Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain/Archive 1

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

Panama lease

Does anyone know whether the Panama Canal Zone was "leased" from Panama? That was asserted here. Note that the citizenship issue is mentioned in footnote 2 of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty. The U.S. paid $250k per year in rent. Also the status of the PCZ is trivial in the context of McCain's early life and military career. We don't need to mention it. It is not trivial in the context of his presidential campaign(s), where the status of the PCZ when he was born is a non-trivial legal issue.--24.57.151.98 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the ref I removed from the article, so you don't have to retype it to use on the campaign page:
"Although McCain was not born within a state of the United States, his status as a Natural-born citizen (and future eligibility to be elected to the presidency) may have been assured at birth both by jus sanguinis, since both of his parents were U.S. citizens, and jus soli, as the Panama Canal Zone was at that time (1936) a United States possession (1903-1979). See Rudin, Ken (July 9, 1998). "Citizen McCain's Panama Problem?". The Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) and Crewdson, John (2008-02-18). "John McCain's birthright: Fit for the presidency". The Swamp. Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-02-21. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)"
--24.57.151.98 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's trivial here. But, anyway, I'll move it to the 2008 campaign article, where it is certainly more relevant.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The article has just been edited to say that McCain was "born in Panama."[1] It does appear that the Canal Zone was "in Panama" rather than "part of the U.S." However, this seems like a very technical point, and I'm not sure why it's important for this article to report this very technical fact. The treaty said:


So, it does look like the PCZ technically remained part of Panama. But inclusion of this technical fact seems to be a back-door way of attacking McCain's eligibility for President; the notability of this fact is entirely related to the presidency. So, I would be more comfortable if this fact would instead be recited in the article on McCain's 2008 campaign, rather than here. It basically seems like trivia in the context of this article. On the other hand, I can see why it might be appropriate to mention what country a person was born in, as a routine part of any Wikipedia biography. So, I have mixed feelings. Incidentally, even if he was technically born in a foreign country, the fact remains that both of his parents were citizens, which has always been the strongest argument for his presidential eligibility.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning the country of birth first isn't really the standard way of writing it out, so that unfairly draws attention to the country. I've changed the order to the more standard "city, state, country" format. --24.57.151.98 (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Imbalance used of sources

I've found some issues in the main article that seem to be repeated here. Please see Talk:John McCain#Imbalance and cherry picking, and I suggest a thorough review of the way the sources are used here. Having reviewed a few more since that example, I'm not sure a POV tag isn't needed on both articles, but I hope those with more time will review more closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up ... there were some long posts about this on the main article talk page, but the short version is that I think Sandy misinterpreted what was going on here. And the particular section she objected to, Naval academy, was substantially revised and expanded in this article in any case. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bruce ancestry

I share the scepticism of the claim that McCain is descended from Robert the Bruce, but maybe someone could clarify this claim. Does he say which of Bruce's immediate descendants he is descended from? If not, his claim is extremely dubious. I gather from the Guardian article that he claims to come from the Clan Lamont, from people who were driven out during the civil war period. However looking at this clan's website (a link from this article) they did have a turbulent history during the civil war, but there is no claim that the chiefs of this relatively minor clan had royal ancestry. PatGallacher (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian article is wrong. No one ever claimed McCain descends from Robert the Bruce, but his grand-aunt does seem to. Also, McCain seems to descend from Edward I, and from earlier Scottish monarchs. Far from genealogists agreeing with the Guardian article, they all disagree with it (just look at soc.genealogy.medieval). See my roundup of links here, which includes a link to the full descent of McCain's grandaunt from Robert the Bruce: http://humphrysfamilytree.com/famous.mccain.html The "John McCain and Robert the Bruce" controversy] MarkHumphrysIreland (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Robert the Bruce issue mention from the article. It's off topic and I was mistaken to include it in the first place; the forebears that matter are the ones in the American military, who affected McCain's life and world-view. The genealogists can debate about the British Isles stuff elsewhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is any further discussion about this, here are the facts, for the record: Professional genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner has traced a descent of McCain from Edward I, King of England, and hence from Malcolm III, King of Scotland, and from Charlemagne. [2] Professional genealogist Will Johnson has traced a descent of McCain's grand-aunt Mary Louise Earle from Robert III, King of Scotland, and hence from Robert the Bruce, King of Scotland, and from Charlemagne. [3] I wouldn't cite the Guardian article at all. There is no intellectual content in it. MarkHumphrysIreland (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead (and other FAC comments)

WTR, you should sigificantly beef up the lead, per WP:LEAD (stand-alone summary of all highpoints of the article, should leave the reader satisfied if the reader goes no further); it's currently a bit skimpy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, from the main article talk page, these issues to be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding that, I can't expand much upon what I said there. I believe this article to be a full and balanced portrayal of all the aspects of McCain's life and character during the period covered, from the heroic to the foolish and everything in between, using pretty much all of the biographical sources available to us. And if you read Faith of My Fathers and Worth the Fighting For, you'll see that McCain would agree too. Nobody's harder on his faults than he is himself. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, I left it intentionally light because this is a subarticle, that most readers will have gotten to via links from the main article. I don't want to regurgitate the summary material that they already read there, here; if they clicked that link, it means they are interested in more detail, so I want to get right to that. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that, just because a person is self-deprecating, that doesn't make it open season to join in the deprecation! I haven't read over this article yet, so don't yet have an opinion about the lead or the FAC nomination. I just wanted to take this opportunity to make a pithy little statement about deprecation.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't taken "open season" here at all. The layout and tone of this article is no different from any of the core biographies (Timberg, McCain-Salter, Alexander, Arizona Republic series). Nor do I think this article is deprecating. I've seen from past comments that reactions to McCain vary according to cultural background: those who value respect for authority tend to find his early years objectionable, while those who value the classic American strain of a free-thinking, plain-speaking, whatever-kicking man of underlying principle tend to respond better to McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I definitely prefer the latter type of person to the former. And I'm not accusing anyone of taking "open season" on McCain. I meant only to make a general observation.
I just perused the first sections of the article, and noticed that he's characterized as an unruly, defiant, quick-tempered, insolent, crude, unrepentent, nasty, combative, and undistinguished punk. And that's before the section even starts on his time at the Naval Academy. So, it may not be open season, but perhaps it's slightly overdone?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You're picking out words, not meaning. I could also pick out that he was a victim of poor schools, frequent shifts between schools (well more than one per year on average), and frequent loss of friends, and that during this time he began developing his sense for history, culture, athletic competition and success, learning, honor, and self-image. Among other things, this is a story of self-growth and redemption; that doesn't happen unless you start from some unattractive places. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
But he didn't really start from an entirely unattractive place. Until the age of 12, John McCain "was everything a mother could hope for -- quiet, dependable, courteous to a fault."[4]Ferrylodge (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair point, I've included that. I also need to double check the McCain "lots of fights" quote as to pre- or post-St. Stephens in the chrono. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It was post-, and the text has been clarified. McCain's organization here in Faith jumps around a bit, and the Alexander treatment got thrown off too as a result. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Subarticle or not, the guidelines at WP:LEAD apply; it needs to meet criteria on a stand-alone basis. This WP:LEAD needs to summarize this article, has nothing to do with other articles. Did you get an independent copyedit and MoS review (I suggest User:Epbr123 to quickly run through and fix all the MoS issues and WP:PRV to find someone who might help with the copyedit issues) ? I'm finding way too much to fix. Am I missing it somewhere, or is there not even a link to John McCain in the lead; that is fundamental ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If you look through the articles in Category:Early lives by individual, most of them have very light leads. It may be that the guidelines in WP:LEAD need to be re-thought in this case. I'm interested in what others think about this case. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded the lead, will see what people think. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding MoS review, no I didn't get one, but I went through many of the items myself (non-breaking spaces, no spaces before refs, etc.). I thought that MoS gives us leeway to use "10" or "ten" since it's a one-syllable word for a low two-digit number. Indeed, a lot of house styles require "ten" in this case, unless it's mixed with other numeral-form numbers. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've read WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words again, and it says "numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as figures, and alternatively as words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, ...)". That's what I'm doing here. I'm using "ten", "twelve", "fifteen", "twenty" and "twentieth", "twenty-three" and "twenty-third", and "fifty". All of these qualify under the alternate usage guideline, and some of them qualify directly under the exceptions list in MOSNUM (e.g. "twentieth" the fraction, or "fifteen A-4s" where "15 A-4s" would be visually confusing. My rationale is that the word forms seem more formal and appropriate in many of the contexts they are used in; I guess I'm old school in this regard. It also helps that you can dodge non-breaking spaces this way, which sometimes fool unenlightened editors into thinking the article's been vandalized. This all said, there's a big "disputed" tag in this section of MOSNUM, yet I can't find the nature of the dispute in the Talk page (already archived? I looked at a couple of those and still didn't see it). So I don't know what that's about. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the link to John McCain in the lead, it's in the bio navbox at the top; this is the essential navigation tool from the main article to the subarticles and back and between the chain of subarticles. I can put the bold "John Sidney McCain III" over a link as well, but I've always disliked links in title bolds. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and wlinked under the bold. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding wording redundancies, this one I plead guilty on; these tend to work their way into my writing. Do you want to put the FAC on hold until I get a WP:PRV on it for this, or should I just withdraw it, or what? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Actually, I'm not the type to ask others to do my dirty work. I'll either fix the problems myself or fail. If I can't improve my writing enough to meet standards, then I've no business being here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

More FAC comments

The lead is much better now, although I corrected it to conform with article naming, bolding and linking per WP:LEAD.[5]

Thanks! That's much better. For some reason I couldn't find that formulation. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I remain concerned about the cherrypicking of negative content highlighted above in FerryLodge's post; I don't have time to read the entire article today, so perhaps that has already been dealt with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. I truly know that you are heavily overburdened with FAC duties. In a better world, I would prefer that everyone read the entire article before judging the tone or balance of a few of its sections.
  2. Also in a better world, I would prefer that everyone read McCain's Faith of My Fathers or one of the Timberg books before judging this article. I know that's not possible. McCain is not like most politicians ... hell, he's not like most people. He's brutally straightforward about his faults, and as a consequence his biographers are too, and as a consequence we can be straightforward about them as well. He also has personal actions and accomplishments that are heroic beyond the scope that most people will ever have a chance to have, much less do. And of course we write about all of them too.
  3. If anyone thinks I have constructed this article to cast McCain in an overall negative light, then we have a problem, because that is so not my intention or motivation, nor how I perceive the article. If you want to "cherry pick" in the opposite direction, look at my treatment of his VA-174 XO/CO assignment. This is one of his lesser-known triumphs, but I've given it its full due here, including looking through U.S. Navy squadron histories and the like to get the details right. Among many other examples.
  4. The specific instance Ferrylodge found was a case where I had made an honest oversight, combined with the Alexander book putting something in the wrong place, which in turn came from the McCain book jumping about its chronological sequencing in one place. I'm delighted that Ferrylodge caught the oversight and that I could figure out and fix up that part of the bio. I welcome any and all such input, the more specific the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another note, section headings could use some work (which might impact article organization). This heading is very long and mixes too many topics:

