Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:10, 7 November 2008

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, John McCain, due to size or style considerations.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John McCain 2008 presidential campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Proposed new subsection: "Obama's foreign trip and campaign ads"

Amidst the ongoing campaign in July, McCain's challenger, Senator Obama, traveled to the Middle East as a part of a Congressional delegation, and to Europe, in what many saw as an international campaign. This overshadowed Senator McCain in terms of media coverage, though McCain attacked Obama for canceling a visit to an American military base to visit wounded U.S. troops while in Germany. This was the subject of a McCain television advertisement, which chided Obama for making "time to go to the gym" instead of visiting with wounded troops. The Obama campaign responded, saying that it would be "inappropriate" to "have injured soldiers get pulled into the back-and-forth of a political campaign", which led a McCain spokesman to respond, "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."

The McCain campaign recently launched another political advertisement, comparing Obama's celebrity status with that of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. USA Today noted that the ad "questions whether being a 'celebrity' qualifies someone to be president" and a McCain spokesman added, "makes the case that Obama is unsuited to be president like those two young pop stars and that the Illinois senator favors higher taxes." Obama said that the ad "was the latest example of McCain's negativity" and later stated, "All they do is try to run me down". NBC Nightly News reported that "both campaigns", however, are expected to put up ads "tearing each other apart." Stuart Rothenberg, a Rothenberg political reporter, said of the ad, "Nobody's going to confuse Paris Hilton with Senator Barack Obama. But over time, the attempt to raise questions about his substance, that could really well work."

References:

1. "Obama Plays Down Significance of Foreign Trip}". ABC. July 27, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. "John McCain ignored as Barack Obama's foreign trip draws media elite". The Daily Telegraph. July 19, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. ^ "McCain camp pounces on Obama troop visit cancellation". CNN. July 25, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. ^ "McCain Tags Obama As Unprepared Despite Celebrity". U.S. News and World Report. July 31, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Insertion of potentially damaging material

I have fully protected this article as User:Commodore Sloat was adding in potentially libelous material. To be honest, I'd prefer to see more concrete sourcing. The ambiguous wording of it itself is enough to give readers the wrong impression (e.g. "McCain hung around with people related to Saddam Hussein?!"). No, we don't want that. There has been some edit warring over the issue which will, hopefully, be solved here. Is the sourcing good enough? Is it even relevant? Is it even notable? Some questions asked by other users via edit summaries. Scarian 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The source seems to be a HuffPo article by Murray Waas which gives no sources. AFAIK HuffPo is not a RS. The only other source given is a guest on a TV talk show referring to the Waas piece; that's obviously not a RS. -- Zsero (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If this were even true, it should be in the William Timmons article, where it would be far more relevant. This and the insertion of stuff about terrorists supposedly wanting McCain to be president show a clear agenda. Enigma 01:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is a reliable source -- this is not a blog entry; it is a news article by a very well respected investigative journalist Murray Waas. There is absolutely nothing libelous in my edit - reporting facts is not libelous whether or not those facts seem to be unfortunate given that McCain is now opposed to Saddam Hussein. Protecting the article in order to push your POV is a very grave abuse of your administrative privileges. csloat (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also I'd like to respond to the false claim that Waas "gives no sources." His sources are a matter of public record from the criminal trial of Tongun Park. I really don't understand the claim that there is anything libelous here -- this is a fact reported by a reliable investigative reporter based on public court records. And it is certainly both relevant and noteworthy -- it was even mentioned by a U.S. Senator and former Presidential candidate and reported in another reliable source, but that information is being censored here as well. csloat (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is most assuredly not a reliable source. Enigma 02:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's always censorship went something you want in there is removed several different editors, isn't it? Look at my userpage, do I look like a McCain supporter? No. I'm definitely not. But I can see disparaging material, potentially irrelevant and untrue, was being added. There is a consensus against the addition of that material, and, as such, I will unlock the article, but, please, do not readd it in. Thank you. Scarian 11:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? There is nothing disparaging about mentioning a campaign that this person was involved in. It is a fact that comes from public court documents. And it is discussed by a well known investigative reporter in a reliable source, the Huffington Post. People are asserting that it is not a reliable source but for what reason? That it leans to the left? Like other reliable sources, e.g. the Nation, National Review, Salon, Slate, Fox News, which also have political slants? It is a news source, and the source has an editorial board, and the journalist himself is quite well respected. On top of that, this story has been cited by John Kerry on MSNBC. I think it's foolish to keep repeating that this might be defamatory -- it's not. Frankly I don't even see what's so bad about having been involved in a campaign to end sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s; as even Madeleine Albright acknowledged, those sanctions were murderous at times. So I don't think there's any credibility whatsoever to the claim that this is defamatory, and the claim that this is not a reliable source is sheer, utter nonsense. csloat (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

