Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain

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)

New pic in main article

Hey WTR, what do you think about the new pic in the early life section of the main article? I think it either ought to be copied here or removed. It's relying on a fair use rationale, by the way, so it would be the second such image in that article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Time page that has it credits its ownership to John McCain, which presumably means his personal collection. I think the fair use rationale is unfounded and the image will get gonged. But I'm no expert on the non-free historical image rules. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll just sit back and wait until it gets gonged. No need for me to do anything, right? That damn Sarah Palin article has burnt me out.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Release video

A film of McCain being released from his captors were found in SVT's archives. They believe that it is the only film clip existing of the release. Maybe it is notable enough to be included in the article? Here's the link [1]. --Krm500 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good find, thanks. I've expanded the description of his actual release, since it's often recounted, and I've added the SVT article/video as an additional footnote. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Did McCain study Latin?

A December 2007 editorial in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/opinion/03mount.html) mentioned that the majority of US Presidents have studied Latin and/or Greek, but that the frontrunners (then Guiliani, Hillary and Obama), all had not. Does anyone know if McCain ever studied Latin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.209 (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting question. It's very likely that Latin was taught in the 1950s at Episcopal High School (Alexandria, Virginia), but whether it was required and whether McCain took it, I don't know. I don't recall reading it in any of his biographies ... Wasted Time R (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeopardy! category

[moved here from user talk page]
Hi Wasted Time R. I think you made the right decision by moving the Jeopardy! bit to the "early life" subarticle, but the category belongs on the BLP article. Don't you think that Category:Jeopardy! contestants should only only show articles with persons as their subjects? I mean, an "early life" can't be a contestant. And McCain wasn't a "different person" in his early life. Robert K S (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the unsolved difficulties of WP:Summary style with respect to biographical subjects -- where do the categories go? I've placed this subarticle into many categories related to McCain's service in Vietnam, because this is the definitive article about that subject, and thus about McCain's belonging to those categories. The same rationale would extend to being a Jeopardy! contestant (way cool that you found those old broadcast sheets, by the way). Even moreso, in fact, because Category:Jeopardy! contestants will be in constant danger of being removed from the main article, due to nothing in that article appearing to support its inclusion. So that's my rationale for including it here. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The above response doesn't address the issue, namely that the recategorization creates a category entry that is generically wrong (in the sense that it stashes a species into a genera in which it cannot belong). An "early life" is not a "contestant"; going to Category:Jeopardy! contestants one should only see articles named with the names of persons. The hypothetical danger of category removal would seem to be easily fixable with a hidden markup tag explaining that the support can be found in the subarticle. Robert K S (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you make the species/genera rigorousness the most important criteria, okay. But of course readers who peruse Category:Jeopardy! contestants and click on each entry to read about that person's appearance on the show and how well they did, will be stuck here. They won't find anything at John McCain. Even if they think to look in subarticles, they won't know which one to look at. But I won't pursue this further. The ultimate solution for this kind of problem is adding an indexing capability to Wikipedia, so that it looks more like real books do. Then you could look up 'Jeopardy! appearance' in the index, and it would direct you to the right place in the right (sub)article. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Major

What was his major at the academy?69.111.73.245 (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There were no majors at the Naval Academy at that time. There was a fixed Bachelor of Science that all midshipmen took, that was heavily focused on math, science, and engineering, especially electrical engineering. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

verification wanted

According to John McCain, during the Cuban Missile Crisis he was "in the cockpit, on the flight deck of the USS Enterprise, off of Cuba". This article (Early life and military career of John McCain) nor the John McCain article do not mention anything about this. Can we verify or refute what he is saying? Kingturtle (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This article already says "McCain was made a lieutenant in June 1962,[53] and was on alert duty on Enterprise when it helped enforce the naval quarantine of Cuba during the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.[59]" Wasted Time R (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Birth certificate image

So what exactly is the purpose of adding Image:McCain Certificate of Birth.jpg to the article? The caption says "This is apparently McCain’s original long-form birth certificate"; if it's only "apparently", why are we using it? If its inclusion is intended to cast doubt upon the statement that McCain was born in a Navy hospital in the Panama Canal Zone, but instead support the notion that he was born in a civilian hospital outside the PCZ, we need a WP:RS secondary source that says so; this image suffers from the usual WP:PRIMARY problem that we don't exactly know what it means. If the image's inclusion is meant to support the PCZ statement, it again needs a reliable secondary source saying so. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I came across the image and thought it would be appropriate here. It is not intended to cast doubt on anything. Please remove it if you like. I don't see that it's any less appropriate than an image of his father or grandfather, but there's no problem whatsoever if you'd like to delete it.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it. The problem is, you found the image from the lawsuit against McCain's presidential eligibility; as you can see here, this was considered the "smoking gun" that proved McCain was born outside the PCZ. As such it would conflict with our footnotes 2 and 3. But, I haven't found any RS that confirms the image is legitimate; it might be some Rathergate-style concoction for all we know. Even if we find out it's legitimate, we still don't know what it means; it may be that for administrative purposes, back then all naval base births were registered to Colon and Colon Hospital. Finally, it's rare that we include birth certificate images in any of our BLPs; images of famous parents and grandparents are more common. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace again

I've been hanging out at WP:BLPN lately, where there was recently a discussion again about McCain's birthplace. It's unclear to me what the purpose of that discussion was, but I do want to point out something that was said there....

