Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life and military career of John McCain


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:52, 12 July 2008.

Early life and military career of John McCain
previous FAC (15:43, 5 April 2008)

Self-nominator. The major objection raised by the first FAC has been dealt with: McCain-written sourcing has been minimized, with in particular the POW section now being primarily based on the two standard works that cover all the American POWs in Vietnam, Hubbell's P.O.W. and Rochester and Kiley's Honor Bound. All remaining McCain-written cites now contain an explanation in the footnote for why they are being used. Another major improvement in the article came with the partial release of McCain's military records by the Navy a few weeks ago; the article now gives more specific dates, assignments, reasons for medals awarded, etc., than it did before. Various other improvements have been made since the last FAC as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Stylistic suggestion, but generally any section or subsection over about five paragraphs gets too dense for readers and probably should be broken into more sections or subsectioned. Specifically the Prisoner of War section is huge and daunting to even think about reading.
 * Ealdgyth, thanks for your comments and link checking as usual. Breaking the POW section into two parallel sections doesn't seem right, so I've divided it into three further subsections.  I may tweak the names, but we'll see if this works better.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better. I hope (read that as a hope, not a promise) to try to review this later more fully. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.irishabroad.com/Irishworld/IrishAmericaMag/augsept06/firstword/
 * Turns out this cite isn't needed anymore, because the other genealogical cite being used supports the Scots-Irish ancestry. Removed.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.mors.org/publications/phalanx/mar01/morss.htm for "There was a fixed Bachelor of Science curriculum taken by all midshipmen;"? It's already sourced to a much better source, probably can be eliminated.
 * The first source, the Naval Academy history web page, only says that the fixed B.S. curriculum started in 1933 and "later" was replaced by a much more elective curriculum. But we need the year, to support McCain's point that his poor class rank was partly caused by having to take a lot of courses he wasn't interested in/wasn't especially good at.  The Military Operations Research Society source is used to fix the date of the elimination of the fixed B.S. curriculum, which was 1968, a decade after McCain graduated.  Admittedly a symposium briefing document isn't as solid a source as a paper presented at the same symposium would be, but this material was likely taken from some other Naval Academy history that doesn't happen to be online (or if it is, I couldn't find it), and overall I don't see a reason to doubt it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Urf. Im not convinced this is a reliable source for the information, honestly. Check the Naval History sites? Just a guess, but given the date they changed the curriculum, perhaps it was connected to the Vietnam War and maybe something related to that will show it? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Am looking into this ... Wasted Time R (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the MORS cite has now been replaced by a 1977 article from the Air University Review journal (see this page for a description of the journal itself), which shows the reform to the fixed curriculum didn't start until shortly after McCain graduated, and didn't really take effect until around 1968. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good, all links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Looks great. What's a "dream-like" romance exactly? -- VegitaU (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From Timberg's The Nightingale's Song p. 46: "Even though he lived it, or something like it, McCain recounts his romance with Elena these days as if it were a dream. In some ways it was. But it wasn't just his dream. With minor variations, it was the dream of all but the most inert midshipmen. Duty, honor, country, sure, those things were important ... [but] the chance of someday being swept away and ravished by a beautiful woman in some exotic locale has always been an unspoken part of the deal. ... McCain's fling with Elena, though rare, was not all that rare.  Things like that happened often enough to keep that goofy dream alive."  Maybe I should add some of this to the footnote, to try to explain the usage.  And thanks for the comment and praise.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now done this. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments: In the section on "Family heritage", I wonder why the focus is exclusively on the paternal line of descent. This seems kind of sexist, unless his mother's side of the family consisted of a bunch of nobodys (and ditto for his paternal grandmother's ancestors, et cetera).  I mean, if we're going to discuss the family tree, why only focus on people who had the last name "McCain"?  That was a small fraction of the subject's ancestry, right? Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding "The family tree has a long heritage of American military service, with ancestors fighting ...", those ancestors include not just McCains but also various Youngs, who produced Elizabeth Young, who married Slew's father in 1877 [Faith of My Fathers pp. 18-20], so there is some inclusion there. Regarding the focus on Jack and Slew McCain, that's the natural thematic approach that every bio takes, but if there is something interesting in other parts of the tree, I'd be happy to see that in.  