Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early life and military career of John McCain is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
April 5, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Image:Splitsection.svg This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, John McCain, due to size or style considerations.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Vietnam Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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. "Citizen McCain's Panama Problem?", The Washington Post, July 9, 1998.  and Crewdson, John (2008-02-18). John McCain's birthright: Fit for the presidency. The Swamp. Washington Post. Retrieved on 2008-02-21.
--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:

“ The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement, and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise, if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority....As the price or compensation for the rights, powers and privileges granted in this convention by the Republic of Panama to the United States, the Government of the United States agrees to pay to the Republic of Panama the sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in gold coin of the United States on the exchange of the ratification of this convention and also an annual payment during the life of this convention of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) in like gold coin, beginning nine years after the date aforesaid. ”

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)