased. I told you that a specific edit of yours was biased. The difference between those two points may seem minor, but it's crucial. I've left untouched plenty of edits of yours that clearly flowed from your pro-McCain bias. An ardent McCain partisan is allowed to edit Wikipedia. As long as the edit itself comports with Wikipedia principles, including NPOV, then the bias of its author is immaterial. JamesMLane t c 19:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how being specific is biased and your cherry picking of that quote without attribution is not biased. There is one simple question to answer, when and where did McCain make that comment? If you cannot answer it then you have no case for your reason for non-inclusion. Additionally, what is so POV about simply repeating what the WP said? I am not taking it out of context in any manner. Arzel (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that "being specific" at this level of detail is not our normal practice. We have many quotations and paraphrases from McCain in this article that don't include the date, time, place, nature of audience, color of tie McCain was wearing at the time, etc. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book, so we can't put in every detail that's in the source material. That's what the hyperlink is for. JamesMLane t c 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That is all fine and dandy when you are using actual quotes, but here you are paraphrasing a paraphrase. I think the reader has the right to know that WP is paraphrasing a second-hand account. Do you know exactly what McCain said? No, you don't. I have done alot of checking on this, and I can't find a single other mention of him saying this anywhere. Arzel (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

changes in posistions

is it appropriate to have a seperate, short table listing changes in posistion ? eg, from anti to pro bush tax cut, from pro deregulation for economy and health care to pro regulation, from Falwell is agent of intolerance to not, etc. This is not exactly a political position, but it seems relevant - sort of meta political posistions.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Each section describes the positions on a given topic, generally in chronological order. Readers can decide for themselves if the positions have changed and why. What you are advocating would be unworkable. For example, McCain would say each of his votes on tax cuts has had its own rationale at that time, and they are consistent overall. It's up to the reader to decide whether this is reasonably true or a heap of malarkey. If the table presented the tax cuts votes as just contradictions without their rationales, it would be oversimplistic. If the table added the rationales, it would quickly become very unwieldy and no improvement over what we have now. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should a 2004 yes/no survey be included in the free trade section

I feel strongly that it doesn't warrant inclusion. We establish that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements. That's all that needs said. The inclusion of a non-elaborated yes/no survey establishes an NPOV situation in which there is contextual bias against McCain--it'd be comparable to if we included in an anti-death penalty politician, "xyz opposes the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden." By establishing that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements for ANY reason, this survey is a moot point at best. Trilemma (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. McCain was asked a specific and important question, about including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements, and he gave his answer. Our article quotes the question and the answer verbatim (noting that they are from 2004; not noting that a 2008 update is unavailable because in 2008 McCain refused to answer the question). Trilemma persists in assuming, utterly without support, that the issue arises only in the context of renegotiation of trade agreements. Trilemma's view is, "The specific 2004 survey appears to be in regards to proposed renegotiations of NAFTA and other trade agreements." That interpretation is fanciful. The cited source doesn't contain the word "renegotiation" or any of its variants. In the real world the question of labor and environmental protection is actually raised in the context of whether to grant initial approval to a trade agreement. See, for example, this letter from environmentalists urging rejection of the proposed U.S. - Columbia Free Trade Agreement ("Despite the inclusion of some essential environmental and labor safeguards, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement none-the-less contains provisions that encourage the relocation of industry in pursuit of the least stringent environmental and social standards and continues to prioritize the rights of private corporations over the public good."). McCain's express disagreement with this standard for evaluating proposed FTA's is part of his position and merits inclusion. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support thoroughly, as equivalent to standard procedure at political positions of Ron Paul. Quoting question and answer exactly is pretty much the only way to give correct context, and that is done; "he declined to answer in 2008" may also be added. As an inclusionist, I think that during the campaign this article should be a catchall for any reasonable statements of position because each is nuanced differently (excluding indiscriminately collected info, of course, which this is very probably not). The allegedly stronger statement does not require exclusion of the nuanced statement; it may be culled in a well-balanced trim of all sections, but certainly not as a separate RfC. To argue that one moots the other is to apply a weighting argument which might work in the bio but has very very little utility in the positions article; and there is no clear evidence one does moot the other. JJB 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid when possible. The current article text reads: In 2004, when McCain was asked, "Should trade agreements include provisions to address environmental concerns and to protect workers' rights?", he answered, "No."[87] This text doesn't make clear that the context was a written survey in which a one-word yes or no answer was required. That's different from if he said this in an interview and was so adamant about his response that he didn't follow it up with any further explanation. He had been able to give a longer response in the survey, the answer might have been 'Usually not, but there might be exceptions on a case-by-case basis' or something like that. That's why forced short responses of this kind should be avoided when possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. McCain wasn't strictly confined to "a one-word yes or no answer". If you look at the cited source, you'll see that each section of the survey, including the cited section on "International Trade", concluded with an open-ended invitation to the candidate to expound "Other or expanded principles". McCain used this option several times to provide the kind of nuance you mention. For example, in the "National Security Issues" section, he answered "Yes" to the question about pre-emptive strikes, but then took advantage of the "Other or expanded principles" question to add, "Pre-emptive strikes should be evaluated on a case by case basis depending on the severity of the threat". He chose not to make any such elaboration with regard to his opposition to including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements. JamesMLane t c 02:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• OUTSIDE OPINION Support inclusion. The article currently states the question verbatim; we're presenting the fact. Contrary to the initial statement of the RfC, we're not making hypothetical scenarios. If we were, that would be a problem, but as it is, it's factual. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Sounds like McCain had a chance to explain himself and chose not to. I think the sentence should be written more specifically. Too many statistics or political responses are thrown around without explanation of the way they were obtained. I suggest including the response but also that the survey is yes/no with the option of expanding further. Basically just explain everything that has been said here. AzureFury (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion -- note on general grounds that McCain opposes renegotiating free trade agreements; if you must mention the question, fairness demands a recounting of the context, specifically, that it was a yes/no survey. There are rare politicians who don't attach detailed 35-point caveats and explanations to every yes/no question; this should not be viewed as license to portray their reply in the most negative light possible. RayAYang (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH says we can't edit based on what we think he opposes. AzureFury (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Wiretap Provision

Trilemma decided that McCain's position on wiretapping did not warrant inclusion and has insisted on its deletion. It seems to me that since the preceding paragraph mentions amendments to the bill which might potentially be opposed to wiretapping, inclusion can be based simply on clarity. In addition, wiretapping is an extremely controvesial issue, thus making it trivially notable. AzureFury (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What I decided is that the paragraph-long explanation does not warrant inclusion. Not every bill warrants a broad explanation. Furthermore, it appears that the paragraph was copied wholesale from a site, as it reads like a talking point. One of our goals is to be concise. My edit is aimed at that. Trilemma (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE says our goal is not to be concise, especially on such high profile issues. Where is the paragraph copied from? AzureFury (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to track down where it's copied from; either the editor who initially added it has no clue about sentence construction, or was copying verbatim from talking points. And, the secondary wiretapping measure is not a high profile issue. Please prove that it is. Do you have significant coverage on major news networks or newspapers? This is an issue dominant on the left-wing netroots, not the mainstream news, and it's receiving undue weight. Trilemma (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Waste Transportation

I removed the comment about his comment regarding Nuclear Waste Transportation for a few reasons. One the source is The Sierra Club, which should not qualify as a RS. They are a very biased extremist group and in no way could be considered to be neutral. Additionally, if you go and actually listen to the video, the connection that the Sierra Club makes regarding the question is marginal at best. It appears that McCain is not even answering the question which the reporter appears to be asking. The reporter as if he would be comfortable with nuclear waste be transported through Arizona, through Pheonix, to which he replies "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe, and again, we have two options here...." , but the way it cuts back to McCain it appears almost like he is answering a different question, I suspect the video may have been edited. In any case, The Sierra Club doing OR on a YouTube video is no better than some random editor doing the same thing. Thus this fails WP:RS WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Additionally, The Sierra Club is actively campainging against McCain. Arzel (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To call the Sierra Club "extremist" in the context of WP:RS is ludicrous. Neutrality of a source isn't required. In any event, the Sierra Club statement links to a video of McCain making the comment. If you think that was an actor portraying McCain, provide some evidence. Your personal suspicion that the video was edited is irrelevant for this purpose. I don't understand your interpretation of the video, but if some prominent spokesperson has articulated that interpretation, or has argued that the video was edited, feel free to include that point, with a citation. Finally, to say that a prominent outside source is "doing OR" is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NOR.

Given that, AFAIK, there is no good-faith dispute whatsoever that McCain actually said this, the passage I wrote is perfectly acceptable. Nevertheless, in an attempt to avoid another edit war, I'll reword it to make it clear that this statement is advanced by the Sierra Club. I think that the McCain campaign responded by attacking Obama but not by denying the quotation. If so, perhaps we should include that as well, as it's additional evidence (by omission) that the quotation is accurate. (Of course, that elaboration would be unnecessary if we followed the sensible course of stating the fact about which there's no good-faith dispute.) JamesMLane t c 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement cannot be included per WP:WEIGHT. Do you have evidence that this statement was given coverage by many reliable sources? This article doesn't purport to present the answer to every question McCain has ever been asked, and cherry picking this one is undue weight. Oren0 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

James, I didn't say it was an actor, I said that it looks like the video was edited. Regardless, if YouTube cannont be used as a source, then why would the Sierra Club simply commenting on the YouTube video be a reliable source?...from the source you listed they didn't do any fact finding or clarrification of this issue, and the source of the video wasn't the station, just some guy that uploaded it to the internet. Additionally, Verifiability and Neutrality go hand and hand. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean is passes neutrality. I've noticed that you have done this a few times now, presenting a fact from a biased source without attribuation. Finally, do you even know what question he supposedly answered? The reporter asked first about Arizona and then Phoneix, but review of the video indicates that McCain would have to be referring to the second question, but even then his answer doesn't make sense "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe..." What can be made safe? Transportation of NW?...If it can why would he say no? Transportation in general to Yucca Mountain?...That makes more sense, but it is not clear. I think if you can get past your admitted right-wing bias, you will see that this fails on a number of levels. Arzel (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sierra Club press release was picked up by some general media sources, such as YubaNet.com ([65]) and The Daily Kenoshan ([66]); by environment-oriented sources, including a political reporter for Grist ([67]) and a writer for Treehugger, another environmental website ([68]); by WisPolitics.com ([69]), which appears to be a neutral site devoted to political news; and by some Democratic Party sites, such as in Ohio ([70]) and the National Jewish Democratic Council ([71]). Without specific reference to the Sierra Club press release, the Obama campaign included the McCain clip in an ad, which was covered by CBS News ([72]) in a story that included a link to the clip, so if you think there's a conspiracy afoot to edit the tape so as to make McCain look stupid, you'd have to think that CBS is in on it, too. JamesMLane t c 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're still not addressing the core issue, which is due weight. The fact that you're pointing to Yubanet and The Daily Kenoshan as sources that "picked up" this story indicates to me that it was likely not widely reported (I also believe this because I've never heard of this until now). Unless you can demonstrate that this was reported in the mainsteam media (not by partisan groups, small town newspapers, and blogs) then it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT and therefore doesn't merit inclusion imo. Oren0 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now added links to CBS News and The New York Times. There was an AP story that was published by, among others, Forbes ([73]), the Houston Chronicle ([74]), Salon ([75]), and that well-known bastion of left-wing extremism, Fox News ([76]). If I were to keep Googling I'm sure I could give you plenty more such sources. JamesMLane t c 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A transcript of an Obama ad in and of itself lends no additional weight to the underlying quote as a McCain policy. The question isn't who reported Obama's ad, the question is who reported the original quote, specifically as a relevant position of McCain. Oren0 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of no basis in Wikipedia policy for such a restriction. The purpose of the article is to provide information to readers who want to know about McCain's political positions. Presumably, some of his positions are on subjects of such limited interest that there'd be no point in including them here. This topic, however, is now being widely reported, more so than many of the other positions elucidated in this article. JamesMLane t c 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The basis is the core policies of WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and common sense. The sources you've provided only show that Obama has attacked McCain for a certain position. They don't show that anyone is reporting this as an important or relevant position of McCain. If indeed the topic "is being widely reported" as a defining/important/notable position of McCain then it would merit inclusion but I haven't seen any source claiming this. Oren0 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

