Talk:John McCain

Concerning the remark below: I simply hav to conceed with him/her. This is wikiquote, instead some people think they have to campaign here. So instead of giving quotes + direct context where and when it was said, some seem to feel the need to go add in a horde of notes that don't belong there.

It's rather interesting how this page has been used by his political opponents in such an OBVIOUS manner.

If you think the article includes a quotation that puts McCain in a bad light is spurious, or even inadequately sourced, raise the point here. If you think there's a quotation that puts McCain in a good light, and you have a proper source for it, go ahead and add it.

I realize, of course, that these alternatives entail doing some actual work to improve Wikiquote, as opposed to grousing about alleged bias. Jim Lane 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias? Absolutely. I find it very telling that this page quotes Kieth Olbermann at least 17 times!. Obviously, the several people maintaining this page find no problem with that, otherwise, those quotes would have been removed long ago. I already removed one of his that appeared directly in the quotation section, and another "source" which was just his video commentary about it. I don't want to click on all the MSNBC sources to see which ones also contain Olbermann's rants about McCain. Overall, it seems this page would more accurately be titled "Why Olbermann doesn't like McCain" 67.182.242.113 00:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And I just came back 4 days later. The Olbermann count is up to 23. 71.195.214.81 04:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"alleged bias" haha, it is an obvious bias. Don't use weasel words to try to diminish a point. You guys apparently love wikiquote so ou guyz fix it! Some people don't wanna deal with your far-left anti-american crap. 69.245.80.218 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people don't want to deal with anything beyond complaining about it. The people who actually take action beyond that of complaint are the people who ultimately contribute the most to many projects, and to society in general, and it is ultimately their various views, "left", "right" or beyond such shallow-minded categorizations which are most likely to endure, while that of complainers is ultimately forgotten, save by historians of the trivial. ~ Moby 19:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Most every Wikiquote page about a modern political figure, across the political spectrum, has plenty of quotes that put that figure in a bad light, or reveal some of the hypocrisy typical of politicians. Similarly, such pages include the best moments of those figures. Our function is to report the notable quotes, not to "balance" entries by, for example, removing an accurately reported notable quotation. BD2412 T 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Erase all the Speculation/ "fact check" bullshit before i gut this page like a liberal on a corporate greed rant

Cleanup badly needed

Fully one-third of this article consists of quotes not by John McCain, but about John McCain. Of these, the vast majority are criticisms from political opponents; in several places many quotes are being taken from a single article. This is in violation of both notability and undue weight standards, and as such cleanup is needed. The article is not meant to serve as a depository for anything bad that was ever said about him. Unless reasonable objections are posted, I will begin a massive clean-up operation very shortly. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. /Slarre 12:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the first step of removing all YouTube-referenced quotes, plus the transcript of a Barack Obama campaign ad which had absolutely no place here. Barring reasonable objection, more will follow shortly. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have removed twenty or so of the transcripted sequences from Countdown with Keith Olbermann featuring attacks on McCain. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record: Summary of alterations to date. Feel free to review.

~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you questioning the accuracy of the excised material? or are simply pursuing a spurious "balance" by numerical tallying? We do not have a requirement that the numbers be equal. As I said above, if you think there are favorable quotations that would be valuable to the reader, go ahead and add them. Jim Lane 03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem unversed in our policy on undue weight. Before jumping straight into unfounded accusations of right-wing censorship, I suggest you read through it and then come back and tell me again why we need to have twenty half-page transcripts from Countdown with Keith Olbermann plastered on this article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking through this page, MSNBC is cited 27 times. The closest second is the Washington Post at 9 times, and in one instance five quotes (albeit from different people) are cited from a single NewsMax article. WP:UNDUE states that sources may be used in accordance to the prominence of each. As it is, this page gives undue weight to certain sources. I will shortly begin a review of these for notability; keeping recentism in mind, further cleanup is probably needed. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the MSNBC quotes being chopped. They don't really add to the page and actually may distract the reader.

But what is your justification for removing the two quotes "Maybe 100" (referring to how long U.S. troops would be in Iraq) and "the fundamentals of our economy are strong"? Both of these are infamous quotes, cited repeatedly by independent news sources over the past few weeks and months, and have been defining moments concerning John McCain and his campaign for president, in my opinion. Davecornell

I didn't remove the "Maybe 100" quote - it was presented out of chronological sequence, so I moved it to the right place in the page. Also, the "fundamentals" quote appeared in two places, so I excised one of them. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The fundamentals quote you recently deleted was not a duplicate. Take a look. It was one of a number of instances where McCain made that claim. I think it should be included because it was the last time he made that statement, changing his viewpoint later that same day when he said there was an economic crisis.

