Talk:John McCain

Reassessment

Fails NPOV--Dr.enh (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if a single editor can really delist a good article against consensus, but in any event there's a good article reassessment going on here. Anyone can join in. (It's also linked at the top of this discussion page.)Ferrylodge (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From reading, say, Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive4#Delisting discussion, that seems to be the case. The idea is that GA is a quick-acting, non-bureaucratic procedure: it just takes one reviewer to make an article GA, and so conversely it just takes one editor to unmake it. Disputes or challenges at either time then go to WP:GAR. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional material about troubles in first marriage

At the risk of creating an undue weight problem, I've just inserted some more info into the chronological sections of the article, regarding extramarital affairs in 1975, the permanent separation from his wife in 1979, and McCain's explanation and mea culpa. However, I still do not think that his marriage to Carol, and the difficulties they had, is currently part of his cultural or political image. "She is seldom seen and rarely written about."[5] Additionally, the events in question happened three decades ago. Therefore, it seems unnecessary to repeat all of the salacious material twice in this article: once in the chronological sections, and again in the section on his cultural and political image.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a definite improvement. And it's not undue weight; this is a biography, and the nature and fate of one's marriages is a very important aspect of one's life. One nit: the level of dating is inconsistent. It seems to me that either we need to specify April 1979 for meeting Cindy and late 1979 for the separation with Carol (more precision), or we can compress the "she accepted a divorce in February of 1980, effective in April of 1980" down to "they were divorced in April 1980" (less precision). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm leery of getting too precise about the date of their permanent separation. One of the two cited sources (in the Carol McCain article) says that it occurred "later" in 1979, rather than "late" in 1979, and Timberg said that the separation occurred earlier. In addition to conflicting memories/assertions on this point, there is also the distinction between a "legal" separation versus just moving out of (or to a different room in) the house, and we don't (and perhaps shouldn't) have those details. I have no problem if you want to specify that they first met in April, since that seems pretty clear.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Later" doesn't contradict "late". Kristof is still the best source on this. McCain and Timberg made up something in this case; if you look at Snopes.com, they say that "numerous other sources assert he was still living with Carol McCain when he began seeing his future wife, Cindy." Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As I edited this Wikipedia article, it said that McCain was still living with Carol McCain when he began seeing his future wife, Cindy. That does not conflict with Snopes.com. WTR, I am opposed to you citing the WaPo article by Lois Romano to support your assertion that they separated in "late 1979". The WaPo article does not say that.

Additionally, you have argued (elsewhere) in favor of cleansing the Kristof footnote of Kristof's statement that there is disagreement about when McCain and his wife separated, and I don't think that's appropriate. Would you please acknowledge that (as I stated above) the word "separation" can have different meanings? Those include de jure separation as well as de facto separation. We don't know which one Kristof was referring to as occurring in "late" 1979, and the only person quoted by Kristof on this matter (i.e. Carl Smith) merely said that the household seemed normal as of May 1979. Kristof does not say where he got "late 1979" from.

And by the way, the Lois Romano article is available online, but only for a fee, so I don't see any problem with briefly quoting from it in a footnote. On controversial points, I think it's helpful to put a quote in a footnote regardless of whether it's free online, because it clearly and quickly shows everyone what we're basing our text on.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of the WaPo article was to buttress the point that the McCain/Timberg account of being already separated was not so. "Later in 1979" does not contradict "late 1979". Kristof says the McCain/Timberg account "does not jibe with accounts of family members and friends", that's more than just Smith. He can't recap every interview he did, this was one part of a long story and newspaper writers are always pressed for space. More later, but must watch Celtics reclaim their rightful glory first. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been the same since Parrish, Bird, McHale, and the late Dennis Johnson (poor guy). Anyway, who died and made Kristof God? Alexander, in Man of the People (page 91), said that they were separated by August 1979.[6] The WaPo article by Lois Romano buttresses Alexander just as much as it buttresses Kristof. Do you think that Alexander was conspiring with McCain and Timberg?

Also worth noting is that the Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal both say they were separated when John met Cindy in April of 1979.[7][8] I tend not to believe that, but there you have it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when it comes to journalists and columnists, Kristof is God (certainly among the NYT crew). He goes to the places the rest of us try to forget exist, and then he goes back to them again and again and tries to make us face them. The BG and WSJ accounts are Cindy pieces by profile reporters who took the McCain backstory on face value. Alexander gets sloppy with facts and chronology every now and then and I think he was just relying on the McCain/Timberg account in this case, it happens. I'm not accusing anyone of conspiracy, I don't mind McCain/Timberg trying to soften the story up a bit, but I think Kristof has done the most legwork and is the best source for this period. And KG is a throwback to the Bird era and the Russell era as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if Kristof is God, which I somehow doubt, his word "late" is ambiguous. It could conceivably mean "late" in the sense that it should have happened earlier. More likely, it could mean "late" in the sense of the "latter" part. In any event, the language currently in this Wikipedia article is ambiguous enough to cover Kristof, Romano, AND Alexander (but not ambiguous enough to cover Timberg, WSJ, or BG). What the heck is wrong with that? I suspect Nancy Reagan hired Carol immediately after the separation.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with "the latter part of 1979". But I still strongly object to the cite cloning of three sources to include the blurbs in the footnotes, especially news sources. Maintaining cites (and checking them at FAC, etc.) is hard enough as it is, and duplicating them is crazy. The scheme we are using is the <ref name="foobar"/> one, where each citation given once inline and then multiple references are made to it. There are other schemes that editors use, such as what you see at Drapier's Letters, that get around this somewhat, but given the approach we're already using, I don't think cloning is warranted at all. I've unwound it at Carol McCain and Early life and military career of John McCain, and would recommend you do it here too. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please give me a definition of what you regard as "cite cloning." Does that include all instances of quoting an excerpt of a cited source in a footnote? I agree that can be overdone, but it can also be entirely appropriate. By pinpotinting what we're relying on (especially in a lengthy cited source), it can cut short future arguments. Also, I think it may be especially appropriate when the cited source is quoting someone else, e.g. the subject of this Wikipedia article.

The present article now says, "He and his wife Carol then permanently separated later in 1979." I assume you're now okay with that. Alexander and Romano simply say they separated after John met Cindy. Timberg, WSJ, and Boston Globe say they were already separated. Kristof is the only one who says "late" in 1979, and the only source he quotes (Carl Smith) simply says what Alexander and Romano said. And, it's unclear what "late" means.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We're now using "in the latter part of 1979" in other articles, which is ok with me, so why not use that here too for consistency. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made everything consistent.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) By cite cloning I mean taking a big long news article cite, all the stuff inside the <ref></ref> tags, and replicating it in more than one place. You're doing it so that you can stick in a quote excerpt and have it apply to just one instance of the cite being footnoted. Other editors use it to enforce a preference of "never have multiple footnotes next to each other". I'm against it in both cases. It violates principles of data management, and it just means extra work every time the cites get reformatted, checked for soundness, wikilinked or unwikilinked, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the definition, which helps me understand your objection. Have others objected? Is there any policy or guideline about it? Would it be adeqaute to only do it sparingly?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cite cloning is unnecessary in the footnote quote case. You can just add some words to make specific the context the quote is being used in, such as "Regarding the bribery charge, Smith declared, 'This is a damnable, palpable lie. I will be fully vindicated in a court of law.'" People looking at the footnote for a reference other than the bribery charge will then ignore the additional text. In the multiple footnotes case, I think the cure is worse than the disease. Readers of these heavily cited BLP articles already have to visually train themselves to read past the superscripted numbers, I don't see how having consecutive superscripted numbers makes it much worse. No, there's no guideline on this; like most citation stuff, it's everyone does their own thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why McCain's affair with Cindy before he was divorced is now being called a courtship when it is an extramarital affair. I'm new at this and I'm just don't understand the phrasing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyouknowthetimes (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent)No problem, that's a legitimate question. Here's what this Wikipedia article now says:

During this period [1976] in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, the McCains' marriage began to falter, and he would later accept blame.[58][59]....In April of 1979,[56] McCain met and began a courtship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[59] He and his wife Carol then permanently separated later in 1979,[56][62][63] and she accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[56] effective in April of 1980.[20]

So, we first mention extramarital affairs in 1976, and then "courtship" in 1979. It's very clear from the following sentence that at least part of the courtship occurred while McCain was still married to his first wife. The reason we use the word courtship is because that's what the cited source uses:

Early in the courtship, McCain called Cindy from Beijing, where he was traveling with a Senate Foreign Relations Committee contingent.…After a whirlwind courtship, John asked Cindy to marry him…. McCain needed a divorce from Carol, his wife of 14 years from whom he was separated.[9]

We could change "courtship" to "adulterous courtship" or some such thing, but I think the way we have it now is okay, in the sense that it tracks the cited source, and the Wikipedia reader gets an accurate description.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The article says that McCain married Cindy. But this was before the divorce was granted. A marriage is not legal while someone is married to someone else. Perhaps a sentence should be added "There is some question about whether his marriage to Cindy is legal and it is not known if he ever remarried her after the divorce". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.47.204 (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I presume you're referencing today's LAT article, but you're confused. It says "... the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife." Obtaining a license is not the same as marrying. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right I noticed this by reading the LA Times article, though this wikipedia entry actually has the same material. You are also right that I was confused about whether it was the time he obtained the license or got married. But you are not right about the conclusion. The license could not have been valid. Without a valid license the later marriage is not valid. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license for a brief description of marriage licenses. It looks like a minor mistake on his part, but still the marriage would appear not to be valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.47.204 (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a WP:RS that says he second marriage is invalid based on when he got his marriage license, then we can include that. The LAT article doesn't reach that conclusion, and your opinion based on reading another Wikipedia article does not constitute WP:V. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this article good enought to be featured?

It looks pretty good to me, has plenty of info and is very well-written, so it should be a featured article. In fact, I was just looking at obamas article and I didnt really think his was better (though longer) and yet it was featured.

If we cannot feature it, please someone tell me what I can do to improve it as I would be glad to make a very good article for our next president! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.1.144 (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it's good enough, but we've been working out some kinks over the past month or so, and there's been some turmoil during the past few days. It would probably be good to wait a while and see if the article remains stable now. One of the big gripes that comes up during featured article review is lack of "stability". So, I'd suggest waiting to see if it stays stable for awhile.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The biggest obstacle will be lack of future stability, given that he has a roughly 50 percent chance of becoming president and the whole article would have to be reshaped. This concern was enough to sink the Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC recently, and for much of that time her chance of becoming president was close to nil. The Obama article achieved FA way way back in 2004, long before he ran for president, and thus has had the advantage of incumbency. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be no big deal whether this article has a shiny star at the top or not. Given the subject of the article, it may be more fitting to not have it. Nevertheless, I haven't seen anything yet in the FAC guidelines that says incumbency is an advantage regarding the likelihood of future instability.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tangential material in lead paragraphs

The lead paragraphs have been recently edited to include tangential material, such as the occupation of one of McCain's two grandfathers, the number of children he has, et cetera. The Barack Obama featured article very properly does not have such info in the lead paragraphs.