These two quotes are from Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

WP:UNDUE says include. To say that the video is editted is WP:OR, and can not contribute to our decision of whether or not to include these statements. Accusations are trivially verifiable, so WP:VERIFY is not an issue here, only perhaps notability. Since the Obama campaign has also made these allegations, the comments are indeed notable. They should be included. AzureFury (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed that the video was edited. And to say that any accusation made in a campaign ad instantly becomes a notable position of the other party is ludicrous. I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page? Of course not. Notability must be demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which the McCain quote has not gotten. Oren0 (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I stated that the video appeared to be edited. In anycase Verfiability and Neutrality go hand in hand. Just because some can be verified does not mean that it passes neutrality. This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral, not to mention a whole host of other problems like weight and the fact that the whole basis is a YouTube video which is not a reliable source. The fact that Obama and others are using the video to attack McCain does not make the video a reliable source per common sense. Arzel (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You like to answer your own questions don't you? Again, there is a difference between the present situation and your wanna-be analogy. In this case we have solid proof of McCain making these statements. If you don't dispute the accuracy of the video then we don't need attribution to the Sierra Club or Obama campaign. Regarding notability, perhaps you missed the two paragraphs by James listing source after source? AzureFury (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, does McCain dispute the accuracy of the video? Unless he does then your claim that the video is editted is baseless. See above for my refutation of weight issues. WP:PRESERVE says that WP:NPOV does not justify deletion of facts that are fairly weighted. AzureFury (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When the scale is tipped so far over that one end is resting on the ground, I would hardly consider that to be fairly weighted. Neutrality is a core policy, and trumps preserve with minority views. You have one marginal source which is simply parroting a YouTube video, and Obama using it to attack McCain, and you want to use it to state an official McCain position? As I stated earlier McCain's answer was not clear. If you listen to the video it his position can only be obtained by interpreting what he is saying. The Obama camp and The Sierra Club are doing the same thing. If you can not see the partisan bias in this then I don't know what else to tell you. Even if one does not dispute the video, the video itself cannot be used because it is not a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is youtube not a reliable source? If videos are satisfactory to sentence someone to death, then they are satisfactory to quote someone.

"Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Phoenix on its way to Yucca Mountain?"

"No I would not." - McCain

Explain to me a contrary interpretation derived from that quote. If need be we can quote him directly. AzureFury (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) "Source after source?" Every source I see above is one or more of: inherently partisan (democratic party, Sierra Club, etc), an op-ed (not RS, see Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations), or only reporting a transcript of an Obama ad (lends no weight to this being a position of McCain). Oren0 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability, No Original Research and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections

Notability does not apply here. AzureFury (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just Wikilawyering. I'm using the dictionary definition of notability rather than the Wikipedia one. This page can't list everything McCain has ever said. Therefore, we choose the most notable (read: most covered by reliable sources) positions to list here. There has been no evidence that this quote has been covered in reliable sources at all (making WP:V an additional concern), much less covered enough to warrant mention here. Even if it had been covered, it's still unclear that this is a position. If it was demonstrated that this comment demonstrated significant controversy, keeping in mind that this hasn't been demonstrated yet, it would be a better fit at Cultural and political image of John McCain because it's not a position. Oren0 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is more appropriate in Wikipedia than Lawyerlawyering. You say only thing covered in objective (? I assume this is what you mean by reliable) sources is worth mentioning. I say it isn't. You say this isn't one of his most notable positions. I say it's more important than his position on transportation. You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it. You say it's not a position. I say it is. We use Wiki policies when we can't agree. Welp, we can't agree. AzureFury (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When I say "objective," I mean not the democratic party, Obama's ads, partisan groups, etc. You say it's important; our opinions don't matter. If it was important (not his policy on nuclear energy in general, his policy on waste in Arizona specifically), you'd think that it would be mentioned often in reliable sources. As it stands, not one source meeting WP:RS has been presented for this. Let's contrast that with transportation; the current page lists three sources (and I could certainly present dozens more). That's how we measure importance, and for this issue the sources objectively don't stack up. Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it." - No, that's not how it works. There is no reason to include it as it wasn't reported in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is "ya huh." AzureFury (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The pretexts for trying to censor this information are becoming very threadbare.

• Oren0 wrote, "I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page?" That depends on two specific issues involved, importance and verifiability:

Importance. If McCain makes a big deal about an issue, that fact would indeed affect its importance. A McCain attack might justify including something on Obama's page that otherwise would be too minor. Each campaign has some ability to set the agenda and to influence what's important.

Verifiability. Here's the clear difference between the two cases. The question is whether there's a good-faith dispute about what the candidate's position is. In the case you mention, there is a dispute. The Obama campaign has released a video setting forth why the McCain ad is a lie. You can watch it here. You'll see that the Obama campaign has specifically and in great detail disputed the accuracy of McCain's characterization of Obama's position. Therefore, we would not report McCain's characterization as if it were fact. By contrast, as I pointed out above, the McCain campaign has not denied that McCain made the statements attributed to him by the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign. And it's not because McCain's staffers have been too busy hunting for good pictures of Britney Spears and so haven't had time to respond to the Obama ad -- the McCain campaign did respond to the ad, going negative on Obama as per usual and distorting his record as per usual, but didn't dispute the accuracy of the video clip or of the quotation. The revised passage I wrote for our article includes the McCain campaign's response, cited to this article, although my edit charitably avoids pointing out that the McCain response was itself a distortion of Obama's position.

• It was Arzel who suggested, entirely without evidence, that the video might have been edited. I think we're entitled to assume that CBS wouldn't have linked to it without checking that. I think we're entitled to further assume that, if it had been edited, the McCain campaign would have jumped to point that out, instead of (as noted immediately above) responding to the Obama ad without disputing the accuracy of the clip.
• For these reasons, Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling. We have well-known organizations asserting that McCain said it. We have a video of McCain saying it. We have CBS News using the video, strongly suggesting that it hasn't been tinkered with. We have the Obama campaign using the video in an ad and the McCain campaign responding to the ad without contesting the accuracy of the quotation. No reasonable person could doubt that McCain actually said this. What kind of verifiability do you think is needed?
• Oren0 says there's no source claiming that this is an important position of McCain's. So what? We need a source for the point that McCain actually said it. We do not need any kind of outside source saying, in effect, "McCain's position on transportation of nuclear waste is important enough to be covered in Wikipedia." That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article.
• Arzel writes, "This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral...." That's not the standard set by NPOV. We write neutrally. That the facts could be used or are being used in a partisan attack doesn't mean that we have to omit those facts. For example, McCain favors offshore drilling, Obama opposes it, and both those facts are being used in partisan attacks over the issue. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't say "McCain favors offshore drilling and tries to bamboozle the voters into thinking that would reduce gas prices anytime soon" or "Obama opposes offshore drilling and therefore cripples the goal of achieving American energy independence". Nevertheless, the existence of these partisan attacks doesn't mean that we omit the issue from Wikipedia. It means that we simply state the facts, maintaining a neutral tone, and let the chips fall where they may.
• Moreover, the attack on the neutrality of McCain's critics is completely beside the point. It would arguably be relevant if there were a good-faith dispute about what McCain actually said (for example, at some unrecorded closed-door meeting), but there is no such dispute. Nevertheless, in an effort to reach a compromise, I treated this subject as if someone had raised some serious question about the tape being edited or about McCain's comments needing interpretation. I reworded the passage to say that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign had "charged" that McCain said what he said. That's a considerable concession because it will lead some careless readers to think that this indisputable fact may be in dispute. At any rate, the revised wording should dispose of this spurious "neutrality" argument. WP:NPOV says that we can, indeed should, report facts about opinions. It's a fact, supported by citations, that the named sources hold the opinion that McCain said this. If some prominent spokesperson expresses the opinion that McCain didn't say it, we should of course report that too. I've read quite a bit about this issue by now, though, and the only such comment that I've seen is Arzel's.

I surely hope we don't have to go to RfC over this. It seems absurd that we have to spend this much effort to get a simple, straightforward, undisputed fact into Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems that RfC is where this is going. It's hard to argue with such fundamental misunderstandings of policy.

• "Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling." - Wikipedia isn't about what's true. It's about what is verifiable and attributable to reliable sources. This is neither.
• "Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is 'ya huh.'" - What are you talking about? Reliable sources are needed to report anything. This is especially true in a WP:BLP page such as this one. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
• "That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article." - Maybe it's clear to you. Maybe if you'd link some of this mysterious "coverage" I'd tend to agree with you. As it stands, you haven't shown one reliable source discussing this quote directly. Assuming we were starting with something attributable (which hasn't been demonstrated yet), it'd still have to be covered in multiple sources to make the cut here, where we're boiling hundreds of statements on an issue down to three sentence paragraphs. You claim, with no evidence to back it up, that this is significant in any way. In order to make that claim, you need sources. I feel like a broken record here, but without attributable and reliable sources this just can't be added. Oren0 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain said it. Are you saying McCain is not a reliable source on quotes by McCain? Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance. AzureFury (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The point about verifiability is that we have a clip of McCain saying it, plus multiple sources saying he said it, plus no source whatsoever denying that he said it or even raising a serious question. That satisfies WP:V. It's not like I'm claiming I was in an elevator with McCain and heard him say it. The sources we rely on are all available to anyone with web access. Beyond that, though, the compromise wording states that certain anti-McCain sources have "charged" that he said it. That's a fact about opinions and it's clearly verifiable. A reader may conclude that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign are all lying through their teeth. Well, we've given the verifiable facts that will let each reader make that judgment for him/herself.

Yes, reliable sources are needed "to report anything", meaning that there must be a reliable source for each factual assertion in the article. The policy does not mean that there must be a reliable source for the correctness of the editorial judgment we exercise. I don't think I've seen a single item in this article backed up by a reliable source saying "This is important enough to be in the Wikipedia article." To take another example, there's also no reliable source saying that it's correct to begin the article with McCain's self-serving defense against the charge that he's a flip-flopping panderer. I have doubts about whether that's appropriate, but that's a matter of judgment, not of sourcing. It's obvious that WP:RS is met by the source confirming that he said it. I would never attack that paragraph by demanding a reliable source for the proposition that what he said should begin our article. I'm confident that no such source could be provided. That's not an argument for deleting the paragraph, though. (edit conflict: While I was writing the long explanation in this paragraph, AzureFury wrote, "Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance." I agree.)

I take you to be conceding that there's extensive coverage about McCain and the transport of nuclear waste. Nevertheless, you're discounting all that coverage simply because it was prompted by the Obama ad. That's a completely artificial distinction. Obviously, this position of McCain's has become more important because Obama has jumped on it. That's why McCain's remark about transporting waste through Arizona can now be found at the websites of Forbes, Fox News, The New York Times, and the like, although two months ago it couldn't be. So what? The importance of things changes as the campaign develops. It's like Terri Schiavo -- Wikipedia doesn't cover every decision to take an individual patient off life support, but the Republicans in Congress made a lot of noise about that case, so it's extensively covered here. JamesMLane t c 04:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain Iran comment, part II

Azurefury, we had a vote. We settled that the comment was not worth including. You then persisted with attempts at fitting it in with alternative phrasings. That doesn't work. The issue has been decided. Continuing to push something that a roll call determined to be not worth including is close to vandalism. Trilemma (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you're in a time warp. More than a month ago, there was an RfC. A majority of the respondents (not a consensus, contrary to your incessantly reiterated assertion) opposed the version that quoted verbatim what McCain said.