The other avenue to explore is the Teoc plantation in Mississippi, which might be worth a sentence.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * McCain's maternal grandfather was Archibald Wright, an interesting guy. He made a fortune as an oil wildcatter.  Lived to be quite old.  Born in Mississippi.  A stay-at-home Dad after he hit it rich.  (And a second-cousin four times removed of George Washington.)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added Archibald. I've also added Teoc plantation, along with the slaves (I know, possible trouble magnet, but I think it's in context), sharecroppers, and Mississippi John Hurt (how weird is that) aspects, along with a statement that McCain's heritage has always been military, not Southern.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to be clear that I did not ask for more info about his father's side of the family, such as slaves, Mississippi John Hurt, et cetera. Generally speaking, I think it's rarely necessary or useful for a Wikipedia biography to discuss distant ancestors whom the subject of the biography never even met.  We got into this kind of thing at the Mitt Romney article, where people wanted to include lots of info about polygamous great-grandparents and that sort of thing.  If distant ancestors are discussed in this article, I hope they at least stay here, and do not migrate into the main John McCain article.  Again, all of this stuff about his father's side seems undue weight, given the dearth of stuff about his mother's side.  It may be traditional to focus on patrilineal descent, but it's still sexist.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, adding the Teoc part was my idea, once the section was 'opened up' (I'd mulled over it previously). McCain did spend time at the plantation, so it and its history is relevant in the very brief way we now cover it. McCain makes a point that the ancestral attachment to a specific place made his grandfather's decision to leave it behind and adopt the rootless life of a naval officer more remarkable. Yes, the Mitt Romney goings-on were awful: people were trying to jam the whole LDS-polygamy history into that article.  That ain't gonna happen here.  Agree that there's no reason to add any of this to main article.  As for sexist, McCain's mother gets several mentions in what I wrote, as a significant influence on John.  Had she been born in a different era, she might have become a Navy Admiral herself, or an art professor, or who knows what.  As for her ancestors, find more good stuff about them, we'll put it in.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, how about that Roberta and Jack eloped in Tijuana, after her parents disapproved of the marriage proposal? Doesn't this seem more pertinent than stuff about distant ancestors?  How about that Roberta has a twin sister who's still alive?  How about giving the ages to which John McCain's four grandparents lived?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the elopement. Rowena Wright seems a bit far afield; we have almost nothing on John McCain's own siblings.  I added the years for Slew, but is there a source for the other three grandparents, including Archibald?  From this John McCain peer review comment, apparently we can't use this Wargs genealogy, and this NEHGS summary doesn't list the years for the grandparents (can you buy the full report? dunno, but my WP "budget" has already been spent on Washington Post, Arizona Republic, and Philadelphia Inquirer archive articles :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, there is no full NEHGS report. The full article is two paragraphs long.  But it still has some interesting stuff: "his parents were born in Iowa and Oklahoma. His grandparents were natives of Mississippi, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the southern ancestry on both sides. I've also now worked in Rowena, as part of Roberta and Rowena's adventurous travel practice (serves to illustrate origin of McCain's instincts) and as a second cite on Roberta's role in informally educating him.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the reluctance to mention that his mother was born in Oklahoma and raised in southern California. Apparently, those facts do not mesh with the theme that McCain is a southerner and descendant of slave-owners.  There are now five footnotes to the article titled "McCain's ancestors owned slaves" though McCain never met those ancestors.  McCain did, however, meet his mother.  Can we please mention briefly that she was born in Oklahoma and grew up in southern California?  It's fully supported by the existing references ("nehgs" and "nyt121407"). Thanks (and many people consider neither California nor Oklahoma to be part of the Southwest).Ferrylodge (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The bit about hitting the power lines in Spain says he was "flying too low over Spain."  Was he in formation or alone, and did he get disciplined for it?  Just curious, no problem if you don't know.  Also, we mention all the awards he got, but do we know if he was ever subject to any formal disciplinary action (aside from at the Academy)? Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would love to know the answers to all of these questions. Please get the DoD to release his full Navy records! ;-) In particular, there's a story that the Spain collision caused a power blackout and a minor international incident, but Timberg says the tale is overblown.  Would love to find a Spanish news story from the time on this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd suggest adding the bolded words: "On July 3, 1965, McCain married Shepp in Philadelphia.