HuffPo does not have editors or fact checkers. In any case, even if this were completely reliable, a consultant's previous clients are not relevant to biographies of his later clients. If someone was defended on a criminal charge by the late Johnny Cochran, it would definitely be a violation of BLP to mention Cochran's most famous client, unless he were directly relevant. -- Zsero (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a lie. The Huffington Post has an editorial staff like any other reliable news source. Second, this is quite relevant, this is a biography and it is an aspect of the person's biography. Johnny Cochrane's biography certainly mentions his clients, even ones that might be embarrassing, such as O.J. Simpson. csloat (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your Johnny Cochrane analogy. This is relevant to the McCain presidential campaign; I wouldn't put it in the John McCain biography page for the reason you mentioned, but it's certainly relevant here. It's notable for sure -- it was explained by an investigative reporter in the context of this campaign and was even significant enough for John Kerry to take note of. Since we have established there is zero chance of this information being "defamatory," it seems the only reason to exclude it is to give this page some kind of pro-McCain slant, which isn't appropriate here. csloat (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

But, ironically, including the information could potentially give the article an anti-McCain slant! Shock horror! It goes both ways! :-O Please read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Scarian 12:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I did; could you read them as well and let me know what the problem is here? Here's something else to be shocked about -- including information about the Tate-LaBianca murders on the Charles Manson page might give that article an anti-Manson slant! Yet we include that information anyway because it is accurate and well sourced. Why would we exclude this particular information here? I'm not worried whether the article ultimately has a pro- or anti-mccain slant as long as all the information on the page is accurate and verifiable; and in this case it is quite verifiable that a well known investigative journalist uncovered information from public court records documenting a McCain campaign advisor's previous campaigns, and that this news was commented on publicly by a former presidential candidate. (Again, I'm not even sure why anyone would consider this defamatory or would consider the source unreliable, and to this point nobody has even bothered to try to give a reason -- you've just asserted it without any rationale or evidence.) csloat (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if you accept the sourcing, you still have to question the relevance. The standard game in American campaigns is to find every person the other guy is associated with, and then look up every offensive or stupid thing those people did, or every louse those people were associated with, then try to tag the candidate with all of this. Both sides do it to each other, incessantly. That doesn't mean we have to play this game too. Timmons' lobbying for Freddie Mac is relevant, because it's a current issue that the incoming president will spend much of his time on. Sanctions against Saddam in the early 1990s is no longer a relevant issue. Incorporation of Timmons' association in that era is simply done to try to make McCain look bad. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but it's being done by a noted journalist and by a former presidential candidate. This is clearly relevant information. I'm glad you are backing off of the sourcing canard at least. csloat (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never said anything about the sourcing, that was others. HuffPo is actually a difficult case – parts of it are partisan blog ranting, but other parts are real reporters writing stuff. What we don't know is how rigorous the the fact-editing and editorial control is on the latter. Byron York at National Review is another example of this; he comes out of a reportorial mindset, and some of what he publishes looks like real journalism, but you don't know what the editing is like. The WP:RS guidelines don't really come to terms with all this. Over the last several months, I've seen many editors give a blanket proclamation that nothing in HuffPo is a RS, but I think that's too simplistic. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As for John Kerry saying something on this, I give that no weight. He's just playing the bash-the-other-side game, with more lingering bitterness than most I would imagine. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And finally, remember that the most appropriate place for information about Timmons is going to be the William Timmons article, not here. That's why hyperlinks are so valuable. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Byron York is not the best comparison since Waas, to my knowledge, does not publish the kind of opinion pieces York does. But it's pretty clear that Huffington Post has an editorial board (and to nitpick about fact-checking on a Murray Waas article based on public records is a bit like asking about the methodology for a Gallup poll. I agree the material belongs on the Timmons article as well as here, but it keeps getting deleted there too - I'm really not getting what people are so embarrassed about with this one. It's factual, it's in a reliable source, and it was mentioned in other sources including one as public as Kerry. It may be out of bitterness as you suggest, but that's no reason to pretend it didn't happen. It's not our job to psychoanalyze public figures. csloat (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Kerry, statements from politicians about other politicians or their campaigns are never WP:RS or useful in any way. Otherwise, we'd have to state that Obama is a socialist and McCain is a twin of GWB and all sorts of other nonsense. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell endorsement