That didn't end the matter, though. On Wikipedia, nothing like this is cast in stone even when there is a consensus, but here there wasn't. Therefore, editors working in good faith to improve the article moved on from the RfC to discuss alternatives that might reach or at least approach consensus. The result was a compromise version that was much shorter, that did not quote the comment (which would be my preference and the preference of several other editors) but instead merely referred to its existence, and which also gave McCain's take on what he had in mind.

You appear to be the only active editor who disagrees with this compromise. Note the comments in the earlier thread by Jaysweet and Blaxthos, both of whom opposed the original version but didn't think that the RfC somehow barred this compromise. Under these circumstances, for you to keep reverting, with an ES like "please either seek arbitration or leave the consensus be", has reached the point of being disruptive.

You've been told before that ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes. I restored the compromise language, and if you think that I'm the one who's being disruptive, then that accusation against me (a conduct issue) is the type that ArbCom will hear. You can begin a proceeding against me if you choose. ArbCom will then examine the conduct of all the involved editors. JamesMLane t c 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the previous discussion I think it is clear that it does not belong in this article. It is not a stated position and only conjecture can come to that conclusion. Furthermore is it purely a partisan issue, and any inclusion would be undue weight as it only serves to obfuscate McCain's position on Iran. It is not the job of this article to interpret McCain's positions on anything, only to summarize what those positions are in a neutral manner. To introduce phrasing which would attempt to define McCain's position on anything would be original research and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the conclusion we reached. So far as I can tell, two editors are persisting in the face of the decided verdict, trying to insert something that is clearly not worthy of inclusion. And James, I don't need to accuse you of disruptive edits, as your user page declares your status as a POV warrior: "Biased against the right wing and the parapsychology/quackery mindset."Trilemma (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, it is clear to you that it doesn't belong. It is clear to me that it should be quoted in full. Neither of us gets to impose our unilateral vision, however clear.

Yes, but my vision is based upon WP policies of OR and Undue Weight, which trump any vision. Arzel (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are not self-executing. Our governance method is that the editors working on a particular article try to determine how the policies apply to particular issues. Our governance method is not that one editor can proclaim his or her view to be based upon policies, at which point all other editors must yield to The Wisdom Of Arzel. I believe that the omission of this widely publicized incident would constitute a whitewashing of McCain, trying to help him by censoring facts that make him look bad, and would therefore violate the NPOV policy. The NPOV policy trumps your individual vision.

You see how that works? I can't shut you up just by invoking a policy. My own interpretation of the policy isn't entitled to automatic deference any more than yours is. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you just keep on saying things like "the decided verdict". You completely ignored what I wrote on that subject, so I won't bother repeating it. As for my discussion of my biases on my user page, you're hardly the first right-wing POV warrior to completely misinterpret it. That your characterization is false is quite obvious to anyone who reads my page. JamesMLane t c 19:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Namecalling really isn't helpful. Just because you proudly pronounce yourself biased doesn't mean that other editors would be flattered to be called POV warriors. Oren0 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an initial assumption, not a lifelong guarantee. I've seen enough of Trilemma's edits that I'm comfortable with my characterization of them. There's a huge difference between having (and admitting) a bias, on the one hand, and editing as a POV warrior to push your bias in violation of Wikipedia's policies, on the other hand. I'm in the former category but not the latter. I'm sorry if I didn't make that distinction clear.

Also, I do not "proudly" pronounce my bias. Maybe "resignedly" would be a better word; I'm recognizing that non one (including myself) is completely impartial. Part of my amusement at the comments elicited by my user page is the recurrent suggestion from right-wingers that, because I have opinions, I shouldn't edit political articles. Their implicit assertion is that as long as they don't admit to a bias, they don't have any. I don't accept that logic. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor whose only contributions to this page are substantial contentious deletions is in no position to comment on bias. Needless to say, I agree with everything James has said. Most people who cared enough to check back on the page to see the result of the RfC were satisfied with the compromise. The quote is not included. Inclusion of a reference does not conflict with the survey done previously. AzureFury (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

James, just because I have gone to the trouble of trying to restore neutrality in the face of your continued POV warriorism (per the doctrine you lay out on your user page) doesn't mean that I am a POV warrior. I realize that a common technique of POV warriors is to declare anyone not sharing their philosophy of simply being a POV warrior on the other end of the political spectrum, but that's not going to fly here. From your contentious, partisan editing, to your unsubstantiated slander, to your restoration of a line we had clearly established, through a roll call, that doesn't belong, you are close to being reported to wikiquette or elsewhere. We established the line doesn't go in. Two editors' persistence does NOT circumvent the clear majority opinion. Trilemma (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, I have already corrected Oren0 on this point -- see the latter part of this edit. Your assertion that I lay out a doctrine of continued POV warriorism does not accurately characterize my user page. Please do not continue repeating this false statement. You are, of course, free to hold whatever opinion you like of my edits, as I am free to evaluate yours. On that score, I would love it if you would report this in some fashion that would bring in more uninvolved editors to comment on my conduct and on yours. (I'm not familiar with this idea of reporting "to wikiquette" but if you can find a place to make such a report, go for it -- you have my blessing.) I would also love it if editors familiar with Wikipedia practices would comment to both of us on your assertion that a majority vote in one particular survey "established" that a line wouldn't go in and thereby also "established" that it couldn't even be mentioned, let alone included, and "established" these points in perpetuity. You adhere strongly to that interpretation and reiterate it at every opportunity. I believe that that interpretation is indefensible. One of us is greatly in need of enlightenment. JamesMLane t c 14:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a lot more than two editors and you know it. Every editor except you still discussing it was satisfied. AzureFury (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "aap-08" :
  • {{cite book | title = ''Almanac of American Politics (2008)'' | author = Barone, Michael and Cohen, Richard | publisher = National Journal | date=2008 | page = 95}}
  • {{cite book | title =[[The Almanac of American Politics]] | edition=2008 | last=Barone | first=Michael | authorlink=Michael Barone (pundit) | coauthors=[[Richard E. Cohen|Cohen, Richard E.]] | publisher = [[National Journal]] |location= Washington, D.C. | year=2007 |isbn=0-8923-4117-3}} pp. 95–100.
• "Sweeney" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney}}
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney|publisher=''[[The San Diego Union-Tribune]]''|date=2006-09-11|accessdate=2008-07-01}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed up. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth Control

Ok, so I noticed that someone added:

McCain's pro-life position on abortion, his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade[214], and his position that human life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized has raised concerns[215] that McCain would seek to outlaw the pill and other forms of birth control considered to be abortifacients.

Now, this claim links back to an opinion piece in Time which argues that McCain's certainty on the abortion issue might lead to problems of logical consistency since the BCP might prevent implantation. Nowhere is there a claim that McCain himself believes this; no where is the claim that McCain actually plans to seek outlawing the BCP. The op-ed's claim is that it might create an issue of logical consistency and the dangers of being too blunt in your answers. Thus, I propose that the section either be removed or changed to indicate that no one has actually voiced said concerns, just theoretical comments about potential implications of a position. JEB90 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should stick to things McCain has said. Theoretical extrapolations of what those things might mean if taken to the utmost point of philosophical consistency are pointless; no politician tries to do that, except maybe some hard-core libertarians. The sentence in question should be removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The preceding sentences imply this already. One op-ed is not enough to include as a criticism of McCain's policies. Maybe if a notable democrat says this, we can include it, but until then, the implication is sufficient, I think. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It would still be irrelevant even if a Democrat said the same thing as the Time piece. The point is, politicians don't do "logical consistency". They happily hold opposite and contradictory positions regarding trade with Cuba and China, to pick a well-known example. If McCain says he wants to outlaw X, then report it here. But don't extrapolate outlawing X from positions A and B. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the WP:SYNTH policy, thanks for explaining that. Quoting someone making the interpretation is not a violation of SYNTH. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the thing here, at least to some degree, is that the op-ed doesn't even claim that he does believe it. Just that his views, if taken to an extreme, might someday lead to it. I think that if a notable democrat (or even a notable op-ed writer) claimed that McCain believed these things, it might be worth quoting. JEB90 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article on the pill and abortifacients leads me to believe calling the pill an abortifacients requires citation. It can only be said that some people consider the pill an abortifacient. I'll go along with the change by JEB until better sources are found. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Has McCain spoken expressly to the question of contraception? The piece pointing out the logical implications of his statement to Warren does indeed raise a valid point. I agree with Wasted Time R that McCain isn't always consistent, but if he has expressly addressed this subject one way or the other, that would be worth including. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Conscription"

Isn't it more common to call this the "Draft."? That's what people are going to be looking for (it's what I was looking for just a few minutes ago). Maybe we should change the section name? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Either/or. Note that I've removed most of the section because it doesn't come close to meeting WP:RS (neither a partisan blog nor youtube comes even close to qualifying). As with previous sections, you need reliable sources to demonstrate that these comments have WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, you're just cherrypicking quotes that fit your POV. Oren0 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not debating this with you again. When we have a video of McCain saying it, then it goes in. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should reread the relevant policies. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Especially in a WP:BLP page, we specifically cannot include material that is unpublished in reliable sources. This is doubly true as significant editor consensus has ruled that YouTube is explicity disallowed as a reliable source unless confirmed by other reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The one relevant "policy" you've given is an essay. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to the last paragraph in this section. Why is that persons question notable when it is not even logical? How would the draft even solve the problems that this person was stating? Furthermore it doesn't flow well, it is just hanging out there without any context for why this particular question was important. I would say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information would cover this. Arzel (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Some editors don't seem to grasp the idea that these pages simply cannot list everything the candidates ever say. Nor can they list only quotes cherrypicked by editors to push their POV. These pages must list the relevant major positions based on coverage in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to delete everything except "how do we get Bin Laden without re-instating the draft?" that would be fine with me. I think the reason it's included is to show that the lady was rambling and McCain sweepingly agreed with everything. Some people take this as an edorsement of the draft and some do not. We leave it to the reader to decided. Having her rambling question is supportive of McCain. I don't think you want to delete it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're presenting a false dichotomy. The question isn't "should we include the whole question or just part of the question?" The question is "Is there any evidence that this question is significant enough to be mentioned at all?" To me, the answer is clearly no. Oren0 (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Huge surprise there. To me, the answer is clearly yes. Equally surprising, right? The lead to the section states that McCain's responses have always been ambiguous, thus we take what few quotes we can get. He's given two that liberals think are important. The "I don't disagree" comment was only 4 days ago and it's already overflowing in google hits. Include quotes that conservatives think are important. Include something from his website, I'm sure he's denied he would ever issue a draft there. But don't delete these trivially verifiable facts that are so wildly popular. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If indeed it's "overflowing in Google hits" and they meet WP:RS (ie, not blogs or youtube as you've currently listed and not op-eds either) then cite those and you won't hear any complaints from me. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to argue that a candidate's position on the draft is not a major issue. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'm sure there's a "draft" section on the candidates' websites then. I'm sure lots of sources have covered this. What's a major issue has nothing to do with what you and I think, it has to do with what is covered in sources. Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's important because McCain hasn't directly addressed it. If he unequivocally opposed the draft, he would have no problem mentioning it on his campaign site. Since he doesn't (and since his staff has not issued a statement clarifying his comments)... JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that I or AzureFury have covered up quotes where McCain has unequivocally opposed the draft, feel free to add them. Otherwise your claim of "cherrypicking" is baseless. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's someone saying that he said what we already know he said, objectively: [77]. Here's a copy/paste of that story by another organization (they seem to think it's trustworthy): [78] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I hesitate to get into this, I cannot find one mention of this in a reliable source. It's all op-eds, blogs, etc. For what it's worth, I tend to agree with the assessment here [79] that he was answering to the "meat of the question" rather than the exclamation at the end. Still, that's also in a blog. I think that including the sentence definitely violates undue weight but, before we get to that, it's not mentioned in a single reliable source that I can find. JEB90 (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I hadn't seen the Keith Olberman link (which is still op-ed, if you ask me, but seems an accurate representation of the quote). Still, I do feel that the quote does violate undue weight. Particularly once you see the rest of his answer, with the George Washington quote, he was clearly responding to the question as if it were: "unless we fix these problems, we won't have anyone volunteer for the army" and he agreed. But that's just my two cents. JEB90 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My personal guess is that McCain didn't intend to endorse the draft, and was instead just having a senior moment. On that theory, I expected McCain's handlers to issue a statement "clarifying" that he didn't really mean he favored a draft. Had they done so this would be a nonissue -- he didn't pay enough attention to the question, so it was a minor gaffe, not a statement of a political position. In the absence of such a clarification, however, we're left with what McCain said. The YouTube video is a reliable source for the fact that he said it, unless someone wants to claim that some sinister force has hired an actor to pretend to be McCain and to stage a fake town hall meeting. The most accurate way to present it is to report what he said but, for the reason stated by AzureFury, to include the context (that the reference to the draft came at the end of a long, rambling question.)

