Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain

Again, Wikipedia at its finest

I congratulate User:Wasted Time R and all of the editors on this fine article. It is clear that you have become experts on this man and I cannot think of a better or more thought out article other than John McCain. The referencing is impeccable in my view and I am proud and humbled to be a fellow Wikipedian when I read this type of article.Mugginsx (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, nice article. Congrats 200.116.144.155 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this is one of those where I am still pleased with the result and have never regretted the time and effort put into it. I had nothing to do with it becoming TFA but I'm glad it did. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

SURVIVORS' GUILT

I do not care WHO writes it or says it, including the POW THEMSELVES. There is NO proof that one prisoner was tortured MORE than another. Unless a man was of special value to the enemy, such as cryptographer (who after Korean War were not allowed in combat) or someone who was otherwise perceived as a valuable person to exploit (such as a General William Dean in Korean War) or (Commander Bucher in the Pueblo Incident) the prisoners were tortured randomly. Conversely, you note that these men have never made statements to the effect that they were tortured more than others. See: General Dean's story, Publisher: New York : Viking Press, 1954. A psychological follow-up of former prisoners of war of the Chinese Communists : final report Author: Edgar H Schein; W E Cooley; Margaret T Singer Arlington, Va. : Reproduced by the Armed Services Technical Information Agency, [1960-62? and many many more publications of this type.

Please do not repeat the stuff (took out unfortunate word) out in the media, or even the guilt ridden statement of prisoners who survived. It is beneath the standards of Wikipedia and everywhere else for that matter to do that.

It is not is the psychological history, it is not in the military de-briefings, it is nowhere except in the guilt stricken minds of the men who survived. What you have is the perceptions of POWs which are not credible.

A person who is beated and tortured, whether it be an abused child or wife, or a prisoner of war BLOCK OUT that kind of detailed information. If their mind did not block it out they would go mad. It is a well known fact in the medical and psychological studies. They have glimpes of memory and in the cases of prisoners of war virtually all have SURVIVORS GUILT, a psychological affliction common to ALL prisoners of war and indeed many soldiers who survived when many of their friends did not.

Please do not take a featured article down with this unprovable and cruel statement. It simply has no basis in fact in the scientific community or anywhere else for that matter even when it is said by the former prisoner of war himself and repeated by someone trying to make a buck with a sensational story. As a relative of a former prisoner of war and a former National Librarian for American Ex-POW Organization, I appeal to your sense of honor to see this for what it is and keep it out of the article.

If nothing else it makes Wikipedia look foolish to reprint it.

If you refuse to take it out would you please clarify it with a companion statement citing the psychological studies.

Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We had the same discussion on the John McCain main article. You got so worked up there that I decided to let it slide, but I'm not going to do the same here, because this is the detailed article that has to be fully accurate in a military history sense. I spent a huge amount of time here getting all the unit assignments right, the dates right, etc., and this has to be right too. It's simply a matter of historical fact that the torture of U.S. POWs by the North Vietnamese was worse during some periods than others. Someone taken prisoner in 1970, for example, would have had a very different experience from someone taken prisoner in 1965, because the overall treatment patterns changed significantly in late 1969. It's also a fact that some POWs got singled out for worse treatment than others. There are multiple good historical accounts of what happened in Vietnam POW camps that support the account given here, so the burden is on you to show sources saying that everyone in Vietnam POW camps was tortured randomly and equally. And they have to be Vietnam War sources, not Korean War; two different wars, two different peoples, two different lengths of imprisonment, two different sets of circumstances. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK but then couldn't you ADD another statement which shows their memory is impaired by trauma and survivor's guilt. Wouldn't that be fair? I know you did good research and I would not say otherwise but in this one little area isn't it possible it was not complete that is that you did not tell the complete story (Not that it is easy to find as it is hidden away in psychlogical journals and a few books!).

Also, while it may be true ( do not forget there were no video tapes of these interrogations) or written records, we are relying once again on the de-briefings of the individual POWs - that the techniques changed - still torture is torture.

Yes, it is true that some were singled out - 2% were called "resistors" and they generally died during torture. Some went completely and utterly mad and were killed because of the disruptions they caused.

I am not trying to take anything away from your fine article - just asking that you add one little sentence after that one to make it completely true. Would you consider it?