MOSBIO gives the following example to follow for the opening of a Wikipedia biographical article: Francesco Petrarca. Check it out. That lead says nothing about his family, but the body of the article does give info about his family.

The lead paragraphs should say what the person did, and why the person is significant. Discussing his marriages is not appropriate or necessary, given the already long length of the lead. Next thing will be pressure to include extramarital affairs in the lead paragraphs. Likewise, discussing his ancestry or parentage is not appropriate either; if his father was a gigolo or an assassin, would you insist on including that too? That stuff can come later in the article, if at all. The lead should be about McCain and why he's significant, not about other people.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The MOSBIO link concerns the opening paragraph, not the lead, and Francesco Petrarca is used to illustrate a good opening sentence, not a good lead. In fact the lead of Francesco Petrarca is completely inadequate. See WP:Good article reassessment/John McCain/1 and WP:LEAD. Thank you. Geometry guy 00:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, we'll continue the discussion there.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Disability

The lede speaks of "some lifelong physical disabilities" but the body of the article only mentions that he cannot raise his arms over his head. If that's the only one, then maybe we should be more specific in the lede, lest we give the impression that McCain is a physical wreck. How about if we change "his war wounds would leave him with some lifelong physical disabilities" to "his war wounds would leave him with a limited range of arm motion."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't comb hair, can't put on suit jacket properly, can't bend knee well, has trouble walking down steps at times, can't cross legs, can't raise arms in victory after winning elections ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Combing hair, putting on jacket, raising arms in victory are all due to limited range of arm motion, I think. As for the rest, it's all related to knees, and I'm not sure if --- in ordinary language --- that would be known as a "disability" given that he can hike 30 miles through the grand canyon. How about "his war wounds would leave him with a limited range of arm motion, among other lasting effects." Right now, the lead makes him sound like a wreck ("some lifelong physical disabilities").Ferrylodge (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Disabled" does not imply "can't do things". Many people with disabilities do amazing physical feats — I'm sure there are people with an artificial leg who've gone rim to rim too. But your change is ok with me. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that many people with disabilities can accomplish amazing physical feats, and function perfectly well in life. I won't change anything today, since I might be getting close to 3RR. But I am thinking about merely changing "some lifelong physical disabilities" to "some lifelong physical limitations" which sounds a bit less dramatic, and a bit more accurate. The word "disability" has a technical legal definition as well as an ordinary English definition. In ordinary English (per Random House Webster's College Dictionary), it means "(1) lack of adequate strength or physical or mental ability; incapacity (2) a physical or mental handicap, esp. one that prevents a person from living a normal life or from holding a specific job."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

openess and Humour

I think there should be a section about how McCain is more willing to be self depricating and make fun of himself in a way obama would never do:

he's been on daily show more than anyone else he makes fun of himself in a genuine way

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/mccains_snl.html

you'll never see obama do the same on his inexperience.

and how it makes him more human, aware of his imperfection but doesn't hide them

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/in_case_you_mis_1.html

but also how its a double edge sword by not being cautious he risks not looking statesman like:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/john-mccain-shower-scene_n_107922.html

I hope someone with more wiki expirience will add some of these points in the article or the public perception article

Esmehwa (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do have some of this. His self-deprecating humor is mentioned a couple of times in Cultural and political image of John McCain, along with several examples of it. His frequent appearances on the Stewart show are mentioned in Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present#Presence, with other media appearances being described both in that section and in Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present#2004 elections. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire premise of this request fails a basic fact-check anyway. To wit:

"make fun of himself in a way obama would never do"

...is simply false on its face. There are countless examples of Obama's sense of humor and humility, and even if it weren't counterfactual this assertion is irrelevant to whether or not the McCain article needs more of this content. Amezuki (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect terminology in 2008 campaign section

The section on McCain's 2008 campaign contains a political slur as follows:

"McCain was showing a resurgence, in particular with renewed strength in New Hampshire – the scene of his 2000 triumph – and was bolstered further by the endorsements of The Boston Globe, the Manchester Union-Leader, and almost two dozen other state newspapers, as well as from Independent Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman."

I'll set aside for a moment the fact that Sen. Lieberman is no longer a Democrat, as the term "Independent Democrat", however misleading, is how he refers to himself and appears in the Senate records and is therefore technically correct. The use of "democrat" instead of "democratic", such as in "Democrat Party", is well-documented as a political epithet used by Republicans against Democrats. I am not yet able to edit semi-protected articles, but I would appreciate it if someone who can would change this. My suggestions:

"[...]as well as from Independent Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman."

(or, if that makes linking to the ID article technically or aesthetically problematic)

"[...]as well as from self-styled Independent Democrat, Senator Joe Lieberman."

It may or may not have been intentional, as the wording in the original is slightly awkward--but it's still quite grating to people who know that this usage is wrong. Thanks. Amezuki (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Attack aircraft"

The term "attack aircraft" in the lede and body of the article is a bit vague. The A-1 Skyraider was a "tactical bomber" which is a bit more descriptive. I'll change this, if no objections.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Happyme22 (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely disagree. "Attack aircraft" closer describes both the A-1 and the A-4 (that's what the "A" stands for!): single-seat, single-engine aircraft used for ground support and tactical bombing missions. They're also both equipped with cannons, not just bomb loads. "Tactical bomber" is either used synonymously with "attack aircraft", or suggests slightly bigger, multi-person multi-engine aircraft (think the B-25 or B-26 during WWII). "Attack aircraft" is what McCain was trained for, and it's what all the squadrons he was in did (it's the "A" in VA-46, VA-163, etc.). It's the right term to use. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe we can work out a compromise of some sort (think Kim Jong Il and GW Bush). The phrase "attack aircraft" is not informative to a lay person, who may think it means attacking other aircraft. In fact, what McCain did was drop bombs. The article on tactical bomber specifically mentions the A-1 Skyraider which McCain flew. Also, using the term "attack aircraft" in the lede led to the awkward phrasing where we used "carrier" instead of the normal term "aircraft carrier." We specifically say that he flew the A-1 Skyraider and A-4 Skyhawk, so it's not as though we're depriving readers of precise details here.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The wikilink of attack aircraft will inform militarily ignorant readers of what the term means. That's the great benefit of hyperlinks, they educate. I may be the minority here, but Early life and military career of John McCain is a militarily literate article, and I don't want this change to migrate to there. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to modify the following sentence in the sub-article: "He joined squadron VA-42 at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia for five months of training on the A-1 Skyraider aircraft.[48]" I would merely change the last word "aircraft" to "tactical bomber." That's the only change, it's 100% accurate, and it does not remove the word "attack" or the term "attack aircraft".Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

@Wasted time R: I beg your pardon? Do we want to be ignorant to WP-readers that aren't familiar with (every) military term? WP-link redirects to Ground-attack aircraft. So why not name it this way so EVERYbody (((sorry for "shouting" a bit))) understands it? --Floridianed (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia may consider the A-1 a tactical bomber, but that use is in the minority; consider these two google searches here and here; the "attack aircraft" hits outnumber the "tactical bomber" hits 4-to-1, and if you look closer, many of the tactical bomber hits are referring to other aircraft. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And the ratio of Google Books hits between these two is 81-3 in favor of "attack aircraft". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As for usage in the lead, it already has many things that a lay person won't necessarily understand without clicking through: what are "conservative principles"? means something different everywhere in the world; what was the Keating Five scandal, a sex scandal with five people having an affair with someone named Keating? what is "campaign finance reform", a way for candidates to get more money? do foreign readers know what "pork barrel" means, subsidies for pig farming maybe? or "delegates"? or "presumptive nominee"? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The A-1 Skyraider is sometimes called a “flying dump truck”, but probably we shouldn't use that term.[10]  :-) I don't know about Wikipedia military articles, but for medical articles the MOS says: "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible."[11] Especially in the lede of a non-military article like this one, I think it's important to use words that are easily understood. How about if we mention both "attack aircraft" and tactical bomber in the body of the article, but use "tactical bomber" in the lede? Also, I really don't like being boxed into using the term "carrier" in the lede instead of the usual "aircraft carrier".Ferrylodge (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh... and here I was thinking, "Well, this is an uncontroversial change... why didn't Ferrylodge just do it?" Silly me. :-) --Ali'i 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm a pain in the neck, I get it. But as another example of how unusual this usage is, consider this 11,000 hit search versus this 117 hit search. In both cases, a good number of the hits are unrelated uses, but still the ratio is quite indicative. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think WTR makes some legitimate points, but please see this Google search result. May I suggest removing the term tactical bomber from this article, and replacing it with bomber?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Bomber" is completely non-specific. Furthermore, McCain's Navy culture was much more that of a fighter jock than a bomber pilot. See Robert Coram's book on Bud Day, pp. 186-189, which goes into the cultural differences at length, including the most profane quotes from McCain that I've seen yet. We're going a long way here to solve a non-problem; if you want to get "aircraft carrier" not "carrier" into the lead, just restructure the sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the primary function of his plane was to drop bombs, right? That's all I'm trying to get across here. And certainly the word "bomber" is more specific than the word "plane" so I don't see a problem there. I believe the military classifies bombers according to range, such as intermediate-range and long-range, but I am not urging that kind of specificity here.[12] McCain's plane did not normally engage other aircraft, and instead was a bomber, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the Wikipedia articles on the A-1 Skyraider and A-4 Skyhawk. "The Douglas A-1 (formerly AD) Skyraider was a U.S. single-seat attack bomber of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s." Likewise: "Skyhawks were the Navy's primary light bomber over both North Vietnam during the early years of the Vietnam War while the USAF was flying the supersonic F-105 Thunderchief."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No, the A-1 was armed with cannon and also did strafing runs, see some of these hits. It could also carry extra gun pods, rockets, torpedoes, all sorts of stuff ... it was known for its heavy payload ... The A-4 carried cannon and air-to-air Sidewinder missiles, and also all kinds of other stuff ... it did straging runs too, see some of these ... read the "Armament" sections of our articles on them ... these were attack aircraft, they did air-to-surface attacking by whatever means possible, and had limited air-to-air capabilities as well. Calling them "bombers" is just misleading. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This could go on forever. I have a simple compromise: I'll call them only attack aircraft in the Elmc article, and you can call them whatever you want here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this article is not supposed to include stuff that's not in the sub-article. Look, how about if we get rid of the word "bomber" from this article, and instead say "ground-attack aircraft" and "attack aircraft" in both articles. Including the word "ground" will quickly give an unfamiliar reader an idea of what kind of plane it was. Floridianed already suggested this above but you did not respond.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is certainly allowed to use different nomenclature than the subarticles, to explain things to a more general, less-interested-in-details audience. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to way in a little bit here. I would have to side with those saying keep the term "attack". After all the A in A-1 Skyraider stands for attack. If the aircraft's primary purpose was as a bomber than the aircraft would the B-"x" Skyraider. The main difference being that attack aircraft have the specialty of providing close air support which is air aupport that is in close proximity to friendly forces and requires detailed integration. The aircraft was specifically built to fly low and slow and carry alot of weapons to support troops on the ground. Aircraft with the "B" or Bomber designation do not close air support as their primary mission. While both bombers and attack aircraft can do each other's missions they were not primarily designed for them. Hope this helps some.--Looper5920 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the word "bomber" from the article, and instead inserted "ground" (as in "ground-attack aircraft") as Floridianed suggested above. Hope this works for everyone.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with ground-attack aircraft is that it may suggest "land", when both the A-1 and A-4 could be, and were, used against sea targets as well. (The first POW to go into the Hanoi Hilton was an A-4 aviator shot down while attacking a North Vietnamese boat, I think.) Wasted Time R (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As you said, we can use different nomenclature in this article, to explain things to a more general, less-interested-in-details audience. Moreover, there are plenty of very reliable sources that characterize the Skyhawk as a "ground-attack aircraft." Ditto for the Skyraider. Both of them were primarily designed and primarily used for ground-attacks, e.g. by McCain. I'm sure that they have both also been used for air-to-air combat, but that wasn't their primary role. Additionally, since operation Rolling Thunder was primarily an air interdiction and limited strategic bombing campaign, attacks at sea were not the focus.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for endorsing my wording on Rolling Thunder. I won't push this further here, except to note that you're conflating an aircraft's overall description with how it's used in one specific war or campaign or operation. For example, McCain was on alert in his A-1 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and maybe he had shipping or other naval targets at that time, I've never seen his squadron's potential ops description. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Our competitor, Britannica, says that "attack aircraft", also called "Ground Attack Aircraft", are a type of military aircraft that "supports ground troops by making strafing and low-level bombing attacks on enemy ground forces, tanks and other armoured vehicles, and installations. Attack aircraft are typically slower and less maneuverable than air-combat fighters but carry a large and varied load of weapons (automatic cannons, machine guns, rockets, guided missiles, and bombs) and have the ability to fly close to the ground." Maybe they can carry torpedos too, but that's not the norm, AFAIK. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I see that "Presumptive nominee" has been added to both Obama and McCain 's infoboxes - I'm going to check further to see if there was any discussion of this, but my first reaction is both should be removed - they are Senators, and that is the way I think their infoboxes should read- nominee isn't a job, and even after Senators, governors, presidents etc leave office Wikipedia lists that job as their highest position in their infoboxes. We wouldn't have "Previous nominee" in an infobox and I don't think we should have nominee. Whoever gets elected will have President added above Senator. Any thoughts on this? Obviously I think we should handle both infoboxes in the same way - infoboxes should be consistent across articles, even though articles can vary in content according to the individual subject and editors' choices. Tvoz/talk 04:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(There's some nuance in the guidelines. Eg