Naval training, early assignments, first marriage, and children

and while it refers to marriage and children, it's under a heading about his military career. Later on, we find another reference to a marriage under his military career, so there's mixture of career and personal, but all under the heading of military career. I'm not sure how to quickly/easily sort this out, so some reorganization and rationalization of section headings may be needed. The organization of Ronald Reagan might lend some ideas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like the Ronald Reagan solution — pull all the marriage and family material out of the chrono into one section, then plomp that down somewhere. It's not how people live their lives, and it's not how real published biographies are written. In McCain's case, his personal and professional lives are very intertwined — first marriage is related to Annapolis and shows one aspect of maturity (especially adopting her existing children), breakup is related to Vietnam and his return to immaturity, second marriage provides springboard for his political career, later adoption becomes subject in 2000 presidential campaign, and so forth. So this McCain sequence of biographical subarticles needs to be told in chronological sequence. That leaves the question of how to identify where the personal life material is. If we had an index, that would work ... but we don't. Our section headers are the closest thing we have to an index. So that's why we have the long section header. If it helps readers find their way through the articles, what's wrong with it? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just saw Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present in the infobox. It should be moved to Senate career of John McCain (see WP:MOSDATE regarding avoiding use of "to present" which becomes dated). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree about "present" in general — my most hated word of all that I find in articles is "recently" — but your title won't work, since the existing House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999 covers much senate ground. Ferrylodge has changed the summary section in the main article to "Senate career after 2000", but that seems kind of clunky to me. In this specific case, if McCain loses the election, the "present" will still be true, and if he wins the election, this subarticle is visible enough that there's no practical danger that its renaming will be overlooked. So I could live with the status quo, but am open to further suggestions. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cite template usage

Sandy, on the "cite news" template, I prefer to use publisher=''[[whatever]]'' for newspapers and publisher=[[whatever2]] for wire services, broadcast organizations, etc., because then I can be consistent on using the same parameter. I reserve work= for things like specific programs on a broadcast network. It also allows me to do mixtures, like publisher=[[Associated Press]] for ''[[The New York Times]]''. The inconsistency between one parameter getting automatically italicized and the other not is an annoyance of Template:Cite news, one that I tried to pursue at Template talk:Cite news but didn't get far on. Anyway, since you I know you don't like the cite templates to begin with, I hope you'll give me leeway to do it my way. As long as I'm consistent throughout the article, I don't see a problem. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's a matter of personal preference—using publisher plus italics is much longer than just using work which doesn't require italics, so the text ends up being more cluttered and harder to edit around, but the end result is the same, so if you prefer that, it's not that important. (Yes, the inconsistency in these templates is quite annoying.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It is always possible to cite sources by hand, and italicize as necessary, using our normal italic font; I have found this easier, and you may as well - it also makes the edit space more readable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy is quite right that work= saves space for articles that have source file byte size problems, but this one is fixed in scope and is unlikely to grow much more than the modest source file size that it currently is. Septentrionalis is right that you can do cites manually instead of via the cite template, but that's a whole 'nother discussion ... it's a valid approach, but for various reasons I'm using the cite template. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unruly and defiant

The article currently says that, "while at St. Stephen's he began to develop an unruly, defiant streak." The cite is to an article by John Arundel, which in turn cites to Timberg. Why not cite directly to Timberg? Also, Timberg wrote that McCain had a "defiant, unruly streak" but perhaps we should do more to put this in our own words than just reverse the words "defiant" and "unruly." Moreover, Timberg goes on to explain that McCain “mocked the school's dress code by wearing blue jeans with his coat and tie." This seems to be the kind of thing that Timberg considers to be "defiant" and "unruly" but I suspect that many Wikipedia readers might not be so severe.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The dress code thing refers to Episcopal, not St. Stephen's. Alexander quotes a classmate as saying of the St. Stephen's time, "John was a little guy but tough." Faith of My Fathers doesn't explicitly mention St. Stephen's, unless I missed it somewhere (no index), but talks a lot about his behavior issues of this general time (and did again yesterday during his bio tour). Lacking much more to go on, I'd rather keep Timberg's words than invent possibly less accurate ones. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I still think you should cite directly to Timberg, and not to Arundel who's merely quoting Timberg. Additionally, Timberg is very clear that he thinks the unruliness and defiance only got worse at Episcopal than it had been at St. Stephens. At which point Timberg explains that McCain mockingly wore jeans (gasp!) with his coat and tie. Can we cite that as an example of his unruly defiance?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article also says that most of the students at the Episcopal School were children of "wealthy Southerners", and the cite is to Alexander's Man of the People.[6] But I didn't notice Alexander say anything about "wealthy." Alexander quotes one of McCain's classmates as saying that their dormitory "hadn't been renovated" since the Civil War, and "There were cockroaches in there. One day they swarmed in and you couldn't see the floor. The curtained alcoves we slept in were like the pictures you see of hospitals in the Civil War." Maybe wealthy parents wanted their kids to experience poverty. Anyway, where does it say that the parents were wealthy? McCain probably didn't get a glimpse of the wealthy life by living in such conditions.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The real cite for this is Faith of My Fathers but the FAC reviewers have been beating me up for using it too much, so I tried to sub in Alexander instead. Sigh. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Faith p. 109: "Most of the students came from families who lived south of the Mason Dixon Line and east of the Mississippi River, and their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers had preceded them at the school. Almost all were sons of wealthy men. None but me were sons of professional officers in the armed services." And another two paragraphs on this theme, contrasting their genteel background, Ivy League futures, etc. in contrast to his. Now do we really think he's making all this up? Wasted Time R (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the original cite. My bad; it's better to fail FAC than to get things wrong. Wasted Time R (talk)
Thanks. And I'm just holding you to the cites that were in the article.  :-) And I explicitly said above that maybe the wealthy parents wanted their kids to experience poverty. Maybe we could mention that living conditions at the school were extremely spartan, to offset the statement about wealthy parents?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added the spartan conditions, which is fine to include. Don't know what you mean by "offsetting" though. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It sounded before like he got a taste of the wealthy life at boarding school. Now that impression is offset.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Naval Academy section

In places where he's cited blasting himself, I think some mitigating stuff he said should be in the next (or previous sentence) instead of substantially later in the article (e.g. later in the article it's mentioned that "Despite his difficulties, McCain later wrote that he never defamed the more compelling traditions of the Academy – those involving courage, resilience, honor, and sacrifice for one's country").Ferrylodge (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. sorry if some of this is nitpicking. I'm purposely not doing this at the FAC page, because I expect to eventually be endorsing this for FA.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no nit too small to pick at FAC! Especially when content is concerned. And Sandy prefers lengthy dicussion go here, not on that page. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The "never defamed the more compelling ..." bit isn't "substantially later in the article", it's two paragraphs later in the same section. I'm presuming people will read a whole section; this is a subarticle, which means people have to have been interested in the topic to have even got here in the first place. And this bit in its current placement matches where McCain places it, and placed there it serves to "mitigate" (not that that's my purpose) the bad class rank, which is what many readers latch onto most from McCain's naval academy days. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)There's a similar issue with the class rank. The article says, "His classmates were impressed by his cramming abilities[34] and thought his low grades were by inclination and not ability. His class rank was further lowered by his poor grades for conduct and leadership, which reflected his sloppy appearance, rebellious attitude, and poor relations with his company officer." But then it's in the next paragraph (several sentences later) where it's stated that "he was fifth from the bottom in class rank,[38] 894th out of 899." Just stylistically, I'd prefer these closely related things to be right next to each other, in the same way that I suggested McCain's self-deprecations ought to be next to his self-congratulation. But this is stylistic, and others may take a different view.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In my browser, these things are all of five lines apart. That's pretty close. This is a narrative, this is not a game of "match up every bad thing with a good thing". McCain's a tough guy; his story doesn't need our protection. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I said it's stylistic. Grouping things together is a matter of style.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, we just disagree on granularity then. To me, putting 4 paragraphs of a 32-paragraph article together and labelling them "Naval Academy" is grouping them together. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A rank of 894 out of 899 would make him sixth from the bottom, not fifth. 899 is first, 898 is second, 897 is third, 896 is fourth, 895 is fifth, and 894 is sixth. Why does everyone get this wrong? 204.77.37.98 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No. See #Class rank below. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How to attribute McCain's statements about himself

