Talk:Cindy McCain

HOT

She's hot!

How old?

When was she born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterus (talk • contribs) 12:20, 1 December 2006

She is 18 years younger than her husband so that means she was born sometime in 1954. User:Daniel_Chiswick 23 March, 2007

BORN FEBRUARY 19, 1938, TWO YEARS YOUNGER THAN JOHN MCCAIN. THIS IS FACT:

http://www.veromi.net/Summary.asp?fn=cindy&mn=&ln=mccain&dobmm=02&dobdd=19&doby=1938&city=phoenix&state=AZ&age=&vw=&Search=&Input=&x=41&y=11 [19:59, 3 April 2008 Efaerererer (Talk | contribs)]

Uh, no. She's seventeen years younger than John McCain, as is well known. From past experience, I've found these "People Search" database sites to be riddled with errors, and this is one of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, she varies between being 17 years and 18 years younger than him, depending upon the time of the year. It was 18 when they met, and it's 18 during a longer stretch of the year, so that's the figure more commonly used and what we use in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

John McCain's 1980 campaign?!

I don't think John McCain ran for president in 1980. It was possibly supposed to be 2000. Either that, or someone please enlighten. Phloyd (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is very poor

This article is very poor, could someone correct that ? The last paragraph sounds like a weblog in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.245.175 (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I hope to work on this article in the next couple of days. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've now reworked the article considerably, strengthened the citing, and hopefully made the AVMT/addiction period clearer. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

High school graduation date

Went to Central High and graduated in '71. Don't believe Cindy was a cheerleader, might want to check. Also check background of father, James Hensley, which is quite colorful in his business dealings in Arizona and how he actually obtained the Budweiser distributorship, as there is plenty of factual articles in the archives at the Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.46.202 (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What's your source for the graduation year? The cite the article uses, this alumni publication, gives it as 1972. I'm less confident of the cheerleader part, it's from this Arizona Republic piece and just says "former cheerleader" without being more specific. I'm aware of some of Jim Hensley's colorful background — and it is alluded to in the John McCain#U.S. Senator section — but more detail on it should go into an article about him and/or Hensley & Company, not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: there are now Jim Hensley and Hensley & Co. articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another follow-up: this Austin American-Statesman article states that she was a cheerleader in high school. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Later follow-up: this Chicago Tribune article says she was a cheerleader in college, not high school, and that's what we're currently going with. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive Vandalism

As we all know, we're getting into campaign season now. Apparently political opponents of candidate McCain believe it's appropriate to vandalize this article. Let's all play nice people.69.47.159.179 (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the subject of the article saw fit to go after the opposition's wife. She can hardly be surprised if the opposition decides to return the favor. I'm just sayin'. Ribonucleic (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to the questions regarding the accuracy of the background on the post questioning whether she was a cheerleader, and the background of Jim Hensely as 'vandalizism,' thought discussions were aimed at presenting factual information. Since I actually went to high school and grammar school (Madison Meadows) with the candidates wife, would think that the factual accuracy of her family background also would be relevant, whether it is campaign season or not, ESPECIALLY since the office for which her husband is running is the highest in the land. Father had background ties to the mob, Kemper Marley, and that is a fact, and whether that is relevant on Senator McCain's page, it would appear be relevant on Mrs. McCain's as extended family on her own bio. Clean elections on one thing, factual information about potential candidates and their extended family ties would appear relevant to all Americans with respect to the office of the Chief Executive, 'political correctness' does not extend to providing factual information, it would seem. Check the archives at the Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette and also Cindy's connections with respect to her own investments involving Charles Keating and that mess of the 80's, which is what lead to the demise of savings and loans, and almost bankrupt the entire State of Arizona, and what indirectly also lead to the subprime and predatory lending practices today. The S&L scam became another taxpayer paid bailout due to political campaign corruption and bribes).

The Republic is the best source for truth of both family background, the S&L crisis and Ms. Hensley investments with Keating in Arizona, and a candidates or candidate wives potentially current or former ties through family members to organized crime is very significant in this election year.