"[...Deletionists tend to want Wikipedia to be a traditional, rigorous encyclopedia that happens to be read online rather than in print. Inclusionists, generally, are not so tied to the traditional ideal and tend to want Wikipedia to be a compendium of all knowledge. Many editors self-identify as mergists, separatists, or some other more nuanced position, and may deal with recent material from a different perspective. [... ... ... ... ... ...] Editors writing today do not have an historical perspective on events that are going on today, and should not pretend to. It is perfectly fine to write about ongoing events with an eye towards benefiting future readers, but without attempting to prejudge what will be regarded as historically important ten (or 100) years from now."----"WIKIPEDIA:RECENTISM")

What I take from the cited piece is that there's some flexibility allowed in determining what would likely be considered most noteworthy long term?---- Anyway, I at random went to Alf Landon and there saw that it's first Landon's elected office that's listed in his infobox first and afterwards his having been his party's presidential nominee. Should we edit this article and Obama's to reflect this precedent? — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference with the Landon precedent is that in his life he never succeeded in winning. His candidacy became more of a footnote after the election passed. During the election cycle it is likely that all potential wiki-editors of the era would see the obvious point that while he was a nominee, that was more important than after he loss. After the loss it makes more sense for the nominee phase of his life to take second billing below the office he actually achieved--though I think regardless of win or lose being his party's nominee was a bigger deal than his time as governor.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The past nominee entries in the infoboxes of Landon, Adlai Stevenson, Michael Dukakis, and many others are the work of one editor, User:Darth Kalwejt, who has been adding them everywhere. I personally think they're visually confusing with the many different names in them — look at Bob Dole, for example. And they treat nominee too much like an office: Al Gore did not "succeed" Bill Clinton (!), John Kerry did not "succeed" Al Gore in any meaningful sense, and Obama is not "succeeding" Kerry. As for presumptive nominee, that seems ... presumptive. Past editors here have objected to the presumptive nominee entry being at the top of the McCain box because it looks a lot like it's predicting a McCain victory, in which he will succeed George W. Bush on November 4, 2008. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

On a separate but related matter, I agree with Tina's removal of the McCain campaign website from the infobox URL (and the same at Obama). The infobox should have the official Senate website; the separate presidential campaign article can have the campaign URL in its infobox. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, You're losing site of the bigger picture here. Being the presumptive nominee, as well as the actual nominee for president of the United States is a rare and high place in our political system. Win or lose these individuals become at least important historical footnotes because of the electoral success that took them to the general election. I just can't emphasize this enough--whether it's Dukakis, Humphrey, Stevenson, Landon, Gore, whoever--all of these men became more, not less, as a result of their efforts and success in making it to a general election as candidate for POTUS. These are biographical articles and to downplay such achievments misses critical facts in the lives of great men/Americans.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If this was all just one editor's idea, I think we should remove this "Presumptive Nominee" section from both articles - and I would be against having "nominee" as well after the conventions - it's not the "presumptive" that is the problem here. One of them will get "President" in due time. Tvoz/talk 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, that was one wise editor. Please don't over-ride such wisdom.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should put in the infobox that McCain is the Presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States. First of all, he is the presumptive nominee. True, it may not be a job, but he is still the presumptive nominee. Obama is the Presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States and we should do the same to the infobox on the page Barack Obama. Once the national conventions happens, then the things that say presumptive nominee will say nominee. Once the presidential election happens, it will go to President-Elect for whichever candidate wins and the Nominee box for the candidate that loses will just simply be taken off of the page. Footballfan190 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As per below, see Template talk:Infobox Officeholder#Nominee/Candidate section. What you are proposing is yet another idea, but so far no other positions that go into the infobox are transient. But put your suggestion there, and see what people think. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

An editing travesty

This is a travesty of editing. I strongly recommend replacing "presumptive nominee." I imagine Tim Russert up their laughing that this is even being discussed. The accomplishments of McCain and Obama in reaching this political pinnacle is historic and an important step in the lives of these men. While this remains in the text, it must be prominently diplayed in the infobox as well. All calls to the contrary ignore common sense. Best regards,--Utahredrock (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, Utahredrock, that there is a systematic misunderstanding in your mind about the meaning of article delineations and other organization principles on WP. I know that you approach this with good faith; I believe, however, you fail to understand how important careful organization is for the readership. This infobox issue is an example; but you also made a comment on the Obama talk page that that specific article should include "as much information as possible, the longer the better" (I paraphrase, but that was close).

Neither infoboxes nor articles in general are simply "the more the merrier" in terms of information presented. Focus is at least as important, far more in many cases, than presenting all possible facts in each place. Child articles and structural organization of information are extremely useful tools for editors and readers. Clearly, receiving the nomination will be significant accomplishments for McCain or Obama (or for Barr, Nader, etc). No one here, or anywhere else on WP, has ever suggested that information should not be available to readers; it's in the first sentence of the lead of this article, for example. But stuffing every inappropriate fact in every location makes the entirety of the encyclopedia inaccessible. Each bit of information should be available in the locations readers can most reasonably expect it. An office-holder infobox should be for, y'know, offices held. LotLE×talk 00:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the more the merrier that I promote, but including all relevant facts--I don't understand the overemphasis on keeping articles short, especially on major figures. I am also curious as to who wrote the above comment. There is no signature. Cheers, --Utahredrock (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC) PS, to whoever wrote that, I absolutely agree, I do have a systematic misunderstanding in my very small mind, especially on this issue of prominently highlighting "presumptive nominee" in the infobox. Please don't worry about me though, my obvious small-minded and narrowly focused advocacy of this point is not something I lose sleep over.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I get paid (a lot of money) as a writer, so I have a sense that paying attention to the needs of readers is crucial. It's always harder to write less than to write more, but doing so is the greatest service to them. A busy infobox with too much information hides the parts that really belong there, just as an overly-long article hides the content that readers want and deserve most. LotLE×talk 00:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I get paid a lot as a writer too (which is highly irrelevant to this discussion)--Utahredrock (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC), do we need to get into a contest RE who gets paid more.  ; ) --Utahredrock (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that McCain is a presumptive nominee is more important than the fact that he's a Senator, and that's the information that readers will want most. So I propose that you delete the office-holder infobox and add a presidential nominee template. --70.142.54.69 (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Best place for template discussion

Is at Template_talk:Infobox_Officeholder#Nominee/Candidate_section.

Whatever the resolution of the matter, it is about how we should present (presumptive) candidates and office holders in a general way, not about the specific achievements or status of McCain specifically. In truth, WP lacks a real consistency in its use of office-holder infoboxes, and promoting a greater stylistic consistency would benefit the encyclopedia generally. LotLE×talk 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI Elmc FAC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life and military career of John McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

disability insurance

I recently heard McCain was on disability insurance. This article suggests what I heard was true. Is this verifiable? If it is, shouldn't it be in the article? Kingturtle (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That LA Times article is already in this Wikipedia article. See footnote 69 (also see discussion of "physical limitations" in the lead). It's also in the sub-article Early life and military career of John McCain.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I need a more thorough explanation as to why this edit was no good. Kingturtle (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the edit summary said: "Revert. Please see WP:SS. This article only summarizes what's in the sub-article. Also, '2007' breaks chronology. And, we don't give other dollar amounts such as salary." WP:SS explains how "summary style" articles are written. A summary style article summarizes what's in a sub-article. In this article, there's a link to the sub-article at the beginning of each section. So, you'd have to go to the sub-article, and see if the info you want to insert would fit, and whether there's consensus to insert it into the sub-article.

Also, this article is written chronologically, so it kind of breaks the chrnology to insert 2007 pension income into a section about his early life an military career. Moreover, I don't see the need to give a dollar amount for this, if we don't provide dollar amounts for other stuff such as McCain's salary, or the proceeds from his books.