[55] She already had two children, Douglas and Andrew, born in 1959 and 1962 respectively;[56] he adopted them the following year in 1966." Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Made a lieutenant commander" should probably be "Promoted to lieutenant commander" or "He made lieutenant commander." Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article says his last bombing target "had almost always been off-limits to U.S. raids." This is kind of mystifying.  Why would it have been off limits?  I don't doubt that it was, but it might be good to briefly mention the reason, if we know it. Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Due to its location in central Hanoi and the possibility of collateral damage. On top of all Hanoi targets being politically sensitive to begin with. Explanation added, same cite covers (the excellent Pribbenow article, for which I inexplicably didn't have a url link before, but now do).  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please change present tense to past tense: "lead led an effort to only write letters home that portrayed the camp in a negative light." Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Jack McCain's tour as CINCPAC ended in September 1972,[145] despite his desire to have it extended so he could see the war to its conclusion." This is kind of mystifying, though undoubtedly true.  Can we briefly mention why the tour ended (e.g. "routinely" or "due to incompetence" or whatever). Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * McCain says Nixon turned down Jack's request to stay on. Reason not clear, but apparently Jack (and John) somewhat bitter about it.  I've been on the lookout for a more neutral source on all this, but haven't run across it yet.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One of my military-knowledgeable sources says doesn't know the reason or a source for it, but suspects it was because during 1972 no one knew for sure how much longer the war would continue, and to keep Jack McCain on until it did would have meant his planned successor would have been put in "command limbo". Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: These two sentences make it sound like he attended his father's funeral on the same day his father died: "Jack McCain died on March 22, 1981.[186] The same day in late March saw McCain attending his father's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, wearing his uniform for the final time before signing his discharge papers, and then flying to Phoenix with his wife Cindy to begin his new life.[186]" Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarified it to "Later in March, the same day saw McCain ..." Just trying to end the article with some engaging prose! :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: When used as a verb, the word "nurse" usually means something that only women can do. "Overly, and subsequently Day, nursed McCain and kept him alive".  Maybe "tended to" or "cared for" instead of "nursed"? Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno, this search shows a lot of writers using the same construct, including reporters for the New York Times and Arizona Republic. I know what you're saying, but I think the laxer meaning is now in general use. And "nursed" conveys more the heavy level of care required; see the Coram book on Bud Day for some graphic descriptions of what was involved.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some more past tenses need to be cleaned up. For example, "In September 1964, he became a flight instructor at Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi, where McCain Field was named for his grandfather.". Does this mean the field was dedicated after McCain III arrived? If it had already been dedicated, the sentence should read "where McCain Field had been named for his grandfather". Melchoir (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed to "had been". Thanks for spotting this, and please give more places where you see problems ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. But would like to see something about his mother's side of the family, as mentioned above.  And the heading "Final years" bugs me.  How about "Final years in Vietnam"?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Thanks for all your comments and the support (I got off easy this time, but you're allowed to come back for more later ;-). Yes, I'll add the mother's side later today, it's on my list of things to work further on.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The POW subsection titles are new and I'm still ruminating on them. I've changed it to "Release" for now, which is what the somewhat similar chapter in Faith of My Fathers is called.  I'm trying to keep them terse, because they're there are visual separators more than content indicators.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support This generally looks pretty good. Gary King ( talk ) 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support! Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if there should be a section on the contemporary legacy of events during these years. Let me be clear, I do not, do not, do not want to see one of those petty little "Controversy" sections pop up in this article. But there must be a few worthwhile things to say. Is this a 1(b) concern for comprehensiveness? Melchoir (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If this were the only article, perhaps. But this is the first of a sequence of biographical subarticles under John McCain, that's denoted by the template box you see at the top.  