(undent)In the Naval Academy section it's stated that, "McCain was a rebellious and insubordinate midshipman." The cite is to McCain himself. If such a cite is used, then IMHO either he ought to be quoted directly in the text or footnote (especially since the cite is not available online), and/or the sentence should say something like "McCain described himself...." Ferrylodge (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The full quote from McCain's a lot more "negative" than what I wrote: He says he was an "arrogant non-conformist", then says because of that, "I soon found myself in conflict with the Academy's authorities and traditions. Instead of beginning a crash course in self-improvement so that I could find a respectable place in the ranks, I reverted to form and embarked on a four-year course of insubordination and rebellion." You want that whole thing in? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I just think that there ought to be some indication in the text that McCain was describing himself as rebellious and insubordinate, rather than that being the description from someone else. If you want to put full quotes in the footnotes, that's fine with me as long as you do it consistently. I'm a big fan of putting quotes in footnotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason to only put quotes in footnotes for "negative" statements, and I never suggested such a thing. If McCain is characterizing himself in a good way or in a bad way, there ought to be some indication in the text of the article that McCain is the one doing the characterizing. And if full quotes are put in the footnotes, it ought to be done regardless of whether it's a negative statement or a positive statement.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If the cite was to one of McCain's memoirs, I thought it would be pretty clear that he was the one doing the characterizing. But, I don't mind adding full quotes for any kind of statement, Faith of My Fathers is a great book (IMO) and I'm happy to showcase it, although if I do too many I may run afoul of fair use considerations ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's clear if you go look at the footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've seen articles that attribute every statement in the main text: "According to the New York Times, Smith decided to run for mayor in November. According to a December 4, 1999 report in the Daily News, Smith had trouble raising funds." And so on. It's very tedious to read. The idea that McCain was a rebellious and insubordinate midshipman is not exactly controversial. It's like saying Hillary Clinton was a good student, or Mitt Romney is a family man, or Fred Thompson has a gruff demeanor. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that that kind of thing is very tedious to read, and I've not suggested doing it here, except when McCain himself is the one who is cited. YMMV.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
My objection to this is that in many cases, besides being tedious, it will sound like we are doubting him: "Although according to McCain he was badly wounded, he says his captors refused to give him medical care unless he gave them military information; he states that they beat and interrogated him, but he says that he only offered his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth." "Two weeks later he states that his captors tried to force him to sign a second statement, and this time, he states that his will to resist was restored, and he states that he refused." "However, on one occasion, McCain says that a guard surreptitiously loosened McCain's painful rope bindings for a night; when months later the guard later saw McCain on Christmas Day, McCain says that he stood next to McCain and silently drew a cross in the dirt with his foot." And so on. Ugh. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"McCain's autobiography describes his captors' refusal to give him medical care for his serious injuries unless he gave them military information; they beat and interrogated him, but he only offered his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth." "Two weeks later, his captors tried to force him to sign a second statement, and this time, McCain later recalled, his will to resist was restored, and he refused." "However, on one occasion, a guard surreptitiously loosened McCain's painful rope bindings for a night; McCain still remembers Christmas day several months later when the guard stood next to McCain and silently drew a cross in the dirt with his foot."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Still ugh. If we do this, why not also do "McCain's discussions with Timberg related the time that he did such-and-such" or "McCain's after-action report stated that he bombed Haiphong". We have to take a stand — we state that these things happened, that these things are true. Do we really think that the things that McCain told Timberg in 1995 are true and that the things McCain first published in Faith in 1999 are not? There's no reason for that belief; no WP:RS has ever suggested it. We do sentence-by-sentence, sometimes clause-by-clause citing in this article, just so everybody can see where everything comes from. There is no reason to further pollute the article with this kind of in-the-text attribution; it's completely redundant. In cases where equivalent statements really are made, I'm willing to swap out McCain cites for biographer/journalist cites, per the FAC request (I haven't gotten to the Vietnam sections yet). In cases where McCain says "negative" things about himself, I'm willing to put the full quote in the footnote, so everyone can see the context. But I'm not willing to do this. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I can understand your reluctance, but I strongly believe that negative statements in the text of the article about McCain, that were uttered by McCain himself, ought to be attributed to him IN THE TEXT (not just the footnotes). It is well known that his mouth is often considered a "WMD" (see your discussion of that very point in the sub-article on McCain's image).[7] If he turns that WMD on himself, which he occasionally does, this article should say so in the text. If he says that he was a little jerk, then we should not simply make a statement like that in the text of the article as if it were an objective fact, but rather should explicitly attribute it to McCain IN THE TEXT.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    If we're talking about an off-the-cuff verbal remark he makes on the Straight Talk Express or in some other such context, such as saying he's weak on economics to a Boston Globe reporter, I agree. I would never write a bald "McCain is weak on economics." But this memoir is different. This is something that he wrote deliberately, in conjunction with a writing partner who is a trusted aide, with one or more editors from the publishing house looking at it as well. Anything that he says in it, we can be sure he really means to say. So if he says in this fashion that he was a rebellious and insubordinate midshipman, I see no reason to doubt this as an objective fact. Furthermore, it's not an isolated sentence or outlier; it's the theme of the whole middle part of the book! Furthermore, he hasn't disavowed it or walked away from it in the years since publication (as he has the economics remark, for example); in fact in his bio tour stop at Annapolis yesterday, he was reiterating it once again. I'm a little at a loss to understand your motivation here; do you think McCain is exaggerating his "negative" self-depiction (and not everyone would even consider all these things negative; a good case can be made that insubordination to blind-authority-just-for-the-sake-of-authority can be a good thing) for some reason? Do you think his behavior at the Naval Academy is really more "positive" than he relates? That his class rank should have been higher, but he was the victim of some nefarious prejudice against him? There's no evidence for any of these conclusions. So what exactly is bothering you about this? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's bothering me is apparently what's also bothering several commenters in the FAC. They have noticed that this Wikipedia article relies heavily on what is basically a primary source: the subject's own statements. They've asked if that reliance can be reduced by relying instead on secondary sources like biographies and the like. I've taken a middle position: if you're going to rely on what McCain says about himself --- at least the things that might be viewed as negative characterization --- then just take a few extra words in the text to attribute his comments to John McCain. This really seems like a rather easy and unobjectionable thing to do, because you're not using many of his negative statements about himself. I'm a little at a loss to understand the resistance. I'd be glad to do it, and then you can revert if you want to.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Your position isn't "middle" at all, since it's divergent from the FAC comments. The FAC reviewers are worried about the heavy reliance on McCain's largely "positive" 1973 USN&WR account. That's at least a logical concern; he might be inflating or sanitizing some aspects of his story. You are worried about only the fewer number of "negative" statements he makes. Yet normally in law, a declaration against interest is accorded more weight as to truthfulness, not less as you are believing. You still haven't given any WP:RS to support the notion that McCain is intent on harming his own public image by saying things that aren't true. Do you really believe that Nancy Reagan was not upset by his divorce of Carol, and that he's just making it up when he says there was a coldness between them for a while? Come on! Why the hell would he do that? Talk to me ... tell me what your real problem is here. Because if your edits were to hold, then I would have to find every single damn "positive" statement McCain makes and precede it with the same tedious attribution language. Otherwise someone could easily claim the article is slanted to accept McCain's positive statements on faith and water down his negative ones as things he might have made up. Is that what you really want? It sure isn't what I want. And I don't think you can find a single [[WP:*]] guideline that supports your odd stance on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You already had “McCain said this….” language existing in many locations throughout the article, and I’ve merely added four more. I do not understand this comment of yours at all: “Do you really believe that Nancy Reagan was ‘not’ upset by his divorce of Carol, and that he's just making it up when he says there was a coldness between them for a while?” I have never suggested any such thing. The text of the article currently says: “John McCain has said that his relationship with Nancy Reagan turned cold for a while following the divorce, but eventually the friendship returned;[133] the same happened with most of McCain's other friends, who were eventually won over by his combination of charm and penitence.[104]” This in no way suggests that McCain was making anything up, and I do not understand where you get that impression.
May I ask, what was your criterion for deciding which McCain characterizations to attribute to him in the text? You attributed some but not others.
If the subject of a BLP is saying unflattering things about himself, then that is very different from third-parties saying unflattering things about the subject, and all I’ve tried to do is alert readers about which is occurring.
You say that my position is not a “middle” position between yours and several of the other FAC reviewers. They are requesting that McCain be cited less, and that biographers be cited more. I am willing to agree that McCain can still be cited as much as you have done, as long as readers are made more aware that he is the source. I do not understand why you do not think this is a middle position.
Septentrionalis requested that a secondary source be cited for his time in Hanoi. However, Carabinieri more generally objected that “This article relies too heavily on McCain's autobiographies.” Coemgenus agreed. In contrast, I am not asking you to rely less on McCain's autobiographies. I simply asked you to distinguish more in the text of the article, so that readers can more easily see what relies on autobiographies and what does not. In order to make this task less onerous for you, I said that this should at least be done for negative autobiographical material. McCain is notoriously self-deprecating (e.g. he says he looks like Frankenstein), so readers should be alerted when McCain is doing the deprecating as opposed to other people doing it. That is not an accusation of dishonesty against McCain or anyone else.
However, if you want to indicate in the text every item that is sourced to McCain, then please by my guest. Or you can do as Carabinieri and Coemgenus have suggested, and greatly reduce the reliance on McCain’s own characterizations of himself. I thought I was making things easy for you.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I refuse to go down this road. You have not shown me any WP rule or guideline that says that a BLP's negative statements about himself have to be attributed in-text while a BLP's positive statements about himself can just be footnoted. You have not shown me any WP rule or guideline regarding when "readers should be alerted" because the subject is "notoriously" anything. Your notions are your own invention, created for just this article for reasons I still do not understand. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
And as to your other comment, my current uses of "McCain said this ..." should be before direct quotes and introductions of his thoughts, not before introduction of facts. If there are any of the latter, they are a mistake on my part and should be taken out. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
BLPs are to be written in a neutral manner. McCain has said that he has as many scars as Frankenstein and is as old as dirt. If you were to write a sentence saying that he has as many scars as Frankenstein and is as old as dirt, and you footnoted it to McCain, without mentioning in the text that he's the one who said it, would you consider that a neutral BLP?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't be silly, of course not. That's a figure of speech, not a factual statement, and he uses it humourously to defuse a potential campaign issue. His getting into fights in school, or his high school academic record, or the period of coldness in his relationship with Nancy Reagan, are simple factual statements. They are not examples of his being self-deprecating (as "Frankenstein" is), but examples of him being straightforward about events in his life. There is absolutely no reason for us to believe they are not true, as even you seem to concede. Using such statements does not compromise the article's neutrality in any way. There is nothing in WP:BLP or any other WP: that requires in-text attributions of such statements over just footnotes. That is just some guideline you are cooking up. The confounded irony of all this is that doing a McCain article should be so much easier than doing one for almost anyone else, because he's so straightforward about these things. You're turning this on its head! Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No they are not simple factual statements. The article does not say he got into fights in school, it says he did so often. It doesn't say he had a high school academic record, it says that it was undistinguished. It does not say that he had a relationship with Nancy Reagan, it says the relationship got cold and unfriendly. Et cetera. What is so awful about attributing these characterizations to McCain himself? We don't know what a biographer would find if he interviewed Nancy Reagan, or interviewed McCain's elementary school teachers, or examined his high school transcript.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, like I said above, you can revert. Frankly, I find this discussion a bit bizarre, so please don't feel that we have to continue it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've reverted the Nancy one but added a full context quote in the footnote. I've reverted the disciplined for fighting in school one, as it already has a context quote in the footnote. I've removed "rebellious and insubordinate" and replaced it with something less inflammatory that sets up the subsequent material better without pre-summarizing it; the underlying footnote full quote is still there. You were right about "'undistinguished, but acceptable' academic record" needing an in-text attribution, since it quotes him, but I've streamlined the wording. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll be mindful that we have to be very careful when using primary sources. Wikipedia has special guidelines on that subject here. It's fine to use primary sources if it's done properly. If a primary source is quoted and attributed in the text of an article, it is a non-trivial concern when the quotes are removed and the statement is presented as fact without attribution in the text. Given considerations such as these, I do not feel comfortable with your assertion that I am just making up concerns without any discernible reason. These concerns apply doubly in a case like McCain's, where reliable sources confirm that he has a history of self-deprecation (and deprecation more generally). There is nothing inappropriate about letting the reader know when a characterization is McCain's and when it is someone else's.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources that say he has a history of false self-deprecation, which is the issue here. There's no reliable source that says he's making up stories about getting into lots of fights in school (because he's now appealing to the juvenile delinquent voting block?) or that he's making up stories about Nancy Reagan treating him coldly for a while before they reconciled (because he's ... I can't even fantasize a reason for that). The WP guideline you reference says we have to treat primary sources carefully, and I do. If this were an article about a rock star whose autobiography bragged about a lot of bad boy behavior growing up when in fact newspaper reports revealed he was an honor student in high school, I would agree with the need to be suspicious. And again, everything written here is cited up the kazoo; everybody can see where material comes from, and challenge it if they believe another source contradicts it. I will continue my effort to swap out McCain cites for biographer/journalist cites, if I can ever get past this discussion. But I still believe that the subject of your edits last night, this supposed requirement to attribute negative statements about oneself in text, rather than just via footnote, is an invention of yours unsupported by any WP guideline. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Consider yourself past this discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible photo for use

