Talk:John McCain

Graduation rank

The article (like most of teh intertubes) claims that McCain graduated 894th of 899. The sources, however, say only "fifth from the bottom". Now, wouldn't this make him 895th? (Count on your fingers if you need; I haven't been able to find any mention of this phenomenon in articles like ordinal number except perhaps a mention at zero.) --Kalupinka (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For a source, see this excerpt from the Timberg biography. Clearly states 899 students, McCain ranked 894. The counting is done 899 bottom, 898 next to (or first from) the bottom, 897 second from the bottom, 896 third from, 895 fourth from, 894 fifth from the bottom. Timberg uses that exact phrase, "fifth from the bottom". McCain uses the same phrase as a chapter title in his memoir. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not being a native speaker of English, I was not aware of this way of counting; I am used to "second from the bottom" (or "the end", actually) being the second you count starting with the bottommost, in symetry with going from the top. Thanks.
I didn't know of this excerpt (shouldn't the reference include a link to it?) and all reliable sources I found used just the "fifth from the bottom" form and not the absolute rank. --Kalupinka (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

U.S. citizenship and the Presidency

John McCain may not be qualified to run for the Presidency. See this. All significant views should be represented in this article per NPOV.

• Gabriel J. Chin, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship" July 9, 2008 Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No 08-14
• Liptak, Adam. “A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue”, The New York Times (2008-07-11).

See John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility for details. A brief mention in this article will satisfy NPOV. QuackGuru 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This has come up a number of times here in WP over the past year. It's basically a question of weighting. While McCain's eligibility is an interesting legal theory exercise, in practice both the legal establishment and the political establishment have concluded he's completely eligible. If he wins the election, he's going to become president, no ifs ands or buts. In all the blather about the campaign that you watch on the news, for example, no one blathers about this. So plonking this into the first section of this article, like you want, really gives it more emphasis and attention than it deserves. Making it a section in the middle of the separate campaign article seems about the right level of attention to give it. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

... Belated correction to what I wrote, this matter obviously is included in the main article (midway through the campaign section), just as it is in the campaign article itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This article presently says: "If he wins the presidency, John McCain's birth (in Panama) would be the first presidential birth outside the current 50 states. A bipartisan legal review[206] as well as a unanimous Senate resolution[207] indicate that he is nevertheless a natural-born citizen of the United States, which is a constitutional requirement to become president, although the matter is still a subject of some legal controversy.[208]" That's more than enough.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has instructed Wikipedia to follow, not lead. So we may think there could be a legal controversy but we must either report a WP:RS saying there is or wait until McCain gets sued by Obama to prevent him from taking office. The point will probably be moot as Obama will be the next President. McCain is a long shot. If you want to be an Ambassador, donate some money to Obama, not McCain. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1D81F3AF93BA35750C0A962958260

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_/ai_n15742021

903M (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't McCain Born in Panama, was he born on a naval base or in a Panama hospital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.22.22 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain was born on a US military base which, by federal code, is US territory. Thousands of Americans have been born on US military bases. They have US birth certificates. --66.60.137.134 (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ackward statement

In the section on McCain's POW experience the following is stated... "Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973.[53]"

The "Although" is unnecessary and very ackward. Recommend removing the "Although" to read as... "McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973."--RobertGary1 (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'altogether' is because several different segments of his captivity were described previously, and this is summing up. It doesn't seem awkward to me. Or ackward either. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Huge contradiction, help needed

The contradiction happens in the paragraph which mentions his "strong intelligence", I have some points here. First, a high IQ doesn't mean a high intelligence, so that part should be rephrased asap, after all, it sounds extremely POV. Second, the point that is in fact very contradictory: it is claimed that McCain's IQ is very high yet it's said that he was bad in maths. If anyone has ever done an IQ test here they can see that it measures logical-mathematical thinking more than other abilities such as verbal (which is one of its criticisms as a measurement of intelligence), so what the article basically says is the following, McCain is a very smart guy because he scored high in a test which measures mathematical abilities and then later he was awful at that subject at school. Do you see my point now? It needs complete rephrasing or removal.--Cancerbero 8 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write this stuff about intelligence, but I don't see a problem with it. It's supported by two different footnotes. Have you read the footnoted material? One of the two footnotes mentions: "McCain scored 128 and then 133 on IQ tests." That doesn't mean that the two cited sources say nothing more about his intelligence. And certainly the fact that he got those IQ scores is persuasive evidence that he was probably not a blithering idiot!  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? About IQ=/=Intelligence? --Cancerbero 8 (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. The mere fact that someone does not like mathematics does not mean they cannot get a high IQ score. Additionally, the notion that McCain had a strong intelligence is supported by two footnotes, rather than merely supported by an IQ score. I agree with you that an IQ test may not be a good measure of intelligence, but it is only one of a plurality of sources that this Wikipedia article is relying on.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Our description of the Stanford-Binet test says: "It features Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory as the five factors tested. Each of these factors is tested in two separate domains, verbal and nonverbal, in order to accurately assess individuals with deafness, limited English, or communication disorders. Examples of test items include verbal analogies to test Verbal Fluid Reasoning and picture absurdities to test Nonverbal Knowledge." This does not seem to be a logic-math-dominated regime, as Cancerbero 8 claims. (Indeed, I remember a lot of verbal/vocabulary content the one time I took it.) In particular, assuming the 1984 edition of the test was similar in structure, I think you could do well on this test and still do badly in college-level math and engineering courses. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, how did you do? :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be telling. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)To go to Cancerbero 8's other point, I too agree that IQ /= intelligence. But to give the full measure of this person, we can't just begin and end with his stupendously dreadful class rank. If you read the more detailed Early life and military career of John McCain article, you'll find out that he also did well in his Naval Academy entrance exams and was later a one-time champion on Jeopardy!. So these, together with the IQ scores, and however you interpret his ability to have a successful, 26-year political and legislative career, combine to tell us that 894/899 was not the full story. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When I did the Mensa IQ test it was all just about logical knowledge. I know there are other tests which also measure verbal skills, yet I believe the version I solved did not include this so that non-native English speakers such as myself could be measured in a more correct way. I'm a little curious about the tests McCain did, many professional IQ test results remain extremely confidential, meaning not even the person who solved it knows his score (for example, in the Mensa IQ test they only tell you if you are in the 98th percentile or if you're not, but no numerical score whatsoever). So if anyone knows when and why he did these tests, it could clear things up a little bit more. Perhaps they were done as a requisite in the Navy and the results were published rather than remaining as classified information. I'm not saying he's not intelligent or anything, I'm just saying that I don't like the way that part of the article was written. And just for the record, I got accepted into Mensa, so don't say I think IQ and intelligence are not the same because I'm sore or something =P --Cancerbero 8 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you're a genius-level person, try reading the talk item a few sections above this, #THE DESCRIPTION/DOCUMENTATION OF MCCAIN’S IQ TESTS IS SUSPECT., where what is known about the circumstances of the tests and why they were made public are described. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I was away from the computer these days. Do believe me, I read that! I read it when I was looking if someone had already started a discussion about his IQ and I was, in fact, going to reply there but I decided to open a new section since, after I had read it, I still had doubts and believed it hadn't completely cleared up things, at least not for me--Cancerbero 8 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain's Lobbyist Connections not mentioned

