Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain

Military history: Biography / North America / United States B‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Vietnam B‑class

	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.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here's the ref I removed from the article, so you don't have to retype it to use on the campaign page:

Although McCain was not born within a state of the United States, his status as a Natural-born citizen (and future eligibility to be elected to the presidency) may have been assured at birth both by jus sanguinis, since both of his parents were U.S. citizens, and jus soli, as the Panama Canal Zone was at that time (1936) a United States possession (1903-1979). See Rudin, Ken (July 9, 1998). "Citizen McCain's Panama Problem?". The Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) and Crewdson, John (2008-02-18). "John McCain's birthright: Fit for the presidency". The Swamp. Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-02-21. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

--24.57.151.98 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lead

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)[reply]

Also, from the main article talk page, these issues to be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]