The paragraph about Powell should be removed. Unless we list every prominent person who's endorsed a candidate, why is his so notable? And how about including, as a measure of how good a judge of character he is nowadays, his testimony in court this week about how good a guy Ted Stevens is? "No", you say? Fine, then don't mention his Obama endorsement, or his attack on Palin, and we don't need to mention the Stevens testimony to put it in context. -- Zsero (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We do have such a list: List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements. This article mentions the most important ones. So we can mention the New Hampshire area newspaper endorsements in December 2007, or the party figures that began endorsing him after the Florida win, or the GWB endorsement, or Nancy Reagan, or the Colin Powell endorsement that went the other way. It would be best if we had some kind of polling metric that told us which endorsements had the most effect (most don't have much, if any), but we generally don't, so we go by which get the most press attention. The Powell one got a lot of that. Material about Powell and Stevens belongs in the Powell and/or Stevens articles, not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite, which is why the paragraph sloat added about Al Qaeda doesn't belong. Enigma 23:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've removed it. Only endorsements that the candidate solicits or appreciates are relevant. Candidates aren't responsible for nutjobs, criminals, terrorists, etc. that issue so-called endorsements of them. Material about al-Qaeda's desires for the outcomes of U.S. elections belongs in one of the al-Qaeda articles, if anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither McCain nor Palin solicited Powell's opinion, and I'm sure they don't appreciate it. Shall I go ahead and remove it? -- Zsero (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm talking about the candidate who's the recipient of the endorsement, not the other candidate. But of course you know that. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of nonsense. We don't know which endorsements are appreciated or not, and there is no reason that such a standard would exist other than that you just pulled it out of the air. I'm restoring that information since it is notable, relevant, and was extremely well reported in multiple reliable sources; hell, even the McCain campaign found it important enough to comment on! Do you really believe this page should only include that information that McCain finds favorable? Perhaps we could ask him to be the sole editor on this page, it might make things a lot easier. csloat (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article would be in much better shape if Wasted Time R were the only editor. Fair point. Enigma 00:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about the good Senator from Arizona, but if you are correct then Wasted Time R should start his/her own encyclopedia and exclude whatever information he/she finds inconvenient or troubling. I'm sure Wasted Time R-opedia will be a big success, but Misplaced Pages has a much different mission. csloat (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I see Bush's endorsement and Nancy Reagan's endorsement are mentioned. Are we cherry-picking endorcements here? --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revise and extend my remarks. Somehow I never read, or misread, the context of the Powell endorsement as in the text here: "Republican and former US Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell endorsed Obama on October 19, 2008, and said of Palin 'Now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president.'" I don't think that's worth including at all; there's already too much Palin commentary in the article, and Powell's conclusion that she isn't ready to be president is the same conclusion a jillion other people have reached and stated. What was notable about Powell's endorsement of Obama is that he was going across nominal party lines and that it gave Obama extra credibility as a national security figure and that it got a big play in the press, all of which presumably hurt McCain more than the average endorsement. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And if Powell's judgment of Palin's readiness is to remain in the article then we need to know how good a judge of character he is. Which brings in his testimony for Stevens. And that could get messy. Best avoid it by deleting Powell's opinion altogether. -- Zsero (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda paragraph

Why is this getting removed? It was a huge news story and even the McCain campaign responded to it. I made the point above but nobody's responded to it, yet Zsero removed it and said "see talk," yet I don't see a single comment from Zsero in response to my comments. All I see on the page from him is some comments about removing the Powell material. Zsero, it's time to restore the material you deleted. Thanks. csloat (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's out of context, since it's placed next to other conventional political endorsements. It's poorly presented, as a long quote from someone else's article – that's not how we do things generally, we write in our own words. If we had a section on world reaction to the campaign, that described how Europe, Russia, Asia, South America, the Middle East, etc. all viewed McCain and the election and which of them hoped that McCain would win (assuming that can be accurately assessed), maybe it would fit within there, at briefer length. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, the proper response is to edit it rather than deleting it. I'll restore it to the article, and you can edit as you like, just don't censor it. Thanks; I'm glad to see a compromise on the horizon. csloat (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I said "see talk" because it has been discussed on the talk page. I didn't need to comment on it, because it had already been commented on by others. See the comments in the previous section by Enigma and Wasted Time R. It doesn't belong here at all. -- Zsero (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen them; they are not convincing for the reasons I state. If you have nothing to add, do not be disruptive by removing the material. I have responded to his arguments in spades, and we were on the verge of compromise. Do not undermine this effort; try instead to contribute to it. Thanks! csloat (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You are the one being disruptive, adding contentious material with no consensus. I don't see anything approaching a compromise forming above. We have four editors commenting on this: three against it and only you in favour. All WTR said is that a much briefer mention might have fit into a whole paragraph about world views, if we had such a paragraph. But we don't, and it certainly can't stand on its own. Stop adding it. (PS: I will be offline until tomorrow night, and my absence should not be taken as consent to any further attempt to re-add it. If I find it there when I come back, I will delete it, unless I see on the talk page a genuine consensus to include it.) -- Zsero (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're a bully and an edit warrior, and you're accusing me of edit warring? That's rich -- I'm the one trying to reach a compromise, which I shouldn't have to do when adding material that is well sourced (and has been commented on in numerous news sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, and even the McCain campaign itself!!) Your arguments are nonexistent so you rely purely on bullying and intimidation. csloat (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