AFAIK, McCain hasn't answered the substantive question -- does he have any bright ideas for maintaining the armed forces, given the demands he apparently intends to place on them, without resorting to conscription. If he's addressed that topic, we should include his position here. JamesMLane t c 09:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just try responding to a question like that yourself, it is nearly impossible. It is one thing to read it and then form a response, but to hear it and then try to answer what is in reality several different questions is nat easy. As for McCain's plan, he has stated part of it. Offer increasing amounts of education benefits for longer service. Remember he was accused of not being supportive of the military because of that plan.... Arzel (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a December 2007 statement on it, while campaigning for the New Hampshire primary, captured by the Valley News:

McCain has spoken often on the campaign trail about his desire to expand the armed forces. In a recent essay published in the journal Foreign Affairs, he says he would increase the combined size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps from 750,000 to 900,000 troops.

At the same time, McCain says he is opposed to reinstating a national draft. "It would be a terrific mistake," McCain said in an interview, citing, among other problems with forced conscription, the historic ease with which the wealthy and privileged have escaped service. "The all-volunteer force is working, and it's the most professional and best trained and equipped we've ever had."

The Foreign Affairs essay says:

In 1947, the Truman administration launched a massive overhaul of the nation's foreign policy, defense, and intelligence agencies to meet the challenges of the Cold War. Today, we must do the same to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. Our armed forces are seriously overstretched and underresourced. As president, I will increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps from the currently planned level of roughly 750,000 troops to 900,000 troops. Enhancing recruitment will require more resources and will take time, but it must be done as soon as possible.

So his plan is to "enhance recruitment", which generally means better pay, better job training programs, better post-service benefits, sometimes shorter enlistment periods, a bigger recruiter budget, more or better advertising ("Be all you can be"), etc. Not conscription. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Is that clear enough? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add the quotes. I won't whitewash them like some of the McCain supporters on here have done to the quotes that I have added. However, I think it's questionable that McCain wants to "enhance recruitment." He's voted against minimum time periods between deployments and against the Democrats' new GI Bill (as it was too generous). JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. His opposition to the Webb GI bill was on grounds that too many service people would take advantage of it and leave; he wanted an alternative that would promote retention. So he thought his approach would increased overall servicepeople levels. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also added a 1999 NYT bit about how McCain had "mused publicly about reinstating the draft". The more (good) data points, the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think people are reading WAY to much into this. McCain was presented with a long rambling rant about the general state of the military, to which McCain appears to be polite and give basically a non-answer of general agreement with the questioneer that there are current problems within the military. The attempt to parse out the questioneers last sentence as McCain's view on the draft is sysnthesis of material for this section. I am being bold and removing it under undue weight, indiscriminate, and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You realize that if they don't read it here, people will just go to the liberal blogs and op-eds sites for the information, right? They don't include the whole rambling question, frequently. That's why I think it should be included, mostly as a refutation of the rumor. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a little backwards and a very weak reason, by that annalogy we should go and put everything being reported by right wing blog on the Obama page so that people can get it from here instead of the right wing blog. I suspect that people will see it on a liberal blog and then come here and try to add it. Since there are not any RS that talk about it people not in the know already would not even know about it. KO is the only thing remotely close to a RS that has brought it up, but he is already talking to the choir. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We do report most of it on the Obama page, including his supposedly being a Muslim. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. That which has been covered extensively by RS's is, but blog information is not. This is clearly an attempt to lead the reader to believe that McCain is in favour of the Draft when it is not clear that this was his intent. Common sense should dictate, not partisan beliefs. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What language is attempting to lead the reader? JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of any other language. Only one conclusion can be made, thus the intent is clear. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, please cite the policy showing that Countdown with Keith Olbermann is not a reliable source. This is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Under | BLP Sources we have the following section.

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.

KO repeating the same non-reliable source doesn't make it reliable. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Keith Olbermann was using the Youtube video? As an MSNBC anchor, he would surely have access to the raw video. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did I attempt to parse the last sentence? I gave the entire statement and McCain's entire reply, without commentary. It's up to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I said Partisan beliefs, this is being used in a partisan way to try and show that McCain is for the draft when it is not clear. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it being used in a partisan way? It doesn't show anything. It allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My problems with the YouTube video

This just can't be included for the following reasons:

1. YouTube isn't a reliable source. It doesn't meet the threshold of attributability. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." To anyone who's ever been to YouTube, the idea that it meets this bar is laughable. Maybe that's why YouTube is explicitly listed as a non-source at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. Also note that as a WP:BLP page we're held to an even higher standard than normal pages here in regards to sourcing material.
2. There is no context because we don't hear what the question was. Go watch the video. What if the question was: "Do you think the military is strong and would you support a draft if we were simultaneously attacked by Russia and China on American soil?" In that case, any sensible person would say "I'd have to consider a draft." Without the question, we just don't know. That's why we need reliable sources to corroborate the video and show us that it's not out of context.

For these reasons, I believe the material must be removed. Oren0 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR says that primary sources can be used as long as easily verifiable information is all that is presented in the article. Your WP:Reliable_source_examples is an essay. I choose not to adhere to it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the lead to the section includes him saying he would only start a draft in WWIII. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Choose to ignore what you want; the consensus on excluding YouTube as a reliable source is a longstanding and strong one. I was going to post RSN links indicating this until I saw, to my surprise, that you have already taken this there! Wikipedia:RSN#YouTube. Common courtesy would've been to inform us here that you've posted this discussion in another forum. But since the editors there have largely echoed my point that you can't use YouTube in this way, I'm re-removing that section. Oren0 (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary is a joke, right? Let's summarize the position of every person who has responded to you at Wikipedia:RSN#YouTube so far:

• "Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research." - User:Ngchen (against inclusion)
• "It isn't original research as long as one treats it appropriately as a primary source, which is to say that it's used only for objective, descriptive, and uncontroversial claims" - User:Girolamo Savonarola (for inclusion)
• "The problems with You Tube are many...these are the primary reasons why You Tube is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia" - User:Blueboar (against inclusion)
• "Using primary material such as this is fraught with the danger of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and point of view pushing. Find some mainstream media sources that have noted this incident you will be fine, and avoid all the youtube and the primary sourcing problems...The main point is that no, the Youtube video is not a reliable source. Sorry." - User:S1p1 (against inclusion)
• "Ok, I'm telling you, the consensus is going to be that youtube is largely not going to be considered a reliable source, especially on such a contentious issue and such a notable subject. Youtube is the WP:SPS example. there is no compelling reason to add this to an article on a national politician." - User:Protonk (against inclusion)

In what universe is four opposes against one support not a consensus? Oren0 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Initially I was ambivalent to this section, but after viewing the video, it is clearly not a reliable source. The actual question that was asked was not included, thus the context of the answer is not clear. Furthermore it appears to be a personal recording, it was clearly not a reliable newssource as the quality is quite poor (the panning is jerky and shows of low quality). Arzel (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oren, please review 1. Note that it is preceded by 0 and followed by 2. The statement by Girolamo is in support. This was also said by Ngchen, "I would argue that yes, youtube is reliable for what is in the content of a questioned video." Including me, that makes 3 people in support of inclusion. Note that 1 is not the same as 3. You may wish to review 3 as well. Your continued lies are inspiring examples of good faith. Essays do not reflect the consensus of the community, that's why I'm ignoring it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly getting desperate when you're counting someone who says "I would say that the material stays out as original research" as "for inclusion." Counting yourself is a tad disingenuous as well, but that's fine. Counting you and me the count is still 5-2 against at RSN. Adding other editors here, Arzel and JEB90 oppose and JamesMLane and JCDenton2052 support. That makes a grand total of 7 (8 if you count Wasted Time R, who's unclear) -4 opposing. Combine that with the fact that in BLP pages we default to excluding contentious information, and at this point this is a no-brainer.

"Unless a secondary source notes McCain talking about something on a video, I would say that the material stays out as original research." Another lie, this one by omission! You're getting crafty, kudos. Please quote the policy that says the default is exclude undisputed quotes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source hasn't commented on the first video that you've cited. As for the policy you seek, see WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP. Specifically, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion," and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material...Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons". Since you apparently respect nothing less, note that both of these are policies. Oren0 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're calling YouTube a "poor source." That is currently under dispute. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't under dispute. Look through the RSN archives. This comes up a lot; there is wide community consensus that YouTube is unacceptable. Oren0 (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

--->Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard = dispute. Nothing on Wiki is set in stone. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as an outsider looking in (I've never edited this page, and only noticed a dispute because Protonk's talk page is on my watchlist -- I left a comment there on a topic wholly unrelated to this): 1) YouTube has long been recognized by the community as an unreliable source -- there are bots that go around removing even external links to YouTube, and EL has a much lower threshold for acceptability than sources 2) original research can be implicit, and the current inclusion *and phrasing* of this material is an implicit suggestion that McCain now supports a draft or would more readily support a draft than he's previously suggested. I suggest editors here ditch the YouTube ref -- it's a primary source, the content of which was covered repeatedly by various outlets -- and rephrase those couple of paragraphs not in terms of what he might have suggested, but instead citing what the professional/critical response was. My two cents. --EEMIV (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the new sources satisfactory? Is the dispute resolved? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, dispute is not resolved. we continue to use interpretation of his answer to an unknown question to extrapolate his views on the draft. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The way it is now, the quote immediately follows "I don't know what would make a draft happen unless we were in an all-out World War III." The natural implication from this ordering is "McCain would consider a draft in WWIII." This is the best case scenario from the perspective of the right. Every single source simply says "when asked about the draft" he said that. The quote does contain important information about his position on the draft. We simply can't delete that one.