This is a photo taken in December 2006 at the Hanoi Hilton showing McCain's flight suit and flgiht equipment on display. Not the greatest photo in the world but I thought it might be able to be used. Cheers.--Looper5920 (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This image wasn't used in this article, since it's from outside the timeframe, but it is being used in both Cultural and political image of John McCain and Hanoi Hilton, so yes thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a photo taken of a McCain pic on display at Ho Loa Prison as of December 2006. Maybe be a bit more applicable to this article.--Looper5920 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. This would be a great image to use if the photo of McCain is really from his POW time. The caption doesn't say; the scruffy unshaven look would seem to suggest it is ... but what is the "CAI-" (?) lettering on his shirt? Any insight? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I haven't the faintest clue what the letters mean. I did some seraching on google and came up with nothing. The photo from his POW time and is still on display at the prison. Another good photo to add if it can be found is there is a statue that ws erected at the site where they pulled him out of the lake in Hanoi. It reads like many statues in Asia with English....we'll be nice and say there are some errors. Sorry I couldn't give you more on this one.--Looper5920 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we're sure the photo is from his POW time, then I'd like to use it. As for the lake statue, we have that photo, it's Image:Truc bach lake mccain memorial hanoi 2007 01.jpg and is used in a couple of articles, but the statue obviously came after the time described here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Assuming it's from his POW time, there's still a copyright issue, isn't there? This is an image of an image. If either one is copyrighted, then there's a problem, right? And the government of Vietnam may own the copyright to one or both.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The "outer" image is taken by our Looper5920 and was granted to us. The "inner" image isn't being reproduced here per se, it's just a photo of a museum exhibit. Does that really qualify as a copyright issue? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't be an issue for the photo on the right, since there's no copyright on the flight suit being photographed. But it's not so simple for the image on the left. You can't just take a photo of a copyrighted image and claim that the photo is entirely your own work.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
How about using it under fair use, then? We're doing that with Image:Vietcapturejm01.jpg. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
You could try fair use, but it might be more difficult than the lake picture because this image does not document any precise event, and the date is very uncertain. You could ask Elcobbola (or however you spell her name).Ferrylodge (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Timberg

The article says in a footnote: "McCain would deny reports mentioned in The Boston Globe that some of the affairs were with women who were subordinates under his command. See Alexander, Man of the People, pp. 90–91 and Timberg, An American Odyssey, pp. 123–124."

However, I don't see anything about this at pages 123-124 of Timberg.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's there in the 1999 original edition, see Talk:John McCain for further discussion. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

POW section revised

I have revised the POW section, since several comments from the FAC from a couple of months ago indicated concern about the large number of McCain-written cites that were used here. The POW section is now primarily based upon the two broad, definitive accounts of all the POWs, Hubbell's P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-Of-War Experience in Vietnam, 1964–1973 (1976) and Rochester and Kiley's Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973 (1999). These treat McCain as just one of many prisoners, and give an overall perspective as to how his POW experience compared to others, the physical condition he was in compared to the others, the role he played in responding to the camp authorities, and so on. While mostly just re-citing has been done, I've also added a few aspects to the coverage, and revised a lot of the wording. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A UPI story datelined Saigon was carried by many newspapers in June, 1969 described a tape made by McCain that was broadcast by Radio Hanoi to U.S. troops in South Vietnam, in which McCain said he had received "very good medical treatment" and in which he said he had bombed civilian targets: "I have bombed the cities, towns and villages and have caused injuries and even death for the people of Vietnam." The present article cites "U.S. Fliers Well Treated, Hanoi Says" (fee required), United Press International for The Washington Post, 1969-06-06, which is behind paywall. I found another paper with the text of the story from June 1969 including what he actually said on tape.(European Stars and Stripes,June 6, 1969 via Newspaperarchive.com, "Tape has McCain's son praising red doctors." The present article just says the broadcast included material "excerpted from McCain's forced 'confession' of a year before." The article would be improved by more detail of the content of the broadcasted tape. It seems encyclopedic to add this in relation to other statements in the article about what he said or signed while a POW, and in view of numerous other quotes from him. This might also debunk somewhat tales in the blogosphere about him making dozens of propaganda tapes. Edison (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)The article does say that his August 1968 "confession" was recorded — "McCain signed and taped[112] an anti-American propaganda "confession" that said, in part, ..." and it then says that this was used the following year: "On June 5, 1969, a Radio Hanoi broadcast denied any mistreatment, and excerpted from McCain's forced "confession" of a year before to this effect.[127][128]" Footnote 127 is the UPI story you mention, as carried by The Washington Post. I'm not sure what more you're looking for here. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, understand based on your revised post. The WaPo carry contains a good deal of McCain's statement, I'll look at how best to work it in. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have now done this. I've made clear in the main text this is the UPI report, since that seems to be how it's best known, and have added short quotes of McCain's statement there. I've put the full McCain statement, as UPI/WaPO has it, in the footnote. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Does the reference cited explicitly state that the June 1969 tape was edited from the single earlier "confession" rather than being an additional propaganda tape made by McCain in 1969., or is it original research, where a footnote states "Used to confirm that this was McCain's August 1968 "confession", heavily edited; a U.S. military voice analysis verified that it was McCain's voice." Is that statement made in the reference cited? Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The cite (current footnote 128) does explicitly state this. McCain had been distressed about his August 1968 "confession" appearing, either as something played over the camp loudspeaker system and/or on a broadcast to the outside world. In July 1969 his father received the voice analysis of the propaganda broadcast, which confirmed it really was McCain. McCain writes: "In the anguished days right after my confession, I had dreaded just such a discovery by my father." Note that this is Faith of My Fathers, McCain's memoir, being cited. No other source that I've found explicitly discusses the origins of the June 1969 Radio Hanoi broadcast. That's why the "Used to confirm ..." text is in the footnote; per previous FAC comments, every use of a McCain-written cite is now accompanied by the rationale for using it. However, current footnote 111, Hubbell, P.O.W., pp. 452–454, confirms that the August 1968 "confession" was the only time McCain was broken by the North Vietnamese. Hubbell is one of the two definitive accounts of all the POWs, that are used as the backbone of this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Pension amount

The 2007 pension payment is out of sequence chronologically in this article. The point that you seem to be trying to make (and that is clearly made in your cited source) is that McCain is still receiving a disability pension, and that's out of sequence chronologically in this article. If you want to get across the idea that he's still receiving a disability pension, then it's best to try to do so in a current article, such as the one on his 2008 campaign.

Why is it important for readers to understand how much income he received from a pension in 1974, but not important for readers to understand what his salary was from other jobs during the 1970s? You seem to be trying to make the point (as was your cited source) that McCain is still receiving a disability pension, and still considers himself disabled.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This article stops at 1981. The 2007 value of his pension is irrelevant here. And I don't know what the overall point is either — he clearly still is disabled to some degree, and there's a bunch of jobs that he physically can't do ... just that politician isn't one of them. I would guess that Bob Dole and Max Cleland get disability pensions too, for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That said, it would be okay to characterize what level of disability pension it is, but the description in the article makes that hard to do ... saying "tax-free" or "combat-related special compensation" wouldn't tell the reader much. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tactical bomber

I'm kind of fuzzy about how to work in the words tactical bomber into this article. I have no objection to mentioning (repeatedly) that he flew attack aircraft, but it seems like we also ought to be able to briefly mention tactical bombers (as opposed to strategic bombers). If it's not appropriate to mention "tactical bombers" or "tactical bombing" even briefly in this article, why?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to work "tactical bomber" into this article. In Navy terminology these are attack aircraft and attack squadrons. It's very clear that their missions were to bomb targets in North Vietnam. This article tries to use precise terminology for planes, squadrons and other units, operations, and so forth. "Tactical bomber" doesn't belong. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with inserting tactical bombing in, is that Rolling Thunder's targets were often traditional tactical ones, but the overall goal was strategic (and it was in that goal that RT is viewed as a big failure). And the central Hanoi power plant, McCain's final target, was more a strategic target than tactical. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
RT is probably best described as an air interdiction campaign, a variant of tactical bombing, but again once it reached Haiphong and certainly Hanoi it is best described as strategic. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I've now referred to Rolling Thunder as an "air interdiction and limited strategic bombing campaign", which seems to conform to how it's generally described. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Crashed Aircrafts

John McCain crashed 5 Aircrafts during his time in the military; 4 accidental crashes and 1 in combat. Should we add the full detail of his service?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.165.231 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Which crash isn't covered by the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
A common internet claim, which is somewhat wrong on the numbers (2 crashed, 1 collided but landed ok, 1 destroyed in accident caused by another plane, 1 shot down). This article discusses each of these incidents, in close to as much detail as is known (until and unless McCain's full military records are released). This comment goes down into that curious category of WP talk page complaint — someone who doesn't read the article assumes that (allegedly) bad thing X isn't in the article, when in fact it is. Weird. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Article About Aunt's Sister

FYI, WTR, here's an excerpt from an interesting article by John F. Dickerson from 28 February 2000 in Time Magazine, titled "McCain's Mother":

After two unsuccessful attempts at eloping--"The car broke down the first time, and I got cold feet the other"--the debutante succeeded in stealing away to Tijuana to marry a young Navy ensign who had been barred from her house for the previous year. Just 19, she brought her college textbooks on her honeymoon. The San Francisco Examiner ran a headline at the time that read SOCIETY COED ELOPES WITH NAVY OFFICER: ROBERTA WRIGHT DEFIES FAMILY. For his part, her husband Jack McCain was punished for being absent without leave....When McCain read an excerpt from a book about her son's time in captivity, she called him, not to empathize but to berate him. In one particularly brutal scene, he heaved bouquets of expletives at his captors. "Johnny, I'm going to come over there and wash your mouth out with soap," she told him. "But Ma Ma, these were bad people," he said. She didn't budge.

Maybe some of this would be good in this article, or the separate article about Roberta McCain?Ferrylodge (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The article about her, mostly. And the John S. McCain, Jr. article as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cohabit

Congrats on getting this article to featured status. I do have one objection, though. This edit changed "The McCains separated permanently later in 1979" to instead "The McCains separated permanently in January 1980." We discussed this at the talk page for the main article, but I'll summarize briefly.

The cited source for this change is an article in the LA Times, which said that a legal document filed by McCain indicated he and his ex-wife "cohabited as husband and wife" until January 1980. WTR, you have assumed that this means under Florida law that they did not permanently separate before January 1980. This is an unwarranted assumption, unsupported by a reliable source, whereas you deleted three reliable sources that stated otherwise.

The main problem here is that the LA Times has simply quoted a legal document without any explanation for a lay person. The legal meaning of words is often different from the lay meaning, and the meanings can vary from state to state, and even from one statute to another in a single state. One common ground for divorce in many states is "separation without cohabitation" which indicates that many states do not treat the two words as synonymous. Sometimes the word "cohabit" can refer to living under the same roof (even if one spouse is in the basement and one is in the attic), or it can refer to sexual relations.