So, for example, House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 covers McCain's 1990s work in the Senate related to Vietnam, while various parts of Cultural and political image of John McCain deal with how McCain's early personality evolved once he became a politician, how McCain's war service affected his political image and perception, etc.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another way of saying this is, after you finish the end of this article, you're invited to read the next one, House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, whose opening body section begins "Having moved to Phoenix in March 1981, McCain ...", thus picking up the story where it left off here. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the other articles link back; I'm just wondering if there should be explicit links forward as well. Maybe the box is enough. Melchoir (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For me, the real issue is just getting users to find these articles. For example, so far this month, John McCain has been hit 595,000 times; this article, 20,000 times; House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, only 1,400 times; and Cultural and political image of John McCain, 4,000 times.  That's a pretty steep fall-off, that (to me, at least) calls the whole WP:Summary style approach into question.  And each of these subarticles has "good stuff" that editors often complain is missing from, or underplayed in, the main article.Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the readers don't understand that the "Main article" links actually point to a different webpage. It could also be that 97% of visitors don't care about the details and wouldn't have read the text even if it were returned to the main article. The complaints would be the most troubling to me; you'd think anyone invested and knowledgeable enough to complain would know where to look! Melchoir (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've thought the template's wording could be improved, or maybe put in a different color font so that it's more easily seen.  I agree that to really know what's going on, you'd have to monitor reader's web sessions and see where they go and what they do.  For all we know, lots of readers may just read the lead section of articles and nothing else, in which case nothing we do to make subarticles visible would matter.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the prose in the lead could be strengthened. I'm not quite sure enough about any of these points to just edit the page myself, so here goes: Melchoir (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "attended many schools growing up as his family moved among different naval facilities" Feels like some punctuation would help, and "among different" is redundant.
 * "adopting two children from her previous marriage and having another child with her" "Having" seems awkward, and "with her" isn't absolutely necessary.
 * "five and a half years" Should this be "five-and-a-half years"?
 * "out of sequence with other prisoners there longer" Needs a verb.
 * "and then was the Navy liaison" Unnecessarily passive, especially in comparison to the preceding part of the sentence. Would "became" be better?
 * "divorced his wife Carol in 1980, and married" This time I don't think the comma is needed.
 * "married the former Cindy Hensley shortly after." I think this should be "shortly thereafter". With "after" you expect a following phrase. (After what?)
 * I've made changes on these, see what you think. The only one I didn't do was "five and a half years"; a google search seemed to show that at least half the usages like that these days don't use hyphens.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: "who were eventually won over by his combination of charm and penitence" -- weaselly and needs to attribute those to someone since not clearly factual. I think there is some more like this but I haven't read it all yet. gren グレン 00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. It's from Nicholas Kristof's reporting in this article, where he interviewed lots of people from that era.  Kristof wrote: "Some family friends were appalled that a man who seemed so decent, so full of compassion for anyone who needed help, could treat his own wife in a manner they regarded as brutal. But Mr. McCain gradually won everyone around again, with the same traits he now displays after making a mistake: a combination of charm and penitence."  If you read the article, Kristof gives specific examples of some friends where this happened.  And note this story overall was not a puff-piece; it was Kristof's reporting in it which revealed that John and Carol McCain were not separated at the time he met Cindy Hensley, contrary to John McCain's previous assertions (and those of his biographer Robert Timberg).  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not always the best with style but I still think "charm and penitence" should have quotes around it to show that it's not our words. Without the quotes it seems like we are ascribing these as definite feelings when it's (educated) conjecture of a writer.  I think it's a fine sentence but that should be made clear. gren グレン 07:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to get into the quote and attribution business here (too awkward), so I reworded the clause to "... who were eventually won over by the force of his personality and his frequent expressions of guilt over what had happened." This seems to capture what those Kristof interviewed were saying.  How does this seem to you?  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * I found it an interesting article, as he indeed seemed to live quite a full life at an early age.
 * I feel as if there are too many parenthetical statements. For a Featured Article, I think most of them can be integrated with the rest of the text.