And as an independent, not of the opposition but with personal knowledge and history as a former four decade resident of the State of Arizona also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcat71 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are now separate articles on Jim Hensley and Hensley & Co.. Comments about coverage of them should go on those talk pages. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops

In trying to delete a ridiculous paragraph about Cindy McCain being a vampire, I accidently deleted the section with the source listings. I tried to undo it, but can't. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.180.194 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

children

The article states that she gave birth to three children, listing no others. She is, however, linked to an an adoptive parents page. No details provided.TessMG (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the article: "While at Mother Teresa's orphanage in Dhaka, Bangladesh in 1991 — as part of AVMT's assistance team following the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone[19] — she met two infant girls she decided needed to be brought to the United States for medical treatment.[1] She decided to adopt one of the girls (her husband readily agreeing), later named Bridget[4] (who became the McCains' fourth child together), ..." Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But I've tweaked the wording and the later section title to try to make this clearer. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"straight chronological approach"

If you want to edit the article to read that way, that's fine with me. But then it will be your responsibility to replace the current section headings with year ranges. As you left it, the stroke was in a section that was explicitly labeled as being about something else. Ribonucleic (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I always prefer the straight chronlogical approach, since that's how people live their lives (the personal life thing that happens at time T often influences the professional life thing that happens at time T+1) and that's how most published biographies are written. Naming the last section has always been difficult, since it involves a lot of disparate activities. I've now just called it "2000s", and moved one small item from before then into the previous section. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight problem?

The section on prescription drug addiction and theft is almost a third of the article (about 450 words out of 1500). Is this really appropriate? If there are no objections, I am inclined to scale it back a bit.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, on several grounds:

• This section covers three different things -- an addiction problem, theft and the possibility of prosecution, and being an (alleged) blackmail target. Those are pretty major events in a person's life! They are the focus of many of the news stories we cite. I don't see the proportion here as undue weight.
• It's not like we don't cover other parts of her life -- we certainly do. But more could be done. We still don't have a date of birth; we still aren't sure if she was a cheerleader in high school. Some specifics on exactly what she does with Op Smile, CARE, and HALO would be useful. I've done lots of web searching to find material to add in here to give a full depiction of her life, but anything more that can be found is welcome. And more may come out in news stories as the campaign progresses.
• If McCain is elected in November, she'll get a First Lady section that will end up dwarfing everything else.
• The best way to deal with potentially controversial material is to be comprehensive in treatment and loaded with cites. This intimidates drive-by or pov editors from trying to jump in. If you take any of this section's material out, I guarantee it will show up again during the next few months, only less well sourced and less neutral. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% that the best way to deal with controversial stuff is to present it in a neutral way rather than cover it up. I'm just saying that this section is a bit wordy, and could be condensed without removing any substantial information. The mere size of this section draws attention to it, and makes the other sections less noticeable. Here's how I'd shorten it:

"In 1989, Cindy McCain became addicted to opioid painkillers such as Percocet and Vicodin[23] which she initially took to alleviate pain from ruptured discs,[24][25] and to ease emotional stress during the Keating Five scandal[23] which involved her as a bookkeeper who had difficulty finding receipts.[14] She resorted to stealing the painkillers from her own AVMT.[24] During 1992, Tom Gosinski, the director of government and international affairs for AVMT, discovered her drug theft.[26] Subsequently in 1992, McCain's parents forced her to get help;[14] she told her husband about her problem, attended a drug treatment facility, and ended her three years of active addiction.[23] A hysterectomy in 1993 resolved her back pain.[23][25]

"In January 1993, McCain terminated Gosinski's employment for budgetary reasons.[26] Then in spring 1993, Gosinski tipped off the Drug Enforcement Administration to investigate McCain's drug theft,[26] and a federal investigation ensued. McCain's defense team secured an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office that included financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program,[4][26] without any public disclosure.