It's very difficult for me to discern what meaning applies to the January 7, 1980 date mentioned by the LA Times; you'd probably have to consult with a Florida divorce lawyer to get a definite answer. But I am fairly certain that a couple can be separated even though cohabiting. It's not proper for us to simply assume that the word "cohabiting" in a Florida legal document is an antonym of the word "separated".

As in the main article, I have no objection if one of the footnotes here says they legally "cohabited" under Florida law until January 1980. If a reliable source says this means they did not get permanently separated before that date, then we can adjust the article accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue exists in four articles: these two, as well as Cindy McCain and Carol McCain. I figured we'd hash it out in the main article talk page first, where we've already had an extensive discussion, then replicate what we decide everywhere else. I was going to e-mail one of the LAT reporters today, but haven't gotten around to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll leave it the way it is now in this article, until it's hashed out at the main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it's been hashed out at the main article. We can either do the same thing here, or do something different. This article currently says: "The McCains separated permanently in January 1980" and I don't think this accurately reflects the reliable sources that have dealt with this issue. It also conflicts with what McCain has written.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess maybe the way to start would be to make a list here at the talk page of all the reliable sources we've discussed that address this issue, plus quote them, and also provide links to them. I'll try to do this soon.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Following are various relevant sources than can be considered here. And please don't get the idea that I enjoy making a huge deal out of this! I'd like it to be over as soon as possible, with minimal fuss, really.

I. Alexander, Paul. Man of the People: "McCain became smitten with Cindy that night....In the coming months, McCain, now separated from Carol, saw Cindy whenever he could…. The couple was divorced on April 2, 1980….’He wanted to have another child, as I recall, but unfortunately Carol’s doctors told him that could never happen….’” (pages 91-92) “The unpublished quote in this paragraph comes from my interview with Carl Smith, June 2002.”(page 379)

II. Kristof, Nicholas. "P.O.W. to Power Broker, A Chapter Most Telling", New York Times (2000-02-27). “That separation lasted about two weeks and was not repeated until the final split, said their son Andy, and even close family friends never knew about it. To outsiders, who often visited the McCain household, the marriage seemed as close as ever. ‘They were definitely living together as man and wife when I was there,’ recalled Mr. [Carl] Smith, the former instructor pilot, who moved to Washington and lived with the McCains in their home from about February through May 1979. ‘And there were no signs of strain….For somebody to say that they were separated or at each other's throats is just nonsense,’ Mr. Smith said…. Over the next six months, Mr. McCain pursued Miss Hensley aggressively, flying around the country to see her, and he began to push to end his marriage. Friends say that Carol McCain was in shock. Late that year, the McCains finally separated, and Mrs. McCain accepted a divorce the next February. Mr. McCain promptly married Miss Hensley, his present wife."

III. Langley, Monica. “Preference Aside, Cindy McCain Handles Limelight”, Wall Street Journal (2008-04-17): “He said he was four years younger; she said she was three years older. At the time, Sen. McCain was separated from his first wife, with whom he had a daughter.”

IV. Leonard, Mary. “Republican pillars of support”, Boston Globe (1999-12-26): “McCain was separated from his first wife and had three children when he met Cindy Hensley, a special-education teacher, at a party in Hawaii.”

V. McCain, John. "Worth the Fighting For” (2002): "I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow….I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980."

VI. Romano, Lois. "Out of the Fire, Politics Calls; Ex-POW Turns Washington Insider", Washington Post (2000-03-02): "Later that year, McCain and Carol were legally separated; they divorced the following April. McCain has taken responsibility for the break-up, and his former wife has never said a disparaging word about McCain publicly."

VII. Serrano, Richard A.; Vartabedian, Ralph. "McCain's broken marriage and fractured Reagan friendship", Los Angeles Times (2008-07-11): “In his 2002 memoir, ‘Worth the Fighting For,’ McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley. ’I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow,’ McCain wrote. ‘I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980.’ An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had 'cohabited' until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley. Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife…. Carol McCain later told friends, including Reynolds and Fitzwater, that she did not know he was seeing anyone else. John McCain sued for divorce in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., where his friend and fellow former POW, George E. ‘Bud’ Day, practiced law and could represent him. In the petition, he stated that the couple had ‘cohabited as husband and wife’ until Jan. 7, 1980.”

VIII. Timberg, Robert. “An American Odyssey” (2007 printing): “When he [Lakeland] turned back, he spotted McCain across the room introducing himself to an attractive young blond woman. Lakeland was surprised. He knew that McCain, by then separated from Carol….” (page 134) “they were legally separated in January 1980 and divorced a month later.” (page 139)

Miscellaneous other relevant outside info (not necessarily adequate for insertion into article):

A. Abrams, Brenda. "Everything about How to Divorce in Florida: An In-Depth Guide to Divorce in Florida", page 14 (2003): "Parties living together in the same home are considered to be separated if they no longer have sexual relations with each other and no longer share the same bedroom."

B. Wiktionary definition of “cohabit”:

1. (intransitive) to reside with another as if married or as a married couple
2. (intransitive) to coexist in common environs with
3. (intransitive, archaic) to engage in sexual intercourse; see coition.

C. Wiktionary definition of “separated”:

1. detached; not connected or joined.
2. (of spouses) estranged; living apart but not divorced.

D. Random online discussion at Answerbag about separated couples who remain under one roof.

E. “Black’s Law Dictionary” definition of “cohabitation”: “To live together as husband and wife. The mutual assumption of those marital rights, duties and obligations which are usually manifested by married people, including but not necessarily dependent on sexual relations.”

F. “Bouvier’s Law Dictionary” on cohabitation: “The law presumes that husband and wife cohabit, even after a voluntary separation has taken place between them; but where there has been a divorce a mensa et thoro, or a sentence of separation, the presumption then arises that they have obeyed the sentence or decree, and do not live together.”

G. Google search results for "separation without cohabitation." (558 hits) Ferrylodge (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at all this in the morning. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to go around on this again; regarding separation, we don't know more than we know. All of the sources conflict to some degree, and we don't know what any of them, or the people they interviewed, exactly meant by the term. The LAT finding is something real, however, and should be used. But I was in error to phrase the LAT finding in terms of separation; the article is careful to just stick to the 'cohabiting' language, and so should we. I've changed that in the current text, in addition to modified 'sued for divorce' for 'filed for divorce' ('sued' sounded unduly harsh or legalistic or something). So we now have in the article:

In April 1979,[57] while attending a military reception for senators in Hawaii, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, eighteen years his junior,[182] a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch beer distributor, and Marguerite "Smitty" Hensley.[176] An extramarital relationship began, and they traveled between Arizona and Washington to see each other.[183] The McCains stopped cohabiting in January 1980;[184] John McCain filed for divorce in February 1980,[184] which Carol McCain accepted at that time.[57] The uncontested divorce became official in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on April 2, 1980.[184]

I propose we go with this. (It's very similar to what we had before the LAT story came out, except that we've replaced "separated permanently later in 1979;[57][16][184]" with the "stopped cohabiting in January 1980;[184]". Hopefully, this whole story will become clearer from subsequent press stories or biographies down the road, we can adjust then accordingly. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no dispute that he pushed to end his marriage in 1979. It's mentioned in the main article, and ought to be mentioned here. Also, let's suppose for a second that they were separated before April 1979; would you still call it an "extramarital affair"? As you know, there are less judgmental terms available, such as the one repeatedly used by Muller and Nowicki ("courted") and such as "seeing". Are you trying to extablish a pattern, based on what he had previously done in Jacksonville?Ferrylodge (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've dropped the 'extramarital', just calling it a relationship, nice neutral term. Not gonna go for "courtship", though. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've lost track, what cite is there for 'pushed to end his marriage', other than Kristof? He explicitly dates the push to after meeting Cindy, which you're not going to like. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the best way to say it would be that "In 1979, he pushed to separate or end his marriage." This is supported by Timberg, Kristof, and others. If this is confirmed or rebutted by subsequent press stories or biographies down the road, we can adjust then.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not use "separate" at all, per the reasons above. What does Timberg say about pushing to end the marriage in 1979? Timberg just says they were already separated, with no indication as to who pushed for what, right? (I don't have it with me right now.) I'm not aiming to unravel the main article language, but this article is more detail-oriented and precise. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Timberg says that Carol didn't push for anything. He also says that their marriage had been failing during 1979 ("His marriage to Carol had been effectively over for some time"). So, I would suggest: "In 1979, his marriage was failing, and after meeting Cindy he began to push for a divorce, but without initially telling Carol about Cindy." Cites: Kristof, Timberg, LAT.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The Timberg 'effectively over for some time' statement assessment is heavily contradicted by Kristof: "That separation lasted about two weeks and was not repeated until the final split, said their son Andy, and even close family friends never knew about it. To outsiders, who often visited the McCain household, the marriage seemed as close as ever. 'They were definitely living together as man and wife when I was there,' recalled Mr. Smith, the former instructor pilot, who moved to Washington and lived with the McCains in their home from about February through May 1979. 'And there were no signs of strain. For somebody to say that they were separated or at each other's throats is just nonsense,' Mr. Smith said." And by the LAT story: "Carol McCain later told friends, including Reynolds and Fitzwater, that she did not know he was seeing anyone else. ... Carol McCain was distraught at being blindsided by her husband's intention to end their marriage, said her friends in the Reagan circle." I get the feeling that perhaps in John's mind, the marriage was effectively over, but not to outsiders nor to Carol. Anyway, offline for a while, back on tonight. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you asked me what Timberg said, so I told you. You don't seem to have objections to including that he "pushed to end his marriage" after meeting Cindy. Can we please go ahead and include that, citing Kristof? Thanks. And for the record, I disagree with your reading of Kristof and LAT. For example, Kristof calls Smith an "outsider", and Smith seems to have merely denied that they were separated in the sense of being at each others' throats. Anyway, I think we rap this up if we can say that he "pushed to end his marriage" after meeting Cindy.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've put this last piece in, as requested. I've replicated the same language into Carol McCain. I've also replicated it into Cindy Hensley McCain, since it was covering the same points. Whether that article needs to go into as much detail as it does about the McCain first marriage is a good question that I'm not sure of the answer to, but one that should be discussed there. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to promote whirled peas.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Class rank

Wouldn't fifth from the bottom be 895 out of 899?Xboxandhalo2 (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the way it's counted is 899 is bottom, 898 is next to bottom, 897 is second from bottom, 896 is third from bottom, 895 is fourth from bottom, 894 is fifth from the bottom. McCain titles one of the chapters of his memoir "Fifth from the Bottom", so that's the standard interpretation of it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Grandpa Wright

WaPo is on it.69.183.187.206 (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, saw it earlier today too. Material now added to article. Colorful character. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
When I saw it (here on the talk page) I was thinking, gosh, it should be added but how can it be done w/o making it look like a "smear" attempt (what some editors probably would've done). You're edit is a "job done right". Cheers, --Floridianed (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
A happy reader! That's what we like to hear ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
...and editor, if you don't mind ;) . --Floridianed (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Service 1968

Is there any existing footage of McCain's defiance during the Christmas service of 1968? The references describe lots of foreign media and how he'd swear every time the camera came on him. I think that would make a great addition to the wiki library. LegalFiction (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Given that the propaganda purpose of the event was subverted by the POWs, the North Vietnamese may not have allowed filming to continue, or for the result to have aired. In general, I've never seen complete video footage of the French television interview either, just brief clips used by other programs, such as in the return with Cronkite program or the A&E biography. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

SHOULD CONTROVERSIES REGARDING TORTURE/ SONGBIRD BE ADDED?