This article already repeatedly mentions that he has lifelong physical limitations (in the lead), that he has a military pension, that he can't raise his arms above his head, et cetera, so I also think more about this would probably be WP:Undue weight. That's about as thorough an explanation as I can give at this point.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle is a bureaucrat, so I'm sure there's no need to explain WP:SS. But I agree with Ferrylodge that the addition "In 2007, he received $58,358 for this pension." was out of place. One, it jumps the chrono badly. Two, it's a numeric figure suddenly thrown in without useful context. Is that a high amount compared to other military disability pensions? Low amount? How does it compare to other pensions for these kinds of wounds? Does the pension system look at whether the wounds hamper the veteran's current job, or any possible job? And so forth. The Los Angeles Times article tries to get into some of these questions, but the answers aren't quite clear, and as Ferrylodge says, diving into a whole digression on this would grant it undue weight. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Puff piece?

I'm sorry that Wikipedia has allowed this to become a "puff piece" for John McCain & that several entries about his temper, his endangerment of his airplane when he was shot down over Viet Nam & his unwise remarks about Janet Reno & Chelsea Clinton have been deleted. S2grand (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)s2grand

Well, the main article on his cultural and political image gives all the details about the Chelsea joke, including McCain's apology, the White House reaction, et cetera. Not everything in the sub-articles can go in this main article, which is why sub-articles exist. This main article does mention the Chelsea joke, but doesn't quote it, and interested readers are given links so they can find out more about this bad joke from the Clinton presidency if they want to.

The section of this article on his cultural and political image discusses his temper, and includes some pretty severe comments by Senator Cochran, so I don't see any puffery there. And please provide details about endangerment of an airplane. I don't know about that.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Negative material in the article about McCain includes the following. He was ranked 894/899 in college, has physical limitations from his injuries, has accepted blame for extramarital affairs during his failed first marriage, began a relationship with his current wife while still married to his first wife, and opposed creation of Martin Luther King Day. Moreover, he received trips on Charles Keating's jets, and was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down his line-item veto victory. He was criticized for accepting funds from corporations and businesses under the Commerce Committee's purview. The 2000 campaign left McCain in a "very dark place". If inaugurated in 2009 he would be the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency. He has been treated for skin cancer. He has admittedly made ill-considered remarks. He acknowledges being impatient. He made a joke in 1998 about the Clintons that was not fit to print in newspapers. He is known for being prickly and hot-tempered, and he has used profanity and shouting with colleagues, one of whom says: "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." Plus more.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

S2grand, what exactly does "his endangerment of his airplane when he was shot down over Viet Nam" mean? McCain was flying into one of the most heavily defended airspaces in military history. Lots of U.S. aircraft were shot down. It is absolutely no discredit to McCain that he got shot down. See Early life and military career of John McCain for more details. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Adopted

McCain's first two children are adopted. That should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.245.237 (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is: "On July 3, 1965 McCain married Carol Shepp, a model originally from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[12] McCain adopted her two young children Douglas and Andrew.[18][20] He and Carol then had a daughter named Sidney.[21][22]" Wasted Time R (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentences that need attention

Some of this may have been discussed before; if so, I apologize!

"he was a friend and leader for many of his classmates," - should this be in a biography? Is this relevant, and can it even be considered to be a fact?

Well, it's in the "real" biographies that have been written about McCain, such as Robert Timberg's; why shouldn't it be in ours? McCain's Naval Academy experience shows several different aspects to his personality and character, that also show up again in his POW time and in his political career. More than most political figures, McCain is character-driven rather than ideology-driven, and so tracing his character's development is an important role of this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"After he regained consciousness, a crowd attacked him, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him;" - I believe this has been disputed by his captors, though I cannot find a reference for that now. This dispute should be mentioned. (As a practical matter, why would they bother to first drag him ashore, only to then start beating him?)

Some good samaritan civilians pulled him out of the lake, while some (different) angry civilians then beat him. Such a divergence of response is not uncommon in such a situation. Read this account about a North Vietnamese man who was the leading claimant to have led the rescue, and who acknowledges that McCain was beaten once he was ashore. And see Early life and military career of John McCain for more on the shoot-down et al. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Although McCain chooses not to make it a "talking point," James ("Jimmy") served in Iraq until February 2008. - The first half of this line is really strange. I believe it should simply be omitted.

I don't know how this got in. It's completely out of chrono sequence, is badly phrased like you say, and is redundant based on what is later said in the "Cultural and political image" section. I've removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"All of John McCain's family members are on good terms with him," - come on, is this relevant? factual?

Yes, it's factual, as several biographies and newspaper stories attest to. Yes, it's relevant — that his first wife, and his children from that marriage, including two whom he adopted from her first marriage, are all still on good terms with him is quite an accomplisment, especially after his behavior that ended that first marriage. This says something about his force of personality and his willingness to accept blame. These are notable characteristics in a political figure. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"and he has defended them against some of the negative consequences of his high-profile political lifestyle." - I think this goes without saying. Don't many politicians act in this way?

This is indeed kind of vague, because it's summarizing what's in the Cultural and political image of John McCain article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, here's some of the material from the sub-article: "McCain is known for his responses to attacks upon his family. An opponent of his in the 1982 Republican House primary contacted his first wife Carol, seeking negative material on McCain.[74] She refused to discuss her marriage, and then next time McCain met the opponent, he said: 'I understand you called my ex-wife. I want you to know that, campaign aside, politics aside, you ever do anything like that again, anything against a person in my family, I will personally beat the shit out of you.'[74]"Ferrylodge (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Be interested in your opinion. Since this is an article that is undergoing much revision currently, I am hesitant to just change the article myself. --KarlFrei (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Towards the end (next-to-last paragraph) of the section on his military career, I find this phrase: "as he already made plans to run for Congress and said he could 'do more good there'." The verb tense is incorrect. It should read, "as he already had made plans" or "as he had already made plans...." Chain27 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain political positions figure

[copied here from User talk:Wasted Time R ]
I saw the graph you made about McCain's political positions, it looks very nice. However, I think it might be better if you changed it so that only one scale is used on the vertical axis. For instance, 0 could be 'completely liberal' and 100 could be 'completely conservative'. This would make it more immediately clear that these two organizations actually are very much in agreement on what they think about John McCain (just give it different scores). --KarlFrei (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, but I think it's a bad idea. First, the two organizations rate somewhat different sets of votes, so the scores are not necessarily complements of each other; if you look at the chart, you'll see there are years when the sum of the two scores is less than 100, other years where is sum is greater than 100. Second, doing what you propose would be considered WP:OR, a major no-no. Look at Talk:Political_positions_of_John_McCain#Gun_Owners_of_America_Rating, where I got hammered for saying that the average of C- and F- is D-. It's best we just chart the actual scores the organizations give, and let the caption explain what the axes mean. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry, but that this would be original research is completely ridiculous. You were clearly right there about the D-. (I believe that the problem was more that the average in that case might not be relevant.) In the present case, it means that we are basically not allowed to note that 100 - 15 = 85, because that would be "original research". I read the Wikipedia page on it. We are talking here about simple maths, so this does not even require a source ("Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source").

If the problem here is that this graph constitutes synthesis, then this is also the case with the current scaling, since you combined two sources to create it... --KarlFrei (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

KarlFrei, can you suggest a way to modify the caption that might address your concern, instead of modifying the image?Ferrylodge (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My goal here is really to get the image changed. In my opinion, the current image gives the wrong impression that these organizations have very different opinions about John McCain, but the only reason for this is that they use different scales (because they have different opinions of what is good, I guess). The text does explain the situation, but I think that a modified figure would be much clearer (better than a thousand words?) --KarlFrei (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with WTR that it would be best to simply graph the numbers provided by the ACU and ADA. The title of the image is "McCain's Voting Scores." Maybe the title could be modified to make things more clear. For example: "McCain Has Voted Conservatively", or something like that.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that would lead to endless battles over whether he's really a maverick, whether he's really a conservative, blah blah. Different people will draw different conclusions from this chart. Let them. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, I respect your opinion, but I think the chart is fine the way it is. The natural visual interpretation is: as his conservative scores went down, his liberal scores tended to go up. I don't have any plans to change the chart, other than to keep updating it for each year's new scores (if he doesn't get elected prez). Wasted Time R (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with KarlFrei that the chart could be confusing to some people who glance at it quickly. However, if they spend some time looking at it, then it will make more sense. I still think that the title or caption might be edited to clarify a bit....maybe not to say that he voted "conservatively", but to say that his voting record has been viewed similarly by both the ACU and ADA.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise: graph both organizations, but put different scales at the left and right ends of the graph. One goes 0 to 100, the other goes 100 to 0. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which group's scale goes on the left and which on the right. This allows direct comparison of any perceived "shifts" by the two organizations, but involves no OR beyond deciding which way is up on a graph you've already made.

On the other hand, the current format would be best if you want to add additional organizations which use a 0 to 100 scale to it, which would be very desirable in itself. Wnt (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was unbiased?

This mentions supposed affairs and immigration reform takes up half his page? I looked at the Wikipedia page for Obama and it looked like he was to be knighted soon? Geez, have a balance. People actually look to Wikipedia for unbiased, un-political information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.222.246 (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It might interest you to know that there's currently a debate over whether or not to revoke the article's good article status...on the basis that it's written from too pro-McCain a perspective. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This must be a troll. Immigration reform is an important policy position he took. It gets half a paragraph in the "Fourth Senate term" section and one sentence in the "2008 presidential campaign" section, both completely appropriate. The breakdown of his first marriage is an important biographical development. His extramarital affairs, acknowledged by his biographers and indirectly by him, get one sentence in the "Military service and marriages" section. And the beginning of his relationship with Cindy is quite delicately referred to as a courtship! Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Far too delicately, in fact. One problem is trying to include military service and marriages under one section. I suggest that these unrelated topics be broken out separately. JamesMLane t c 16:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is written chronologically, so it's probably best to keep it that way. How does the chronological structure of the article affect how his initial relationship with Cindy McCain is described? I don't see that it does. I don't think we're omitting any pertinent facts about that initial relationship, and we're tracking the language of the cited source.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the source does use "courtship", but it's an odd word choice for the context where one of the people is already married. I've looked at dictionary definitions, and they don't discuss (and thus don't preclude) this use, but the general feel of the word is more oriented towards the traditional (think court, courtly) sense of unattached people moving towards engagement and marriage. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The source uses that word "courtship" twice, so it seems like a careful and deliberate choice of words. The word "courtship" means to try to win favor or goodwill, or to attempt to woo or attract someone. In contrast, a word like "affair" or "extramarital realtionship" would suggest hopping into bed. This article already explicitly says that McCain had "extramarital relationships" in Jacksonville, but that does not imply that he did the same kind of thing with the woman who would become his second wife, and it would be kind of tacky for us to say otherwise by departing from the language of the cited source, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Tacky! Heaven forbid. Look at the bright side: If this were the Obama article, we'd currently be on the 364th proposed revision of this paragraph, with top version changing twice an hour and half the editors involved getting hit with blocks. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should go over there and calm the waters. Just don't come back here, because you'd have flashbacks.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a Bermuda Triangle mission to me — Wasted Time R (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Writer of 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act?