csloat, please stop edit-warring. You're being disruptive by re-adding the material repeatedly. Enigma 21:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cut out the BS; the two of you are being disruptive by re-deleting the material repeatedly without even bothering to respond to the arguments here. We started to move toward a compromise and you have turned Misplaced Pages's policies on civility into a complete joke. Did you even bother to notice that I shortened and changed the words of the paragraph I was adding in order to address the concerns expressed? Of course not; you simply censored it, as you had before. It's absolutely abusive on your part. And don't say "consensus"; you haven't bothered to try and measure consensus outside of your own echo-chamber. Here's the problem guys -- you haven't even bothered to try to respond to the arguments I presented here. You're relying solely on bullying and edit-warring. csloat (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"You haven't bothered to try and measure consensus outside your own echo chamber"? What does that mean? I'm measuring it on this page. Only four editors have commented on this material, and the only one supporting inclusion is you. That does not sound like a consensus for inclusion. -- Zsero (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm, you're the one making a claim to consensus, not me, so heed the burden of proof. If you want to measure consensus we need some kind of vote, preferably after the RfC brings other editors into the discussion rather than the same small group of people trying to bully their way through this. Not one of you have answered the arguments, and you are simply relying on "consensus," by which you seem to mean, "there are three of us and only one of you, so we can win any revert war." That is not an appropriate approach to this project. csloat (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is needed to insert new material, not to keep it out. The burden is on you to achieve consensus for this insertion; unless and until you do so, it stays out. BTW, there is no voting on WP. -- Zsero (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

All I can do is echo Zsero, because he's completely right on both points. Enigma 05:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My point was there is no evidence of consensus. Your willingness to gang up with another person to win an edit war is not evidence of any kind of consensus. csloat (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "winning" an edit war and no one is ganging up on you. Just pointing out that there needs to be a consensus before you insert new material, not the other way around. Enigma 08:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph is ridiculously undue weight and completely irrelevant. This is not an endorsement from Al Qaeda or the Taliban, which would still be irrelevant but the subject would at least be somewhat notable; this is a summary of opinions from jihadist websites of people who have no notability whatsoever. The only point of this paragraph is to damage John McCain's image. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC on al-Qaeda "endorsement"

Template:RFCpol

Should information about al-Qaeda's so-called "endorsement" of McCain's campaign be included in this article?

support for including the information: This is the edit that is being deleted by Zsero and a couple other editors; they refuse to offer any arguments as to why it should be deleted. One editor has made some arguments that it should be modified; hence I shortened it and clarified it from the earlier version that they did not like. This compromise was not enough for some editors however and they continue to edit war for deletion. Rather than give in to their bullying I chose to open this RfC. As far as I can understand it, the only argument they have is that this information should be elsewhere in the article - if that is so, they should move it, not delete it. If someone has a suggestion where, I will move it myself. But it should not continue to be deleted. And we should add the McCain campaign's response. This was a very notable moment in the campaign, it was commented on by numerous commentators -- a small portion of the sources mentioning it includes the NYT, the UK Telegraph, Fox News, Washington Post, The Nation, Associated Press, and many more, including the McCain campaign itself, which held a conference specifically to address this endorsement. I think it is absurd for people to keep deleting this. csloat (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC comments

• to start, i've just made a few amendments to your formatting of this RfC - i hope that's okay. Sssoul (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• as for the statement you're in disagreement over: i support including it. it's too long, and a clarification of what reponse it "prompted from the McCain camp" seems more relevant than the lengthy quote from the Washington Post, but i don't see any reason to eliminate this verified fact from the article. i'd suggest something like:

On October 22, 2008, the Washington Post reported on an emerging consensus on websites with ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda supporting a John McCain presidency as advantageous for al-Qaeda's continued war against the United States. This "endorsement" was reported in several major news sources; the McCain camp responded .

hope that's some help. Sssoul (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - From what I can tell, there are only three arguments against the section: it is poorly placed, it is too close to a parent article, it requires consensus to be included. The first two are not excuses to delete the material. Deleting material that is simply in the wrong place or poorly written is a sign of a POV pusher, if you ask me. In response to the second, there is no established guideline that says the default action is exclusion. This was intentional, I think, to force us to reach consensus. With my endorsement, and the endorsement above mine, the count is now 3 in support and 3 opposed. The oppositing actually needs to try and convince us now. I'm eager to hear a counter-argument. I'm restoring the material per WP:PRESERVE as there has been no argument given supporting deletion, only revision. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, consensus is required to include anything at all. Second, this isn't in fact an al Qaeda endorsement at all, not even in scare quotes; it's merely a report on comments that appeared on various unofficial web sites; are we talking about blogs, or something similar? Third, it's extremely likely that the Jihadists learned from bin Laden's mistake in 2004, when his threats against states that would vote for Bush provoked resistance instead of compliance, and are now trying the opposite tactic; by reporting this straight aren't we playing along? In any event, I've now edited the piece to make it smaller and less WP:WEIGHTy, added Walid Phares's reaction for some balance, and changed the title to make it more accurate. I still oppose having any mention of this at all, but this is a gesture towards Sssoul's comment above. -- Zsero (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'll say it again. There is no default for material when consensus can't be reached. You do not get to put the burden on the supporters to reach consensus and then refuse to listen to or respond to arguments. I reviewed your most recent edit. It said, "Jihadis support McCain. It's probably reverse psychology." This is not fair weight. I added the suggested reason for the endorsement. Now it says, "Jihadis support McCain. They think he'll screw up the US. It might be reverse psychology." This is fair. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Include, but don't use the word "endorse"- This is a valid topic, but it should be structured like "Comments from AQ members indicate that they believe that a McCain presidency would be advantageous to their efforts etc. etc." rather than "AQ endorses McCain." "Endorse" implies that the endorser is operating within our democratic system and is trying to use that endorsement to advance the endorsee's political fortunes. That isn't the case--AQ is hoping for a particular electoral result to advance their goals, not trying to get voters to side with McCain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoboJones (talk • contribs)
• Include, for reasons I stated above. I'd agree with modifying it and including the McCain camp's response. csloat (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, per HoboJones' comment, I put "endorsement" in quotes to address that concern, since that was the word used by Wash Post + AP when reporting it, but I'm ok using different words as well. csloat (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Exclude. This is, quite frankly, horseshit and textbook WP:UNDUE. This has no relevance to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign in any way, and there is no official endorsement mentioned. In actuality, this is mainly a summary of rantings from extremists on a jihadist blogs. Plain and simple, this is obvious wikismearing. While we're at it, why don't we google for skinhead endorsements for John McCain. Gimme a freakin' break... --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: Nobody's claiming it is an "endorsement," but the fact is, this was a major news event, and it had a significant effect on the campaign when it happened. Claiming that it's "horseshit" may be accurate but it's irrelevant - there is nothing undue about mentioning it in the context that it happened. If skinhead McCain endorsements create as significant a public event (discussed in multiple reliable sources) as this did, absolutely it would be included here too. csloat (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with csloat. This is exactly what we should be writing about: events with significant news coverage. Take a look at WP:UNDUE. We know that this has been widely reported in the MSM. WP:UNDUE says include.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AzureFury (talk • contribs)