Though the article mentions several times that McCain vows to fight special interests and lobbyists, nowhere does it mention the numerous registered lobbyists who work or have worked on his campaign in prominent positions.PonileExpress (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This article states: "After facing criticism about lobbyists in its midst, the McCain campaign issued new rules in May to avoid conflicts of interest, causing several top staffers to leave." And readers are provided with relevant links in the footnotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, we've got a logical fallacy on our hands. In one statement above, we find that registered lobbyists worked on McCain's campaign. In the other statement, we find that some workers have left after rule changes. In none of this do we determine that all the lobbyists left, nor any of the lobbyists left, nor workers who stayed were or were not lobbyists. Any edit of this section should work to determine that. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a detailed analysis like that would belong in the sub-article, if at all.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The text used to read: "The McCain campaign faced criticism about lobbyists in its midst,[202] and issued new rules in May 2008 calling for campaign staff to either cut lobbying ties or leave, so as to avoid any potential conflict of interest; five top aides left.[202][203]" I thought that was clearer, but it got reduced to the current form in one of Ferrylodge's shortening purges. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's pretty concise already, and was very non-partisan IMO. I'm curious as to why it was removed. Again, I'm trying to avoid accusations of bias, so an explanation would be helpful. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)BEFORE: "The McCain campaign faced criticism about lobbyists in its midst, and issued new rules in May 2008 calling for campaign staff to either cut lobbying ties or leave, so as to avoid any potential conflict of interest; five top aides left."

AFTER: "After facing criticism about lobbyists in its midst, the McCain campaign issued new rules in May to avoid conflicts of interest, causing several top staffers to leave."

That's 41 words versus 27 words. If we want to make this article more than 50% longer, then of course the BEFORE version is fine. Other than that, I see hardly any difference of meaning.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

SUGGEST: "After facing criticism about lobbyists on staff, the McCain campaign issued new rules in May 2008 to avoid conflicts of interest, causing 5 aides to leave." ... One word shorter than that, keeps the number of people who left, and adds a year to the month (this page will be around long after 2008). --Kickstart70-T-C 15:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's really much difference, but I have no objection, except that you should write out "five" instead of "5".Ferrylodge (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To me this change has made this worse, because where before we had either "five top aides" or "several top staffers", now we have just "five aides". Why was the "top" dropped? Presidential campaigns are large organizations, and five middle- or low-level aides leaving would be insignificant. I've restored the "top". Wasted Time R (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron Kovic in See also section

I'm out of reversions on User:Salimi's persistent efforts to add Ron Kovic to the "See also" section. Salimi's many edit summary rationales for this are, to my mind, unpersuasive. Yes, Kovic and McCain represent two differing stories and perspectives coming out of Vietnam. So too do Bob Kerrey and Max Cleland and Tim O'Brien (author) and a dozen others. We have over 800 articles in Category:American military personnel of the Vietnam War and books have been written, and I'm sure we could write a good article in Wikipedia, about all the different paths that Vietnam veterans have taken and all the different ways that they have been affected by their Vietnam experiences and all the different ways that has manifested itself on the American political and cultural and psychological landscape. But the "See also" section of the John McCain article is not the place to do this. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"My friends..."

This is a stupid concern, but WP:BLP and all that. Granted, there's 1.8megGhits on "john mccain" plus "my friends", but is this in My Friends a bit much? I mean, I'd hate to see us have to grow List of people who use "I mean...", List of people who use "My friends...", and List of people who use "ya'know?", ya'know? Shenme (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's gone. Thanks. -- Zsero (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Description of torture

I fully understand that detractors of Senator McCain want to minimize his struggles as a POW. However, the statement "Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements,[47] with many enduring even longer and worse treatment" does not seem appropriate in an article about the Senator. If this article were about POWs in general, or about Senator McCain as a member of a specific group of POWs, it could be appropriate. However, an article about one individual should not include a statement that does not include that individual.Kingsley911 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not at all to minimize his POW experience, but simply to place it in historical context. (For a similar reason we give the casualty numbers for the Forrestal fire.) It shows that McCain's POW experience was part of a larger experience that many others suffered under too. Indeed, this is a constant theme in McCain's writing on the subject, from his USN&WR account in 1973 to Faith of My Fathers in 1999 to his acceptance speech ("A lot of prisoners had it worse than I did") a month ago. And the following sentence in our article, "Virtually all of the POWs who were tortured eventually yielded something to their captors.[48]", is important too, as it puts McCain's "confession" is proper context as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this context is fine, except for this: "with many enduring even longer and worse treatment." We can say that many others were tortured, without getting into a comparison. The comparison may be correct, but it's not necessary here. McCain has often made self-deprecating remarks, as well as remarks that show considerable humility; such remarks sound very different coming from him than they do from anyone else, and I think we're on much firmer ground relying on secondary sources than his own words.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is asinine. The comparison is correct per every secondary source, including the Hubbell and Rochester & Kiley standard works. This in no effing way detracts from anything McCain went through. Someday after McCain's campaign is long over and there's not all this idiocy going on, I'll come back and fix this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WTR, you said in your previous comment that "this is a constant theme in McCain's writing on the subject". Now you say it's dealt with in a bunch of secondary sources. Why does it matter how many were tortured worse, and how many were tortured less severely? Don't expect us to read your mind. It should go without saying that for virtually every American soldier who was tortured, another American soldier was tortured worse, and another was tortured less severely. I don't see what this adds to the article. Ferrylodge (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already discussed why it matters several times on past talk pages. I will come back and fix this someday when the criteria is history and not current politics. I've got a long memory; just recently, on a completely different article, I restored something that had been unfairly removed 10 months ago. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you should attribute the basest partisan motives to Kingsley911, and refuse to even point him to the relevant talk page discussion. Additionally, I do not recall why it might be important to say that some soldiers were tortured more severely, without mentioning that some other soldiers were tortured less severely. Why is the former important, but the latter not? I honestly do not recall a reason.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I disapprove of both candidates, and so will be choosing not to vote for President (although I will vote for local offices and issues). So, I'm not defending Senator McCain as much as I am hoping to see the article remain as unbiased as it can during an election. I think the way it is now, with mention of the Senator and POWs going through this type of treatment, is far more fair a treatment than to throw in what sounds like a McCain-minimizing comment about others being worse off. Whether he chooses to use that language in speeches or not, the article is about the Senator and not the treatment of other POWs during that war.Kingsley911 (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Was Carol Swanson still married when she began seeing McCain?