 * I removed a couple sets of parentheses.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a MoS guideline about parenthetical statements being bad? If so, where?  To me, they're a useful syntactic tool for including extra information without creating a digression or confusing the narrative.  In one case, I've restored the parenthetical, for reasons given in the edit summary.  I'm certainly willing to look at them on a case-by-case basis, but I don't understand the notion that Featured Articles shouldn't use them much (I may well have missed it somewhere).  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I consider most parenthetical statements unnecessary for encyclopedic writing. If it's a digression, then it doesn't belong. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be your view, and you are free to use this approach in articles you write, but I don't see any WP guidelines against the use of parenthetical expressions. The FA Franklin D. Roosevelt article, to pick one I took at random, has about 20 real parenthetical statements and expressions in it (in addition to abbreviation introductions, date ranges, etc.).  So I doubt there is any FAC prohibition or admonition against them either.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While I have never been tortured in prison, and it is undoubtedly an emotional experience few are able to comprehend, this statement: and the North Vietnamese were never able to break him again sounds melodramatic and filled with praise. I think it would be sufficient to state that he did not feel as if his spirits were broken after a certain point.
 * I changed "were never able to" to "did not" which is a bit more matter-of-fact. Who knows what the North Vietnamese could have done if they had tried harder?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Break" here means to give "confessions", military secrets, anti-American statements, etc. (See definition 21 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/break.) That's what the North Vietnamese weren't able to do again.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you quantify this statistic, please: By 1971, some 30–50 percent of the POWs had become disillusioned about the war and less reluctant to make propaganda statements for the North Vietnamese
 * Some imprecise phrasing was here. Hubbell, the source, says that 30-50% were disillusioned with the war, both due to lack of apparent military progress (meaning they'd never get out) and to the growing anti-war movement back home (which the North Vietnamese were happy to tell them about).  As a result, "many" (but not necessarily 30-50%) of the POWs adopted a "to hell with it" attitude — why go through torture or other misery to resist giving a statement offering aid and comfort to the enemy, when members of Congress and half the country seemed to be make the same kind of statements on their own volition?  Hubbell concedes that they had a point.  I've now expanded and reworded this part a bit, but I can't go into too much description of this in this context.  We really need an article on the whole Vietnam POW experience; right now, Hanoi Hilton partly does that, but somewhat illegitimately since a lot of what happened occurred in other camps.  Other material is spread out amongst the individual Category:Vietnam War prisoners of war articles.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a name or organization of who is speaking for all the POWs who cheered the resuming of bombing of North Vietnam? Since several sentences earlier the article states some of them were losing their faith in US motivation for the war, what is the difference here?
 * The previous answer should clarify some of this — much of the disillusionment was with the lack of progress in the war, not the inherent motivation for it, although there was some of that too. I've also found a New York Times article from March 1973, that confirms that most of the long-time POWs cheered the Christmas bombings, while some of the newer POWs were just scared by it.  I've added this description and cite to the text.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you state what about Ronald Reagan McCain admired? He was governor of California at the time. What part of Reagan's political or personal actions did McCain highlight as admirable?
 * Reagan already had a considerable national rep after being elected Governor (he was mocked onstage at Woodstock, for instance). But I've taken out the "role model", since that pertains more to McCain's future political career, and instead have added text describing what McCain admired about Reagan at this time (thought Vietnam service honorable, wouldn't get country into war it was unwilling to win) (whether the latter is really true of Reagan or any other prez is a discussion for a different time).  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While I can appreciate not all Vietnam Veterans experienced flashbacks, I cannot accept that someone beaten and tortured in captivity for over five years had no adverse psychological effects from the ordeal. I think the article needs to state right out McCain's own quotes about his never experiencing such a thing. (I still wouldn't believe it.)