Also, while the torture changes, one's reaction to the mere captivity, in addition to the torture must be taken into account and one's ability to withstand torture cannot be measured by "how many times" they were tortured or "how" they were tortured. It is much more complicated then that. In Korea, it was found that persons who had grown up in a troubled environment were found to be to be able to resist more than other groups of men with different, perhaps, happier childhoods. This is disputed. I believe there was a study about Vietnam pows that showed that also to be true but one cannot rely on these studies because of the same problem. The memory of the individual pow and the lack of a permanent record of the sessions.

Meanwhile I will look for definitive Vietnam Studies, but I do not have the access that I used to have; nevertheless I will look. That is fair to ask me to do. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I will say again as I did before, that this article is one of the finest on Wikipedia and I congratulate User:Wasted Time R and all other editors on it. Mugginsx (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a large body of medical literature on the after-effects of the Vietnam War POW experience (based upon their having had regular mental and physical follow-up exams every five years, I think). For example, this search here lists some of them. But just looking at abstracts, you can see that this paper says "Data indicate a significant degree of psychiatric readjustment problems, which were greatest among POWs captured before 1969." Another paper says "the RPWs are designated Pre-69 and Post-69. The Pre-69 group had a significantly longer and harsher captivity experience." The preface of Rochester and Kiley's Honor Bound discusses the different factors that led to some POWs having a much worse experience than others: "Not every prisoner in North Vietnam, for example, encountered horrible torture or even excessive duress; for those seized late in the war, the experience, in most cases, was much less arduous than for their predecessors. Even among those in custody for the better part of the decade, there were notable variations in treatment — and performance — from one individual to another depending on where exactly he was held, the shifting character of the camps themselves, the extent of one's injuries, varying tolerances for pain and degradation, and many other factors of time, place, and personal idiosyncrasies." The rest of the book goes on to describe just how this happened, in great detail as regards to prisoners' specific stories. And I'm pretty sure that if you read this book, even the parts that available online at Google Books as linked above, you will realize the authors are quite serious and respectful and are not "trying to make a buck with a sensational story" as you claim. So there just isn't support for your notion that there is no proof that some of the Vietnam War POWs were tortured more than others. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wasted Time R - Just wanted you to know I am not ignoring you, I am still looking and reading. Mugginsx (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Studies I have read so far were done on men from 1 to 31 months of captivity or other lengths of captivity in other studies. They are all bunched together. They discuss types of torture and classify solitary confinement as one of the most powerful of all tortures which would suppose length of captivity in Vn experience since they were not allowed to talk for years. They do not address the issue we have been discussing, but those studies could be used to say that the longer a man was a prisoner (in solitary as they were all in solitary (as opposed to those in group barracks such as in WWII European Theatre of Operations), the worst shape he was, and therefore invalidate the MMPI results - your study mentioned here This one. Anyway the MMPI is not widely respected anymore by many professionals no matter what groups it is used on. It has been shown, for instance, to be undependable with various cultures blended into the U.S. Your other studies are more interesting. Lastly, another study talks about Viet Cong POW camps as opposed to those held by the NVA (Hanoi Hilton, etc.) It is more definitive in that is covers reports by individual pows observation. For instance, those held by Viet Cong in ad hoc type camps, had an extremely low survival rate. It is all very complicated and I think statistically impossible to calculate. Who speaks for the dead and 1,948 still unaccounted for? Will continue to look and read all of your material as well. Mugginsx (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I found some more information of McCain's time as a POW here www.publichealth.va.gov/docs/vhi/pow.pdf Anyway, it may or may not be properly referenced for wikipedia. Mugginsx (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That piece mostly relies upon sources already used in this article, and gets the chronology confused a couple of times. But it's mainly intended for its medical focus. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The Ex-POW Organization makes some of its conclusion based on personal letters and interviews with POWs. In some ways it might be seen the most valuable because POWs talk to other POWS no matter the war, but do not tend to tell all of their experiences to VA doctors, psychiatrists, etc. There is a basic relunctance and distrust there. Mugginsx (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a conclusion to another study you have indicated - and shows only the conclusion rather than the actual study or the parameters of the study. It seems to me to indicate that the longer a man was a pow, the greater the harm, rather than that there was a concerted effort to torture them more before 1969, it would mean to me that the fact that the men served more time in solitary, etc., as indicated in previous study, was the underlying reason. In other words, there was no concerted effort to be easier on the pows after 1969, it was rather, the TIME the individual spent that adversely affected them. I think it you have made an understanable but basic misinterpretation of the conclusions of the study results which you interprete as saying that pre1969 pows were tortured more. Again, I think, with exceptions noted by me in the beginning, this proves that the torture was random. I hope I am explaining it clearly. I will continue to read. Mugginsx (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