How about this, for weight reasons, we condense the "I might consider" quote to a link and cover it fully at the Political Image article. In that case, we have several statements by McCain against the draft and one possibly in favor of it. I think that's fair considering how ambiguous he's been and the fact that he's never really explained where he's going to get the troops to do everything he wants to do if he becomes president. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "I don't disagree" quote to controversial remarks here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. It's not a controversial remark in the sense of the others there. It's McCain making a generic politic response to a long-winded, somewhat incoherent ramble by a citizen at a town hall. It's a big nothing. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, regardless of his actual intentions, a lot of people are taking that as an endorsement of the draft in Iraq. That is the exact definition of a controversy! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's willful misinterpretation for partisan purposes during a campaign. Something else entirely. It's like people wanting to make a big deal out of Obama's "57 states" remark. That's not a controversy either. Just because American political campaigns collectively approach an IQ of zero, doesn't mean we have to also. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama doesn't even have a "controversial statements" section, so you can't use him as a comparison. McCain's comment is trivially notable. Where would you put it? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain's comment is trivial. Have you ever seen town halls? Joe and Jane Citizen get up and unleash all sorts of weird, longwinded, rambling statements or personal complaints. John Politico then has to concoct some sort of response that's respectful without saying anything. This was such a case. Look, this article and this section is the right place to discuss McCain's views on the draft. McCain is a guy who probably has contradictory impulses on this issue: on one hand, he believes in service to a greater cause as a crucial element of national being; on the other, he believes in military professionalism and tradition. The first might cause him to possibly consider draft reinstatement, the second would push back against that. I'm sure if you go back through all his legitimate public statements, you can find some of the first. Indeed, I added the "In 1999, when the U.S. military was experiencing significant recruiting shortfalls, McCain was one of several members of Congress who mused publicly about reinstating the draft" material that's in the article now. Research what and where those musings were, and add that. Or other statements he's made. But this town hall thing is meaningless. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with deleting "I don't disagree" if "I might consider it" stays. Deal? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I would disagree completely -- the "I don't disagree" has been covered by MSNBC and other reliable sources; wasn't the other comment just a youtube video (i.e. a primary source)? There are definitely some synthesis / original research issues if we go inserting unsourced or primary source (i.e. youtube videos not from a reliable source); however statements (especially ones generating controversial or multiple interpretations) from reliable secondary sources should (must) be included. Sorry I haven't followed along completely, but I don't think it's fair to say that inclusion of the material constitutes a "willful misinterpretation" -- controversial statements should be presented with reliably sourced statements, readers should be allowed to value the comments themselves. In no case should wikipedia editors decide what the comments mean, or if readers should be allowed to see them. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have enough reliable sources for both that sourcing is not the issue. I think the only thing left to debate is WP:WEIGHT. The ambiguity of the "I don't disagree" statement is what makes me want to condense it to a link and cover it at controversial comments. Wasted debates the fact that it's controversial. I'm getting too Wiki-sausted too argue. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's misleading to say "I don't disagree" has been covered by MSNBC. The cite isn't to any regular MSNBC news report, but instead to Keith Olbermann's show. That's equivalent to something being on the New York Times op-ed page versus in its regular news section. The same with the other two cites; they are to political opinion blogs. All of these people are in the business of making mountains out of molehills, if it might hurt the other side. That's fine for them, that's their business, but that's not what we do. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What we (as in Wikipedia editors) do not do is decide which criticisms are valid and which are not. We do report controversies when they're reliably sourced and both viewpoints are presented neutrally. I agree that blogs don't belong, however MSNBC certainly is a reliable source, as is Olbermann's show. We're not going to cull a controversy because you think it's not a big deal when it's reliably sourced and neutrally presented. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that Arzel has been bold and deleted the "I don't disagree" remark. Really there was no policy-based argument given, but I'm not going to revert. Looks like this is implied consent to the proposed compromise, and hopefully we the page will remain stable now. I do think this deserves to go into his controversial comments though. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia-Russia Comment

This is the quote from John McCain, and there is no "since the entire war on terror" in it. It must be taken out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLEZ5AZL5BE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeppelin462 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Material from campaign article

Here is some material that was in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. It doesn't belong there, since none of these speeches had much of an impact on the campaign itself. But this may be useful for this article; parked here until unlock occurs. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[snip]

Material has now been merged in to the appropriate places. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Length

I see the article's been tagged for length. Is there anything we can do to make the article shorter? It seems to me that everything is already a summary. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm content with the current length. I have temporary problems with my high-speed connection, so I'm editing on dial-up and really feeling the pain of long articles, but I think trying to shorten this one significantly would be even worse. JamesMLane t c 04:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles like these are supposed to be long. Readers typically look up material in them they are interested in by using the table of contents, not read them top to bottom in one sitting. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with WTR. Happyme22 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Split

Without any consensus to do so, User:Yellowbounder has split the article into a half-dozen different pieces. (And done it badly; the pieces have no leads, backlinks, categories, or references.) It's well-known from looking at readership stats that the further down in the subarticle chain you get, the fewer readers there are, often by a factor of 10. So now many readers will just see the interest group ratings and nothing else. Bleah. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to voice the same concerns as WTR. The issue is threefold: (1) Is the article too long to manage? (2) Is the best solution to split the article? (3) What logical flow will be used to split the content? I haven't seen a real consensus on any of those questions as of yet; WP:BOLD aside, I think the split is premature and does more harm than good -- the split was very poorly executed and the resulting subordinate articles are severely lacking. I strongly support reverting the changes and subsequent debate on the three points I've raised before another split. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see you've restored this article back to its full state. I've redirected all the pieces that were created back to here as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is fine the way it is. The longer the better, because that means more issues have been added (assuming they all remain properly summarized).Chastayo (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Does John McCain support a two-state solution?

Does John McCain support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This point was raised in a number of sources today and it would be great to get clarification. This is a major issue in that both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have supported this policy since 1993. Is John McCain following in their footsteps? --John Bahrain (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sources are cited in this take on things from a PAC: http://www.jstreet.org/campaigns/does-john-mccain-support-a-two-state-solution

--John Bahrain (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This McCain speech doesn't explicitly say so, but the line "The recent talks between the Israeli government and the government led by President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank are encouraging, and the United States should support this effort" kind of suggests it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

the last para of the FP section. Sentence is: Many even argue that McCain's statements, such as "100 years in Iraq," "there will be other wars," and "I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically- elected governments.", approach imperialistic over-tones like that reflected in the PNAC.[92] Many say that this statement is a biased opinion about his policy. Plus the link is an op-ed piece. I am deleting. --Pt1978 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty junky. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I just reverted Pt1978's edit because it didn't have an edit summary without checking here. Let me review the stuff before I undo my undo. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Energy

The sentence that reads "In a June 2008 analysis of McCain's positions, the Los Angeles Times said that "the Arizona senator has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the federal government's role in energy policy."[185]" the source is no longer valid as it is a broken link. I suggest that this be removed unless a new source can be found. JenWSU (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your action was incorrect, and I've restored the material in question. A valid source remains valid regardless of whether it is freely available online or not. If you look at WP:V and WP:RS, you'll see that the most highly-valued sources are books and scholarly journals, and these are usually not freely available online. Newspapers often shuffle their current news articles into their pay archives after a while, which is what happened here. If you really want to check the source, you can pay for LA Times archives access. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and stem cell research

A new editorial discussing this subject can be found here. There is a hot debate about wording this going on at Sarah Palin's talk pages. I'm including this link here in case anyone's interested. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this say regarding McCain's views that isn't already in this article? Wasted Time R (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know, since I haven't worked on this article. I posted the link here as a possible source of interest to those who are working on it. If not, feel free to ignore it. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Financial Deregulation

According to the WP McCain said this. But he has usually reverted to the role of an unabashed deregulator. In 2007, he told a group of bloggers on a conference call that he regretted his vote on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which has been castigated by many executives as too heavy-handed. This was included as a factual statement in the section, but I have a lot of problems with this. One, it doesn't say when in 2007, it doesn't say what group of bloggers, or what conference call. Unless a better source for this statement can be made I find it a little dubious for inclusion here. Arzel (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the Washington Post? Sources don't get much better than that. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I said it was the WP. The problem is that it is a second hand account. It is not in quotes therefore we cannot list it as a quoted statement by McCain. Arzel (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason that publications like The Washington Post are accepted under WP:RS is that we trust a statement when the publication stands behind it. It is frequent -- indeed, nearly universal -- for the media to report information like this without publishing every little detail about the circumstances of the statement. The reporter would have much or all of that information; the reporter would usually be asked about it by an editor or fact checker, and if not asked in this particular case, nevertheless retains a job as a reporter because he or she doesn't make up quotations. It's also frequent for the media to publish, and for Wikipedia to rely on, paraphrases of a public figure's statements. As Arzel says, we can't list it as "a quoted statement" -- which is why I didn't enclose it in quotation marks, as compared with the verbatim quotation later in the subsection.

The Wikipedia standard is to use information like this. We make no exception for presidential candidates. I am restoring the material. JamesMLane t c 01:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying the WP cannot be used, only that that statement cannot be used in this manner. Regardless of how you present it it will read as if McCain made that statement, however it is only a second hand account of what happened. To this point all you have is that the WP reported that, but not that he actually said that. As it is you have some blogger claiming that sometime in 2007 McCain said on a conference call. This is all heresay and with your background you should know that this is not something to rely on. Arzel (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Another article in which McCain, through his aides, claims to still back Sarbanes-Oxley. [80] Arzel (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, Arzel. We don't need to quote McCain to attribute a statement to him. See WP:V. This is a non-issue. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?!? So if someone makes a claim that someone else said then we treat that as gospel unless that person can prove he didn't say it? What kind of logic is that? Arzel (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, McCain doesn't have to "prove" anything. If McCain now says he didn't say it, and the Washington Post says he did, then we can print both assertions. McCain has a press secretary and is capable of asserting his position, including any disagreement he has with the Washington Post. Meanwhile, your edit to "some bloggers claim" is unacceptable. Aside from "claim" being a WP:WTA, you have no evidence for the implication that this is just some bloggers claiming it. Maybe the reporter was in on the call. Maybe someone taped it. Maybe the reporter later confirmed it with enough different participants and/or McCain's office to be satisfied. We don't know. That's the whole point of WP:RS, as I explained above. If some anonymous blogger phoned up the Washington Post and said this happened, the paper probably wouldn't print it, or at most would print it as "one blogger claims...." If the paper prints it as a fact, then we can take it that the provenance -- tape recording, reporter participation, whatever -- satisfied the editors and fact checkers at the Washington Post. Wikipedia is not a news agency and we aren't going to go out and grill people about stuff like this. In fact, if you and Blaxthos and Jimbo and I had all been on the call, and we all heard McCain say something else interesting, but the something else wasn't printed, then we couldn't use it in Wikipedia; even though we would know it to be true, it wouldn't be verifiable per WP:V. That's how an encyclopedia differs from a newspaper. JamesMLane t c 02:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironic that you would quote WTA and violate it at the same time with your "However" statement. You have to attribute this to someone when the actual source is dubious. Arzel (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly not the first person to imply that WP:WTA prohibits the use of "however". If you read it a bit more carefully, however, you'll see that it doesn't. I believe that the language in the current version of this article is consistent with WTA. JamesMLane t c 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the WaPo story to source McCain's thinking about Sarbines-Oxley in 2007. It's quite possible WaPo had a blogger on their staff on the call, so I wouldn't assume it's hearsay. As for "however", I've gotten in arguments about using that word too. I don't mind it, but I think the text would still work even if you took it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WT, even if that was true it is still hearsay. Unless you have an actual citation to back up your claim it is hearsay. In an case I reworded it to summarize completely what the WP reported regarding that section. The reader shouldn't have to read the link to find out how this information supposedly came about. Arzel (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Including this kind of information is contrary to our usual practice. I assume the reason you want such detail in this particular case is that McCain's 2007 position contradicts his current spin, so you want it downplayed as much as possible, and you hope that invoking the word "bloggers" will make it seem comparatively lightweight. To that end, I note that your revision said that McCain "remarked" -- another choice of words that seeks to downplay the statement by conveying the impression that it was just some offhand comment not meant to be taken seriously. I didn't remember "remarked" being in the original and, lo and behold, it isn't. Your zeal for adherence to the source seemed to flag a little here, when it came to a campaign statement that McCain has now flipflopped away from in light of what's currently to his political advantage.