 * I tend to disagree. The article already quotes psychologists: "Psychological tests, given to all the returning POWs, showed that McCain had 'adjusted exceptionally well to repatriation' and had 'an ambitious, striving, successful pattern of adjustment'.[159]"  Moreover, I don't see why a person who goes through all that would not have positive psychological effects.  Solitary confinement provides time for introspection and contemplation, which can be very beneficial, and one can learn a great deal about human nature by being thrust into such an extreme situation.  So, I don't think there's any reason to assume psychological damage, especially given that he does not seem to have sustained any brain injury.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Being cloistered in a monastery gives one the opportunity for personal reflection. Being beaten within an inch of your life and tortured to say things that go against everything you've been taught does not foster a well-adjusted psychological state. Is there a direct quote from McCain that states he never had any adverse mental effect from his time as a POW? It appears from the article now that he has experienced more trauma from sleeping around and hurting his wife than he did at being tortured. I think that's an odd position of priorities. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the cited source, McCain "felt that he had profited by his experience and had changed significantly" and "learned more about himself, about others." Being subject to physical abuse can sometimes have a strengthening effect, though it's not something one would do voluntarily.  Should we put this quote into the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This became a big issue in McCain's 2000 campaign, when Republican opponents started circulating the word that McCain was mentally unstable as a result of his POW experience. (See John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2000.)  McCain had to release 1,500 pages of his Navy and civilian medical records, to show that this was not the case.  Although he didn't experience nightmares or flashbacks, the sound keys rattling would startle him (echoing the sound the prisons guard had made); I almost included this once before, and have now done so.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To the bigger question of how did the POW experience affect him, the whole last chapter of Faith of My Fathers attempts to grapple with this. I've included the biggest point he makes, at the end of the POW sections: "He also gained an appreciation, from experiencing the mutual help and organized resistance of the POWs, that his earlier individualism needed to be tempered by a belief in causes greater than self-interest.[120]"  He makes some other points too, but I think it's better to "show, not tell" here:  as the biographical narrative indicates, he hit the ground running (figuratively, not literally) when he came back, with a sense of purpose he didn't have before, and hasn't stopped since.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was astounded that McCain had extramarital affairs in Jacksonville. Having grown up there, I wondered how he found these people. I think I shall chalk that up to his not being very discriminating...
 * Different strokes....Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmpf! As the footnote text indicates, some (maybe most, don't know) of the affairs were while he was on flight stops around the country, and thus not in Jacksonville. But, from the available sources, McCain seems to have been the "my type is every type" kind of guy ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a complaint. It was just a statement of surprise. --Moni3 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Praise: The same happened with most of McCain's other friends, who were eventually won over by the force of his personality and his frequent expressions of guilt over what had happened Quotes from these friends would help it.
 * Everyone hates this sentence! (Already changed from previous commenter above.) The quotes from the cite that would be added are:
 * "We were ticked ... I'd glare at him, and he'd say, 'Nance!' ... If you meet him, you're under his spell. He's irresistible." and
 * "He has always felt very guilty about it. I have never talked with him for more than 40 minutes when he didn't bring it up, saying he felt badly about it."
 * Do we really want to bog the text down with these quotes? It risks giving the whole matter undue weight.  And for sure we'd get criticism that the quotes are puffing up McCain even more than this text.   Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has to be ponderous. Can you include something like ...were won over by the force of his personality, which had the effect, according to Friend X of being "adjective", and Friend Y as "another adjective". --Moni3 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would end up as
 * The same happened with most of McCain's other friends, who were eventually won over by the force of his personality, which family friend Nancy Reynolds described as "irrestible", and his frequent discussions what had happened, about which liaison office subordinate James McGovern said, "He has always felt very guilty about it."