"Meanwhile, in early 1994, Gosinski filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against McCain, which he tried to settle for $250,000.[26] In April 1994, McCain's lawyer requested that officials investigate Gosinski for extortion.[26] Cindy McCain pre-empted public disclosure of her past addiction:[26][23] "Although my conduct did not result in compromising any missions of AVMT, my actions were wrong, and I regret them."[4] A flurry of press attention followed, including charges by Gosinski[23] and counter-charges by past AVMT employees. The Arizona Republic published an editorial cartoon ridiculing McCain's drug use,[27] and an award dinner in her honor was canceled.[4] In the end, both Gosinski's lawsuit and the extortion investigation against him were dropped.[23]

"AVMT concluded its activities in 1995.[11] That year, McCain founded a new organization, the Hensley Family Foundation, which donates monies towards children's programs in Arizona and nationally,[4] but she was largely a stay-at-home mom during the balance of the 1990s.[14]"

As you can see, nothing substantial is cut out, and yet there are about 150 fewer words.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think there are several problems with the reduction:

• Loss of "She later attributed her addiction to ..." Safer than us declaring what caused her addiction (especially the K5 part); how do we know for sure?
• Loss of John Dowd mention. One of the controversies of this whole episode is that she got off so light on the theft charges because her husband brought in a high-powered Washington attorney, and that someone else in the same circumstances without such connections would have fared worse. The inclusion of Dowd was to reflect this.
• Change of Gosinski "told her he would settle for" to "tried to settle for". The second makes Gosinski sound more reasonable, which is at issue here.
• Loss of Phoenix New Times story aspect. The Arizona press has always been more hostile to the McCains than the national press has been; it's important that she was under the gun from a negative press story about to break, because otherwise we might still not know about it.
• Loss of Cindy's "hoped it would give fellow drug addicts courage in their struggles" statement. Although this attracted some skepticism at the time (see prior point), it was still her stated reason for speaking out, and as such deserves to be included here.
• Loss of detail on Gosinski charges and counter-charges and of details of nasty cartoon against her. This is sort of a "show, don't tell" violation. If we're going to mention that bad thing X happened, we should say what X was. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, WTR, I'll leave it as is for now. However, if you think there might be some cuttable material here, or some sentences that could be made more concise, then I hope you'll feel free. On your specific points:

• Loss of "She later attributed her addiction to ..." I don't see any reason to doubt that she began taking those pills without intending to become addicted, and for the reasons she mentioned. We already say that a hysterectomy cleared up her back pain. How do we know that wasn't a lie too? I'm not aware that anyone has contested her statement as to why she began taking these drugs.
• Loss of John Dowd mention. There is nothing that now suggests that Cindy McCain got preferential treatment, much less that she got such treatement because of hiring John Dowd.
• Change of Gosinski "told her he would settle for" to "tried to settle for". Merely more concise, IMHO.
• Loss of Phoenix New Times story aspect. All we need to say is that she pre-empted publication, IMHO.
• Loss of Cindy's "hoped it would give fellow drug addicts courage in their struggles" statement. Anyone in that position would say such a thing, so it's not notable, IMHO.
• Loss of detail on Gosinski charges and counter-charges and of details of nasty cartoon against her. Apparently, the cartooon was disgusting. Are we going to quote every disgusting thing that some heckler shouts at McCain too? And likewise, lots of nasty charges are typically made during litigation, and I don't think Gosinski's charges in that context are particularly notable, much less reliable.

Anyway, like I said, I'll leave it be for now, since there is no consensus to change. But please do think it over. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put in some of these changes, have left out others, will think some more about the last item. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Left some of that in, took some of that out, as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What if

What if, just maybe, a wikipedia page wasn't an open forum for people to post ridiculous shit to influence a presidential campaign? What if, instead, a wikipedia page wasn't a forum for tearjerking stories about OVERCOMING THE TRAUMA OF BEING FUCKED UP ON PILLS ALL THE TIME BECAUSE I'M A PATHETIC BOTTLE BLONDE HOUSEWIFE?

Oh yeah -- and what if wikipedia didn't censor its editors and allowed people to say whatever - even fucked up shit - on their pages? This way, CENSORSHIP WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED? [07:54, 8 March 2008 24.3.194.181]

What if, you were coherent? I think you're referring to whether we leave the "she hoped it would give fellow drug addicts courage in their struggles" statement in. I disagree with Ferrylodge's view that "Anyone in that position would say such a thing, so it's not notable." I don't think Rush Limbaugh ever said this, for example, and he was in largely similar circumstances (addiction following spinal surgery following back pain, legal troubles). I believe WP:BLP's dictate that we write "conservatively" indicates we include this statement. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Occupation