It was suggested to discuss this here, so here it goes. There is a great number of material available by a great number of reliable sources that have another version of some of the events... in many ways it came from John McCain himself. I think this material should be mentioned or at least that there are some conflicting opinion in regards to what happened. Here are some links.. if someone want please read through it, I am not that familiar with wikipedia so someone more familiar maybe can go through the stuff and make a suggestion. I do understand that the main opinion should be predominant, but in the interest of presenting a complete picture that might surface in the election in the future, I think it is ok to mention conflicting opinions and contradictions. Here are a number of sources/links. Some links seem less believable others are very.. but I feel some mention of the very large number of materials should be made. Here are teh link, look forward to a discussion between people who've gone through it all... hopefully we can keep this non political.. nailed to the facts. www.infowarscom/?p=109 [unreliable fringe source?] http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine06132008.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513224/My-years-hell-John-McCain-recalls-life-prisoner-war-Vietnam.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7459946.stm http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/17/in-1992-pows-accused-mccain-of-collaborating-with-vietnamese/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542277/How-war-hero-John-McCain-betrayed-Vietnamese-peasant-saved-life.html www.prisonplanetcom/articles/february2008/020708_never_tortured.htm [unreliable fringe source?] http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-03-25/news/is-john-mccain-a-war-hero/ http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html many more links to be found by googling "songbird mccain"

Lots of real people real sources.. including video interviews.. anyway I find it warrants a small mention on McCain that there are contradictions or that some of the events are questioned... obviously I believe it should be very small, since f.e. other military heroes like john kerry.. the controversies were mentioned there as well / still are, so in order to paint a full and neutral picture I would suggest to make a small mention as well maybe even provide a few links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It would probably help if you could draft a sentence or two that you think should go into this article. That way, people will have a better idea of exactly how to respond to your suggestion. Are you suggesting that this article should mention the alleged nickname "Songbird", and (if so) what else do you think this article should say to explain that alleged nickname? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I would keep it rather low key. I am not an experienced Wikipedia user / and also a foreign national so my English skills are not that great. I would write something like (Title: Controversy regarding torture account): There is some controversy in regards to John McCain's account while being imprisoned alleging that he divulged crucial military information such as packing routes in return for better medical treatment. Also the account of severe torture has been called into question by fellow POWs and former Vietnamese guards who claim that no torture has happened, and that his vietnamese nickname as a result of his cooperation was "Songbird".

Then I would post provide a reference link to one or more of the sources I have listed - however I'd need some help with that since I am not too familiar as to what constitutes a valid source for wikipedia of the sources I listed. Also My suggestion is a bit long.. it likely can be shortened more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You might fine WP:FRINGE useful. Arzel (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well when you read up on the sources, there are a lot of people out there, that where at the same location and at the same time. There's video evidence of fellow POW, established newspapers, sources and most importantly McCain's own interviews right after captivity that are enough room to mention this controversy, the same way it is mentioned on Ref. Jackson, John Kerry, Clinton, George Bush - and I believe that the sources and indicators are at least as believable as those for the ones mentioned. I am sure as the election moves forward these things will be developped and researched, the same way they were with Kerry. Making a small mention of that fact would allow to update the developments in that area. I find Wikipedia should present a clear balanced view of a candidate and not just a PR profile. Doing that makes all the information listed much more credible. If you find that the listed information is not valid, please provide sources and references that invalidate the evidence provided. Also your cited fringe theory states that it can be considered if it has been referenced extensively and in a serious manner. If you follow the links I believe it works. If you google songbird and mccain you find 290,000 hits.. I find this warrants to mention this controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RS for info about what sources are reliable enough for Wikipedia. The alleged "Songbird" nickname has already been discussed several times at the talk pages, and it was decided that it's not adequately supported by reliable sources. See Archive 7, and Archive 3.
"Songbird" was not McCain’s nickname among fellow POWs. The actual nickname was "Crip". See Rochester and Kiley, Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973, page 371. Also see former POW Ernest C. Brace's A Code to Keep, page 183. The two definitive studies of all the American POWs in Vietnam, John G. Hubbell's P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-Of-War Experience in Vietnam, 1964-1973 and the book by Rochester and Kiley both support McCain's account of his time as a POW. Under torture, McCain did make one forced "confession", which was featured in a radio broadcast the following year. This is well-known and is not collaboration; virtually all of the POWs who were tortured broke at some point. Also, please check the present article, because there's already quite a lot of well-sourced info here about what happened.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion above "Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain#POW section revised" where the propaganda tape he made that was broadcast to US troops in South Vietnam is documented and discussed. His making of the tapes and their broadcast is briefly mentioned in the article. Generally things on the blogosphere, such as the claimed "Songbird" nickname, are not admissible based on being blogged about. The Washington Post initial article, on the broadcast of the tape he recorded was reportedly run June 5, 1969 under the headline "Reds Say PW Songbird is Pilot Son of Admiral."[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39892], so that is where the "songbird" claim might have started Elevation from blogosphere to mainstream news by a reporter's question at a press conference has happened with anti-Obama rumors. Interestingly, neither the actual recordings made by the US government and submitted to voice analysis to confirm it was McCain in 1969, nor the source recordings made by the North Vietnamese, have surfaced, and all we know about them is a couple of phrases from a UPI report from 1969. Nor have I seen US personnel who served in Vietnam quoted as saying they remember hearing the broadcast (other than in the blogosphere). If one of them was interviewed by a mainstream publication and talked about it as his personal knowledge and experience, rather than a rumor, that might be admissable.As an example, the Phoenix New Times ref listed above quotes two identified officers, "two former POWs who say they were senior officers at a camp where McCain claims to have been tortured tell New Times they knew of no such torture during that time at that camp" and say they doubt he was tortured at that camp as he claims. This stands above most of the rumor-mongering by angry members of the POW/MIA movement. McCain's own (ghostwritten by Salter) books about his experiences in captivity cannot be taken as unquestionable truth. On the other hand, material like the "Prisonplanet" ref, where a named individual claims numerous unnamed individuals have told him about McCain making "32 propaganda tapes" to get special treatment do not rise tho the level of credibility to be included. Mainstream press articles saying that many in the POW?MIA movement are angry at him and that they circulate claims of special treatment could be included in an article about his later Senate career, because angry voters are a political fact, regardless of the truth of their claims, just as it is a fact that the Swiftboaters said bad things about Kerry. Edison (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Me again..Wow thanks so much for the great non political feedback and the great discussion. All valid points I have to say. I understand that McCain's track record on GI bills is not that great - which is perfectly fine, like any other position on other issues he might take or not, and I can see that his stand on GI bills can cause a lot of frustration and backlash against him which might be the source for some of those theories - like it was with Kerry - kind of sad the thing though... but at the end its politics. Personally I do notice that many people contribute the injuries he has (arm broken at 3 locations etc) are a result of torture, while its obvious also from Mccains account that they are from the crash/ejection - however his conduct I find leaves that open. I clearly do see some grey zone with McCain where he willingly is using medal of honor recipients http://www.usvetdsp.com/may08/day_bud_moh.htm for his own purposes... like a politician would but not an honorable military person, so at the end he is just a politician but maybe that is what it takes to be presidential candidate... maybe time will tell where the truth is.. likely somewhere in between... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One other thing I find odd... if this is really true 5 years of torture and the entire story about him, WHY, WHY did mccain ONLY receive a Silver Star - it does not really make sense. I am sure back then they had more information... but reading the official line.. only a Silver Star the THIRD HIGHEST Decoration.. When reading his story most think Medal of Honor.. I find that a bit odd... especially considering his family was so famous in the military - which one might think would boost awards a little too... but only a Silver Star..... hmmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC) comment 3 in this post is interesting as well http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/23/mccain-vet-awards/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First, could you please use colon's before your paragraphs for readability purposes. As for the medal of honor, that is generally for extreme acts of heroism, where you put your life in the direct line of fire without regard for your own wellbeing...which is why they are often posthumous, and while heroic, McCains actions don't reach that level. As for the rest of your comments, you are boardering on forum talk. Arzel (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply at greater length tonight when I have time, but the short answer to all this is that the current article includes everything that we have WP:RS for, including those times that McCain "talked". The rest of the claims above are unsupported by WP:RS, including the "Songbird" name. Note that the current article relies very little on McCain's own writing, and instead relies upon the standard accounts of all the American POWs. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As for "songbird" even appearing in a headline in June 1969, the wire service story was run under a headline selected by the editor of the local paper. I have seen many different headlines, but have personally not found "songbird" in one. There have been published claims that it was the headline in the Washington Post and varios other papers, but I have not been able to find it personally in their archives. It may well have appeared in some paper somewhere, but I have seen it attributed to several different papers, which is not convincing. Edison (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, Ferrylodge, and Edison have all made good points here. The fact that there is a lot of junk on the web about McCain's time as a POW doesn't make any of it true, or any of these motley sites WP:RS. The Tran Trong Duyet statement is the official Vietnamese line — nobody was tortured, which lacks credibility and says nothing in particular about McCain. The statements of POW/MIA live prisoner advocates like Ted Sampley and (from 1991 on, not before) Ted Guy are badly colored by their hatred of McCain's position on that issue, and Guy's claims about "the Plantation" are refuted by Rochester & Kiley's book. The Silver Star medal level for McCain is appropriate — other POWs were tortured much longer and much worse than McCain, a fact McCain readily stresses in his book, and/or were higher in the prisoner command structure. So for example James Stockdale and Bud Day both received the Medal of Honor (and both were/are McCain supporters). Mention of the POW/MIA activist charges against McCain as a fraud, traitor, or "Manchurian Candidate" is mentioned in our articles House_and_Senate_career_of_John_McCain,_1982–1999#Vietnam_redux and John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2000#South_Carolina, where it became a factor in his political career. But none of this merits inclusion here, because none of it is supported by WP:RS and none of these allegations were made about McCain in the timeframe of this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Phoenix New Times article listed above, which quotes two named officers from a prison camp where McCain claims he was tortured, who express their doubts that he was tortured there. That is testimpny abut events during his imprisonment, and might merit inclusion in this article. As for the North Vietnamese oficials denying prisoners were tortured, that is just characteristic of officials of a country engaging in harsh interrogation. (Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? "Rendition" to torturocracies?) Edison (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the Phoenix New Times article. There are several problems with it. First, the Phoenix New Times and Amy Silverman, the author of the piece, are both somewhat marginal as WP:RS. It's an alternative weekly, and they have had a consistent anti-McCain agenda, somewhat similar to the Village Voice and Rudy Giuliani. Most of the people interviewed in the piece are all worked up over the POW/MIA live prisoners issue, and thus hate McCain for what happened regarding that issue before, during and after the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs hearings. This colors everything they say about McCain's time as a POW; basically, they're trying to retrofit McCain's POW history to "explain" his negative stance regarding live prisoners. As for what Ted Guy and Swede Larson say, yes that's obviously the most serious claim in the piece:

"Between the two of us, it's our belief, and to the best of our knowledge, that no prisoner was beaten or harmed physically in that camp [known as "The Plantation"]," Larson says. ". . . My only contention with the McCain deal is that while he was at The Plantation, to the best of my knowledge and Ted's knowledge, he was not physically abused in any way. No one was in that camp. It was the camp that people were released from. ... Even Ted Guy and Swede Larson have nothing negative to say about McCain's behavior--only that they don't have firsthand proof he was tortured. They do complain about McCain's politics since the war. And as for McCain's alleged collaboration with the Communists, Larson says, "I don't think he told them anything they didn't already know.""