 * We're now giving this more space than how he reconciled with his children, more space than the divorce terms, etc. I just don't see the merit in it.  Are we doubting Kristof's account of this so much?  Are there other sources out there which claim that McCain lost most of his friends after the divorce?  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a matter of how much space is devoted to one issue or another, but how information is presented as neutrally as possible. It's a bit frightening to think what impact this article might have on voters. Because of the time of year, this article should get extra scrutiny for POV. This is part of why I am concerned about the unreal aspect of McCain's not being bothered by his POW experience and the extra helping of guilt about sleeping around on his first wife. This illogical juxtaposition of emotions sound like the perfect things a candidate should say to sway public opinion. The editors of this article have more responsibility than other FAC editors. This may be unfortunate, but I don't think so. We have to hold you to a bit of a higher standard knowing how often this article is used by readers, and for what purpose. I admire you for bringing the article this far and working so diligently to make sure all the comments are addressed. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton for three years, so I'm used to the added POV scrutiny and welcome it :-) But we're not claiming that he isn't "bothered" by some aspects of his POW experience.  As the article says about his forced "confession", "He was haunted then and since with the feeling that he had dishonored his country, his family, his comrades and himself by his statement,[119][120] but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[89]"  And of course, "His injuries left him incapable of raising his arms above his head to this day.[25]" which bothers him every day (he has trouble putting jackets on, and can't comb his hair).  But in terms of general psychological effects, he's gotten a clean bill of health from a number of medical/psychiatric exams, many of which were conducted in the 1970s, long before he was viewed as a politician much less a presidential candidate.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure how much this is worth commenting on further. I guess you can decide. I'm not saying McCain should be under the bed with a knife in his teeth at the sound of loud bangs. There's a difference between having nightmares, anger at your captors, and shame for being broken, and being considered mentally ill. He doesn't have to be diagnosed with a neurosis or a psychosis for him to be affected by his experiences for years after. I wouldn't fault him for it at all. It makes him more human and seem less like a cardboard prop of a political machine. It wouldn't be his tensing up at the rattling of keys that would concern me about his being president. I think the article so far is written very well. It's quite engaging and tells a remarkable story about a young man's life. It just raises questions of logic; if McCain has said that the sum lesson of his time in captivity was that it made him more reflective and stronger, my opinion would be that he really hasn't dealt with the anger and pain of it all, or he's lying. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * McCain has said: "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. I hate war, and I know how terrible its costs are."  Is there anything like this currently in the Wikipedia article?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That remark was made in 2008. I prefer to use the quote that he said a couple of days after the 1967 Forrestal fire, that's already in the article: ""It's a difficult thing to say. But now that I've seen what the bombs and the napalm did to the people on our ship, I'm not so sure that I want to drop any more of that stuff on North Vietnam."[75]"
 * McCain hasn't said that that was the sum lesson of this time in captivity. He spends a whole chapter ("Free Men") in Faith of My Fathers on this.  Perhaps the key paragraph in terms of this discussion is this: "Neither did we expect to soon forget the years of anguish we had suffered under our captors' 'humane and lenient' treatment.  A few men never recovered. They were the last, tragic casualties in a long, bitter war.  But most of us healed from our wounds, the physical and spiritual ones, and have lived happy and productive lives since." (p. 345)  To support that conclusion, you can also read POW James Stockdale's New York Times op-ed on this, "John McCain in the crucible", which he wrote after McCain was being hit with instability rumors during his 2000 presidential campaign.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This sentence is confusing: Later in March, the same day saw McCain attending his father's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, wearing his uniform for the final time before signing his discharge papers, and then flying to Phoenix with his wife Cindy to begin his new life.
 * I've rephrased it: "Later in March, McCain attended his father's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, wearing his uniform for the final time before signing his discharge papers, and the same day saw him flying to Phoenix with his wife Cindy to begin his new life."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize now I can fix the date in question - it's March 27, five days after Jack's death, per Worth the Fighting For. I've reworded again, based on that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moni3, thanks very much for your comments. I'll be responding on all of them, in a few hours ... Wasted Time R (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took me so long to return. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks! Wasted Time R (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not bad, but it's very heavily linked, which affects readability, appearance, and the likelihood that high-value links will be followed up. I see "Mississippi" linked many times in one para: two are separate, so one of those can go. "English" should not be linked. See MOSLINK. "Boarding school"? We do speak English. Tons of repeated links (such as "Southern/ers"). Just once, please. Complete audit required. I've removed the date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged. See MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT. TONY   (talk)  10:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony1, thanks very much for your comments. Regarding heavy linking, I've begun the reduction of these.  "Mississippi" has been reduced, as has the overlinking in that first section.  I'll continue with the other sections tonight.  I will say that military articles tend to be more linked than most, due to the many place names, unit names, base names, equipment names, etc. that occur.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now gone through and reduced links throughout the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding date autoformatting being discouraged, this is the first I've heard of that. I hope everyone agrees, because otherwise I'm going to get whipsawed on this. Also, if autoformatting is out, I'm screwed on the dates and accessdates in all the cites, all of which were done in the ISO yyyy-mm-dd format.  Guess I'll have to look for a tool that converts all of these into the hardcoded American format....  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "my father's career. ... At each new school"—Nope, "career.... At"
 * These occurrences all fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.