There's still no reason to single out this statement for including the details about the circumstances. I don't want to edit-war over it; I'll support other editors who want to remove this blatant POV-pushing, but, in the meantime, if the stated rationale is to be accurate about what the Post reported, then we might as well just quote the story verbatim. JamesMLane t c 17:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Addendum: The POV language was reverted while I was writing this, so I won't re-add the details. JamesMLane t c 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD) This is a laugh considering your previously stated bias against conservatives. This is not a vote, and my additional information is clearly backed up by the source you provided. You claim I am POV pushing, I claim you are cherry picking this one sentence to make him look like a hypocrite. Either attribute the information correctly or leave out the sentence. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true this is not a vote, but we can't always please everyone. We are supposed to consider the weight of the arguments, not the weight of the numbers. In this case, you seem to be the only person who finds your argument heavier. How can you be so sure of your own objectivity in the face of this evidence? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you tell me that I'm biased. I told you that a specific edit of yours was biased. The difference between those two points may seem minor, but it's crucial. I've left untouched plenty of edits of yours that clearly flowed from your pro-McCain bias. An ardent McCain partisan is allowed to edit Wikipedia. As long as the edit itself comports with Wikipedia principles, including NPOV, then the bias of its author is immaterial. JamesMLane t c 19:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how being specific is biased and your cherry picking of that quote without attribution is not biased. There is one simple question to answer, when and where did McCain make that comment? If you cannot answer it then you have no case for your reason for non-inclusion. Additionally, what is so POV about simply repeating what the WP said? I am not taking it out of context in any manner. Arzel (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that "being specific" at this level of detail is not our normal practice. We have many quotations and paraphrases from McCain in this article that don't include the date, time, place, nature of audience, color of tie McCain was wearing at the time, etc. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book, so we can't put in every detail that's in the source material. That's what the hyperlink is for. JamesMLane t c 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That is all fine and dandy when you are using actual quotes, but here you are paraphrasing a paraphrase. I think the reader has the right to know that WP is paraphrasing a second-hand account. Do you know exactly what McCain said? No, you don't. I have done alot of checking on this, and I can't find a single other mention of him saying this anywhere. Arzel (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

changes in posistions

is it appropriate to have a seperate, short table listing changes in posistion ? eg, from anti to pro bush tax cut, from pro deregulation for economy and health care to pro regulation, from Falwell is agent of intolerance to not, etc. This is not exactly a political position, but it seems relevant - sort of meta political posistions.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Each section describes the positions on a given topic, generally in chronological order. Readers can decide for themselves if the positions have changed and why. What you are advocating would be unworkable. For example, McCain would say each of his votes on tax cuts has had its own rationale at that time, and they are consistent overall. It's up to the reader to decide whether this is reasonably true or a heap of malarkey. If the table presented the tax cuts votes as just contradictions without their rationales, it would be oversimplistic. If the table added the rationales, it would quickly become very unwieldy and no improvement over what we have now. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should a 2004 yes/no survey be included in the free trade section

I feel strongly that it doesn't warrant inclusion. We establish that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements. That's all that needs said. The inclusion of a non-elaborated yes/no survey establishes an NPOV situation in which there is contextual bias against McCain--it'd be comparable to if we included in an anti-death penalty politician, "xyz opposes the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden." By establishing that McCain opposes renegotiation of free trade agreements for ANY reason, this survey is a moot point at best. Trilemma (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. McCain was asked a specific and important question, about including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements, and he gave his answer. Our article quotes the question and the answer verbatim (noting that they are from 2004; not noting that a 2008 update is unavailable because in 2008 McCain refused to answer the question). Trilemma persists in assuming, utterly without support, that the issue arises only in the context of renegotiation of trade agreements. Trilemma's view is, "The specific 2004 survey appears to be in regards to proposed renegotiations of NAFTA and other trade agreements." That interpretation is fanciful. The cited source doesn't contain the word "renegotiation" or any of its variants. In the real world the question of labor and environmental protection is actually raised in the context of whether to grant initial approval to a trade agreement. See, for example, this letter from environmentalists urging rejection of the proposed U.S. - Columbia Free Trade Agreement ("Despite the inclusion of some essential environmental and labor safeguards, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement none-the-less contains provisions that encourage the relocation of industry in pursuit of the least stringent environmental and social standards and continues to prioritize the rights of private corporations over the public good."). McCain's express disagreement with this standard for evaluating proposed FTA's is part of his position and merits inclusion. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support thoroughly, as equivalent to standard procedure at political positions of Ron Paul. Quoting question and answer exactly is pretty much the only way to give correct context, and that is done; "he declined to answer in 2008" may also be added. As an inclusionist, I think that during the campaign this article should be a catchall for any reasonable statements of position because each is nuanced differently (excluding indiscriminately collected info, of course, which this is very probably not). The allegedly stronger statement does not require exclusion of the nuanced statement; it may be culled in a well-balanced trim of all sections, but certainly not as a separate RfC. To argue that one moots the other is to apply a weighting argument which might work in the bio but has very very little utility in the positions article; and there is no clear evidence one does moot the other. JJB 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid when possible. The current article text reads: In 2004, when McCain was asked, "Should trade agreements include provisions to address environmental concerns and to protect workers' rights?", he answered, "No."[87] This text doesn't make clear that the context was a written survey in which a one-word yes or no answer was required. That's different from if he said this in an interview and was so adamant about his response that he didn't follow it up with any further explanation. He had been able to give a longer response in the survey, the answer might have been 'Usually not, but there might be exceptions on a case-by-case basis' or something like that. That's why forced short responses of this kind should be avoided when possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. McCain wasn't strictly confined to "a one-word yes or no answer". If you look at the cited source, you'll see that each section of the survey, including the cited section on "International Trade", concluded with an open-ended invitation to the candidate to expound "Other or expanded principles". McCain used this option several times to provide the kind of nuance you mention. For example, in the "National Security Issues" section, he answered "Yes" to the question about pre-emptive strikes, but then took advantage of the "Other or expanded principles" question to add, "Pre-emptive strikes should be evaluated on a case by case basis depending on the severity of the threat". He chose not to make any such elaboration with regard to his opposition to including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements. JamesMLane t c 02:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• OUTSIDE OPINION Support inclusion. The article currently states the question verbatim; we're presenting the fact. Contrary to the initial statement of the RfC, we're not making hypothetical scenarios. If we were, that would be a problem, but as it is, it's factual. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Sounds like McCain had a chance to explain himself and chose not to. I think the sentence should be written more specifically. Too many statistics or political responses are thrown around without explanation of the way they were obtained. I suggest including the response but also that the survey is yes/no with the option of expanding further. Basically just explain everything that has been said here. AzureFury (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion -- note on general grounds that McCain opposes renegotiating free trade agreements; if you must mention the question, fairness demands a recounting of the context, specifically, that it was a yes/no survey. There are rare politicians who don't attach detailed 35-point caveats and explanations to every yes/no question; this should not be viewed as license to portray their reply in the most negative light possible. RayAYang (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH says we can't edit based on what we think he opposes. AzureFury (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Wiretap Provision

Trilemma decided that McCain's position on wiretapping did not warrant inclusion and has insisted on its deletion. It seems to me that since the preceding paragraph mentions amendments to the bill which might potentially be opposed to wiretapping, inclusion can be based simply on clarity. In addition, wiretapping is an extremely controvesial issue, thus making it trivially notable. AzureFury (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What I decided is that the paragraph-long explanation does not warrant inclusion. Not every bill warrants a broad explanation. Furthermore, it appears that the paragraph was copied wholesale from a site, as it reads like a talking point. One of our goals is to be concise. My edit is aimed at that. Trilemma (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE says our goal is not to be concise, especially on such high profile issues. Where is the paragraph copied from? AzureFury (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to track down where it's copied from; either the editor who initially added it has no clue about sentence construction, or was copying verbatim from talking points. And, the secondary wiretapping measure is not a high profile issue. Please prove that it is. Do you have significant coverage on major news networks or newspapers? This is an issue dominant on the left-wing netroots, not the mainstream news, and it's receiving undue weight. Trilemma (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Waste Transportation

I removed the comment about his comment regarding Nuclear Waste Transportation for a few reasons. One the source is The Sierra Club, which should not qualify as a RS. They are a very biased extremist group and in no way could be considered to be neutral. Additionally, if you go and actually listen to the video, the connection that the Sierra Club makes regarding the question is marginal at best. It appears that McCain is not even answering the question which the reporter appears to be asking. The reporter as if he would be comfortable with nuclear waste be transported through Arizona, through Pheonix, to which he replies "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe, and again, we have two options here...." , but the way it cuts back to McCain it appears almost like he is answering a different question, I suspect the video may have been edited. In any case, The Sierra Club doing OR on a YouTube video is no better than some random editor doing the same thing. Thus this fails WP:RS WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Additionally, The Sierra Club is actively campainging against McCain. Arzel (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To call the Sierra Club "extremist" in the context of WP:RS is ludicrous. Neutrality of a source isn't required. In any event, the Sierra Club statement links to a video of McCain making the comment. If you think that was an actor portraying McCain, provide some evidence. Your personal suspicion that the video was edited is irrelevant for this purpose. I don't understand your interpretation of the video, but if some prominent spokesperson has articulated that interpretation, or has argued that the video was edited, feel free to include that point, with a citation. Finally, to say that a prominent outside source is "doing OR" is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NOR.

Given that, AFAIK, there is no good-faith dispute whatsoever that McCain actually said this, the passage I wrote is perfectly acceptable. Nevertheless, in an attempt to avoid another edit war, I'll reword it to make it clear that this statement is advanced by the Sierra Club. I think that the McCain campaign responded by attacking Obama but not by denying the quotation. If so, perhaps we should include that as well, as it's additional evidence (by omission) that the quotation is accurate. (Of course, that elaboration would be unnecessary if we followed the sensible course of stating the fact about which there's no good-faith dispute.) JamesMLane t c 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement cannot be included per WP:WEIGHT. Do you have evidence that this statement was given coverage by many reliable sources? This article doesn't purport to present the answer to every question McCain has ever been asked, and cherry picking this one is undue weight. Oren0 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

James, I didn't say it was an actor, I said that it looks like the video was edited. Regardless, if YouTube cannont be used as a source, then why would the Sierra Club simply commenting on the YouTube video be a reliable source?...from the source you listed they didn't do any fact finding or clarrification of this issue, and the source of the video wasn't the station, just some guy that uploaded it to the internet. Additionally, Verifiability and Neutrality go hand and hand. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean is passes neutrality. I've noticed that you have done this a few times now, presenting a fact from a biased source without attribuation. Finally, do you even know what question he supposedly answered? The reporter asked first about Arizona and then Phoneix, but review of the video indicates that McCain would have to be referring to the second question, but even then his answer doesn't make sense "No, I do not, I think it can be made safe..." What can be made safe? Transportation of NW?...If it can why would he say no? Transportation in general to Yucca Mountain?...That makes more sense, but it is not clear. I think if you can get past your admitted right-wing bias, you will see that this fails on a number of levels. Arzel (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sierra Club press release was picked up by some general media sources, such as YubaNet.com ([81]) and The Daily Kenoshan ([82]); by environment-oriented sources, including a political reporter for Grist ([83]) and a writer for Treehugger, another environmental website ([84]); by WisPolitics.com ([85]), which appears to be a neutral site devoted to political news; and by some Democratic Party sites, such as in Ohio ([86]) and the National Jewish Democratic Council ([87]). Without specific reference to the Sierra Club press release, the Obama campaign included the McCain clip in an ad, which was covered by CBS News ([88]) in a story that included a link to the clip, so if you think there's a conspiracy afoot to edit the tape so as to make McCain look stupid, you'd have to think that CBS is in on it, too. JamesMLane t c 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're still not addressing the core issue, which is due weight. The fact that you're pointing to Yubanet and The Daily Kenoshan as sources that "picked up" this story indicates to me that it was likely not widely reported (I also believe this because I've never heard of this until now). Unless you can demonstrate that this was reported in the mainsteam media (not by partisan groups, small town newspapers, and blogs) then it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT and therefore doesn't merit inclusion imo. Oren0 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now added links to CBS News and The New York Times. There was an AP story that was published by, among others, Forbes ([89]), the Houston Chronicle ([90]), Salon ([91]), and that well-known bastion of left-wing extremism, Fox News ([92]). If I were to keep Googling I'm sure I could give you plenty more such sources. JamesMLane t c 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A transcript of an Obama ad in and of itself lends no additional weight to the underlying quote as a McCain policy. The question isn't who reported Obama's ad, the question is who reported the original quote, specifically as a relevant position of McCain. Oren0 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of no basis in Wikipedia policy for such a restriction. The purpose of the article is to provide information to readers who want to know about McCain's political positions. Presumably, some of his positions are on subjects of such limited interest that there'd be no point in including them here. This topic, however, is now being widely reported, more so than many of the other positions elucidated in this article. JamesMLane t c 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The basis is the core policies of WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and common sense. The sources you've provided only show that Obama has attacked McCain for a certain position. They don't show that anyone is reporting this as an important or relevant position of McCain. If indeed the topic "is being widely reported" as a defining/important/notable position of McCain then it would merit inclusion but I haven't seen any source claiming this. Oren0 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