While it's true 'the Plantation' was a different kind of camp, and that physical hammering of prisoners was not as frequent there (psychological pressure was preferred), Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound, which covers the entire American Vietnam POW experience and interviewed hundreds of former POWs, states that a number of POWs were physically mistreated there, among them McCain. See pp. 340, 363, 364, 487; this is covered by current footnote 108 in the article. It's possible that Guy and Larson didn't know about what was happening with some of the other POWs there, as McCain and others were in solitary, and at all times before "Camp Unity" began later in Hoa Lo, communication was spotty and chain of command was difficult to establish and maintain. Or it's possible Guy and Larson's statement was colored by their own views; Guy did a 180 degree turn on the live prisoners issue in 1991 (see [8]) and I believe Larson went with him. In any case, given all the WP:RS we have to indicate McCain was tortured, I don't think this one claim against that merits inclusion. As one of our WP guidelines says, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and this doesn't qualify. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wet Start incident

The paragraph discussing the fire on the aircraft carrier doesn't mention the fact that McCain's reckless "wet start" caused the entire incident. http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/35321150/navy-releases-mccains-records. Why isn't this something that gets more attention?~~ Quigonpaj (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned because Wayne Madsen is a writer who specializes in fringe views and conspiracy theories and the Rock Creek Free Press is not a WP:RS. The Madsen piece gives no sources by name and no other evidence, but instead talks darkly of neocon plots. The official Navy investigations of the Forrestal fire are given as current footnotes 66 and 71 in the article and neither one supports any of Madsen's theories, nor do any other WP:RS support them. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How to describe pre-marital relationship with second wife

I hope we can move this discussion from the main John McCain article to here. That article merely summarizes this one. Tvoz wrote:

"Eager to marry Cindy, McCain urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce", or words to that effect, is what you mean, I think - "pushed for a divorce" is an imprecise idiom whether the New York Times used it or not. "As the pair began dating, Lakeland allowed them to spend a weekend together at his summer home in Maryland, he said." [9] would be a reasonable source for "extramarital". I might be ok with something like "In April 1979, while still married to Carol, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley... " - would have to see it in context. I am not insisting on anything, Ferrylodge, and I didn;t say this article was poorly written. I am raising an issue about this section which I believe is oddly worded in a way that could be construed as trying to sanitize the biography, regardless of its status. And by the way, the cultural image section also seems to be worded in a way that takes presumably negative items and turns them into positives, an example being his well-sourced temper. Another example of a questionable item is his "close ties to his children from both of his marriages" - I believe this is a true and sourced item that is fair to include, but you've left out of this article the also sourced item that his children were so upset with his abandonment of their mother that they did not attend his wedding; we have it in the subarticle, I know, but in this article you are telling only half of the story regarding his relationship with his children - the good half. That also can be construed as sanitizing. I am well aware of the lengthy debate that went on previously on this talk page about some of this, and I am not interested in getting into a debate with you about it, having had that pleasure in the past. But I am registering an objection here to euphemism and sanitizing. Perhaps other editors have opinions on this - I'm going to step back for a moment and see, and hope you will too. Finally, I specifically said that removing your FA nomination is irrelevant, so please stop holding that out as a threat. The only thing that will accomplish is it will reduce the number of uninvolved editors who come to this article and talk page to review it, some of whom might share the concerns that I and others have expressed about this. I hope that's not why you're saying you'll remove the nom.Tvoz

WTR responded:

Tvoz has a good point about being given a weekend together to spend at a summer home; I think that would be allowable as evidence of adultery in a divorce proceeding (it's New York, not Virginia or Florida, but see this for "the plaintiff can imply guilt through indirect or circumstantial evidence so long as it leads the reasonable observer to conclude that the parties were inclined toward adulterous acts and the opportunity existed"). Wasted Time R

I went ahead and changed the "pushed" language in the main article to something like Tvoz's suggested "urged" language. This seems like an improvement, since it no longer connotes pushing and shoving. I plan to respond to the other points raised, imminently.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I would suggest that we take one issue at a time. Things would be much simpler that way, and we would have a higher likelihood of success, since we could all focus on the same things.

Tvoz has made some good suggestions that led me to modify the main article. For example, we clarified that the divorce was uncontested. We also removed the possible implication that there was physical pushing between John McCain and his first wife. Both of these are improvements, and I hope you realize that there was no intent on my part to make John McCain look bad. Likewise, I deny trying to "sanitize" the article to make McCain look good, with regard to the other points Tvoz has mentioned.

Here's what the present article says about the pre-marital relationship of John and Cindy:

In April 1979,[58] while attending a military reception for senators in Hawaii, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, eighteen years his junior,[185] a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch beer distributor, and Marguerite "Smitty" Hensley.[179] A relationship began, and they traveled between Arizona and Washington to see each other.[186] John McCain pushed to end the marriage,[58] and the McCains stopped cohabiting in January 1980.[187] John McCain filed for divorce in February 1980,[187] which Carol McCain accepted at that time;[58] the uncontested divorce became official in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on April 2, 1980.[187]

Let's start with the matter of the bare word "relationship." I don't think anyone is happy with this bare word, because it kind of begs for an adjective. As I've said, adding the word "extramarital" doesn't cut it for me, because it connotes or denotes sex, and we don't have a reliable source for that.[10] Assuming that there was sex because they spent a weekend together may not be unreasonable, but it's still original research without a reliable source that draws that conclusion. The source cited by Tvoz (LA Times) says: "As the pair began dating, Lakeland allowed them to spend a weekend together at his summer home in Maryland...." Nothing here about which bases were reached.  :-)

Tvoz, you suggest you might be happy with "In April 1979, while still married to Carol, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley... " That's better, IMHO, but it still doesn't get rid of the bare word "relationship" which everyone seems to dislike. Perhaps the word "dating" which the LA Times used ("As the pair began dating")? I'm also concerned that we may be over-emphasizing that he was still married to Carol, given that the very next sentence already conveys that information. Repeating stuff unnecessarily is just as conducive to undue weight as bolding it or putting it in ALLCAPS, in my view. How about:

In April 1979,[58] while attending a military reception for senators in Hawaii, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, eighteen years his junior,[185] a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch beer distributor, and Marguerite "Smitty" Hensley.[179] A relationship began, and they traveled between Arizona and Washington to see each other.[186] They began dating, travelling between Arizona and Washington to see each other,[186] and John McCain urged his wife Carol to accept a divorce. John McCain pushed to end the marriage,[58] and the The McCains stopped cohabiting in January 1980.[187] 1980, and John McCain filed for divorce in February 1980,[187] which Carol McCain accepted at that time; the[58] time.[58] The uncontested divorce became official in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on April 2, 1980.[187]

How's that?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not able to look this over in detail now, but I do want to day that the problem I raised was regarding the way this section was summmarized in the main article - I didn't have a problem per se with what I saw here in the sub article. But I'll look at it, probably not tonight. Tvoz/talk 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If this proposal is satisfactory, then I would like to implement it here in this article, and also in the main article. I think that will address your main concern, but I could be mistaken. Maybe I'll just be bold and do it, so you can see the result.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Please wait - you've written a lot above and honestly I have not read it through and can't right now. And I think that we should hear what Wasted Time R has to say about this, and any other editors, before implementing it here seeing as this is now a featured article. Again, the problem I had was with the summary that appeared in the main article, not with what was here. Perhaps your suggestions here are improvements - I really haven't read them - but let's give WTR and others, and me, a chance to read and absorb it. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 00:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've already made the edits. They seem completely unobjectionable. However, if WTR disagrees then I hope he will revert.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with this new wording in this article, I guess. Based on all that we know about McCain, not to mention American mores in 1979, I think the notion that McCain maintained a chaste relationship with Cindy from April to January is utterly absurd ... but I suppose "dating" gets the idea across. (I had thought people wouldn't use "dating" in this context, but in fact "dating a married man" gets 50,000 hits on Google.) I'll evaluate the change to the main article in the talk page there. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You may be right WTR. But maybe necking would be enough until marriage. After all, would a single woman want to have sex with a married man, and risk pregnancy? There have always been advantages to waiting. And violating Carol's honor would not have been a trivial concern either. Whatever.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
"Necking"? A 43 year old man who had been through all that he had been through including acknowledged affairs during his marriage now goes for necking until marriage while moving between cities for months to be together, spending one documented weekend together - that strains believability. I hate to tell you, Ferrylodge, but women have sex all the time, with married and unmarried men, without risking pregnancy, and that was as true in 1979 as it is now. As for Carol's honor, I can't even respond to that other than to say it's been a really long time since I've heard that expression. Finally, I think "dating a married man" is an obvious euphemism for having an extramarital affair that seems downright silly - and would make as much sense as saying that John Edwards was dating Rielle Hunter - I think the new wording here is somewhat improved over the previous, so I'll go along with it for now - but I'm going to think about it some more and seem if other sources might be available. Indeed, my understanding is that in NY that weekend evidence would be sufficient to grant a divorce on grounds of adultery, not on grounds of dating. Tvoz/talk 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you think the new wording is improved.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mixed up cross in the dirt story - what is the appropriate thing to do?

As I was reading the article I came across a single line about a guard showing McCain leniency and later drawing a cross in the dirt. I thought the story was very moving and there should be more in the article about it than a single sentence. When I followed the sources listed in the article I actually found some of them had different versions of the story. Some googling turned up several different versions of the story. I understand the only account we have of McCain's time as a POW is his own, but there seems to be some inconsistency in this particular tale.