  Comment: Often when it comes to political topics, people tend to forget that Misplaced Pages is not news. Sometimes neglect of this policy is unintentional, and sometimes it very intentional. I personally think that in this case it's the latter, judging by your comments. Being mentioned by news networks does not necessarily make content appropriate for Misplaced Pages, and being the hot topic on jihadist message boards doesn't even begin to approach the slightest bit of notability. This is an obvious attempt at smearing. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Please strike your abusive and uncivil comments above; you may benefit from reading WP:AGF. In response to what little of substance was left in your comment beyond the personal attack, I would point out that this is not just something "mentioned by news networks" -- it was seriously discussed by terrorism experts who found a consensus among jihadists with ties to al Qaeda, and it prompted a conference from the McCain campaign itself. Clearly they thought it was notable enough to address; we should as well. csloat (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  There are no abusive and uncivil comments above, therefore nothing needs to be striked. I suggest you reread my comment because you continue to fail to understand the WP:NOT#NEWS policy. Being fit for print in a news publication does not make the material encyclopedic; notability is required and there is nothing in the least bit notable about al-Hesbah, the reported website with all these terrorist rantings, or other jihadist websites. Misplaced Pages is not a place for gossip, and that is essentially what all this is. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is abusive and uncivil to state that I am intentionally distorting Misplaced Pages rules. Hope that helps you figure out which passages to strike. Also please do not distort my words - as I said before, I did not advocate for including something simply "being fit for print in a news publication," but rather something that terrorism experts concluded represents a consensus view, and has been discussed as a significant topic in various reliable sources. Your other claim is a canard; I am not advocating linking to any jihadist websites, so it is not relevant whether those sites would be notable or reliable. I'm talking about linking to such sources as the Washington Post, NYT, AP, which usually are not considered "jihadist." csloat (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, where to start? It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that this material completely lacks notability, yet you insist because it's newsworthy that it's fit for Misplaced Pages. Hmmmm... the content is about terrorists favoring a McCain presidency, lacking any sort of official endorsement whatsoever from notable organization -- there is certainly no ill intent here to include non-notable scathing material here. Also, admitting that this material may be horseshit doesn't help your case either. I assume good faith until bad faith is expressed.

And I suggest you reread my comment and the source material to this smear-job. When you do, you'll find that a.) I never suggested that you want to link to jihadist websites, and b.) al-Hesbah is the subject of the Washington Post article. In fact, if you read the source material again you'll see that it is worded without any certainty, take the 2nd paragraph for instance: And at least some of its supporters think Sen. John McCain is the presidential candidate best suited to continue that trend. Even the journalists who wrote the article question the supposed "consensus" from these websites. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Csloat wrote: ...and it prompted a conference from the McCain campaign itself — huh? What conference? -- Zsero (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  Conference call. This is the reference mentioned above, though this is easily substantiated from other sources as well. csloat (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  A conference call is a very different thing from a conference! Oops, there goes your argument. A campaign holding a conference call (i.e. a multi-way phone call) to discuss the smear du jour is hardly evidence of the smear's notability. They surely have conference calls several times a day! How else are they to discuss the news, and decide how to react to it? -- Zsero (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  If you think my argument had anything to do with the difference between a conference call and a conference, you need to re-read my argument. No wonder you were unable to respond to it. If they have conference calls several times a day, why don't other conference calls get such significant media attention? If they were responding to a "smear du jour," why does their response not characterize it as a smear? If it is not notable, why do they bother responding to it at all? If it is something the McCain presidential campaign felt the need to react to, that is certainly quite notable for this article (which is about the McCain presidential campaign). Hope this helps. csloat (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose inclusion I agree with Amwestover. Enigma 05:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose inclusion - this is just as ridiculous as the "Hamas endorsed Obama" nonsense. This is the kind of thing WP:WEIGHT was written for. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This is from WP:NOT#NEWS:

News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.

WP:NOT#NEWS is about the creation of articles not the content of articles. This is not an applicable policy. Especially since the 2008 election is still ongoing. Of course we're going to be using material from the news. In addition, let me remind people that this is not a vote. Simply saying, "I don't want this here," or, "I agree with people who don't want this here," is not contributive. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It'd be more useful if you included the entire policy instead of cherry picking a couple lines out of it to make the point you want. The policy is about article creation and content, and is very applicable for this discussion. Just because an article exists doesn't mean that everything is fair game on the subject. Notability is paramount for an encyclopedia entry, whereas the news' main goal is to reports facts. For instance, someone's house burning down is newsworthy, but it is not encyclopedia material. If it's the White House, then it's encyclopedia-worthy. As it pertains to the issue at hand, none of this includes a single statement from Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, which would at least be notable. These are websites where jihadists express opinions which has no notability. Like I said earlier, it's essentially gossip.

And indeed this is not a vote (a !vote, if you will), but it is more than appropriate for editors who share the view of another editor to state so during a request for comment. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I like how you accuse me of cherry picking quotes and then don't mention the quotes that I supposedly missed. Perhaps you can't find any? I included the quotes I suspected you were referencing since you neglected to do so. Please correct me if you can find something that mentions the content of articles. Saying the policy is about the content of articles doesn't make it so. I think the consensus view among jihadis is notable. Even if it wasn't, WP:BLP says we can mention any rumor that is widely reported by the MsM. This could not be any more cut and dry. Oppose it all you want. Your arguments for exclusion are embarassingly thin. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Grabbing two sentences form a policy that is eight sentences long is cherry picking. So, you missed most of the policy. There's no need to re-paste it, you can click the WP:NOT#NEWS link which I've posted about a hundred times by now. Saying that the policy is about creation only and then only citing two lines from the policy doesn't make the policy only about article creation. The policy discusses notability, article creation, and content. Further context is available in the super policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

And I'd like to know what version of WP:BLP you're reading, because the current version doesn't mention anything about rumors "widely reported by the MSM" being valid content for a biography. That may be fine for your sowing circle, but Misplaced Pages is not a place for gossip.