A few days ago, some material was added regarding McCain's role on American Indian affairs in the Senate. Much of it was out of chrono and/or not crucial, and I've moved all that to various other articles, as indicated in edit summaries. But the biggest puzzle is the statement that "In June 1987, McCain introduced S.1303, which became the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a landmark law which has led to a $23 billion Indian gaming industry.[92]"

The cite is this 2006 San Diego Union-Tribune article, which says that McCain "was a lead author" of the 1988 Act. Trouble is, I can't find any other reliable source that says this. None of his biographies mention it, New York Times archive doesn't indicate it, web searches for other serious news outlets don't find it, etc. I see various Internet blogs and the like that repeat it or forms of it, but that means nothing. And from 2005 on, McCain has certainly been involved in efforts to amend the Act to limit off-reservation gaming and the like, but that's different.

It seems unlikely to me that a freshman senator would have had a major role in such legislation, even if he had done work on Indian affairs in this prior two House terms. But I suppose it's possible ... but unless we find some other reliable sources to confirm this, I think we need to take it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the more common drafts use terms like "sponsored" which are used more loosely in the media, but I verified myself on thomas.loc.gov that McCain was the primary sponsor on the bill when it was introduced on 6-2-87 (their notation; I assume that's June 2, not February 6). But I was having some trouble getting a usable link out of thomas.loc.gov so I used the article listed instead.

Note however that the identical bill in the House of Representatives was introduced a few days earlier, so maybe he didn't actually write the original bill, although apparently crucial revisions (e.g. the taxation question) were made in the Indian Affairs Committee.

While it might be peripheral to mention that a Supreme Court decision was needed to determine if the gaming revenue was taxable, I don't think it is useful to disassemble the section to the point that it is no longer clear that the IGRA created opportunities for congressional intervention that were the focus of the Abramoff scandal, that McCain took an early role on the Indian affairs committee in investigating that situation, and that he has subsequently authored amendments in 2005 which have been described as a response to it. Wnt (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

On just the link question ... I think this is a usable link for the Thomas S.1303 of 1987, although I agree, you'd think they'd have something that looked more like a permalink. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right, those are just session URLs that quickly expire, nothing usable. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

However ... that Thomas entry says the last major action on that bill was committee hearings on June 18, 1987. S.1303 didn't go anywhere after that. If you go to our article on Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, it says it is PL 100-497, which comes from S.555 introduced February 19, 1987 by Sen. Inouye, with three co-sponsors, none of whom is McCain. So maybe McCain was introducing alternate legislation regarding Indian gaming, that did not become the IGRA that was passed into law? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this report, written by someone on the National Indian Gaming Commission, is the best source I've seen so far: "Congress then began to look at various ways to regulate Indian gaming. It was finally decided to pass legislation that would provide an overall macro regulation. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (P.L. 100-497) was passed in 1988. Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI), Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and Representative Morris K. Udall (D-AZ) were primarily involved in the drafting of the Act." So even if S.1303 didn't go anywhere, McCain was still a primary force in the legislation. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pages 60-64 of W. Dale Mason's Indian Gaming: Tribal Sovereignty and American Politics also confirm a McCain role, first as a House member when earlier versions were being considered, then as a Senate member. I'm going to update both Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the McCain articles with some of this. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've made updates to Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, and this article for all this. As for the question of jumping forward to address McCain's post-Abramoff actions, that's something we usually don't do, because the article is organized chronologically. Where we usually address positions over time is in the Political positions of John McCain article, and I have created a new "Indian affairs" section within that article to collect all of McCain's legislative initiatives and whatnot in that area. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the version I see now still violates chronology by going on to say that he would be chairman of the committee, and also I suppose by saying that Indian gaming would be a $23 billion industry. Chronological organization is not kind to single-topic paragraphs. If you're going to go as far as you do now it seems just as reasonable to mention IGRA, Abramoff, and 2005 amendments all in one place. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've reorg'd the Senate Indian affairs material. I pulled Abramoff out of the presidential campaign section, and now everything is in two places in the Senate bio sections: one describes the 1980s and IGRA, while the other describes the 2000s (and mentions first stint as Indian Affairs committee chair in the 1990s) and Abramoff and possible amendments to IGRA. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

networth again

there was already a lengthy discussion that ultimately led to the removal of john mccain's networth. past discussion i checked the article this morning and found out it's been added once again. why? obama, clinton, or any of the other candidates or politicians for that matter don't have their networth listed in the info box. it has no relevance to the article and is unfair to the other articles. including his networth clearly leaves a negative connotation (also known as rich republican) which is not necessary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton do have their networths in the infobox. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Problem #2 - i think the estimate is a little off. no sources are cited in the CNN money link. ive done some digging and found this: 1 and 2 and 3 estimates range from 1.5 million - 40 million. The CNN links contradict themselves also. i personally think the current listing is a grossly overstated, as the majority of the wealth is from mccain's wife, cindy. i think this needs to be established in the article. mccains personal wealth is only relevant, not the combined. and even if we are combining it, it's still grossly overstated. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very difficult giving a net worth for John, given the nature of the family situation. If you just list what's his, it's too low, given that his wife is rich; if you list the combined amount, it's too high, since most of it isn't under his name or his control. At one point I listed both of them separately in the infobox, with the idea that that would present the situation as accurately as possible, but that was gonged. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

my only concern is that mccains page includes networth not in the same fashion as clinton or obama. if we're going to continue with the combined worth, the current figure is way too high. the source used conflicts with other cnn reports, and several other sources. it needs to be changed. this is purely about facts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration with the Enemy in Violation of UCMC

To put in quotation marks, the fact that McCain participated in radio ads bashing the US and praising North Vietnam FALSELY suggests that it was not propaganda, or that it was only propaganda in name only. He violated US law by making those recordings. He also gave classified information to the N Vietnamese that likely resulted in the deaths of US airmen. See interview with Colonel Earl Hopper, reporting McCain's admission that he betrayed US intelligence giving bombing targets and runs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth2powder (talk • contribs) 12:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As Early life and military career of John McCain makes clear, under heavy physical coercion McCain did exceed the bounds of the UCMC twice, once in the first few days of his POW time when he gave some information about his ship and squadron and intended target, one in August 1968 when he gave his "black criminal, air pirate" "confession". Virtually all the POWs made statements and false confessions that exceeded the Code under torture; read either Hubbell's P.O.W. or Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound, the two standard treatments on American POWs in Vietnam. The June 1969 radio broadcast was just an airing of the August 1968 statement. The assertion by Hopper or others (all of whom were obsessed by the POW/MIA live prisoners issue, and thus obsessed with discrediting McCain, who didn't believe live prisoners existed) that any of McCain's statements resulted in deaths of U.S. airmen is utterly unsupported by any reliable sources or evidence (what he told them in the first instance didn't tell them anything they didn't already know or could take military advantage of). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't this be solved by adding "potentially" before "..causing america death" or whatever or by quoting the Colonel?Jasev01 (talk) 3:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because there isn't a single reliable source that believes that charge. By the way, this article from The Journal of Military History, cited in the Elmc article, will tell you what kind of military information the North Vietnamese would have actually found useful. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To my understanding John Mccain said it in himself. Page 193-194, Faith of My Fathers by John McCain and an article U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973- "After being periodically slapped around for "three or four days" by his captors who wanted military information from him, McCain called for an officer on his fourth day of captivity. He told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." ""Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." Page 193-194, Faith of My Fathers by John McCain" Also just as a point, Phoenix New Times, March 25, 1999 -- Two former POWs, Air Force Colonels Ted Guy and Gordon "Swede" Larson, said in a feature article that while they could not guarantee that McCain was not physically harmed, they doubted it. Both Guy and Larson were senior ranking officers (SRO's) in McCain's POW camp at a time he claims he was in solitary confinement and being tortured. Larson told the New Times, "Between the two of us, it's our belief, and to the best of our knowledge, that no prisoner was beaten or harmed physically in that camp [known as 'The Plantation']. "My only contention with the McCain deal is that while he was at The Plantation, to the best of my knowledge and Ted's knowledge, he was not physically abused in any way. No one was in that camp. It was the camp that people were released from." An interview with the jailor from Vietnam says the same thing..<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7459946.stm> I I don't mean to slander him but since he said it and there are so many sources it seems worth mentioning if even in passing since the article seems to have such a slant that this guy was beaten so badly and whatever else. [User:Jasev01|Jasev01]] (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement by Tran Trong Duyet says that no American prisoners were tortured in North Vietnam. This is the North Vietnamese (now Vietnamese) line, but utterly lacks credibility. The accounts of brutal mistreatment and torture of the American prisoners are many and are collaborated by each other and by medical exams they got upon their return to the U.S. You won't find one reliable source anywhere to support this kind of contention. If you're going to believe this, you're going to believe anything, and WP is not in that kind of business. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That under coercion, McCain gave them ship and squadron name and intended target is acknowledged by everyone, and is already in the Early life and military career of John McCain article. You neglect to include the next sentence of Faith of My Fathers: "Pressed for more useful information, I gave the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, and said they were members of my squadron. When asked to identify future targets, I simply recited the names of a number of North Vietnamese cities that had already been bombed." Why do you leave out these sentences? The Early life and military career of John McCain article doesn't, because it is an accurate account of what happened, not the one-sided treatment you are trying to put together. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the Guy/Larson thing, yes it is true that "the Plantation" served the function of a showplace camp, and that physical mistreatment was rarer there. But it did occur to several POWs, including McCain. This is covered in Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound, one of the two definitive treatments of all the American POWs in Vietnam. See pages 340, 363, 364, 487, where they discuss other POWs roughed up there. All of this is covered in a footnote in the Early life and military career of John McCain article. Also note that Ted Guy's view was a bit suspect, because his statement about McCain suddenly cropped up in 1991, after he had switched his position of live prisoners in Southeast Asia. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Jasev01 -- I've addressed part of that, and done a full amendment of the pertinent paragraphs, in my suggested amendments just below yours. Feel free to give suggestions for things to amend in mine. Utahcarol (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrections to military service paragraphs

I am submitting this edit for reconsideration. I became ill shortly after I previously submitted it, and was not able to defend it because of my illness. I am now “fighting fit” and able to discuss this. The issues I am addressing are serious, and deserving of consideration and acceptance. If McCain is going to be portrayed in Wikipedia, it is imperative that the full and accurate portrayal be given. It isn’t being given now. As I will say several times throughout this presentation, my suggested amendments come from McCain’s own words. I’ve cited the sources below, and have included the coding to make the references appear at the bottom of the discussion page for easy review.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the “Military service and marriages” Section do not contain all the facts concerning the situation they describe, and should be amended as follows. The apparent footnote numbers are as shown in the Wikipedia bio, and will automatically change as the section is updated. The data to be removed is lined through. The data to be added, together with additional footnotes is underlined

Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information.[36] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care[36] and announce his capture. His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of The New York Times [37] and The Washington Post [38] McCain was badly wounded. Attempts were made to question him which were unsuccessful, in part because he would only give his name, rank, serial number and date of birth, but mostly because he would pass out when he was hit. His captors kept saying, "You will not receive any medical treatment until you talk." After four days of captivity, and after becoming aware of the severity of his injuries, McCain told his captors, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." He was told it was “too late” but, after somehow discovering that McCain’s father was an admiral, McCain was taken to a hospital. McCain’s condition was stablilized, but he was told he would not get needed surgery for his injuries unless he provided military information. He then accurately provided the consequential information (identification of his ship, squadron and target on the date of shoot-down) they requested, together with providing some falsified information on issues that were inconsequential. McCain was also required, as a condition for treatment, to participate in a filmed interview. McCain participated in the filmed interview, which included a discussion of both the consequential information referenced above and also a discussion of other matters concerning ships on which he served in the seas around Vietnam.

McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33]After providing the requested information, McCain received one of two required surgeries on his leg. He did not receive the second surgery that had been previously deemed necessary (the surgery was not well done). He was discharged from the hospital in December 1967, having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and in pain. with his hair turned white,[33] McCain was sent to a different camp, which the POWs called “the Plantation, on the outskirts of Hanoi[39] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[40] The Plantation was the “showplace” camp where films, photos and interviews of POWs were staged, and served as the staging point for groups of POWs prior to their release. In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41]

Amendments to paragraph 9, “Military service and marriages” Section

In August of 1968, McCain states that a program of severe torture began on him.[44] McCain states that he was subjected to repeated beatings and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[44] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession" in which he "admitted" that he was a war criminal. This confession was both written and taped, and was broadcast both in POW camps and to the military personnel serving in the area around Vietnam.[33] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable,[45] but as he would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[46] His breaking point came four days after he says the torture began. His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[47] McCain states that heHe subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[48] Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements, with many enduring even worse treatment than McCain states he received, but did not make the demanded “confessions” and propaganda statements. Col. Bui Tin, who acknowledged at the beginning of his testimony in a hearing before the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs (McCain was present and active in the hearing, and didn’t question or refute Bui Tin’s assertion) that he was one of McCain’s interrogators . Bui Tin told people, including David Hackworth that McCain was a “special prisoner” and was never tortured. Bui Tin made no representations concerning beatings which did not reach the level of torture.

COMMENTS ON EDITS

1. 1. The full story if his capture and treatment requires the addition of the facts concerning his offering and providing military intelligence in return for treatment. If part of the story is to be told, then all the facts should be presented so that people can accurately and properly consider the incident. The fact that McCain is now trying to tell the story of his POW experience without telling all the facts concerning it mitigates in favor of adding the information here. My sources (the US News and World Report interview and McCain’s authobiography Faith of My Fathers are first-person recitations by McCain himself, and are inherently more accurate than an account written by another person.
   2. The information being used as the source for my edits comes directly from McCain’s own words, both in an interview given shortly after his return (which could be more accurately described as a narrative written by McCain, note – these are his own words) in the US News and World Report, May 14, 1973 issue, and in his own autobiography Faith of My Fathers (page numbers included in the various references included in the edit). I repeat – THESE ARE HIS OWN WORDS that I used to support my requested edits.
   3. The reference to announcements in newspapers is an attempt to imply, without stating anything definitive, how the Vietnamese found out the identity of McCain’s father. There is no specific evidence to corroborate this suggested happening. Yes, there were articles about the shoot-down in some newspapers, but there is no evidence that the Vietnamese holding McCain in captivity ever read them or heard about them. It is just as likely that they found out his father’s identity and rank from McCain himself (something I’ve seen alleged in several sources in my investigation of McCain, but since I can’t verify the sources and haven’t been able to track down solid corroboration of what happened, I haven’t included that suggestion in my proposed amendment). It is therefore more correct and accurate to say that “somehow” the Vietnamese found out about his father, without stating how that intelligence was discovered because, after all, that is the only thing that is definitely known.
   4. From pictures taken of McCain taking part in interviews through the time of his captivity, it is not possible to tell when his hair turned color. The only thing that can be definitively stated is that he had white hair at the time of his release. Therefore I removed the reference to hair color, and cited the matters he described in Faith of My Fathers. I also made the statements more neutral and removed a POV slant to the paragraph.

References

Utahcarol (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Like most such attacks on McCain's POW record, yes you are using his own words, but twisting them to represent a different meaning. For example, you consider his naming of his own squadron "consequential", but his giving fake names for the other members of his squadron "inconsequential". Why? You also keep trying to take out that McCain was the most badly wounded POW of any that reached Hoa Lo Prison, which is sourced to Hubbell's P.O.W., one of the two definite studies of all the American POWs in Vietnam. Why? You also claim that most other POWs did not make anti-American statements or "confessions" under torture. This is patently not true. As Hubbell page 548 says, "During captivity, virtually all the prisoners had yielded something to the enemy." Indeed this is a theme of both Hubbell and Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound, the other standard work. The resisting POWs would try to hold out as long as they could, then give false information if they could, then if broken try to recoup their spirit so they could hold out a different time. McCain did what the others did. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore you are using weak sources. Bui Tin may have been present for a few of McCain's interrogations, but there is nothing that says he was one of McCain's torturers, and his testimony to the Kerry Committee is all about the POW/MIA live prisoners issue (Bui Tin said there weren't any), not what happened in the prison camps. The other "new" source, Insight on the News, is not a WP:RS. It's a Moonie publication that prints all sorts of speculative stuff. The claims about what Bui Tin said re torture in that are second- and third-hand. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A follow-up. I've checked Bui Tin's 1995 autobiography, Following Ho Chi Minh: The Memoirs of a North Vietnamese Colonel . The only mention of McCain in the entire two hundred pages is a photo of him with McCain in October 1991, when he came to Washington to do his Kerry Committee testimony. That's it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Another follow-up. I've found a PBS forum dealing with the American POWs, where Bui Tin answered some questions about the experiences of all the POWs. His answers are here and here. As you can see, he says there was no torture of American POWs, just occasional slaps across the face or confinement to small cells. This completely flies in the face of many, many testimonies by American POWs that the treatment they got was far, far worse than that. So whatever Bui Tin may have said about McCain's treatment isn't credible either. (As far as I can tell, Tin's general view is that North Vietnam's conduct during the war was generally okay, it's post-war that Vietnam messed up, and that's why he became a dissident and left.) Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On another point, you're wrong about why the NYT and WaPO stories about his shoot-down are included. It's not to suggest that these stories told the North Vietnamese that McCain was an admiral's son, because if you read them you'll see that both stories already include the news of Hanoi announcing McCain's capture! The point was to show, rather than tell, that McCain was a high-profile POW from the beginning. As for how the North Vietnamese found out that McCain was an admiral's son, it was no secret ... this NYT story from July 1967, written right after the Forrestal fire three months before the shoot-down, already profiled McCain as "the son and grandson of two noted admirals." All the North Vietnamese had to do is read the papers, and we know they were always reading U.S. media to see what the level of U.S. domestic support was for the war. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"...if you read them you'll see that both stories already include the news of Hanoi announcing McCain's capture!"

The curent version of the wikipedia article states "Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care[36] and announce his capture". The NYT article is dated the day after his capture, and cites Hanoi's announcement. The announcement wasn't made 4 days later as the current version of this article, taken together with McCain's timeline, would suggest. Biederman (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The NYT article came out two days after his capture, including one day for the International Date Line difference (it's customary in writing about the Vietnam War to use Vietnam local time for all times and dates of things that happened there). But where do we say that the announcement was four days later? We don't. Yes, McCain's accounts say it was about four days between the time of his shootdown and the time the North Vietnamese told him they'd give him medical treatment because he was the son of a big admiral. Why the discrepancy? He was unconscious much of the time and in tremendous pain, so he may well have lost track, and he doesn't claim to know exactly. Or, their public announcement may have happened first, and then later the word got filtered down into the command hierarchy of the prison camp system. Not knowing, I have always left the 'four days' out of both this and the Elmc article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there somewhere a timeline, outside of the contradicting McCain/NYT versions, that supports the statement "Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care and announce his capture"? Because from the source documents I have accessed from this article - the NYT and USN&WR pieces - the announcement part of this statement doesn't appear to be supported. Not knowing, perhaps the two things - medical care and announcement - should not be linked? Either there's a bust in the timelines, or Hanoi radio made an announcement and it took a while for the information to get to the prison. Why not take the announcement part out, unless one of the sources supports it, since some of the sources call it into question? I don't know who else it will bother, but it raised questions for me. Biederman (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've decoupled the two in the text, as you suggested. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Natural born citizen

Should there be any reference to the question whether or not McCain is a natural born citizen? It appears that there are strong arguments that he is not. Is that something worthwhile adding in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.10.2 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the 2008 presidential campaign section.

"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 as well as a unanimous Senate resolution indicate that he is nevertheless a natural-born citizen of the United States, a constitutional requirement to become president.^[193][194]"

Unless it becomes news again if someone tries to make an issue of it, I don't think any more information would need to be added. --Onorem♠Dil 15:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

...and now it has its own section. I didn't realize that this was back in the news. --Onorem♠Dil 15:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no way that Senator McCain is legally eligible to be elected US President. Chin's analysis is foolproof. Nonetheless, the law may simply be ignored...which itself has precedent. This is not a good way to run a ship, of course, and ideally should be clarified before the election. The existence of this issue should come as no surprise, because many legal loopholes exist in supposedly long-settled law. Another loophole is that former President Clinton cannot be elected President, yet can become President by being elected as vice-president, and then somehow ascending to the Presidency. As I understand it, the general legal consensus is that such loopholes will exist until after such an event occurs, at which time Congress will pass laws to clarify the issue. I am surprised that so much had been made of Clinton's loophole, but so little about McCain's ineligibility. RK (talk)

I'm going to revert creation of this new section, for several reasons. First, this article is written in summary style, which means that it should merely summarize the sub-articles. However, I don't see Professor Gabriel Chin mentioned in the sub-article. Also, I think it gives undue weight to Professor Chin to mention him repeatedly in this main article. It would probably be adequate to add another footnote, rather than an entire subsection. I read in the NY Times today that Obama supporter and famous law professor Laurence Tribe is disagreeing with Chin's conclusions, so why mention Chin but not Tribe? Additionally, since this is a biography of a living person, it would probably be a good idea to build some consensus about this, before creating a new subsection. Recentism is also a concern; we shouldn't add a new subsection every time some incident occurs on the campaign trail.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We should restore this section. If you want to add the views of Lawrence Tribe, then please do so. In fact, I agree with your suggestions. Nonetheless, we must not delete material for these reasons. I know this wasn't your intent, but you kind of are trying to force other Wikipedia contributors to make the changes that you'd like. If you honestly think that a section lacks balance or sources, then please add this yourself. That's how Wikipedia has always been meant to work, and in fact is official policy. Nonetheless, this kind of wholesale deletion is one of the problems that Wikipedia has been suffering from for the last ten years. You're trying to do the right thing - and making valuable constructive criticisms - but instead of writing to me here, make the actual edits yourself in the main article! I don't see anything bad about you are proposing, and in fact it seems worthwhile. 70.109.157.179 (talk)