In the latest version, from the Saddleback Forum, McCain says the ropes were loosened (and then re-tightened), and the guard later drew a cross in the dirt to show his religious beliefs. [11]

In the oldest version of the story (oldest I could find anyway, 1979), he says "the only real human being that I ever met over there", untied him completely and let him lay down for several hours, and there's no reference to the cross in this version. This is from U.S. News in May 1973. [12]

In his 2000 campaign he would tell the same story as the one from Saddleback, but with an unnamed POW instead of himself. Such a telling is actually already sited in the article. [13]

The only source we have to the latest version of the cross story is McCain himself, and a friend who "vaguely" remembers McCain telling him that story before. No wonder it's only "vaguely" remembered, the story is a little different each time. McCain is 71 now, and add to that this was 40 years ago, he might not be remembering the event correctly after all this time. Which version of the story should we use? The latest? The earliest? One in between? Should it just be removed?

What is the appropriate thing to do?

Dirus (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something else. I was hoping to avoid anything that might sound politically partisan, but John McCain is a politician, so this is something else to consider. When looking at the dates you can see that prior to his first presidential run, this story never had a cross in it. Could this part be made up for political reasons? ie, connecting with the religious right. Dirus (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The story was included in his book Faith of my Fathers in 1999. Thus, the re-telling in 2000 seems to have been referring to himself in the third person, and therefore it’s not necessarily an inconsistency. Bob Dole often refers to himself in the third person, and lots of other people have on occasion as well.
My suggestion is we should just wait a few days, since there's a big blog storm right now about this "cross-in-the-sand" thing. Then we can try to figure out what (if anything) to do.
The story was not detailed in McCain’s 1973 article, but was later detailed in McCain’s 1999 book. The book was about ten times as long as the 1973 article, so you’d expect more details in the book.
Two POWs have said that McCain told them this cross-in-the-dirt story in Vietnam.[14][15] But, some bloggers are now saying that McCain was making various stories up “as early as 1974.” So, even if we had an audiotape of McCain recounting this cross-in-the-sand story in Hanoi in 1972, people would still say he was lying.
Some of the details of the story have changed. The cross was at first drawn using a sandal, and then using a stick. To me, this kind of thing seems like literary license more than lying.
The idea of drawing a cross in the sand/dirt/snow has been used by many writers of fiction as well as non-fiction.[16] It would be hard to prove beyond all doubt whether McCain was writing fiction or non-fiction.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
A question - does McCain refer to himself in the third person elsewhere in his book or other writings? Bob Dole absolutely used to talk about what Bob Dole believed - or was that Norm Macdonald's Bob Dole? - I don't quite recall this being one of McCain's rhetorical flourishes, but I'm sincerely asking. Tvoz/talk 22:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge believes it was a speech in 2000 where he possibly spoke about himself in the third person, not in a book. :) ABC News says he was speaking about himself in the third person.[17] He sometimes does that.[18] So does Obama ("That's what Obama will do").[19] So does Ferrylodge.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(od) History of the story: The 1973 USN&WR piece by McCain was written soon after his return, didn't include everything that happened to him, and often focused on other POWs (since this was the first extended account of the POW experience that was being written up). Between that account and Robert Timberg's 1995 The Nightingale's Song, McCain didn't publish or talk in detail in public much about his POW experience at all. The Timberg book included a fairly detailed account of McCain's POW experience, but still not everything since the book was about five different Naval Academy graduates, not just McCain. Then after the Timberg book was well-received, McCain and Salter published Faith of My Fathers in 1999 and included the cross in the dirt story. In Faith of My Fathers it is a minor aside, told out of chronological sequence and taking up less than a page of the over 150 pages devoted to the POW experience. One of his first uses of the cross in the dirt story is in this famous Virginia Beach speech during his 2000 presidential campaign (the one where he flays the hides of Falwell and Robertson); it's told in third person for dramatic/poetic effect. During McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, he was telling the story frequently. An ad was made using it, that took artistic license and changed the sandal to a stick. But the story as told by McCain has not changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor detail: Time Magazine reported in 2000 that McCain used the third person in the 2000 speech "because Salter was worried that McCain would choke up otherwise." [20]Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So, what do we have? When I was writing this article, months before Saddleback and bloggers latching onto this question, I tried to figure out when the cross in the dirt story happened, but couldn't, since McCain doesn't pin it down in Faith or his speeches. (I'm not at all convinced that the May 1969 reference in the USN&WR story is the same thing.) I so indicated in the footnote here that when it happened was unclear. That doesn't mean it didn't happen; McCain's POW experience lasted over five years, and other POWs' longer, and they didn't have any way of writing things down; every account has been reconstructed from memory. There are bound to be errors in memory and inconsistencies among different POWs, something the Hubbell and Rochester & Kiley books deal with in presenting a coherent narrative. I find the blogger logic that "if he didn't tell this important story in the 1973 account when he could have, it must not have happened" utterly bogus. It's not an important story in the context of the POW experience. The "Faith" in Faith of My Fathers is not about Christianity or crosses or kind guards. It's about how the POWs survived an endless succession of mean, cruel, sadistic guards and prison officials, often in solitary confinement, often after they had already been broken and forced to make anti-American statements. The "Faith" centers around loyalty to fellow POWs, to the U.S. military Code of Conduct, to the American ideal of freedom, to (in McCain's case) the Naval tradition of his father and grandfather, to patriotism. Yes there was a religious element too, but all these other things were just as or more important. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, as an aside, let me correct the original poster's notion that "I understand the only account we have of McCain's time as a POW is his own." Not true at all. We use the Hubbell and Rochester & Kiley accounts, which piece together what McCain has said with what other POWs he interacted with have said. If you look in the citations in this article, the vast majority of cites for this period are from non-McCain sources. And the most famous McCain event of them all – his refusal to accept out-of-order early release – was corroborated at the time by the North Vietnamese government. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize this was such a hot topic. Have their been validations from these bloggers, edit-and-runs? I did leave the stick thing out as that did seem a bit much to nitpick over. I had seen something about it when googling, but I didn't find any original sources saying stick, so I didn't mention it. I guess I missed the ad. I also avoided some other talk I had found about McCain stealing the story from an author. Let me see if I can find that again. Someone named Solzhenitsyn. Supposedly he has the same story or a very similar story, and is someone who McCain wrote an article praising in The Sun. [21] This also didn't seem like a big deal to me, even if it turns out the story is the same, that doesn't mean he stole it. In fact, it might be the reason he likes the author, because he can connect with him.

I hadn't thought about him talking in the third person. I guess that's what threw me. Usually when talking in the 3rd person, politicians, such as Bob Dole, say their name. "Bob Dole likes babies!" "Bob Dole will be a great president!" This isn't that sort of third person, but a more removed 3rd person. He says "a scared American prisoner of war." That said, it does fit reading it in the 3rd person. It's probably one of those things you pick up on easier when listening than when reading.

Also, I did figure some stuff was corroborated. I just wanted to avoid flames from people who might say, "well who else are you going to ask?" I wasn't trying to pick a fight, as far as this particular story goes, he is the only source. If so much of it is corroborated though, this brings up another angle you might be missing. If McCain is the only source for this story, it might look fishy with most everything else being corroborated. Perhaps it can be worded slightly different to express this. That might calm all the bloggers you say are mad at this article.

Dirus (talk)

The Solzhenitsyn angle turned out to be false; see [22]. Instead some 1983 book by Charles Colson is supposed to have falsely said Solzhenitsyn said it. But McCain's never been the Charles Colson type, either pre-Watergate or post-, and there's no evidence McCain read it. The McCain tale is corroborated now by Orson Swindle and Bud Day, but that corroboration is pretty weak because it's 40 years after the fact and their memories are possibly influenced by having heard McCain tell it in recent years. But it's certainly stronger than the blogger case, all of which is built around partisan motives and anti-"Christianist" obsessions (see Andrew Sullivan). I don't propose to change the article at all at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post

The Huffington Post is not generally considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. See here and here. The following guidance should be helpful:

According to WP:RS blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[1] However blogs that also collect news information present a unique challenge to the Wikipedia Editor. For example the Huffington Post blog also contains an extensive repository of news articles from around the country. The Wikipedia editor should be aware of quoting information directly from websites like this. In these cases, it is best to simply source to the newspaper article and not to the blog. If the article can only be accessed through the blog, perhaps the editor should explain in the citations where the article is from and state that the Post is only hosting it.

We might be able to get away with mentioning a Huffington Post blog entry in a footnote, but certainly not in the main text. On the other hand, we can write the main text in an equivocal manner, to reflect that the matter is not entirely settled (e.g. McCain "reportedly" was advuised he might become an admiral).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read the Klein Huffpo argument before, but found it not convincing enough to use as a source. All that it establishes is that it would be unusual for someone to get an admiral offer that quickly; it doesn't establish that it didn't happen. Former POWs were known to have gotten preference in promotions and assignments over others; this could be another instance of that. Or it could be a reward for the liaison service. Or maybe Lehman is remembering it wrong. Generally when we have conflicting official accounts like these, I try to assume that they are all at least partially true. We know from McCain's memoir that Heyward tried to hint at him that he could make admiral, and maybe Lehman was doing the same thing, just telling him he was on track to make rear admiral, not that it was about to happen. So I've changed the 'about to' to 'would' in the article, to stretch out the possible time frame. But otherwise we have to give more credence to NYT reporting than to Huffpo reporting. Where I completely agree with Klein is that what we really need are McCain's full naval records; that would resolve many mysteries, some important, some just mundane details. Come on, Senator, just do it! Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As for the argument that McCain would have written about it if it had happened, I don't like that kind of logic – it's "cross in the dirt story" all over again. Worth the Fighting For was written 20 years after his retirement; maybe he forgot the Lehman exchange, maybe he confused Lehman with Heyward, who knows. Absence of someone writing about something doesn't prove something didn't happen. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

source that McCain was injured enough to avoid Vietnam duty but chose it

I just saw a 2 hour CNN TV show about Obama and McCain.

There were several minutes devoted to the Forrestal incident with a mention that McCain was injured sufficiently to qualify for reassignment outside the combat zone but that he volunteered for assignment on a ship with a pilot shortage.

Help with finding a reference? Fwlok (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the transcript of the program you're talking about. I vaguely recall having run across this before somewhere ... but I've always had the impression that McCain's Forrestal injuries had nothing to do with this. The normal course would have been to follow your existing squadron, which would get reassigned who knows where, with additional Vietnam service possible or not (VA-46 happened to get re-equipped with different planes, assigned to a different carrier, and never saw Vietnam again). The Timberg and Alexander accounts don't mention anything about his injuries being a factor. The volunteering for the Oriskany is covered by our article right now, of course: "As Forrestal headed to port for repairs, McCain volunteered to join the undermanned VA-163 "Saints" squadron on board the carrier USS Oriskany.[78] This ship had earlier endured its own deck fire disaster[79] and its squadrons had suffered some of the heaviest losses during Rolling Thunder." Wasted Time R (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain/Archive_1&oldid=1146765357"