Unless you intend of discussing based on the spirit of policies instead basing arguments off a few lines from a policy, further comment from me will not be necessary. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from WP:BLP. "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article." Please quote where WP:NOT#NEWS mentions content. Until then, enjoy your humble pie. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I take the freedom to reply point by point (also this wasn't directed at me).

• "If an allegation or incident is notable,...": Not everything notable at the time ought to be included. Only events that will be still notable and relevant in the future. Right know it barely is above recent news (coverage) and has still a long way to climb to encyclopedic standards.

• "...relevant,...": That's the crack point. Besides media coverage, what makes it really relevant right now? (This is my major reason for rejection).

• "...and well-documented by reliable published sources,...": Yes it is, but so are other issues that don't make it to inclusion.

One last point for closing: I don't consider the edit in question being gossip at all, quite the opposite is the case. Just again, that would be no argument to include it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse someone of leaving something out of the policy for nefarious purposes, besides reading WP:AGF it would be proper form to quote the part you think they are intentionally leaving out. In any case, you are splitting hairs about al qaeda websites -- terrorism experts confirm this is a consensus view of al qaeda jihadists and the articles clearly state these are websites with direct ties to al qaeda. Your personal opinion about these websites is something you're welcome to hold, but it has no bearing here - let's stick to what the reliable source say rather than imposing our own interpretation on it, ok?

By the way, you violated the 3RR in your edit warring over this issue; please revert yourself or you run the risk of being blocked. I already warned you on your user page about it. csloat (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

He left out the rest of the policy. Click on one of the dozen links to the policy in the RFC to read the rest of it. And it appears that you didn't reread the Washington Post article like I suggested. No terrorist "experts" are mentioned in the article. In fact, there aren't any "experts" in the article. There's only a single senior analyst from a Islamist website monitoring firm; and the authors of the article don't even hold his conclusion to be certain. Until you demonstrate that you're knowledgeable about the article, further comment from me will not be necessary.

By the way, I suggest you read WP:3RR before making accusations because you appear to not understand certain aspects of that policy either. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is a senior analyst not an expert in your opinion? Certainly his title suggests his expertise (and SITE is well respected and nonpartisan). And 3RR says that three reverts in 24 hrs is the most you should do; you did four. csloat (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol. He's not an expert, he's just a senior analyst. I like how you're withdrawing from the discussion after each of your arguments gets completely trashed. Guess I'll have to treat your edits like vandalism if you're not going to even try to justify them. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from Aaron Klein: "Klein interviewed a Hamas political advisor, Ahmed Yousef, who expressed positive sentiment for Barack Obama." Hamas' endorsement is encyclopedic material. This is likewise encyclopedic material. This BS needs to stop now. Those who are reverting the addition of this cited, neutral, significant material are not even taking part in the discussion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I just recently reverted the insertion providing the following edit summary:"good for news but redundant and unsuited for WP article". If McCain would become elected President and this "endorsement" would lead to notable political "complications" it would be reasonable to include. Same kind of edit was tried to be included in Obama's articles and if I'm not mistaken (since things change way too fast to follow it all) it was left out (or in my opinion ought to be left out for the same reasons I stated above). I don't give a "vote" here but rather just expressing my personal view on this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't kid yourself. A revert is a vote. I'd like to read over the discussion of the similar edit to the Obama articles. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't "kid" myself but acknowledge that you have a valuable point there in your interpretation of my attempt, not to be drawn into this drama like discussion. Gosh, you're right; I'm now part of it, not by reverting only once what I mainly did to give my reason for non-inclusion, but for commenting here. My mistake and therefore I'll deal with it. I'm back from casting my ballot and try to find the discussion on the (comparable) Obama edit. It might take a while since I have other things to do too. Here on WP by choice and privately, well, not so much by choice.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get to this Obama stuff yet (imagine why) but user:Scjessey, as he mentioned further above might know where to find it (quicker) than I. You might want to ask him about this or I might do it at some point.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - I don't know that "endorse" is the proper word to use, but certainly this meets with our core policies -- it's reliably sourced (many, many times over), and can be worded as to not violate WP:NPOV (though any response by the campaign should be noted). I don't see any germane argument against inclusion that is based in policy; the arguments against inclusion smack of censorship. Full disclosure: my input was requested at this RFC. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion - Absurd. Why anyone would think to mention an overseas terrorist organization is beyond me. A little logic would be nice (e.g. last time I checked, none of them could vote nor are they U.S. citizens). If this utter babel penetrates a featured article, I'm adding the endorsement that Obama is the messiah in his BLP article, it actually is well sourced. Digital 03:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, no one cares about Al Queda or their associates. The Washington Post is just demonstrating their poor journalism again! It's a wonder why consensus among the Wiki community is that the WP is a reliable source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 12:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Include brief mention and link to the main article under subsection Al Qaeda reaction under Press coverage or perhaps another section. Gotta love the 'free speech for americans' ethos, digital; how exactly does that fit into your idea of democracy for the world? It's supposedly a -right-, not a reward, to say nothing of, being here utterly unaffected by any considerations but WP policy. Anarchangel (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Last minute support of a careful mention of this material. There are plenty of reliable sources for it, including: The Washington Post, AP, Telegraph.co.uk. Fox covered unsavory supporters of both candidates. If included, we must include something like this from Wired, preferably a non-blog source, that states he rejected the endorsement. Anyway, that's my 2¢. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 05:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source for the response, via Randy Scheunemann. (Sorry I put that in the wrong place.) And, oddly from Russia, another source. I'm guessing McCain mostly ignored this, but that's my POV. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 05:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• oppose inclusion - wp:undue 96.232.251.177 (talk)