These two quotes are from Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

WP:UNDUE says include. To say that the video is editted is WP:OR, and can not contribute to our decision of whether or not to include these statements. Accusations are trivially verifiable, so WP:VERIFY is not an issue here, only perhaps notability. Since the Obama campaign has also made these allegations, the comments are indeed notable. They should be included. AzureFury (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed that the video was edited. And to say that any accusation made in a campaign ad instantly becomes a notable position of the other party is ludicrous. I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page? Of course not. Notability must be demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which the McCain quote has not gotten. Oren0 (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I stated that the video appeared to be edited. In anycase Verfiability and Neutrality go hand in hand. Just because some can be verified does not mean that it passes neutrality. This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral, not to mention a whole host of other problems like weight and the fact that the whole basis is a YouTube video which is not a reliable source. The fact that Obama and others are using the video to attack McCain does not make the video a reliable source per common sense. Arzel (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You like to answer your own questions don't you? Again, there is a difference between the present situation and your wanna-be analogy. In this case we have solid proof of McCain making these statements. If you don't dispute the accuracy of the video then we don't need attribution to the Sierra Club or Obama campaign. Regarding notability, perhaps you missed the two paragraphs by James listing source after source? AzureFury (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, does McCain dispute the accuracy of the video? Unless he does then your claim that the video is editted is baseless. See above for my refutation of weight issues. WP:PRESERVE says that WP:NPOV does not justify deletion of facts that are fairly weighted. AzureFury (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When the scale is tipped so far over that one end is resting on the ground, I would hardly consider that to be fairly weighted. Neutrality is a core policy, and trumps preserve with minority views. You have one marginal source which is simply parroting a YouTube video, and Obama using it to attack McCain, and you want to use it to state an official McCain position? As I stated earlier McCain's answer was not clear. If you listen to the video it his position can only be obtained by interpreting what he is saying. The Obama camp and The Sierra Club are doing the same thing. If you can not see the partisan bias in this then I don't know what else to tell you. Even if one does not dispute the video, the video itself cannot be used because it is not a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is youtube not a reliable source? If videos are satisfactory to sentence someone to death, then they are satisfactory to quote someone.

"Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Phoenix on its way to Yucca Mountain?"

"No I would not." - McCain

Explain to me a contrary interpretation derived from that quote. If need be we can quote him directly. AzureFury (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) "Source after source?" Every source I see above is one or more of: inherently partisan (democratic party, Sierra Club, etc), an op-ed (not RS, see Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations), or only reporting a transcript of an Obama ad (lends no weight to this being a position of McCain). Oren0 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability, No Original Research and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections

Notability does not apply here. AzureFury (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just Wikilawyering. I'm using the dictionary definition of notability rather than the Wikipedia one. This page can't list everything McCain has ever said. Therefore, we choose the most notable (read: most covered by reliable sources) positions to list here. There has been no evidence that this quote has been covered in reliable sources at all (making WP:V an additional concern), much less covered enough to warrant mention here. Even if it had been covered, it's still unclear that this is a position. If it was demonstrated that this comment demonstrated significant controversy, keeping in mind that this hasn't been demonstrated yet, it would be a better fit at Cultural and political image of John McCain because it's not a position. Oren0 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is more appropriate in Wikipedia than Lawyerlawyering. You say only thing covered in objective (? I assume this is what you mean by reliable) sources is worth mentioning. I say it isn't. You say this isn't one of his most notable positions. I say it's more important than his position on transportation. You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it. You say it's not a position. I say it is. We use Wiki policies when we can't agree. Welp, we can't agree. AzureFury (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When I say "objective," I mean not the democratic party, Obama's ads, partisan groups, etc. You say it's important; our opinions don't matter. If it was important (not his policy on nuclear energy in general, his policy on waste in Arizona specifically), you'd think that it would be mentioned often in reliable sources. As it stands, not one source meeting WP:RS has been presented for this. Let's contrast that with transportation; the current page lists three sources (and I could certainly present dozens more). That's how we measure importance, and for this issue the sources objectively don't stack up. Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"You say this isn't a controversy. Great, then there's no reason to not include it." - No, that's not how it works. There is no reason to include it as it wasn't reported in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is "ya huh." AzureFury (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The pretexts for trying to censor this information are becoming very threadbare.

• Oren0 wrote, "I saw a McCain ad today claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes, leading to fewer jobs. Does that mean I can include that on the Obama page?" That depends on two specific issues involved, importance and verifiability:

Importance. If McCain makes a big deal about an issue, that fact would indeed affect its importance. A McCain attack might justify including something on Obama's page that otherwise would be too minor. Each campaign has some ability to set the agenda and to influence what's important.

Verifiability. Here's the clear difference between the two cases. The question is whether there's a good-faith dispute about what the candidate's position is. In the case you mention, there is a dispute. The Obama campaign has released a video setting forth why the McCain ad is a lie. You can watch it here. You'll see that the Obama campaign has specifically and in great detail disputed the accuracy of McCain's characterization of Obama's position. Therefore, we would not report McCain's characterization as if it were fact. By contrast, as I pointed out above, the McCain campaign has not denied that McCain made the statements attributed to him by the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign. And it's not because McCain's staffers have been too busy hunting for good pictures of Britney Spears and so haven't had time to respond to the Obama ad -- the McCain campaign did respond to the ad, going negative on Obama as per usual and distorting his record as per usual, but didn't dispute the accuracy of the video clip or of the quotation. The revised passage I wrote for our article includes the McCain campaign's response, cited to this article, although my edit charitably avoids pointing out that the McCain response was itself a distortion of Obama's position.

• It was Arzel who suggested, entirely without evidence, that the video might have been edited. I think we're entitled to assume that CBS wouldn't have linked to it without checking that. I think we're entitled to further assume that, if it had been edited, the McCain campaign would have jumped to point that out, instead of (as noted immediately above) responding to the Obama ad without disputing the accuracy of the clip.
• For these reasons, Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling. We have well-known organizations asserting that McCain said it. We have a video of McCain saying it. We have CBS News using the video, strongly suggesting that it hasn't been tinkered with. We have the Obama campaign using the video in an ad and the McCain campaign responding to the ad without contesting the accuracy of the quotation. No reasonable person could doubt that McCain actually said this. What kind of verifiability do you think is needed?
• Oren0 says there's no source claiming that this is an important position of McCain's. So what? We need a source for the point that McCain actually said it. We do not need any kind of outside source saying, in effect, "McCain's position on transportation of nuclear waste is important enough to be covered in Wikipedia." That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article.
• Arzel writes, "This is clearly being using in a partisan attack against McCain, and therefore is in no way neutral...." That's not the standard set by NPOV. We write neutrally. That the facts could be used or are being used in a partisan attack doesn't mean that we have to omit those facts. For example, McCain favors offshore drilling, Obama opposes it, and both those facts are being used in partisan attacks over the issue. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't say "McCain favors offshore drilling and tries to bamboozle the voters into thinking that would reduce gas prices anytime soon" or "Obama opposes offshore drilling and therefore cripples the goal of achieving American energy independence". Nevertheless, the existence of these partisan attacks doesn't mean that we omit the issue from Wikipedia. It means that we simply state the facts, maintaining a neutral tone, and let the chips fall where they may.
• Moreover, the attack on the neutrality of McCain's critics is completely beside the point. It would arguably be relevant if there were a good-faith dispute about what McCain actually said (for example, at some unrecorded closed-door meeting), but there is no such dispute. Nevertheless, in an effort to reach a compromise, I treated this subject as if someone had raised some serious question about the tape being edited or about McCain's comments needing interpretation. I reworded the passage to say that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign had "charged" that McCain said what he said. That's a considerable concession because it will lead some careless readers to think that this indisputable fact may be in dispute. At any rate, the revised wording should dispose of this spurious "neutrality" argument. WP:NPOV says that we can, indeed should, report facts about opinions. It's a fact, supported by citations, that the named sources hold the opinion that McCain said this. If some prominent spokesperson expresses the opinion that McCain didn't say it, we should of course report that too. I've read quite a bit about this issue by now, though, and the only such comment that I've seen is Arzel's.

I surely hope we don't have to go to RfC over this. It seems absurd that we have to spend this much effort to get a simple, straightforward, undisputed fact into Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems that RfC is where this is going. It's hard to argue with such fundamental misunderstandings of policy.

• "Oren0's reference to WP:V is particularly puzzling." - Wikipedia isn't about what's true. It's about what is verifiable and attributable to reliable sources. This is neither.
• "Since you have no policy backing your claim that a reliable source is required to report this, all I can and need to say in return is 'ya huh.'" - What are you talking about? Reliable sources are needed to report anything. This is especially true in a WP:BLP page such as this one. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
• "That's an editorial judgment we make, and in this instance it's clear. The coverage shows this issue to be more notable than quite a lot of the stuff in this article." - Maybe it's clear to you. Maybe if you'd link some of this mysterious "coverage" I'd tend to agree with you. As it stands, you haven't shown one reliable source discussing this quote directly. Assuming we were starting with something attributable (which hasn't been demonstrated yet), it'd still have to be covered in multiple sources to make the cut here, where we're boiling hundreds of statements on an issue down to three sentence paragraphs. You claim, with no evidence to back it up, that this is significant in any way. In order to make that claim, you need sources. I feel like a broken record here, but without attributable and reliable sources this just can't be added. Oren0 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain said it. Are you saying McCain is not a reliable source on quotes by McCain? Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance. AzureFury (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The point about verifiability is that we have a clip of McCain saying it, plus multiple sources saying he said it, plus no source whatsoever denying that he said it or even raising a serious question. That satisfies WP:V. It's not like I'm claiming I was in an elevator with McCain and heard him say it. The sources we rely on are all available to anyone with web access. Beyond that, though, the compromise wording states that certain anti-McCain sources have "charged" that he said it. That's a fact about opinions and it's clearly verifiable. A reader may conclude that the Sierra Club, the LCV, and the Obama campaign are all lying through their teeth. Well, we've given the verifiable facts that will let each reader make that judgment for him/herself.