Also, I would argue that this isn't recentism. This issue has long been known. John McCain's status as a natural born US citizen - whatever it may be - is pretty damn old - as old as he is!  :) This is the opposite of recentism. It is old news that people somehow swept under the rug. (As a personal aside, that's not the way to deal with constitutional issues. This issue should be dealt with through rulings from Federal courts, and if necessary, more explicit congressional laws.) 70.109.157.179 (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I did not remove this issue from this article. In fact, I added a footnote regarding Gabriel Chin. After I did that, someone went ahead and added more info about Gabriel Chin to John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008. If you think that this article should include more material about this issue than is at John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008 then that would seem to violate WP:SS. Considering the new fotnote about Gabriel Chin in this article, and the new material about Gabriel Chin at John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008, I think the issue is now pretty well covered.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, in this article you added the NYT story about the Chin paper as an extra footnote supporting the statement "A bipartisan legal review as well as a unanimous Senate resolution indicate that he is nevertheless a natural-born citizen of the United States, a constitutional requirement to become president.[193][194][195]" The whole point of the Chin paper is that he thinks the 'bipartisan legal review' got it wrong! This won't fly. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've accordingly added a phrase.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's much better! Wasted Time R (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The difficulty of dealing with this issue (which has a long history in WP, including an article that lost at AfD) is that it has two very different aspects: (a) a theoretical constitutional-legal matter, where the involved law is complex (the Chin paper lost me at the "Insular Cases") and where intelligent folks can and have come up with differing opinions (eligible, not eligible, law too murky to say); and (b) a practical matter, where both the legal and the political establishment have completely lined up behind McCain and where the sure-thing reality is, that if he wins in November he'll be president in January. Whatever we say here has to reflect these aspects. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't give a crap about (b). If the Constitution and statutes, properly construed, say that McCain is not a "natural born citizen" then he's ineligible. But, in my opinion, the Constitution and statutes clearly do say that he's a "natural-born citizen." It seems exceeedingly clear that McCain was a U.S. citizen at birth. I'll give you a quick and free explanation.

The 14th Amendment (enacted in 1868) says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Additionally, a statute in effect when McCain was born said: "the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States." The latter phrasing goes all the way back to the Naturalization Act of 1795.

Professor Chin is making the argument that McCain was out of the limits, but not out of the jurisdiction, of the United States, and therefore fell into a little gap in the above-quoted provisions. But Chin's argument doesn't seem plausible, in my view. Here's what the Supreme Court said in an 1898 case (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark): "The words 'in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the congress which proposed the amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well-known case of The Exchange, and as the equivalent of the words 'within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,' and the converse of the words 'out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,' as habitually used in the naturalization acts." If the one is the converse of the other, then there is no gap. Congress may have done some gap-filling after McCain was born, out of an abundance of caution, but it wasn't really necessary. And even if there was any gap, it would clearly have been an unintentional gap, and therefore can be filled by the operative English common law rule that was in force immediately after ratification of the U.S. Constitution. As Blackstone wrote, "all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cohabit"

Ending cohabitation is not synonymous with separating. "The law presumes that husband and wife cohabit, even after a voluntary separation has taken place between them; but where there has been a divorce a mensa et thoro, or a sentence of separation, the presumption then arises that they have obeyed the sentence or decree, and do not live together."[13]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Now I remember why I didn't go to law school as I had once planned. So what happened on Jan. 7, 1980? Are you saying that one or both of them filed for a legal separation then? From the LAT article, it sounds like the first legal activity was the Feb. 19, 1980 petition for divorce by him; the reporters don't reference any legal documents before then. Could something else have happened on Jan 7, for he to have named that as the date in his petition? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::The State of Florida probably had a form that required McCain's lawyer to say when "cohabitation" ended. So, chances are, the attorney just made up a date so the form would look filled out. Welcome to the legal world.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

But your belief is, they physically separated sometime before that, in 'later 1979', right? Whenever that date was, why wouldn't the lawyer put that down on this form? Why would he put in a made-up date? Doesn't make sense. It's more likely to me that they decided to separate sometime late in 1979, but didn't do it until after the Christmas/New Year break, to keep up appearances for the children or something like that. In any case, if we have to give a separation date in our articles, we have a choice of a legal document filed by one of the principals at the time, or the memories of outsiders interviewed 20 or more years later. Which do you think we should give more weight to? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources that say they separated later in 1979. They may have decided not to break the news to the kids until after the holidays, and thus the split may not have become formal and legal until January 7 of 1980. But a formal and legal end to cohabitation is not necessarily synonymous with "separation," as indicated in the quote above. You can go look up cohabitation in Black's Law Dictionary, and it says that cohabitation is the "mutual assumption of those marital rights, duties, and obligations which are usually manifested by married people, including but not necessarily dependent on sexual relations." In contrast, separation is often defined as "a (legal) arrangement by which a husband and wife remain married but live separately." Or, it can be defined as: "a form of divorce; a separation of man and wife which has the effect of making each a single person for all legal purposes but without ability to contract a new marriage." In any event, the LA Times in no way contradicts the notion that they separated in 1979, and we have multiple reliable sources that say they separated in 1979. The LA Times doesn't even say in so many words that they separated in 1980, but rather refers to an end to cohabitation. It may well be that they separated in a de jure legal sense on January 7, 1980 after having separated in a de facto sense in 1979. It seems like the article currently has this covered in the footnote: "Legal records indicate that John and Carol McCain continued to 'cohabit' (i.e. they shared the legal rights, duties and obligations of marriage) until January 7, 1980". You previoulsy indicated that Kristof is "God" in matters like this, so why not rely on him in combination with two others (WaPo and Alexander)?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Laws vary from state to state, and I am not an expert on divorce, or on Florida law. It appears that a "separation" in Florida does not require any action by a court, and there are various kinds (e.g. a "trial separation", et cetera). If you want to learn more, here's a book about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The three 1979 sources are reliable in the sense that they were trying their best to get it right, but they all were relying on people remembering something that had happened 20 years before; the LAT guys seem to be the first to have found the actual court records. And it's still not clear to me what you think happened on January 7. What made it de jure then? And your footnote language of "they shared the legal rights, duties and obligations of marriage" is making an assumption that that's what that McCain's Florida filing meant by "cohabited as husband and wife"; that's not a conclusion that the LAT story gives us. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried Google Web and Books searches for Florida together with "cohabited as husband and wife", and most of the hits looked like the natural meaning of living together ... saw some weird situations/scams too, like the couple that divorced but then pretended to still be married for 10 more years ... I don't care when the McCains actually separated, I'd just like something simple and clearly citable that we can use in the articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The main problem here is that the LA Times has simply quoted a legal document without any explanation for a lay person. The legal meaning of words is often different from the lay meaning, and the meanings can vary from state to state, and even from one statute to another in a single state, and even in one statute from year to year as the statute is amended.

Maybe this will help you: one ground for divorce in many states is "separation without cohabitation." You'll get a few hundred google hits for that phrase, indicating that separation can occur with or without cohabitation. Sometimes cohabitation means living under the same roof, even if one spouse is in the attic and the other is in the basement. Other times, cohabitation may refer to sexual relations. It's very difficult for me to discern what meaning applies to the January 7, 1980 date; you'd probably have to consult with a Florida divorce lawyer to get a definite answer. But I am fairly certain that a couple can be separated even though cohabiting.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Though not a reliable source, I found this interesting.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I say, (a) those were all from a year or more ago – I bet they've all blown up by now! I'm a skeptic about those kinds of unusual arrangments; (b) we have four sources, none of which say the McCains were separated but still living together, so your theory is pure speculation that might match what actually happened and might well be completely offbase; (c) I don't care when they separated, I don't care if it was month X or month Y or year Z, I just want to have one answer with one definitive cite that we can put in all these articles! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times doesn't say they separated in 1980. At this point, that inference of yours is Original research. All of the reliable sources say they separated in 1979. If reliable sources start saying 1980 instead of 1979, then we can say so too.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The LAT story says they "'cohabited as husband and wife' until Jan. 7, 1980." The writers clearly think this means that's when they separated, because they use it as the proof that McCain has made incorrect statements about having been separated earlier in his autobio: (LAT) "I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow," McCain wrote. "I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980." An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley. (end LAT) So I am using the LAT story as a secondary source, rather than trying to interpret the primary source (McCain's Feb 1980 legal filing). You are trying to interpret the primary source, which WP:PRIMARY says not to do: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Now yes, we do have a conflict between this secondary source and the earlier ones. That's what I wish we could resolve. But I'm not doing any OR. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I still think you are doing original research. Here's the full excerpt from the LA Times:

In his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley.

"I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow," McCain wrote. "I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980."

An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.

Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.

The LA Times is 100% correct that McCain's story that he told in his 2002 memoir did not mention anything about cohabiting until January 7, 1980 and thus the 2002 memoir was different from the story told by the court documents. But where does the LA Times say or imply that McCain separated on January 7, 2008? That's your inference, not their implication. The fact is, the McCains may well have separated in 1979, but then continued to live under the same roof for the kids' sake until after the holidays. Nothing in the LA Times says or implies otherwise. I assume you agree that some married couples get separated but continue to live under the same roof.[14]Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're never going to fully resolve this lacking further information. So how about we say in the main text, "He and his wife Carol then separated later in 1979[previous three cites] and stopped cohabiting in January 1980;[LAT cite] she accepted his request for a divorce in February of 1980,[cite] effective in April of 1980.[cite]" Does that work for you? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to reach out for a solution here, but....using the word "cohabit" like this would be very problematic. The LA Times only uses that word in quotes, and the quote is from a Florida legal document. We don't know at this point how Florida law (circa 1980) defined the term in this context. Do you think the term "cohabit" meant living under the same roof, or having sex, or what?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It means "cohabit". The other three sources that say the couple separated don't define what "separated" means either ... you've already pointed out there are many different kinds of separation (legal, informal, living together, living apart, etc) and we don't know what those interviewees meant by it either ... we'll just use the words "separated" and "cohabited" and let the reader figure out what it all might mean, which is all that we can do. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to use a word in the text that is archaic-sounding and ambiguous and a legal term of art that varies in meaning from state to state, then how about if we just move the material from the footnote up to the text? As in: "He and his wife Carol then separated later in 1979[previous three cites] and legal records indicate that they continued to 'cohabit' until January 7, 1980;[LAT cite] she accepted his request for a divorce in February of 1980,[cite] effective in April of 1980.[cite]"Ferrylodge (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. The "January 7" should be just "January", unless you add the specific dates for February and April as well. (That's a form consideration, not content; alike levels of precision.) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in question now reads: "He and his wife Carol became permanently separated in 1979, either before[62][63][64] or after[56][65][66] he met Cindy, and legal records indicate that John and Carol McCain continued to cohabit until January of 1980.[67]" The links are to wiktionary.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance, please let me know if this is okay, so we can conform the other articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF, "either before"!? After all our discussions on this, you try to slip this in after we've reached an agreement? No, it's not okay. More importantly, you're not dealing with me in good faith, and I don't appreciate it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WTR, you know very well that I'm not trying to slip in anything. Does one usually ask for explicit approval for a quoted sentence in an effort to "slip" something in?