Also, as a suggestion for making this process a little friendlier, when you see that a more reliable source is needed, rather than outright deleting it please consider using the Wiki citation for reference needed at the end of the quote by using two brackets {{ }} with the word "fact" in between which appears like this: This will give the contributing editors here an opportunity to find a more reliable source before deletion and not make your edits appear so heavy-handed. Thanks. Davecornell 17:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the "fundamentals" quote now - thanks for correcting that. I have added an appropriate tag for the citation. But we have to keep notability in mind when posting quotes here, as well - according to the current revision of the Wikiquote guidelines for editing, Wikipedia standards for notability, weight, NPOV etc. apply where not otherwise indicated by Wikiquote policy. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"That One"

McCain's quote:

"You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me."

should be included. It is being widely lauded in the media (click here) as something significant along with McCain's reluctance to shake Obama's hand after the debate last night. There's already a website selling t-shirts with the slogan. Just because you think it's not "notable" is your POV which is anti-Wiki. Davecornell 00:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Our notability requirements are a well-established guideline for editing, and a part of NPOV, which is one of the project's founding policies. I am not "anti-Wiki," and have an extensive edit history both here and in Wikipedia to back it up. I would like this to move forward as a collaborative process, but for that to happen, there must be universal recognition of the problems with this page. Can we agree on any of the following points:

1. The overall tone is overwhelmingly negative.
2. Undue weight is being given to specific sources.
3. Quotes without long-term notoriety are being included for no other reason than that they carry negative connotations.
4. The practice of citing blogs and other unreliable sources has run rampant.
5. Quotes which are not notable by themselves are included anyway because they can be arranged in a way which creates contradictions.
6. The state of this page has improved since cleanup began.

I have been just as indiscriminate in removing poorly sourced and unsourced quotes from Obama's page, regardless of if they help or hurt the senator. I am not here to push my own POV, and would appreciate if you did not assume as such. What I want to do is to fix and maintain this page. And I would rather work with you towards that goal than be fighting you every step of the way. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention it in my edit summary, so I feel compelled to note here that I have removed the "that one" quote per the third point above. This was news for two days, and is not notable enough for permanent inclusion. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that. It is surely the single line that will be remembered from the whole debate (much like Reagan's "There you go again" in the 1980 debate with Carter). I don't imagine that any of the other lines quoted from McCain's speeches are particularly more notable. BD2412 T 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"We came to Washington to change it, but Washington changed us."

Please add attributed quote, "We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us." Attribution: second page of Buckley's "Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama" in The Daily Beast.

I've googled for the quote, and I see others claiming John McCain said it, but I'm struggling to find the original source. I thought bringing it up on wikiquote might help me discover it's original attribution. Many eyes, all sources are shallow or something. Thanks! --User6985 19:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The correct quote and citation are:

• We came to Washington to change government, and government changed us. We departed rather tragically from our conservative principles.
  • John McCain, reported in Bill Nichols and William M. Welch, "Rumsfeld out as Bush cites voter 'displeasure'; AP canvass indicates Democrats have Senate", USA TODAY (November 9, 2006), p. 1-A.

Cheers! BD2412 T 07:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Found the quote on the second page of this LA Times article.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/nov/16/nation/na-mccain16

Sections Nominated for deletion: "About" and "Attributed"

The sections titled "About John McCain" and "Attributed" violate several wikiquote policies in letter and/or spirit, and should therefore be deleted. Here are the three most egregious violations:

1. The "About" section does not belong on any wikiquote page. The pages are supposed to be exclusively quotes BY an individual, and not quotes from OTHERS.

2. At least two of the quotes under the "Attributed" section are of dubious source at best. This violates the "accuracy" policy.

3. The quotes listed in those sections are overwhelmingly negative, and seem to be little more than an excuse to violate the "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy. Even if the "Attributed" section is deemed not to violate the letter of the NPOV policy, it violates its spirit. It reaches deep into the murky waters of hearsay to come close to outright libel. The "About" section flagrantly violates the NPOV policy. As mentioned earlier, it does not belong on any wikiquote page. Here, it serves as nothing more than a repository of external criticisms, competitors' campaign rhetoric, and arguably defaming statements --- all of debatable validity at best. For these reasons, it could also be considered vandalism as well.

While not every quote listed on an individual's page need be flattering, it must be verifiably made by that individual. If the evidence for attribution is tenuous at best, it should be removed. If the quote was made by an individual who is not the subject of the page, it must be removed. For some time, it seems, this page has been tagged as not being up to Wikipedia's standards. It's been marked as needing clean-up. It's about time someone picked up a broom and made some room.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.253.219.161 (talk)

I agree that this article could use some cleanup, but I do not support the proposed wholesale deletions.

1. The first point is incorrect: There is no policy against "About" sections, and many of Wikiquote's finest articles have them.
2. All three of the "Attributed" quotes are hearsay based on unnamed sources. That is sufficient reason to remove them, as Wikiquote is no place for rumors and fabrications. Also, quoting the private statements of public persons is seldom appropriate to Wikiquote's purpose.
3. There is no rule against criticism per se. Where point of view rears its ugly head in quote selection is when they are chosen to represent a point of view without regard for the quality of the quote itself. That every politician has supporters and detractors goes without saying, and their remarks should go without quoting unless there are strong qualities that make them particularly quoteworthy.

In removing content, the quotes need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Some obvious candidates for removal are the utterly mundane "McCain has gone ... too far" and the trivially peevish "It's like we caught him getting a manicure or something." Some of the quotes in the main "Sourced" section also seem to be selected merely to document a point without regard for whether it was original or memorably said. ~ Ningauble 16:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the wholesale deletion of either, although cleanup would definitely be useful. It seems many "About" quotes are simply campaign inspired and no longer relevant. For example, "These times require more than a good soldier. They require a wise leader." by Biden. How is this a quote about McCain? Mhym 19:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)