MY CONCLUSION: You state: Many, especially among those who had been captured earlier and imprisoned longer, endured even worse treatment than McCain. This statement is only true because those men captured on or before 1969 were there LONGER and IN THAT CONTEXT ONLY they suffered more. The torture itself did NOT change after 1969 - it merely lasted less time due to the final disposition of that foul war. That is what needs to be explained in that statement in an otherwise absolutely accurate and fine article. Mugginsx (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's simply not correct. Until you read Hubbell's P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-Of-War Experience in Vietnam, 1964–1973 and/or Rochester and Kiley's Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973, there's no point continuing this discussion. The discussion about the change in conditions beginning in late 1969 begins on p. 519 of Hubbell and p. 489 of Rochester & Kiley. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I will do so Sir. Have some errands to run then will return. Mugginsx (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have read the preface and a little more of Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973, and will read the entire book but since you mentioned the preface it does indeed state in a sentence: pg xii beginning at line 16, ...Nonetheless it is equally true that individual prisoners experienced a wide range of conditions and exhibited a wide range of behavior. Not every prisoner in North Vietnam, for example, experienced horrible torture or even excess duress; for those seized late in the war, the experience, in most cases, was much less ardurous than for their predecessors. This would seem to indicate your statement is true, but then it goes on to say, same page no., Even among those is custody for over a decade there were notable variations in treatment and performance-from one individual to another depending upon where exactly he was held, the shifting character of the camps themselves, the extent of ones injuries, varying tolerances for pain and degradation and many other factors of time, place and personal idiosyncrasies. To me the first sentence seems to contradict the second. Then it goes on to state the men's poor memories and periods of memory loss , etc.,

It then sums up by stating it is based upon the interviews with the men. (IRemember a few lines below it states they were unable to get whatever records the Vietnmese officials claimed they had). These same men with the poor memories and periods of memory loss who were in varying camps, i.e., VC ad hoc camps or Hanoi Hilton or others. Obviously, it is there and you can keep it in but I think you would be hard put to find an actual POW who would agree. These interrogators were sadist and not caring about information, though no doubt that is what they were supposed to illicit, they were just inflicting as much punishment on the most people. If someone appeared strong, he was given more punishment, if someone appeared weak or wounded, they might cut the sessions short because they weren't really having that much fun with that one. I will not argue with you anymore but I will always disagree with that sentence, especially after reading the information you point out. It is almost a contradiction in terms the way the sentences are laid out. The information totally and completely depends on the POWs themselves. This final study that you indicated here just repeats that the longer a man served - the more he was harmed.

You are a good faith editor and I hope you know I am too. We will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one. Mugginsx (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CFORK

I realize this was promoted to FA a while ago, but this basically seems like a giant WP:CFORK that could easily be summarized on McCain's main biography. It's well written, but I'm not sure what this offers that can't be included on McCain's article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a detail article as part of WP:Summary style. The content of this article is summarized in the John McCain main article, but here it is presented in much more detail to more fully describe a famous part of his life and career that has been much written about. As such it is entirely acceptable. WP:CFORK says that the two unacceptable types of forking are unintentional duplications of content (but this subarticle is intentional and provides five times as much information as the main article) and forks designed to present a different POV (but this subarticle presents the same point of view as the main article and indeed was written by the same editors). This is a fully acceptable article per WP:SPINOFF. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Early life and military career of John McCain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090921100724/http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/102508/met_348091277.shtml to http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/102508/met_348091277.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Purple Hear Medals

First and second citations for purple heart are missing. [16:06, July 10, 2021‎ 2603:6080:6540:ad1:7164:c45c:424c:c5e4]

The infobox and the medal display at the bottom correctly state that he received two purple hearts, while the text only mentions one. The source used, the Navy's biographical data summary and reproductions of some of his medal citations, states that he received two purple hearts but they don't include those specific citations. I would assume that one was for injuries suffered during the shoot-down and the other for injuries suffered during captivity, but it would be good to have a source that explicitly states that. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)