I have seen two timelines of Carol Shepp McCain's involvement with McCain. One shows her still married to Alasdair Swanson when she began seeing McCain (though she sued him for infidelity). Is there a definitive source on this as several liberal political blogs claim a 527 group is about to unleash radio and TV ads accusing McCain of coveting another man's wife, and suggesting that later he committed adultery with Cindy McCain. CApitol3 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As it's by liberal blogs? it shouldn't be added to the article. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Two issues here. a) Was McCain involved with Carol when she was still married? I've seen intimations of this, but the only WP:RS don't say so, and in fact as you note she sued her first husband for infidelity. b) Did McCain commit adultery with Cindy while still married to Carol? Everyone on earth believes so, except for one editor here. You can find reams of discussion in the talk archives here and in the Elmc talk page and maybe a few others. The wording we have now in the various articles is what we were left with after all that. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he did commit adultery with Cindy. Sorry, I missed the 2nd question. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Soon after I wrote my previous response, I saw this Washington Post story about Carol from today. It explicitly states no on the first question: "After divorcing Swanson, Carol began seeing McCain." I've updated the Carol McCain article to state this (the John McCain article doesn't mention her first marriage, so nothing to do here). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What about McCain infedility with Carol? It might be time to reinsert it, or at least revisit this. Would not a quote by a naval officer, published in USA Today, claiming that McCain spent the night with Cindy in his room during the conference he met her at be allowable? CApitol3 (talk)

McCain turning down admiral

Doodlebug1967 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)I take issue with the assertion that Sen. McCain "turned down" the rank of Rear Admiral (which he would have to obtain before working up through the ranks to full admiral). Nobody in the military turns down this high a rank, most certainly not someone who's father and grandfather both attained admiral rank. The NYT article referring to this is apparently the only one alleging McCain refused the rank. I'm from a military family--some of my family served with all three generations of McCains, and I can assure you, John McCain did NOT turn down this rank. This reference should be omitted or at least amended to say "reportedly turned it down." Doodlebug1967 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as he wasn't offered the promotion, how could he turn it down? GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This article currently says: "McCain decided to leave the Navy. It was doubtful whether he would ever be promoted to the rank of full admiral, as he had poor annual physicals and had been given no major sea command.[66] His chances of being promoted to rear admiral were better, but McCain declined that prospect, as he had already made plans to run for Congress and said he could "do more good there."[67]" So we're not saying he declined a promotion, just the prospect of a promotion. This wording is designed to reflect several sources that aren't in full agreement. Until and unless McCain's full naval records are released, or some other new facts come out, it's probably the best we can do. And I think it's reasonable to believe that if McCain couldn't make four-star like his f and gf, that he'd try to make his mark in politics, especially given his interest in politics since his return from POW and his years spent as Senate liaison. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better, myself. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Non auto-formatted dates

Why aren't they wikified like they are in almost ever other article on Wikipedia? I find that odd and distracting. J'onn J'onzz (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Autoformatted dates have been deprecated throughout Wikipedia. See MOS:SYL and a jillion talk pages that discuss this. Many of the highest-profile articles were cleansed of them first, so that's why they disappeared from here quickly. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

LAT story on early 1960s aircraft incidents

A lot from the good LAT story on McCain's early 1960s crashes and collisions has been introduced here. I don't think much if any of it belongs here, other than replacing the old cite with the LAT one. I started this morning adding this material to Early life and military career of John McCain this morning, and I'll continue this evening. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone came along and added the LAT cite to this article, with a bunch of new material. I tried to amend the new material to conform with what you're doing at the sub-article. I hope you'll feel free to rmv from this article if you think it's appropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've finished (for now, at least) updating Early life and military career of John McCain with information from the LAT story, which is now cited there in 10 different places. (When it comes to finding the specifics of McCain's life that other biographers have run through more vaguely, Vartabedian and the other LAT guy are the best!) However, for this the main article ... I don't think the prior text ("The planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines, but he received no major injuries.") needs changing at all. And certainly the amount of text that was introduced earlier today on this is inappropriate. That's because this summary article's approach is to gloss over most aspects of McCain's military career. There is no detail on any his first 22 missions over North Vietnam, for example, nor much on his shootdown, nor on this flying style, nor much on anything pre- or post-POW. So launching into a description of each of these incidents is out of place. The Elmc article is the go-to place for all things McCain and military, and the sooner interested readers discover that and go there the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

three plane crashes deserve a little more description other than 'he was not hurt'

as the LA times article writes

The 23-year-old junior lieutenant wasn't paying attention and erred in using "a power setting too low to maintain level flight in a turn," investigators concluded.

The crash was one of three early in McCain's aviation career in which his flying skills and judgment were faulted or questioned by Navy officials.

In his most serious lapse, McCain was "clowning" around in a Skyraider over southern Spain about December 1961 and flew into electrical wires, causing a blackout, according to McCain's own account as well as those of naval officers and enlistees aboard the carrier Intrepid. In another incident, in 1965, McCain crashed a T-2 trainer jet in Virginia.--Stephen.walker 7 October 2008.