This article currently says: "John Sidney McCain III was born on August 29, 1936,[1] at a United States Navy hospital[2][3][4] at Coco Solo Naval Air Station[5][6] in Panama Canal Zone, Panama...." Notice that the city of "Colon" is not mentioned here in this article.

At McCain's official senate web site, there is this: "'Where and when were you born?' 'I was born August 29, 1936 in Colon, Panama Canal Zone CoCo Solo Submarine Base'." So, it seems to me that this source should be footnoted in the present article, and I would also include the word "Colon" in the article text. The purpose here is to be accurate. It is not to suggest that McCain was born in Panamanian rather than US jurisdiction (even if he were, it is abundantly clear to me that he would have been eligible for the presidency due to the citizenship and age of his parents). McCain says he was born in Colon so we ought to as well. But this is no big deal as far as I'm concerned. I just wanted to report here what I saw at BLPN. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC) (semi-retired)

Well, what McCain says casually in a routine Q-and-A with young students isn't necessarily definitive. I think most people believe that the Coco Solo base was not actually within Colón but rather just near it. That would mean McCain's statement was contradictory, although in he may have just been trying to give some idea of where Coco Solo was in general. The sources that WP articles on McCain use, especially this and this from WaPo 'Fact Checker', make a distinction between Coco Solo (true) and Colón (Internet rumor). To say there's no distinction at all requires stronger evidence than just this one statement from McCain, and including this in the article will just further stir up the "zonists" (to distinguish them from the O. birthers). Even in your semi-retired state, you should realize that would be asking for trouble ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I take the reference to "Colon Panama" to be an indication of where CoCo Solo is. Whether the base is actually within Colon city limits now or not, it's certainly near it, so a helpful reference point. However the article already refers to the Panama Canal Zone, and I can't see how to lever a reference to Colon into it without rewriting it entirely, which I'm not sure is worth the effort. Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Inserting an additional footnote would not require rewritng anything. And WTR, maybe McCain was smoking dope, or his mother lied to him.  :-). But seriously, I think it's a very an extremely bad idea to let our editing decisions be affected by how nutcases might react, or be designed to make them seem nuttier than they really are.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The only relevance of the "nutters" (if we must call them that) is as a reminder that if we can't add something that's actually helpful (giving the reader more information) we're better off not complicating things. The McCain quote alone isn't really helpful - it would only be relevant in combination with a reliable source that explained the relationship between the base and the city then and now. By which time, it is however getting into "who cares" territory best left for the other article (natural born...) where it's discussed in some detail. If you want to actually propose something concrete, go ahead, but I just don't think it's very important. The only importance, in fact, comes in relation to the "not eligible" claim, for which there appears no basis in fact. If the controversy over it were prominent enough, it would justify covering it qua controversy (as part of the 08 election), but I'm not sure if it is. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my concrete proposal is simply to add a footnote, with no change to the text, so that readers can access McCain's statement about his birthplace at his official government website. That's all.

<ref>[http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=StudentsTeachers.FAQ FAQ for Students and Teachers], Official U. S. Senate Web Site of John McCain.  Accessed 2010-11-16.</ref>Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see adding this footnote as being helpful. While this FAQ page is indeed part of "McCain's Official U.S. Senate Web Site", that doesn't make it authoritative, and given that it isn't linked to from the McCain Senate main page, it may have gotten limited attention. For all I know it was put together by some intern cutting and pasting from various other documents. The statement in it that McCain played on the varsity football team in high school also contradicts this article, which uses the Alexander biography as a source to say that he played on the junior varsity football team. The Timberg bio also has him playing on the jv team and being underweight even for that, and neither mentions him playing on the varsity football team. Should we now add a footnote to this FAQ page for this, and let the reader ponder another contradiction? I'd rather not. One of the conditions of this article reaching FA status was to limit the use of Faith of My Fathers as a source to the extent possible, and to explain each use that remained in each footnote. This FAQ page is in the same boat, only it has probably received less editorial attention. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I was a big advocate for using third-party sources wherever possible in the McCain articles, assuming they corroborate the text, but that doesn't mean that both can't be used when they each adequately support the same text, and they're consistent with each other, and the non-third-party source adds something intriguing. But in this case you've ably questioned whether the non-third-party source is reliable. McCain himself says that he played jv football even as a senior.[2] So, I agree that we should not include the extra footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)