Why is "Philanthropist" primary instead of "Chairman of the Board of Directors of Hensley & Co."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1tilde (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The latter is a position, not an occupation, and the second sentence of the article does say, "She is chair of Hensley & Co., ..." "Philanthropist" is listed ahead of "Businessperson" because it seems likely that she's spent more time doing the former than the latter over the course of her life. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Trollop incident

The whole trollop incident is:

1. Not pertaining to Cindy, but to John. (shouldn't be in this bio) 2. Highly inflammatory badly sourced (1 source found, this source quotes "anonymous sources" hah)

Imo it is vandalism, however a lowly IP editor like me can't revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.216.82.210 (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted it. The sourcing is very, very weak: Something that supposedly happened 16 years ago, never reported at the time, the reporters who supposedly heard it now wanting to remain anonymous (since when do reporters remain anonymous? most reporters want to get their bylines into the paper as much as possible), and now it's included in an attack book (see the subtitle). And it's been denied by the McCain campaign.[1] And, as the IP points out, it's not relevant for this article anyway. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) 195.216.82.210 (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Campaign

The paragraph about Michelle Obama's quote is not really relevant and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.74.105.64 (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. This has been the most "outspoken" she's been during the campaign — directly engaging the wife of her husband's likely opponent — and so merits inclusion. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cindy McCain in-depth sources

I'm not necessarily suggesting an External links section be added to the article, but it would be helpful to have a list in Discussion of some sources that are more than quick soundbites of the latest scandal. Here are two I'm aware of:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-041408-cindy-mccain,1,7227536.story "The Constracts of Cindy McCain", Jill Zuckman, Chicago Tribune, April 15, 2008
http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/feature-articles/cindy-mccain-0707 "Cindy McCain: Myth vs. Reality", Nancy Collins, Harpers Bazaar, July 2007
Flatterworld (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to add magazine profiles to the External links section, because that tends to stamp them as "official" when they are not. Better is to just cite them in writing our article; when readers see the sources with the most footnote uses, that'll tell them the best places to start reading. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But thanks for finding the Chicago Trib stories — these give some useful new info, including the best source yet for her birthdate. I'll be adding material to the article from them. (The Harpers story is already cited in the article.) Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

cindy mccain, rodeo queen

A rodeo queen is not a beauty contest. a rodeo queen is not selected off of her looks alone, in fact, her looks are not as important as her horsemanship," ability to perform required tasks on the back of a horse." just being a pretty girl will not win a rodeo queen contest. when you click on the rodeo queen icon for cindy mccain it links you to information on beauty pagents which is completely different. example: rodeo queen contestants never compete in a swimsuit or in revealing dresses, they compete in western style classy clothing usually on the back of a quarter horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.94.186 (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the wikilink and edited the reference accordingly - the New York times piece calls her a "rodeo queen", not a "rodeo beauty queen" as the article stated. I changed this to "rodeo queen" to match the news piece. Thanks. Wikidemo (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The solution to this is to link to rodeo queen and create a stub for it, which I have now done, using the description above. Others can begin expanding that article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I added a bit but it could still use some more info and sources - funny, I thought everything had a Wikipedia article already :) Wikidemo (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

General style question

Questions of political fact and fiction far aside, I wonder if it was necessary for the author to include quite so many active links in the article. It becomes distracting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biellen (talk • contribs) 09:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to footnotes or to blue links? The footnotes are a consequence of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Also, there is no definitive biographical source on Cindy McCain, and so what we have is pieced together from many different newspaper and magazine stories, sometimes contradictory; in order for readers and other editors to know what came from where, our article has to be closely cited. The blue links don't seem denser than usual to me, although I guess there are a few common English words that could be unblued, such as orphanage, painkillers, recipes, and the like. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed 2 of the 3 footnotes that were citing that she was born in Phoenix. Given that this isn't a point of contention, it seems one is enough. I do think that several footnotes side-by-side makes articles a little harder to read, and should be avoided if possible. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was a point of contention, e.g. this editor thought she was born in Los Angeles. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

2000 Election

Republican voters enjoyed her looks and elegance at coffee shops and other small campaign settings, where she frequently referred to her children, carpooling, and charity work.[10]

That is what it says, but as a republican voter I didn't enjoy her looks or elegance. not even at coffee shops. It seems poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.43.91 (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone back to some previous language here, which hopefully will seem less universal. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)