I agree with Wasted Time R about this. All of the detail is in the sub-article, and we only summarize here. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that Early life and military career of John McCain is a Featured Article in itself. It's the place to be for military McCain ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree...it is evidence of the man's growth as a person...his transition from a somewhat inattentive fly-boy to a mature but daring warrior. It's central to his character. I am going to restore it. Now, if you want to discuss modifications, that's fine, but I regard simple reverts of relevant and cited material to be vandalism. I do not simply revert your writing because I personally do not line up with some of it; I would appreciate the same respect in return. Raryel (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Raryel, first of all, this is called an editorial disagreement about which level of article in a WP:Summary style structure to include material into. This is not called vandalism. If you fail to understand the distinction, your time here will not be very successful. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is vandalism. Repeated "reverts" of cited relevant material is vandalism, not editorial disagreement. It is laziness and closed-mindedness. Perhaps it is you who needs to review a few things. As proof, please look at the latest edits. This morning, Wednesday, October 8, I read a constructive edit that both served the summary role and took advantage of the material I added. Perhaps one sentence could be improved still: McCain was a good flier, albeit one who pushed the envwelope. Does this imply that pushing the envelope is a bad thing? In 1969, the Navy decided that perhaps airline-style flying was not what it was looking for from its combat pilots, and introduced the Top Gun school. From what I read, the first class was not well supported by squadron commanders; but they changed their attitudes after 1970, when Top Gun graduates began, routinely, eating North Vietnamese pilots for breakfast. This program was for fighter pilots, not attack squadron pilots, but the attitude was relevant to everyone. F-105 pilots returning from their bombing runs shot down 22 North Vietnamese planes. Raryel (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, the "constructive edit" you mention was made by me! I am not lazy – I wrote the entire Early life and military career of John McCain article, and have spent more hours on this subject than I would care to admit. And I don't think of myself as close-minded either. If you look at the entire series of McCain biographical subarticles here, you'll find many, many cited facts that are not included in the main article; it's all editorial judgment about what belongs and what doesn't. As for the sentence still in question, I was searching for wording that would not imply that his pushing the envelope was either a good or a bad thing. It is indeed likely a good thing for air superiority fighter pilots, and is obviously a bad thing for routine peacetime flights over Spain. Where it stands for attack pilots is an interesting question to explore in the Top Gun School article, but not one we need to get into here in the McCain main article. But if you have alternate wording for that sentence, I'm certainly open-minded to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, one can make a legitimate argument that some description of McCain's flying record and flying style belongs in the main article. It can't include all the detail that Raryel wants, such as "too little throttle while turning the airplane low over the water" -- that's way more excessively detailed than anything else in this article, military or otherwise. But we can state that he started out as a sub-par pilot (Timberg) who was reckless and careless at times (LAT) and that he improved over time (Timberg, LAT) but still tended to push the envelope (LAT). So I've modified the article to reflect that. Next, I don't like the language "However, later, once given combat assignments in Vietnam, other naval pilots credited McCain with courage and daring, flying his aircraft to the edge of its performance envelope; this was in contrast to many other pilots who, comparatively, played it safe." This doesn't track the source that well (mixes pre-Vietnam with Vietnam) and sets up too simplistic a comparison of flying styles that's really off-topic here and feels like Top Gun-style drama (another "Maverick"!). Instead, I've just added the two medals he won for successful missions over North Vietnam before his shootdown. Finally, as for the Gene Furr celebrity on Enterprise bit, like everything else a mention of that has been added to Early life and military career of John McCain, but it's too minor a point to include here and it inflates the source's two incidents into "often". Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that I yanked Raryel's "While training as a pilot, McCain attracted the attention and concern of flight instructors for carelessness, as well as an unwillingness to accept responsibility for mistakes." This is inflammatory and goes beyond what the LAT source states as fact. LAT says "Naval aviation experts say the three accidents before McCain's deployment to Vietnam probably triggered a review to determine whether he should be allowed to continue flying. The results of the review would have been confidential." But the key word there is "probably". Until and unless McCain releases his full naval records (I wish he would, it would help resolve some other biographical mysteries as well), we don't know if this happened, and we can't say here that it did. If someday we find out there really was a review, yes we could include that. Regarding the conflicting accounts of the first incident, we don't know what McCain said at the time, just what he later said in his memoir. McCain may have honestly though his engine failed on him, or he may have been a just-beginning pilot trying to concoct an excuse for a crash, he wouldn't be the first. On the second incident, the LAT didn't have any incident report, so we don't know who said what. On the third incident, the whole sequence of reports and criticisms and testimonies and revisions is confusing enough that we can't safely draw any conclusions. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

US Council for World Freedom

Added material about McCain being in their board in the 1980s. As this is a highly contentious issue, it may need tweaking and additional sources, rebuttals and such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll get started on it.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that the year of resignation is disputed as per the source you added. Also note that the source mentions the McCain campaign and not McCain himself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not disputed that McCain says he resigned in 1984. Nor is it disputed that "McCain's office produced two letters from 1984 and 1986 to back his account."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of this thing until just now, and I've read a lot about McCain's life. Why does this warrant mention in the main article? Just because the AP published a story on it today? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, WTR. Thanks for pointing that out. I assume that the main motivation for including it here in this article is something like: "Since the Obama article does not mention Bill Ayers, therefore the McCain article should mention the Council for World Freedom." Or something like that. But I'm guessing, and maybe Jossi will correct me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not tit-for-tat. If you want to argue for the inclusion of that material on Obama's article, that article's talk page is the place to do so, and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want to argue about that one way or the other.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

which was an international group that, among other things, aided the rebels in Nicaragua; is incompatible with what the US Council for World Freedom article says. It needs to be expanded to provide the necessary context and as to not deviate from the sources used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

From that article:

The U.S. chapter of WACL, the United States Council for World Freedom (USCWF), has been one of the most active branches. USCWF was founded in 1981 by Major General John K. Singlaub. This branch has generated controversy, as it has been found to have illegally supplied firearms to guerillas in the Iran-Contra Affair and, in 1981, the USCWF was placed under watch by the Anti-Defamation League, which noted the organization had increasingly become a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.[1]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to recall someone once saying that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Additionally, what about WTR's questions? Why does this warrant mention in the main article? Just because the AP published a story on it today?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a reliable source, but the sources used in that article are. Also, from The Guardian:

The CWF was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League, whose chairman was forced to resign in 1980 after he was linked to the neo-Nazi movement. McCain joined the CWF the following year after meeting with its chief, former US army major general John Singlaub."US election: Democrats threaten to hit McCain on Iran-Contra link". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-10-07. {{cite web}}: Text "World news" ignored (help); Text "guardian.co.uk" ignored (help)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, this definitely belongs in House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, but not here. McCain was only on the advisory board, which in D.C.-land often means not much, and I don't see an indication that he did much in this case. If he were the chair of the organization, like he is of International Republican Institute, it would merit inclusion here (and the IRI is included here). But John Singlaub was the chair (and his article does mention this). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WTR yet again. For two years in the early 1980s, McCain was an inactive advisory board member of an organization that was affilated with another organization that had the very good sense to force out a leader linked to neo-nazis, which occurred before McCain even became a board member of the affiliated organization. Not notable enough for this main article, IMHO. Jossi, why do you think this warrants mention in this main article? Just because the AP or the Guardian published a story on it today? Or just because the article will get a lot of hits tonight due to the debate?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A short summary of that can be included, and a longer version of it with sufficient historical context can be added to House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is notable enough to warrant a mention. Why is being deleted? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of disagreement as to whether it's notable enough to warrant a mention. If you look at House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, there are a bunch of other things there that are notable, but never mentioned here in the main article. Here are five that I picked out on a quick read-through, there are others:

• "Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, the state's most powerful political figure, was officially neutral in the race,[12] but many of his aides were working for McCain's opponents and Goldwater was said to view McCain as an opportunist.[12] Late in the race, Goldwater made a public statement critical of McCain, but Tower was able to limit damage from it.[10]"
• "In 1989, he became a staunch defender of his friend John Tower's doomed nomination for U.S. Secretary of Defense; McCain butted heads with Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich, who was challenging Tower regarding alleged heavy drinking and extramarital affairs.[45] Thus began McCain's difficult relationship with the Christian right, as he would later write that Weyrich was "a pompous self-serving son of a bitch."[45]"
• "McCain was one of only four Republicans in Congress to vote against the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995,[98]"
• "He was one of only five senators to vote against the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[100]"
• "At the start of the 1996 presidential election, McCain served as national campaign chairman for the highly unsuccessful Republican nomination effort of Texas Senator Phil Gramm.[103]"

You can argue that each of these is more important than the US Council for World Freedom bit. The Goldwater lack of support presages McCain's career-long alienation from both the movement conservative and quasilibertarian branches of the GOP. The Tower/Weyrich episode left a deep impression on McCain; he devotes a long chapter to Tower in his second memoir. The Telecommunications Act has had a large impact on the American media ownership scene and other aspects of telecomm. And the teaming with Gramm began a long alliance and also foreshadowed McCain's career-long difficulties with economic policies and perceptions, all the way up to this year's disastrous Gramm "mental recession/nation of whiners" clunker. So the bottom line is, the way the McCain articles are structured, not every notable thing percolates up to the top. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Panamanian Born?

Should the first line in Senator McCain's entry reflect that he was born in Panama? Kind of like how Jackson Browne's (also a military brat) article refers to him as a "German-born American singer"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.148.23.172 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Browne article is off-base, not this one. In fact the whole Browne lead section is bad. ... In fact the whole Browne article needs a lot of work, except for the "Classic personal period" section, which I did a fair amount of the writing on ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This should actually be better explained in the article. I don't know the specifics, but at the time McCain was born there was not yet a law stating that babies born on U.S. military bases were indeed U.S. citizens. But in the run up to the election, the Election Committee cleared McCain to run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.172.4 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See #U.S. citizenship and the Presidency above. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain and his education affects my (wish I could vote) vote.

(Removing discussion unrelated to improvement of article. Tempodivalse (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

Klan?

Um, it says John McCain was a member of the KKK in the opening section. Something I'm 99% sure isn't true. 216.223.155.40 (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted. --Allen3 ^talk 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Question...

I may be wrong about this; and if I am please forgive me. I am currently reading this article for my school. I was reading the First two terms in U.S. Senate section. It says, "...after he defeated his Democratic opponent, former state legislator Richard Kimball, by 20 percentage points in the 1986 election." Like I said, I may be wrong about this. But shouldn't it say, "after he defeated his Democratic opponent, former state legislator Richard Kimball, by 20 percent in the 1986 election.'"? Shouldn't it say percent rather that percentage points? Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't say "20 percent". The election result was, rounded off, 60%-40%. Imagine there were only 100 voters, so the actual vote totals were 60 to 40. To say he won by 20 percent would imply he got 20 percent more votes than his opponent. But in this case, that would imply he got 48 votes, which is incorrect. That's why a margin like this is expressed as "20 percentage points" or sometimes just "20 points". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

O I see! Haha. I'm supposed to be a math guy. I don't know how I missed that! Thank you for showing me my error. Goodness gracious! Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ties to G. Gordon Lilly

My input on the Chicago Tribune article on McCain's ties to G. Gordon Liddy was deleted by User: B. I don't see why, isn't it a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bopter (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Material from an opinion piece on an editorial page is not generally a reliable source. Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, not a news reporter. So, I've reverted your edit. See WP:RS. Also, info about Liddy belongs in the Liddy article. See WP:Coatrack.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply.Bopter (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How is McCain going on Liddy's (who schemed to firebomb the Brookings Institute building according to his WP page) radio show any different than Obama's association with Ayers? In my opinion it's worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.172.4 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain's going on Liddy's radio show is not biographically significant and does not belong in this article. Whether Obama's association with Ayers belongs in Obama's article is not this article's concern. Whether McCain's or Obama's actions in these respective matters is better or worse or irrelevant is up to voters to decide. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. If Obama's relationship to Ayers belongs in his WP article, then McCain's relationship with Liddy belongs in his WP article. Bias, pure and simple. Take it out of one or add it to the other. Or is this now Foxipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.179.231 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not Foxipedia. It's Youhavenocluehowthisworkspedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see how it works all right.

McCain's time as POW

The article should clearly distinguish between what are independently verifiable facts about McCain's time in Vietnam and what is based only on his own statements. This is particularly important since other POWs dispute some of his statements and since McCain's time in Vietnam is such an important part of his run for the presidency.

For example, appears to report McCain's self-reported claims of torture as fact. What is the degree of independent evidence for the extent of torture he claims to have undergone? Where is this documented? Reference [44] is listed merely as "Hubbell 'P.O.W.' 452-454"; that is not a proper citation, I can't find the source, and it is unclear whether that is just derived from McCain's own statements or whether it contains independent data. Reference [49] is a Vanity Fair article that does not cite its sources and effectively also only reports McCain's own version of events and implies that McCain's disability is due to torture, rather than his crash, but does not provide any evidence or sources. Has there been any kind of medical analysis of his injuries, and if so, why isn't that cited?