Yes, reliable sources are needed "to report anything", meaning that there must be a reliable source for each factual assertion in the article. The policy does not mean that there must be a reliable source for the correctness of the editorial judgment we exercise. I don't think I've seen a single item in this article backed up by a reliable source saying "This is important enough to be in the Wikipedia article." To take another example, there's also no reliable source saying that it's correct to begin the article with McCain's self-serving defense against the charge that he's a flip-flopping panderer. I have doubts about whether that's appropriate, but that's a matter of judgment, not of sourcing. It's obvious that WP:RS is met by the source confirming that he said it. I would never attack that paragraph by demanding a reliable source for the proposition that what he said should begin our article. I'm confident that no such source could be provided. That's not an argument for deleting the paragraph, though. (edit conflict: While I was writing the long explanation in this paragraph, AzureFury wrote, "Reliable sources are needed for verifiability, not a measure of importance." I agree.)

I take you to be conceding that there's extensive coverage about McCain and the transport of nuclear waste. Nevertheless, you're discounting all that coverage simply because it was prompted by the Obama ad. That's a completely artificial distinction. Obviously, this position of McCain's has become more important because Obama has jumped on it. That's why McCain's remark about transporting waste through Arizona can now be found at the websites of Forbes, Fox News, The New York Times, and the like, although two months ago it couldn't be. So what? The importance of things changes as the campaign develops. It's like Terri Schiavo -- Wikipedia doesn't cover every decision to take an individual patient off life support, but the Republicans in Congress made a lot of noise about that case, so it's extensively covered here. JamesMLane t c 04:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain Iran comment, part II

Azurefury, we had a vote. We settled that the comment was not worth including. You then persisted with attempts at fitting it in with alternative phrasings. That doesn't work. The issue has been decided. Continuing to push something that a roll call determined to be not worth including is close to vandalism. Trilemma (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you're in a time warp. More than a month ago, there was an RfC. A majority of the respondents (not a consensus, contrary to your incessantly reiterated assertion) opposed the version that quoted verbatim what McCain said.

That didn't end the matter, though. On Wikipedia, nothing like this is cast in stone even when there is a consensus, but here there wasn't. Therefore, editors working in good faith to improve the article moved on from the RfC to discuss alternatives that might reach or at least approach consensus. The result was a compromise version that was much shorter, that did not quote the comment (which would be my preference and the preference of several other editors) but instead merely referred to its existence, and which also gave McCain's take on what he had in mind.

You appear to be the only active editor who disagrees with this compromise. Note the comments in the earlier thread by Jaysweet and Blaxthos, both of whom opposed the original version but didn't think that the RfC somehow barred this compromise. Under these circumstances, for you to keep reverting, with an ES like "please either seek arbitration or leave the consensus be", has reached the point of being disruptive.

You've been told before that ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes. I restored the compromise language, and if you think that I'm the one who's being disruptive, then that accusation against me (a conduct issue) is the type that ArbCom will hear. You can begin a proceeding against me if you choose. ArbCom will then examine the conduct of all the involved editors. JamesMLane t c 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the previous discussion I think it is clear that it does not belong in this article. It is not a stated position and only conjecture can come to that conclusion. Furthermore is it purely a partisan issue, and any inclusion would be undue weight as it only serves to obfuscate McCain's position on Iran. It is not the job of this article to interpret McCain's positions on anything, only to summarize what those positions are in a neutral manner. To introduce phrasing which would attempt to define McCain's position on anything would be original research and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the conclusion we reached. So far as I can tell, two editors are persisting in the face of the decided verdict, trying to insert something that is clearly not worthy of inclusion. And James, I don't need to accuse you of disruptive edits, as your user page declares your status as a POV warrior: "Biased against the right wing and the parapsychology/quackery mindset."Trilemma (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, it is clear to you that it doesn't belong. It is clear to me that it should be quoted in full. Neither of us gets to impose our unilateral vision, however clear.

Yes, but my vision is based upon WP policies of OR and Undue Weight, which trump any vision. Arzel (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are not self-executing. Our governance method is that the editors working on a particular article try to determine how the policies apply to particular issues. Our governance method is not that one editor can proclaim his or her view to be based upon policies, at which point all other editors must yield to The Wisdom Of Arzel. I believe that the omission of this widely publicized incident would constitute a whitewashing of McCain, trying to help him by censoring facts that make him look bad, and would therefore violate the NPOV policy. The NPOV policy trumps your individual vision.

You see how that works? I can't shut you up just by invoking a policy. My own interpretation of the policy isn't entitled to automatic deference any more than yours is. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, you just keep on saying things like "the decided verdict". You completely ignored what I wrote on that subject, so I won't bother repeating it. As for my discussion of my biases on my user page, you're hardly the first right-wing POV warrior to completely misinterpret it. That your characterization is false is quite obvious to anyone who reads my page. JamesMLane t c 19:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Namecalling really isn't helpful. Just because you proudly pronounce yourself biased doesn't mean that other editors would be flattered to be called POV warriors. Oren0 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an initial assumption, not a lifelong guarantee. I've seen enough of Trilemma's edits that I'm comfortable with my characterization of them. There's a huge difference between having (and admitting) a bias, on the one hand, and editing as a POV warrior to push your bias in violation of Wikipedia's policies, on the other hand. I'm in the former category but not the latter. I'm sorry if I didn't make that distinction clear.

Also, I do not "proudly" pronounce my bias. Maybe "resignedly" would be a better word; I'm recognizing that non one (including myself) is completely impartial. Part of my amusement at the comments elicited by my user page is the recurrent suggestion from right-wingers that, because I have opinions, I shouldn't edit political articles. Their implicit assertion is that as long as they don't admit to a bias, they don't have any. I don't accept that logic. JamesMLane t c 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor whose only contributions to this page are substantial contentious deletions is in no position to comment on bias. Needless to say, I agree with everything James has said. Most people who cared enough to check back on the page to see the result of the RfC were satisfied with the compromise. The quote is not included. Inclusion of a reference does not conflict with the survey done previously. AzureFury (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

James, just because I have gone to the trouble of trying to restore neutrality in the face of your continued POV warriorism (per the doctrine you lay out on your user page) doesn't mean that I am a POV warrior. I realize that a common technique of POV warriors is to declare anyone not sharing their philosophy of simply being a POV warrior on the other end of the political spectrum, but that's not going to fly here. From your contentious, partisan editing, to your unsubstantiated slander, to your restoration of a line we had clearly established, through a roll call, that doesn't belong, you are close to being reported to wikiquette or elsewhere. We established the line doesn't go in. Two editors' persistence does NOT circumvent the clear majority opinion. Trilemma (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, I have already corrected Oren0 on this point -- see the latter part of this edit. Your assertion that I lay out a doctrine of continued POV warriorism does not accurately characterize my user page. Please do not continue repeating this false statement. You are, of course, free to hold whatever opinion you like of my edits, as I am free to evaluate yours. On that score, I would love it if you would report this in some fashion that would bring in more uninvolved editors to comment on my conduct and on yours. (I'm not familiar with this idea of reporting "to wikiquette" but if you can find a place to make such a report, go for it -- you have my blessing.) I would also love it if editors familiar with Wikipedia practices would comment to both of us on your assertion that a majority vote in one particular survey "established" that a line wouldn't go in and thereby also "established" that it couldn't even be mentioned, let alone included, and "established" these points in perpetuity. You adhere strongly to that interpretation and reiterate it at every opportunity. I believe that that interpretation is indefensible. One of us is greatly in need of enlightenment. JamesMLane t c 14:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a lot more than two editors and you know it. Every editor except you still discussing it was satisfied. AzureFury (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "aap-08" :
  • {{cite book | title = ''Almanac of American Politics (2008)'' | author = Barone, Michael and Cohen, Richard | publisher = National Journal | date=2008 | page = 95}}
  • {{cite book | title =[[The Almanac of American Politics]] | edition=2008 | last=Barone | first=Michael | authorlink=Michael Barone (pundit) | coauthors=[[Richard E. Cohen|Cohen, Richard E.]] | publisher = [[National Journal]] |location= Washington, D.C. | year=2007 |isbn=0-8923-4117-3}} pp. 95–100.
• "Sweeney" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney}}
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060911/news_1n11gaming.html|title=New rules on Indian gaming face longer odds|author=James B. Sweeney|publisher=''[[The San Diego Union-Tribune]]''|date=2006-09-11|accessdate=2008-07-01}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed up. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth Control

Ok, so I noticed that someone added:

McCain's pro-life position on abortion, his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade[214], and his position that human life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized has raised concerns[215] that McCain would seek to outlaw the pill and other forms of birth control considered to be abortifacients.

Now, this claim links back to an opinion piece in Time which argues that McCain's certainty on the abortion issue might lead to problems of logical consistency since the BCP might prevent implantation. Nowhere is there a claim that McCain himself believes this; no where is the claim that McCain actually plans to seek outlawing the BCP. The op-ed's claim is that it might create an issue of logical consistency and the dangers of being too blunt in your answers. Thus, I propose that the section either be removed or changed to indicate that no one has actually voiced said concerns, just theoretical comments about potential implications of a position. JEB90 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should stick to things McCain has said. Theoretical extrapolations of what those things might mean if taken to the utmost point of philosophical consistency are pointless; no politician tries to do that, except maybe some hard-core libertarians. The sentence in question should be removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The preceding sentences imply this already. One op-ed is not enough to include as a criticism of McCain's policies. Maybe if a notable democrat says this, we can include it, but until then, the implication is sufficient, I think. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It would still be irrelevant even if a Democrat said the same thing as the Time piece. The point is, politicians don't do "logical consistency". They happily hold opposite and contradictory positions regarding trade with Cuba and China, to pick a well-known example. If McCain says he wants to outlaw X, then report it here. But don't extrapolate outlawing X from positions A and B. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the WP:SYNTH policy, thanks for explaining that. Quoting someone making the interpretation is not a violation of SYNTH. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the thing here, at least to some degree, is that the op-ed doesn't even claim that he does believe it. Just that his views, if taken to an extreme, might someday lead to it. I think that if a notable democrat (or even a notable op-ed writer) claimed that McCain believed these things, it might be worth quoting. JEB90 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article on the pill and abortifacients leads me to believe calling the pill an abortifacients requires citation. It can only be said that some people consider the pill an abortifacient. I'll go along with the change by JEB until better sources are found. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Has McCain spoken expressly to the question of contraception? The piece pointing out the logical implications of his statement to Warren does indeed raise a valid point. I agree with Wasted Time R that McCain isn't always consistent, but if he has expressly addressed this subject one way or the other, that would be worth including. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Conscription"

Isn't it more common to call this the "Draft."? That's what people are going to be looking for (it's what I was looking for just a few minutes ago). Maybe we should change the section name? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Either/or. Note that I've removed most of the section because it doesn't come close to meeting WP:RS (neither a partisan blog nor youtube comes even close to qualifying). As with previous sections, you need reliable sources to demonstrate that these comments have WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, you're just cherrypicking quotes that fit your POV. Oren0 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not debating this with you again. When we have a video of McCain saying it, then it goes in. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should reread the relevant policies. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Especially in a WP:BLP page, we specifically cannot include material that is unpublished in reliable sources. This is doubly true as significant editor consensus has ruled that YouTube is explicity disallowed as a reliable source unless confirmed by other reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The one relevant "policy" you've given is an essay. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to the last paragraph in this section. Why is that persons question notable when it is not even logical? How would the draft even solve the problems that this person was stating? Furthermore it doesn't flow well, it is just hanging out there without any context for why this particular question was important. I would say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information would cover this. Arzel (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Some editors don't seem to grasp the idea that these pages simply cannot list everything the candidates ever say. Nor can they list only quotes cherrypicked by editors to push their POV. These pages must list the relevant major positions based on coverage in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to delete everything except "how do we get Bin Laden without re-instating the draft?" that would be fine with me. I think the reason it's included is to show that the lady was rambling and McCain sweepingly agreed with everything. Some people take this as an edorsement of the draft and some do not. We leave it to the reader to decided. Having her rambling question is supportive of McCain. I don't think you want to delete it. AzureFury ([[User talk:AzureFury|talk