More to the point, we have had further discussions today. Please don't tell me that I need to quote your words back to you. Today, you said that Kristof is no longer "God" on this subject, and you argued that 20-year-old memories relied upon by Kristof are fallible, and less reliable than material cited by the LA Times. Today, you also said that it's best to just lay out what all the reliable sources say, so the readers can judge for themselaves. Do I really have to quote this back to you?

Apparently, you now want to revert to the position that the WSJ and Boston Globe and Timberg are all so much less reliable than Kristof that we should hide what they say from the Wikipedia reader. Please re-think.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We had this whole long discussion a month ago, which you can see at the top of this page, about this. You yourself say "I tend not to believe" the "before" sources. We finally agree on the 'later in 1979' with just the three "after" sources, it goes into all the articles. All is quiet and good, until this one new piece of evidence comes in, a legal document that says they cohabited as husband and wife up until January 1980. And you think this one piece of new evidence now makes the "before" sources more likely to be true!? How could this possibly make the "before" claim more likely than it was before?? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What you or I personally tend to believe does not justify suppressing what we tend not to believe. If material is from a reliable source, then we should present it, regardless of whether we tend to believe it or not. Wikipedia articles are supposed to present alternative and competing views from reliable sources that don't all necessarily agree with each other. It's not our job to pick out the views and opinions and purported facts that we personally find most persuasive. You strongly advocated against including any "before" statements, because Kristof is supposedly infallible about matters like these. I reluctantly agreed. But today you're making arguments that are 18o degrees different, and I don't appreciate being whipsawed like that. We should present what's in the reliable sources, and not pick which reliable source we find more compelling.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(od) Yes, I was silly to talk about Kristof as God-like. He's fallible, just like everyone else on the planet. He probably did do the most legwork on this, as I said above, but he didn't look at the court documents. But you "doubted" he was God in the original discussion, so finding out he isn't can't have disillusioned you. More to the point, of all of the six existing sources we're bandying about here, Kristof with his "late that year [1979]" is the one closest to the new piece of evidence. Indeed, potentially, 'late in 1979' can be very near January 7, 1980. So if the new piece of evidence makes you lose faith in our existing sources, Kristof is the one you should lose the least amount of faith in.

As for reliable sources, just because a source is reliable doesn't mean every last thing it says is correct. Furthermore we're allowed to weight the pertinence and weight and strength of reliable sources with regard to a particular matter. Neither the BG nor WSJ stories did any investigating of the marital status, they were feature stories on candidate spouses that just accepted McCain's "before" statement at face value in passing. So the only real account that gives "before" is Timberg's. I have a lot of respect for him, but he may have been overly sympathetic here or he may not have researched it fully. Against him we have Kristof/NYT, Romano/WaPo, Alexander, Snopes.com, and now LAT. To me, that's a compelling argument for having our narrative just give the "after" case, using the wording that we previously agreed upon. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WTR, whether Kristof was “closest to the new piece of evidence” is not relevant, because the new piece of evidence proves when John McCain moved out of his residence, rather than proving when Carol and John first became permanently estranged. Many couples become estranged before moving to separate addresses, and some estranged couples even remain at the same address. I'm afraid that you are continuing to do original research here, by trying to squeeze a separation date from an LA Times article that does not give a separation date.

Note that Timberg interviewed Carl Smith, just like Kristof did.[15] Alexander interviewed Carl Smith too.[16] And they both came away with different “separation” dates than Kristof did.

You say that neither the BG nor WSJ stories did any investigating of the marital status, but that is an unwarranted assumption on your part. If I were a reporter doing a report about a divorce, I certainly wouldn’t consult with only one of the two parties. I can dig up plenty more reliable sources that use the “before” date if you like. Again, why not just present what the reliable sources say to the reader, and let the reader sort it out?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable to both of you (diff from current version indicated):

In April of 1979,[56] McCain met and began a courtship with dating Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[59] McCain recalls this as being after he and his wife Carol then permanently separated[some source]; other sources put the separation later in 1979.[56][62][63] and she accepted his request for a divorce Divorce papers were filed in February of 1980[56] listing January of 1980 as the legal end of cohabitation[LAtimes]. The divorce was effective in April of 1980.[20]

It seems long to me, but I'm not sure how to shorten it. Perhaps this version should go in the subarticle with a shorter summary here along the lines of:

In April of 1979,[56] McCain met and began dating Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[59] McCain requested a divorce from his wife Carol in February of 1980[56]. The divorce was effective in April of 1980.[20]

Deleting any mention of a separation date probably leads readers to assume the separation followed the start of the relationship with Cindy, but this seems to be a reasonable assumption. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean someone else is following all these back-and-forths? You have my sympathies ;-) For the long version, I don't like "dating" (not usually used in an extramarital context); I would use "extramarital relationship" (readers complain when we don't call a spade a spade on this) (but Ferrylodge is adamant on "courting"). Later, we need to indicate that McCain initiated the divorce and that she accepted it and that it was uncontested. So, basing this on what's currently in Early life and military career of John McCain, how about (only the bold part new/different):

In April 1979,[57] while attending a military reception for senators in Hawaii, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, eighteen years his junior,[182] a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch beer distributor, and Marguerite "Smitty" Hensley.[176] An extramarital relationship began, and they traveled between Arizona and Washington to see each other.[183] John McCain recalls this starting after he and his wife Carol permanently separated[some source]; other sources put the separation later in 1979.[the three sources] John McCain filed divorce papers in February 1980, which listed January of 1980 as the legal end of cohabitation[LAtimes]. She accepted at that time,[57] and the uncontested divorce became official in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on April 2, 1980.[184]

As for the short version, I still don't like "dating", but otherwise it does have the advantage of being the coward's way out – duck the separation issue completely! I could go for it, I think, but down the road a dozen editors will try to stick it back in. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WTR, by "some source" I assume you mean some other source than the three sources I've mentioned that state as objective fact that they separated "before" John met Cindy? I assume that you would like those three sources (Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Timberg) to go down the memory hole? Also, your phrase "She accepted at that time" is ambiguous; does it refer to January of 1980? And again, it's absurd to try to delete separation in 1979 from this article, since all six reliable sources confirm it, and none refute it.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Rick. Generally speaking, when there's a content dispute, I think it's best to stick to the issues of the dispute, rather than widening the dispute to additional matters. So, I would not support re-opening the "courtship" issue at this point (it's been discussed above). We can always re-open that dispute later, if you like. There’s no need to now edit the sentence about when McCain met Hensley. Incidentally, I don't recall that anyone previously suggested replacing "courtship" with "dating", so I'm open to considering it later(the cited source repeatedly used the word "courtship").

As for your idea of not mentioning in this article that they separated in 1979, we have six reliable sources that say they did, and none that say they didn’t. So, I would be against omitting that info from this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about introducing the courtship issue here. It strikes me as a ridiculous euphemism (and certainly plenty of other sources call it other things) but I'm good with deferring discussion on it. Ignoring the main article for the moment are you OK with WTR's version for the subarticle? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I'd like to know what is meant by "some source". Does that mean some other source than the three sources I've mentioned that state as objective fact that they separated "before" John met Cindy? Also, WTR's phrase "She accepted at that time" is ambiguous; does it refer to January of 1980?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have most of the sources used here, but by "some source" I meant something like either McCain's "Worth Fighting For" or the Timberg book (assuming "McCain recalls" is a reasonable description for how this is put in the Timberg book), i.e. a fairly direct quote. To resolve the acceptance date ambiguity perhaps "She accepted the divorce in February ...". -- Rick Block (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)"She accepted at that time" refers to the February divorce filing, not January. Everybody agrees that she did not contest the divorce. By "some source" I was just reusing Rick Block's formulation; the source should be Timberg. I do not consider that the BG and WSJ cites have any real value; they are profiles of Cindy, not of John-and-Carol's marriage. Ditto most of the other "before" sources I expect you would come up with; they just recycle McCain's statement as part of general background. Just like now, I could come up with 5 additional news cites that in practice just rehash the LA Times story; they wouldn't tell us anything new. If you can find sources that actually investigate what happened back then, and say that McCain really was separated before meeting Cindy ("We found a lease agreement that shows that John McCain rented a one-bedroom apartment for himself in February 1979", "We talked to colleague X who said that McCain told him at the start of 1979 that his marriage was hopeless and they were living on different floors", etc), then please bring those forth — those would be most excellent. As for "estranged", that's a new term that you're bring into this. I'm sure you can tell us what the legal meaning of it is, but since we don't have any sources that I know of that use it, I don't know why we need to involve it. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As most people understand, when two married people become permanently estranged from each other, they can be considered "separated." I previously gave this link to wiktionary, but here it is again. If you'd like to dispute it, then we can get into a big long definitional debate. It's common knowledge that some couples separate but remain either temporarily or permanently under the same roof.[17]

Regarding Timberg, he did not write that McCain recalled being separated before meeting Cindy. What Timberg wrote was: "When he [Lakeland] turned back, he spotted McCain across the room introducing himself to an attractive young blond woman. Lakeland was surprised. He knew that McCain, by then separated from Carol, liked women...." In other words, Timberg is stating here as objective fact when they separated, not characterizing what McCain thought.

I am curious why WTR is against citing the BG and WSJ on this subject, but is proposing to cite WaPo. I would not discriminate in this way, because they are all the most reliable sources possible.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I suggest we simply provide what the reliable sources say, to the reader, and let the reader decide: "He and his wife Carol became permanently separated in 1979, either before[62][63][64] or after[56][65][66] he met Cindy, and legal records indicate that John and Carol McCain continued to cohabit until January of 1980.[67]" As WTR said above: "let the reader figure out what it all might mean, which is all that we can do."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This sounds an awful like original research. I say we present the versions supplied by John and Carol. If they both say they were seperated in 1979 before he met Cindy, then that is what the article should say. No offence Ferrylodge, but your version (which I realize is a compromise) reads like this article is trying to prove that he and Cindy started dating prior to his seperation from Carol. Arzel (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, the proposal that I was responding to was: "John McCain recalls this starting after he and his wife Carol permanently separated[some source]; other sources put the separation later in 1979.[the three sources]" That sounds to me like every reliable source disagrees with McCain, which is simply false.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

further reading

See 2008 new book esp about John McCain's family and longer history McCain - Children of the Mist - Never Conquered [16:16, July 13, 2008 76.202.165.95]

Looks self-published and not a WP:RS to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)