My suggestions for improving this article are: (1) clearly distinguish independently verifiable facts from McCain's own statements, (2) remove any statements that are based on articles like Vanity Fair's, articles that themselves leave open the source and strength of their evidence, and (3) cite POWs and other sources who disagree with McCain's portrayal of his time in Vietnam. Jcarnelian (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This article, as does the far more detailed Early life and military career of John McCain, relies primarily upon the two standard works of American POWs in Vietnam:

• Hubbell, John G. P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-Of-War Experience in Vietnam, 1964–1973 (Reader's Digest Press, New York 1976). ISBN 0-88349-091-9
• Rochester, Stuart I. and Kiley, Frederick. Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973 (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland 1999). ISBN 1-55750-694-9

Both are fully cited in the "Bibliography" section and then, per an oft-used Wikipedia style, footnotes refer to the author and title in short form, which is what you saw. Both of these books interviewed POWs in the hundreds, and correlate their stories with each other. In the "Early lfie ..." article, Hubbell is cited in 31 places, Rochester & Kiley in 12. The Vanity Fair story is only cited to McCain's current limitations, and the "His injuries" in our text is meant to refer to the combination of his injuries from the ejection, from the inadequate North Vietnamese medical treatment of same, and the physical mistreatments. I've modifed that phrase to "His wartime injuries" to try to clarify that (it used to say that, somewhere along the line it got lost). With one very isolated exception (the Ted Guy interview post-1991, which has been discussed here previously), other POWs do not dispute McCain's story. POWs like Butler and Dramesi, who are the ones you are probably referring to, sometimes dispute the emphasis McCain has put on his behavior, or are sometimes unhappy that McCain is perceived to have been the only POW who went through these ordeals when many other went through them too (often to a worse degree), or sometimes state that McCain was a jerk then and is a jerk now. But they basically don't dispute the story given here. If you have specifics where you think they do and our article doesn't reflect that, please discuss them here further. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't have a copy of the Hubbell book yet, but the Rochester "Honor Bound" book is not being cited accurately. For example, where it is used in the article, it says "McCain continued actively to resist the camp authorities.[53]". But the book says "The centralization of authority also gave impetus to a campaign initiated in January 1971 by a group of junior officers (Stockdale and Guarino credited John McCain with the idea, Myers traced it to a group in cell 3)". Talking about "active resistance" obfuscates the nature of the resistance, and, in fact, refusal to write letters would seem to be "passive" rather than "active" resistance. Furthermore, McCain's role in that campaign was not firmly established by the reference.

There's no question that McCain suffered greatly in Vietnam. But that's not the whole story for a biographical entry. Was he treated better or worse than other prisoners? Did he use his status to get special treatment? What aspects were active, deliberate torture, and what aspects were just generally bad camp and medical conditions? Did he actively work to help fellow POWs, or did he mainly look out for himself? What was his motivation for refusing early repatriation? To what degree did he "break"? And what are the motives of witnesses, either for or against? The current Wikipedia article seems biased in favor of the "McCain-as-hero" view, but that doesn't seem to follow clearly from the facts. Furthermore, his prior and subsequent conduct, and his single-handed defeat of the POW bill raise nagging questions that I think require much better documentation of different sources and viewpoints than are present in the article right now. Jcarnelian (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if you're interested in this subject, you're looking at the wrong article. Early life and military career of John McCain (Elmc) has much more detail on his POW years and the citing is generally finer. For example, the "actively resist" statement you object to is expanded to:

he participated in a defiant church service[156] and led an effort to write letters home that only portrayed the camp in a negative light,[157] and as a result spent much of the year in a camp reserved for "bad attitude" cases.[137]

156 ^ Timberg, An American Odyssey, p. 104.

157 ^ Rochester and Kiley, Honor Bound, p. 537.

137 ^ Hubbell, P.O.W., pp. 548–549.

So if you add all that up, the "actively" seems warranted. And if you read other parts of Hubbell or Rochester & Kiley, you'll see that when the resisters/troublemakers (from the guards' perspective) are enumerated, McCain's name is often among them.

To answer your other questions: Many of the prisoners captured earlier than he was received longer and worse mistreatment. (I've tried to include this here in the main article several times, only to have it thrown out, don't blame me.) The North Vietnamese gave him special treatment at times because of who his father was. (You sometimes see claims that McCain told them himself who his father was; we don't know and don't say, but in fact this was public knowledge, see for example this New York Times article from several months before the shootdown.) Yes, specific episodes of deliberative torture were combined with pervasively bad camp conditions; the Elmc article tries to get this across. Regarding "actively work to help fellow POWs", he was in solitary much of his first two or three years there, but yes he used the tap code and other means to help keep camp communications open; see the Ernie Brace account cited in Elmc for example. His motivation for refusing early release was the same as all the other prisoners', to follow their interpretation of the U.S. Code of Conduct. He "broke" once, in late summer 1968; he also gave more military and personal details than he was supposed to when he was first captured; the Elmc article covers both of these. As for motives of witnesses, one of the good things about the Hubbell book is that it was written in the mid-1970s, well before McCain would become a politician; other POWs such as Stockdale and Denton were more famous at the time. Thus, the Hubbell account of McCain's time there is uncolored by later political developments and disputes, especially the POW/MIA live prisoners issue, which accounts for much of the Vietnam-related anti-McCain animus you see out there (including what I'm guessing you mean by the "single-handed defeat of the POW bill"). Wasted Time R (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

birth info correction

Currently the article for John McCAIN's birth info says that he was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone, Panama.

This birth info is incorrect! He was NOT born at Coco Solo which is a part of the Canal Zone. Per his birth certificate, his birth info is ...

John McCAIN 29 August 1936 18h25 EST (5h) Colon, Panama 80w00 9N21

A copy of his birth certificate issued by the Panama Railroad Company is available at ... http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=145

This birth certificate was used in a recent lawsuit which was dismissed ... http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_10492319

I don't know how to make the correction to the article as his page does not have the edit feature available.

Picnics (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll need far more reliable sources than that to even start a discussion as to whether this should be mentioned in the article. We don't put fringe theories about living people into their biographies. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that Birthcertificateopedia be created, in which the McCain theorists and Obama theorists can compete to see who can put together the most elaborate explanation about which candidate is closest to robbing us of our beloved constitutional right to have a Natural Born Citizen as president. Birthcertificateopedia can have articles like History of Colón, Panama-area hospitals and Hawaiian documents processing, 1958-1963 towards this goal. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Why they allow rude & useless comments like those from

"Loonymonkey" & "wasted Time" ... who's handles seem to describe the writers aptly !!!

> You'll need far more reliable sources

Since when is the evidence used in the American Court System not a reliable source ?

The following info was included in the links within my last message ...

I thought I wouldn't have to retype it. but apparently I do ...

On 11 Aug 2008 Markham ROBINSON of Vacaville sued John McCAIN (GOP) & Debra BOWEN (California Secretary of State). Evidence in this lawsuit included the birth certificate of the aforesaid John McCAIN.

Anyone can obtain this evidentiary birth certificate of John McCAIN from the U.S. District Court of New-Hampshire under the Documents file of case # 1:08-cv-00009 for Fred HOLLANDER vs. McCAIN & RNC.

This evidentiary birth certificate is downloadable through the American Court system's "PACER" outlet.

PACER is an acronym for "Public Access to Court Electronic Records" ... for those who don't believe me. please see the wikipedia article at ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(law)

Instructions ...

1. Obtain a PACER account number at https://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/psclogin.pl

2. go to https://ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov

3. go down to document #20

4a. download to your computer immediately

OR

4b. open them up for view ... then download the last 4 pages & then save.

You will now get a PDF file with the birth certificate of JOhn McCAIN which consists of ...

1 page in English

1 page in Spanish &

2 pages of confirmation proof.

As I said before, the lawsuit was dismissed because he was born of American citizens.

And as I said before, the birth certificate of John McCAIN says he was born in the city of Colon, Panama & NOT in the Coco Solo Naval Air Station as incorrectly mentioned in the wikipedia article about him.

Picnics (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a WP:RS saying this birth certificate is authentic. And even if it is, it's a primary document. Per WP:PRIMARY, we prefer secondary sources, which in this case would examine the practice of birth certificates for children of American military personnel at the time and see what they generally said and thus interpret the significance of this one. In other words, if the New York Times says he was born in Colón and not the PCZ, we can say that here. If some lawsuit-happy guy with a website says it, we can't. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

< We don't have a WP:RS saying this birth certificate is authentic > < we prefer secondary sources >

I am not submitting an original copy of the birth certificate which would be the primary source.

I am submitting the court evidence ... does that not meet your request for a secondary source ?

< In other words, if the New York Times says he was born in Colón and not the PCZ, we can say that here >

My original message also included the link to the article published in the "Oakland Tribune" newspaper by reporter Josh RICHMAN concerning the law case dismissal.

< which in this case would examine the practice of birth certificates for children of American military personnel at the time and see what they generally said and thus interpret the significance of this one >

Even better than that ... a legal case examinging THIS exact birth certificate !!!

How much more to the point can you get ?

This whole lawsuit meets that requirement because it was a court case examining the legal issue of John McCAIN's status as a natural born American citizen.

The evidentiary birth certificate was accepted as being legitimate by U.S. District Judge William ALSUP. The link about the published news report talks about the case's dismissal & Judge ALSUP's legal ruling that McCAIN's birth status is considered the same as that of a natural born American citizen.

Picnics (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Oakland Tribune article is indeed a reliable source. However, it doesn't mention the birth certificate at all, and the article's discussion of the legal issues involved in the case centers around McCain having been born in the PCZ. So this article doesn't support your position at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Does wikipedia accept itself as a reliable source ? ...

Check out this widipedia article which says John McCAIN was born in Colon, Panama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Col%C3%B3n,_Panama

So ... what is the source for the birth location of the Coco Solo Naval Air Station ?

Picnics (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia most definitely does not accept itself. Anybody can write anything on Wikipedia! Someone could say McCain was born on Jupiter. In the case of the Colón article, the claim isn't cited. Someone also could be confusing the current boundaries of Colón (which post-PCZ was redefined to include Coco Solo) rather than the boundaries then. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And the source for Coco Solo is the McCain biography by Robert Timberg, John McCain: An American Odyssey. You can see online the chapter involved here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As a follow-up, note that I have added the lawsuit being dismissed, using the Oakland Tribune story as the source, to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility, where doubts about McCain's eligibility are discussed. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

< source for Coco Solo is the McCain biography by Robert Timberg, John McCain: An American Odyssey >

Well TIMBERG was wrong!

John McCAIN was born at least 5 years BEFORE the Coco Solo Navy Hospital was built.

"Executive Order #8981 - Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, Canal Zone" dated 1941 by Franklin D. ROOSEVELT laid out the boundaries for the land that the hospital would eventually be built on.

Here is a link to the 1936 newspaper birth announcement that John McCAIN was born at the

"Submarine Base Hospital" ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_announcement_041708.pdf

... on 2nd page in thin red box.

Picnics (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Timberg doesn't say Coco Solo Navy Hospital, he says "Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone", which doesn't say anything about a hospital. The Panama American announcement says "at the submarine Base Hospital". Presumably this is the base hospital whose function was replaced by the better one built in 1941. If you can find a mainstream newspaper article stating that this base hospital was in fact outside the PCZ and in Colón, then we can use that. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is from the WashingtonPost.com blog, so it doesn't quite meet your requirements

... however for informational purposes to end off our conversation ...

In 1936 John McCAIN's grandfather commanded the Coco Solo Naval Air Station &

John McCAIN's father was the executive officer of a submarine based in Coco Solo.

John McCAIN's birth certificate was signed by Captain W. L. IRVINE.

The Naval Register for 1936 available here ...

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_irvine_2.pdf

(near the bottom) ... shows during that time period, William Lorne IRVINE was

director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone.

Coco Solo was on the Atlantic Ocean (northwest) side of the Panama Canal Zone, near Colon, Panama.

Picnics (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dickinson Rolling Stone article as source

This Tim Dickinson article in Rolling Stone, which was published a few days ago, is one of the scuzziest hatchet jobs I've seen in a long time. It does very little new reporting, but instead takes facts from McCain's life and twists and distorts and misinterprets them to a maximal degree in order to paint as dismal a picture of McCain as possible. Its value as a WP:RS for us is as close to zero as you can get. Indeed, it's the mirror image of those fevered rantings you can find now on National Review Online about how Obama is the creature of Alinsky and Ayers and is determined to introduce True Socialism to America. In other words, it's rubbish and we should ignore it. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything more than invective? Rolling Stone is a well-established publication. It presumably has fact checkers. I think the criticism of McCain's conduct could just as well be omitted, and my original edit merely included a factual statement from the article, about what McCain did in the immediate aftermath of his escape from his plane. Do you have any basis for implying that the author made up that assertion out of thin air, or even that he twisted or distorted or misinterpreted it? JamesMLane t c 22:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As for the question of McCain's switch from Forrestal to Oriskany, the source being used (Timberg) writes "An officer explained that the Oriskany, another carrier on Yankee Station, had been losing pilots and was looking for volunteers to fill the ranks." That's the reason "volunteered" is in the article. Yes, the mechanism by which that volunteering would take place was a transfer, but it's the volunteering that's important. Note that non-volunteers might or might not have ended up back in the Vietnam theater, depending upon what happened to their squadrons post-fire. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As for what McCain did during the Forrestal fire, by the standard description (Timberg, Alexander, the NYT article used as a cite) McCain tried to help another pilot, got blown backwards when the first bomb when off, went below to help clear some bombs overboard from the hangar elevator, then went to the ready room to watch the firefighting on closed circuit tv, then went to sick bay to get his minor wounds treated. The RS story manages to twist this into the notion that he was shirking firefighting duty by doing this. There is no evidence of this. There is no evidence about what his firefighting duties were on the ship was, if any. In many cases having too many untrained people trying to help out in a disaster actually hurts the collective effort, not help it. The fact that some other pilot saw a specific opportunity and performed heroically in the fire does not mean McCain did anything wrong. It's clear that if you, say, ranked the top 100 sailors on board Forrestal in terms of heroism that day, McCain wouldn't be among them, nor has he ever claimed he should, nor does our article claim he is. If you can find in the lengthy official Navy accounts of the fire (some of which are footnoted here) some criticism of McCain's actions before, during, or after the fire, then by all means we can include them. But not this pathetic innuendo attempt by Dickinson. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)When I originally reverted, this was the edit summary: "It doesn't seem notable that McCain watched something. Is the implication that he declined to help out when he could have? If so, why not be explicit about it?"[1]

I still feel that way. It's kind of like summarizing Genesis by saying that on the seventh day God rested. (Not that I'm a religious nut or anything!) It seems to elevate one aspect of what he did during the Forrestal fire above the rest. And, I think there are plenty of reliable sources that indicate McCain was not the only pilot who went into the ready room that day, nor was he the first. I don't see anything particularly notable about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet, strikingly, it's considered notable that he "was trying to help another pilot" when his help apparently consisted of taking a few steps in the other pilot's direction before being knocked over by a bomb blast. I don't think the test is whether someone can make an airtight case that McCain's actions were cowardly or a dereliction of duty. I'm perfectly OK with omitting the information that someone criticized him. It's just, to my mind, a striking image, and certainly a bigger part of his eventful day than his attempting to help another pilot. Why don't we just include the fact, without criticizing him? Alternatively, why don't we get rid of the puffery about his trying to help someone else? JamesMLane t c 01:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at this history.navy.mil page on the Forrestal fire. (Be patient, it takes a long time to load, it's obvious our defense budget is being directed to places other than this site's web servers.) Here's what it says about McCain's role in the fire: "LCDR John S. McCain, III, sitting in Aircraft No. 416 preparing to launch, afterward described the horror: “I thought my aircraft exploded” he recounted as the first blast ripped through the aircraft assembled on the flight deck. “Flames were everywhere”. The young pilot climbed out of his Skyhawk, poised perilously on the A-4C and then leapt through the flames and ran for his life. As he did so the naval aviator saw another pilot jump and roll clear of his aircraft but the flames caught his uniform ablaze. LCDR McCain turned back to help the man when a bomb exploded and knocked him off his feet and backward about 10 feet. He never saw his shipmate again. [Then some stuff about McCain's later POW days and political career.]" This isn't puffery, any more than the description of Herbert Hope's actions [which Dickinson quite approves of] is right above this on the page, or any of the other descriptions in this long account. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain took a few steps toward the other guy. Then he went all the way down to the ready room and stayed there for a while. For describing his experience of the fire, what's the difference between these two undisputed facts? Well, there are two obvious differences. One is that the second fact relates to a much greater portion of the time he spent after the initial missile firing. The other obvious difference is that the first fact makes him look good and the second fact makes him look bad (at least in the eyes of some hatchet-jobbing journalists).

In answer to the question in Ferrylodge's ES, neither of these facts is to be included or not based on whether it can be linked up with an "implication" that's favorable or unfavorable to McCain. They're both just facts that help the reader get a sense of what McCain did on one of the most eventful days of his life. There's no reason for us to pick and choose on the basis of what implication might arise. The basis for picking and choosing is importance, and his trip to the ready room is more important. JamesMLane t c 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain took steps toward the other guy back into the fire that he had just barely escaped with his life. That's more notable than what he did later in the course of the fire, when we don't know what he assigned duty would have been. As for describing all of what he did on this fateful day, that's way too much detail for this summary article. We don't even describe the details of what led to his shootdown, which would be even more eventful. If you want to add his watching the fire and going to sickbay in Early life and military career of John McCain#Vietnam operations, I think I'm okay with that. But Dickinson can't be the cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this summary can't include every detail. It's certainly not clear to me that McCain was about to run into the fire -- it appears that the other guy had escaped the fire but his flight suit was still burning in places. If McCain had actually gone to his aid, McCain probably would've risked some burns himself but it's not like he was running into an inferno. Anyway, if his decision to run toward the guy was important enough to note, then so was his decision to go to the ready room. I think moving both factoids to the daughter article is appropriate. And, as for the sourcing, an author for a mainstream publication can express opinions and still be a source for facts. That you don't like Mr. Dickinson's tone is no basis for a pronouncement that he can't be the source for something. You apparently have no problem with extensive citation to Timberg, described by the Times as offering "effusive praise for those who served in Vietnam, peppered with his contempt for 60's draft dodgers". [2] There is simply no basis for suppressing the citation to the Rolling Stone article unless and until there's some good-faith challenge to the accuracy of the particular factual assertion(s) for which it's cited. JamesMLane t c 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(a) Have you read in full either of the Timberg works? Do you really consider them the equal in fairness to the Rolling Stone piece? Timberg, among other things, dug out McCain's extramarital affairs in the mid-1970s. Dickinson didn't do any original reporting on the Forrestal fire, he just distorted and selectively interpreted existing accounts. (b) Let's say you, James M. Lane, are caught in a burning building. You're almost trapped in the fire, but you leap out of a first-story window to safety. You then see someone else caught in the building, and go back to try to help him. Suddenly there's an explosion in the building and you're thrown backward and hit with pieces of debris. Now the fire department arrives, and as they fight the fire and try to rescue people, you stand out on the street and watch. Which is more notable, that you tried to go back in or that you're standing out on the street? Any newspaper writer would include the first and not bother to mention the second. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Supported the Patriot Act

I didn't see any mention of his vote in favor of the Patriot Act. This is a real test of someone's commitment to uphold the Constitution.