Can we close this RFC for now?

Ahm, can we close this somehow with at least a temporary consensus either way?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote to you on my talk page, I read and participated in the discussion above, and it is clear to me that the weight of the arguments disproportionately points toward inclusion of some version of the paragraph on this topic, and even a simple !vote count shows a majority who participated favor inclusion. I think it was incorrect to say I misread the consensus; I counted !votes again and it is still 7-5 favoring inclusion. But again the important point is that the weight of the arguments is quite decisive here; we have a very well sourced (and multiply-sourced) claim here whose notability is affirmed by multiple sources and even by the McCain campaign itself. csloat (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"...the weight of the arguments disproportionately points toward inclusion of some version of the paragraph on this topic..."!

Yes, there I am with you, on your side. Not that I care a lot about any inclusion but as I pointed out on your talk page, I would absolutely accept a shorter and less "forceful" rewrite to be included.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Changing my stance in part and think my last edit is within the RFC spirit. I made two paragraphs out of it what seems minor (but thinking about it more seriously shows a bigger impact for the better). Still, I think there is some rewording/add on/left out required. Anyone still interested in working on this now that the election is over? Because it seems to get pretty quiet here since after the election.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

President McCain

"President McCain" still redirects here. Should it, now he's not going to be president?

But where should it go? As far as I know there hasn't been any President McCain of anywhere. In the unlikely event that anybody ever goes searching for that string, why not dump them here. -- Zsero (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put it up for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Campaign status

There seems to be a dispute over maintaining past statuses in the infobox. The Obama campaign follows this convention, and the McCain campaign did as well until recent edits wiped out past status. I think the status should be maintained since the infobox doesn't stipulate current status. One cited reference to an older campaign, Kerry's, apparently only has the last status of the campaign, but the infobox was not present during the duration of the campaign. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your intention (as you stated in your edit summary) was to keep it conform with other articles and I'm guessing you where referring to the correspondence Obama page. Well, so let's keep it balanced in your spirit. And "status" is always referring to the current one; No doubt about that. I'll go ahead and change it again, not to edit war but to keep it balanced with Obama's page for now. If consensus is reached in either direction, fine with me, but it should be the same consensus for both campaigns.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Add on: otherwise it needs to state "former status" what it doesn't.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Status" means something's current state. The current state of the campaign is "over". Giving a history of past statuses, or "key dates", is well beyond the function of an infobox. -- Zsero (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You reinstated my point very clearly and it would be hard or basically impossible to argue against it. I'll stay open in case the impossibility's getting smashed by something we overlooked, but I doubt it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes can actually be quite robust. For instance, many infoboxes for politicians mention not only their current position, but past positions as well. However, I think it would be better if infoboxes for campaigns had a "milestones" section or something like that. I think the U.S. Elections WikiProject created the template, I'll pick their collective brain on that idea. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's work for a little bit of Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, please. Zsero and Amwestover, this was not necessary: It's just an infobox. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 04:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles