Talk:Cindy McCain/Archive 1

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)


 * I noticed some discrepancies with the dates concerning her beginning relationship with John as well as John's divorce of his wife. Please see this article http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,2177702.story . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.59.162 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The only change needed in this article was that the time of the John-Carol separation is now known to be January 1980 (not 'later in 1979'). Everything else still holds.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've modified this to John and Carol stopping cohabitation in January 1980, per the LA Times article. That's the actual language they use, and we should too ... see Talk:John McCain for a lonnnng discussion of this if desired.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Provdide examples please, otherwise this is a loaded and biased statment. "Her father's business and political contacts helped gain her husband a foothold into Arizona politics;[17]" Someone please fix this. Grant23 (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is supported by the New York Times article given as a cite there. Others could be added, but for the full story and examples, see House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000.  We don't make a big deal of it here, because it really belongs under John's article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for trying to straighten out Cindy's early years. As I sat next to her in Grammer School "Madison Meadows" in Phoenix, and attended Central High SWchool with her, I may be able to shed some light. Ask questions here and I"ll be happy to reply with the real school years . We lived just a few blocks north on Central Avenue from her gated home and those plastic lifesized Clydesdales garding the mansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katetallyho (talk • contribs) 07:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Additions to Wikipedia must come from reliable, verifiable sources such as mainstream media, published books or academic papers. If your information is published in on of those places, the information may be included here. Thanks! &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

High school graduation date, when a cheerleader
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 — 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)


 * Still another delayed follow-up: this Newsweek cover story also says it was college where she was a cheerleader. That's what the article continues to say. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Houstontexasdem (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC) nothing about Kappa Alpha Theta being socially conservative anywhere on the planet.


 * From the cite: "The University of Southern California was a conservative place in those days, and Cindy fit in seamlessly upon arriving there. During her freshman year, she joined Kappa Alpha Theta, a kind of finishing school for aspiring matrons. The sorority didn't allow alcohol in its house or men above the first floor unannounced. The "Theta Ladies," as they were known, even applied these rules to their fathers. If a proud papa showed up to help move his daughter in, he'd have to yell "man on the floor" before walking upstairs." Wasted Time R (talk) 23:00, 26 August 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)

category is "marriage and family" and all birth children are listed. i would expect a mention of the adopted child mentioned in this section in addition to/lieu of any discussion later under humanitarian work. 68.173.2.68 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article proceeds in chronological sequence. The adoption was a direct consequence of her AVMT work, so it makes sense to include it there.  There is an "Adoption" section header, so it's pretty hard to miss.  Also, in the infobox at the top, under "Children" all four are listed.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * then drop the fiction of the current section headings and make it by years. An adoption is part of a "marriage and family" category. don't expect the readers to slog through entire article when one is just interested in marriage and family.  surely mention can appear in both sections.  68.173.2.68 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Always aiming to please, I've added a flash forward in the "Marriage and family" section. I've made it all a blue link, so that editors will realize that it's not the main place and that they shouldn't add the Mother Teresa story etc. there.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur (as a parent of children who were adopted and birthed) with this change. I would quibble with the wording and changed it from:"(Their fourth child, Bridget, would be adopted in 1991.)" to read:"Their fourth child, Bridget, was adopted in 1991.[sans parentheses]" I understand your logic for strict chronology (and yet it is immediately contradicted in this section -- births, 1984, 1986, 1988, then out-of-sequence, 1986 shopping center investment) but this section is titled "family" and there is nothing unusual about adoption even when it is out-of-chronological sequence. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keeping a chronological approach is never completely exact; there are always minor compromises for readability, flow, and organization, such as the 1988 birth. The "would be" and the parens were to help indicate this was just a flash-forward.  Now, I anticipate editors won't look past this section, and will think the whole Mother Teresa/Bangladesh story is somehow missing, and add it in there.  But we'll see.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I knew that is why you used that grammatical construction; I felt it was inconsistent with the tenses used for the other children. I bet that the blue link will be the guidepost to the expanded info. If you prefer the previous tense (parenthetically, I believe the parentheses aren't necessary -- might even [unintentionally] imply that Bridget is of secondary import), then by all means, change it back. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 23:18, 31 August 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)


 * Why does Senator' Obama's illegal drug use only warrant one sentence in his wikipedia article but Mrs. McCain's dependence or addiction to prescribed pain medicine is given an entire section in her Wikipedia article? "As an adult Obama admitted that during high school he used marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol, which he described at the 2008 Civil Forum on the Presidency as his greatest moral failure.". It seems to me that illegally obtaining, possessing, and using illegal substances such as cocaine and marijuana is at least as significant (or more) an issue than becoming dependant and then addicted to legal medication that has been prescribed by a licensed physician who is responsible for the management of the patient's pain therapy. Obviously in this type of scenario, at some point the legitimate usage of pain medication becomes the abuse of the medication and abuse of the trust in the patient-physician relationship and accountability of the actions by all parties involved is proper but seeking, obtaining, and using illegal substances such as cocaine and marijuana is something entirely different. One should also know that herniated, protruding, or ruptured disc conditions can and often do cause chronic and at times severe pain and the management of this condition with opiod and NSAID medications is entirely appropriate. Again, becoming dependent and then addicted to prescribed medication is entirely different than using illegal substances (which may have come through the course of trafficking into the user’s hands literally at the cost of lives) and should be documented appropriately. I am not suggesting that the one sentence reference to Senator Obama’s use of illegal substances should be expanded but rather that the entire section dedicated to Mrs. McCain’s use of prescription pain medicine in this article should be weighted appropriately.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.253 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

-it looks like the section was trimmed a bit while I was writing and then waiting to post (my computer crashed) the above message but it is still considerably more when compared to the one sentence mention of Senator Obama's drug use in his wiki article; in my oppinion they should be given about equal weight in the articles. Just my oppinion.

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]


 * Are you certain you're not a blond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.76.91 (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * However the word 'occupation' is defined by Princeton (Wordnet) as "1. the principal activity in your life that you do to earn money", by Websters (dictionary.com) as "1. a person's usual or principal work or business, esp. as a means of earning a living; vocation.", and by Oxford English Dictionary as "1 a job or profession." Oxford English Dictionary further defines a 'profession' as "1. a paid occupation, especially one involving training and a formal qualification." Furthermore, the typical everyday use of the word 'occupation' coincides with Merriam-Webster's Thesaurus, "calling, employment, line, profession, trade, vocation, work."
 * Thus, it seems that an occupation is almost wholly concerned with the act of making money. Even if one spends the bulk of their time on Philanthropy their occupation isn't philanthropy. Clearly there is room for interpretation here, but when you also consider that much of her philanthropic activity has occurred concurrent to her official employment at Hensley & Co, it is "likely" that her occupation would be generally recognized as Businesswoman...a businesswoman who happens to be a Philanthropist. Floodo1 (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm convinced, I changed the order. Also, per Template:Infobox_person's example and the original request, I changed "businessperson" in the infobox to the more specific "Chair, Hensley & Co."  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 14 July 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.  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)

ABC/Washington Post June '08 Poll (Spouses).
The article incorrectly refers to this as showing Cindy McCain having a higher favourability rating than Michelle Obama (citing Fox News).

According to ABC News (who co-conducted the poll), this is not the case - with Michelle Obama presently edging-out Cindy McCain with a 9 point advantage as of 18 June 2008.

The correct analysis can be found at http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=5185695&page=1.

Can an established user kindly amend this asap.

Fliteweight (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Two different polls (Rasmussen vs ABC/WaPo), two different results. I've added this poll, and removed the comparison to Michelle Obama, since it's inconclusive across the two polls.  If a sharp, consistent difference between the two's poll ratings develops over the campaign, we can add it, but otherwise it looks to just invite trouble.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Wasted Time R - good decision, good execution. Fliteweight (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proper Name
Does she use Cindy Hensley McCain as her legal name, ie Hillary Rodham Clinton? Or does she simply use Cindy McCain? Most published references seem to indicate the latter, which would mean the article needs a new header.204.126.251.232 (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. I've seen the Hensley form used on this bio page at CARE, and she's introduced that way in the first sentence of her campaign bio page.  But you're right, most published references don't use it.  It may be that she uses the 'Hensley' form for business, since it ties her to the company heritage, and she uses the shorter form for most other activities.  As to what her legal name is, no clue.  I've defended the Hillary Rodham Clinton article naming many times as being proper, and I believe in women keeping their original names in one form or another, but lacking further evidence I don't have strong convictions about what this article name should be.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I forgot the best evidence that she uses Cindy Hensley McCain for business: this Hensley & Co. "About us" page on their website. Also this "Contacts" page at the same site. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, from Wikipedia's rule, we are supposed to follow what the person is generally known as, not what she uses on business materials, etc. Almost all newspaper, radio and TV articles refer to her as "Cindy McCain", not "Cindy Hensley McCain" or "Cindy Lou McCain" or "Cindy Lou Hensley McCain".  That is the standard that Wikipedia requires, what is commonly known, not how she refers to herself.  I vote for "Cindy McCain". --InaMaka (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Eye's color
As all we know, this isn't a beauty contest, but at this point isn't clear if her eyes are green, blue-green or grey and if its color was afected by Percocet or Vicodin. --Simon Le Bon (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Focus on your songwriting, leave the biography to us. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't accept that, you aren't her official biographer. --Simon Le Bon (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And your user page says you have a sense of humor ... our article doesn't say what her eye color is, nor do the vast majority of WP biographical articles, so I'm not sure what your comment is for. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as a matter of pure purient interest (as much of this article seems to be dedicated to anyway) while watching her GOP convention speech on C-SPAN, where the colors were very clear, it appeared tht her right eye is green, her left is blue. I had never noticed this before. Not that this is a huge issue, but it would be interesting to know if she has Heterochromia. - Nhprman 13:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

First marriage of husband
I don't think this article needs to go into as much detail as it does about the McCain first marriage. I'll give it a whack.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the original rationale was to try to dispel the "Cindy as homewrecker" notion (does anyone still use that term?), but that gets into too much murk and I think your removals are an improvement. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (COMMENT WITHDRAWN) Sorry... I misread the above comment Tedzsee (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Prescription drug section undue weight
I'd like to revisit the weight given to her past problem with prescription drugs. From WP:UNDUE:"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." This is an important aspect of Cindy McCain's life and a necessary entry in her bio. But the amount of detail that is provided (particularly all of the Goskinky info) gives this period of her life excessive weight and gives the appearance of point-of-view pushing. This section unnecessarily overwhelms the article by providing a disproportionate amount of space. I'd like to change the section to read:"In 1989, Cindy McCain became addicted to opioid painkillers such as Percocet and Vicodin,[33] which she initially took to alleviate pain following two spinal surgeries for ruptured discs[34][35] and to ease emotional stress during the Keating Five scandal.[33] The addiction progressed to where she was taking upwards of twenty pills a day[10] and she resorted to stealing drugs from her own AVMT.[34] Subsequently in 1992, her parents staged an intervention to force her to get help;[17] she told her husband about her problem, attended a drug treatment facility, began outpatient sessions, and ended her three years of active addiction.[33] Cindy McCain publically revealed her past addiction in 1994 just before the local news media was about to publish a negatively-cast article about the matter.[36][33]" I want to move this paragraph to "American Voluntary Medical Team and adoption":"AVMT concluded its activities in 1995.[28] That year, McCain founded a new organization, the Hensley Family Foundation, which donates monies towards children's programs in Arizona and nationally,[9] and she was largely a stay-at-home mom during the balance of the 1990s.[17] She also held positions as vice president, director, and vice chair of Hensley & Co.[25][24]" I am recommending deleting this:"There, her role as a bookkeeper who had difficulty finding receipts for trips on Charles Keating's jet[17] caused complications for her husband when he was already being examined for his role regarding oversight of Keating's bank.[10]" This is explained already in the remaining sentence "and to ease emotional stress during the Keating Five scandal". Move the two footnotes from this excised section to the remaining sentence and let the interested reader get the details.

I recommend deleting this sentence:"A hysterectomy in 1993 resolved her back pain.[33][35]" What of substance does this add?

My rewrite replaces this:"The Phoenix New Times was about to publish a negatively-cast article about the whole affair.[36][33] Cindy McCain pre-empted this[33] by publicly revealing her past addiction, stating she hoped it would give fellow drug addicts courage in their struggles: 'Although my conduct did not result in compromising any missions of AVMT, my actions were wrong, and I regret them.'[9]" with "Cindy McCain publically revealed her past addiction in 1994 just before the local news media was about to publish a negatively-cast article about the matter.[36][33]"

I recommend deleting all the particulars concerning Tom Gosinki, which means deleting:"During 1992, Tom Gosinski, the director of government and international affairs for AVMT, discovered her drug theft.[36] ... In January 1993, McCain terminated Gosinski's employment on grounds of budgetary reasons.[36] In spring 1993, Gosinski tipped off the Drug Enforcement Administration to investigate McCain's drug theft,[36] and a federal investigation ensued. McCain's defense team, led by Washington lawyer John Dowd,[36] secured an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office that limited her punishment to financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program, [9][36] without any public disclosure. Meanwhile, in early 1994 Gosinski filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against McCain, which he told her he would settle for $250,000.[36] In April 1994, Dowd requested that Maricopa County officials investigate Gosinski for extortion.[36] ... A flurry of press attention followed, including charges by Gosinski that she had asked him to lie concerning her drug use when the McCains were applying to adopt their baby from Bangladesh[33] and statements by past AVMT employees that Gosinski had once threatened to blackmail her. The Arizona Republic published an editorial cartoon ridiculing the motivations for her AVMT work[37] and an award dinner in her honor was canceled citing poor ticket sales.[9] In the end, both Gosinski's lawsuit and the extortion investigation against him were dropped.[33]" Such details involving lawsuits, an editorial cartoon, an award dinners, charges and counter-charges provide more weight than the matter deserves. Read my rewrite abridgement: Do you come away with any significant content loss? Do you not get the substantial information? We'll move several of the footnotes to the rewrite abridgement and, again, let the interested reader dig up such information. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus I'd like to change the heading from "Prescription drug addiction, theft, and recovery" to simply "Prescription drug addiction" so as not to highlight the theft. Don't you think "Prescription drug addiction" is sufficiently informational whereas the other may be a bit too sensationalistic to be used in a BLP heading? &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Well, I disagree. This section is describing a number of things: a multi-year addiction to drugs, involvement in the most serious scandal her husband would ever have, committing theft, being under legal investigation, getting blackmailed, getting bad publicity, etc.  This is a pretty major set of circumstances for anyone to go through!  It warrants the attention we give it.  And the Gosinski developments were part of it too.  And detail is always better than vague generalities – her specific role in the Keating affair shows the specific role she had, rather than leaving the reader to guess.


 * Moreover, I completely dispute your claim of pov pushing, apparent or otherwise. I'm the primary author of this article, and it mentions pretty much everything there is that is known about Cindy McCain.  I keep a lookout for every new newspaper or magazine story about her, and anything new that crops up, I put in.  I've filled the article with details about her charitable work then and now, details of her education, the work that she published, her financial assets, I'm the person who found and put in all of this.  It's meant to be a comprehensive treatment of her life, good bad or indifferent.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding your last bit, BLP rules don't mean we can't say people engaged in theft, when they did. When people run afoul of the law, it often ends up as one of their BLP section headers.  Jim Guy Tucker has a header that says "Conviction", Scooter Libby has a header that says "Trial, conviction, and sentencing", Winona Ryder has a header that says "2001 shoplifting incident", and so forth.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, this is a high-profile article in the arena of partisan politics. I've been working on such articles for over three years, and one thing I've found is that if the article doesn't straightforwardly and fully cover some controversial thing that happened, other editors will try to fill in the gaps.  And none of them will do it as fairly and in as well-cited as manner as the existing treatment here does.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, your rewrite removes "[Cindy] stating she hoped it would give fellow drug addicts courage in their struggles: 'Although my conduct did not result in compromising any missions of AVMT, my actions were wrong, and I regret them.'[9]" In the BLP context, we should certainly leave in her quote, and her statement about why she went public; both are her speaking for herself, and are important to include.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To expand upon the Gosinski material, you say removal of it won't mean any significant content loss. Well, I think her getting caught up in extortion/blackmail, having nasty editorial cartoons and other public criticism run against her, having her adoption dragged into it, is all pretty significant!  This is the full dimension of what her addiction brought upon her.  A somewhat similar case is Rush Limbaugh, which goes into some of the nasty fallout from it, including the possibility of doctor shopping charges.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I apologize for imputing the charge of POV pushing to you. The weight given to this matter is excessive and that does give the appearance of POV pushing.


 * I want to continue to participate as an additional editor on this page, not to undermine your hard work but to bring additional fairness to this particular section while acknowledging the fine work you have done on the article as a whole. I too have had experience editing political pages and feel that this section goes beyond straightforward coverage. My goal is to use Occam's razor and remove those portions that do not add significant content, thereby decreasing the weight that is undue, in my opinion. Even though you believe no other editor can be as fair, I'd like to take a stab.


 * Regarding the section heading, I'm not arguing that the section shouldn't mention theft -- it does. I'm arguing that this element of the story is not necessary in the heading and possibly sensationalistic.


 * Again, I disagree. I pointed to three other articles whose section headers mention trouble with the law, and there are dozens more.  It's not sensationalistic at all.  The current header also indicates she recovered as well.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But lets get to the meat of the matter: what this section describes, as you outline it.


 * "Multi-year addiction to druges". The rewrite covers that.


 * "Involvement in the most serious scandal her husband would ever have". That is a POV characterization -- the "most" part. Many would argue that his Keating Five involvement vs. this family tragedy is of much weightier import to the country. And that is part of my concern: much of this section is attributable to McCain's involvement and is more appropriate on his page and not on her bio but I do realize that the odds of it making it to his page are nil. Gosinkis sued McCain, not his wife.


 * The "most" was just my comment here, it's not in the article. I've now moved the details of her Keating Five involvement out of this section, and further up into a section that matches chronologically when the involvement happened.  (I've also added in the Keating shopping center investment with her father, which somehow had gotten left out, but which is in every other Keating Five-related article we have.)  Yes, obviously Keating Five was 95% about her husband, but she did have these two involvements in it.  But the rest of your conclusions here are incorrect.  The AVMT was her initiative that she founded, John had nothing to do with it.  She did the hiring and firing, she fired Gosinski, Gosinski sued her, not John.  Remember also that she's the one with the big money in the family, and thus a likely extortion/blackmail target.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "committing theft" That is covered in the article. Addicts frequently steal and so the rewrite establishes that.


 * "being under legal investigation" OK, we should discuss how to include that kind of information in a summary fashion, which is the style Wikipedia uses.


 * "getting blackmailed" That is a set of accusations and charges, certainly not in any fashion an established fact. That is just the sort of thing I want to redact.


 * "getting bad publicity" What exactly does this add? Naturally a matter of this nature isn't good for one's reputation. And you feel that minutia such as an editorial cartoon and a cancelled dinner adds significant context? Isn't receiving "bad publicity" implicit?


 * No, it isn't implicit. To use your example of Betty Ford, from what I remember she got a very sympathetic press coverage and public reaction.  Cindy is an example of someone who'd didn't, and that fact helps explain why she has been somewhat skittish during the two presidential campaigns, especially the first one.  The "minutia" you mention are to give specifics, rather than make a vague statement that she got bad publicity and a bad public reaction.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "etc." By which I presume you mean how Gosinski said "she had asked him to lie concerning her drug use when the McCains were applying to adopt their baby from Bangladesh[" A wild, unproven accusation has no business here.


 * That Gosinksi sued her and that Cindy's lawyer requested authorities investigate Gosinksi for extortion are factual legal events, and need to be included, to illustrate the level which this matter reached. I can see your point about not including "charges by Gosinski that she had asked him to lie concerning her drug use when the McCains were applying to adopt their baby from Bangladesh and statements by past AVMT employees that Gosinski had once threatened to blackmail her", since if these were just allegations made in the press (would need to be double-checked), they don't carry the same importance.  Accordingly I've removed that text.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's look at a similar situation (Rush is a unique story which nonetheless doesn't include unproven accusations such as blackmail or nasty editorials of which I bet there were quite a few): Betty Ford where her problems with alcohol and prescription drugs is accorded respectful treatment. I bet if I worked hard, I could find some of her behavior while under the influence juicy enough to add but what would it add?


 * Betty Ford didn't commit any crimes or get investigated by any law enforcement agency, from what I remember.


 * "her specific role in the Keating affair shows the specific role she had, rather than leaving the reader to guess." Her specific role in the Keating affair is irrelevant to the discussion of her problems with prescription druges. Possibly it belongs elsewhere in the article, but it provides no additional insight into her drug problems.


 * May I assume that you agree that the hysterectomy can be redacted and my rewrite of her public revelation are OK? I would argue that in the context of my abridgment, the additional detail including Cindy's remarks about her addiction, that "my actions were wrong" are no longer necessary (again, this goes without saying). &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You must have missed my comment above (easy to do in these long discussions), but no, I feel strongly that the 'stating she hoped it would give fellow drug addicts courage in their struggles: "Although my conduct did not result in compromising any missions of AVMT, my actions were wrong, and I regret them."' needs to stay in, because this is her stance and her words and they deserve to be reproduced here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the hysterectomy, it's there because it's part of the medical story, and also it buttresses the notion that the addiction had much of its origin in real pain. If you think it's too private a detail to include, then we should also take out the mention of miscarriages early on, even though that was part of her motivation for leaving the Washington scene and returning to live in Arizona.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WTR's suggested that the investigation is important, so this is my amended suggestion:"In 1989, Cindy McCain became addicted to opioid painkillers such as Percocet and Vicodin,[33] which she initially took to alleviate pain following two spinal surgeries for ruptured discs[34][35] and to ease emotional stress during the Keating Five scandal.[33] The addiction progressed to where she was taking upwards of twenty pills a day[10] and she resorted to stealing drugs from her own AVMT.[34] Subsequently in 1992, her parents staged an intervention to force her to get help;[17] she told her husband about her problem, attended a drug treatment facility, began outpatient sessions, and ended her three years of active addiction.[33] The theft of drugs was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Agency resulting in financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program without any public disclosure. Cindy McCain later publically revealed her past addiction in 1994 just before the local news media was about to publish a negatively-cast article about the matter.[36][33]" &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)S


 * Getting back to the fundamental issue here, in response to your concerns I have tried to decrease the apparent "weight" of this section and material. I moved an image out of this section to another section where it could equally well appear, so that this section would attract less visual attention; I moved the Keating Five details out; and I deleted the Gosinski-related allegations in the press, as discussed above.  So what are we left with?  Discussion of this matter takes up 3 paragraphs in a 20 paragraph article.  (The fourth paragraph discusses what happened after the addiction/investigation was over; I include it here, rather than in the AVMT section as you proposed, because I try to keep things in chronological order as much as possible.  Her withdrawal from public/charitable activity for several years was likely a consequence of the addiction/investigation experience, which readers would have a harder time seeing with an out-of-order treatment.)  I don't think 3/20 is an unreasonable weighting for developments as important as these.  And this ratio will continue to widen (as it has up to now), as more material is added regarding other parts of her life and as new campaign-related developments occur. And note that I've never included this matter in the lead section of the article, because it's hard to address fairly in a brief clause and because I figured it would be a trouble magnet.   As for the level of detail in the 3 paragraphs, it's consistent with the level of detail in the rest of the article.  You'll note that I list every country where she's done charitable or relief work, because I really wanted to convey the extent of it.  You'll notice that I list many details of her financial holdings, because I really wanted to convey the extent of those.   You'll notice that I give several details of her living in Washington early in John's political career, because I really wanted to show the motivation behind her return to Arizona.  And so on; I'm a believer in "show, don't tell".  So to reiterate, I don't think this material is overweighted in the overall scheme of the article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I appreciate your good faith edits and I agree that they have served to decrease the weight given to this matter. For the sake of process, further edits to the page should be reserved until we come up with a consensus compromise for this section -- let's keep with the WP:BRD cycle. As an equal editor, I am not editing the page but instead using the talk page to discuss changes. Between two experienced editors, that is the best way to keep discussion moving forward without either one of us editing preemptively.

I'd like to break the issues down into sub-topics so that they can be addressed one-on-one in an organized fashion -- it is easy to miss every topic when discussed en masse.

Heading title
I've proposed the heading title be changed from "Prescription drug addiction, theft, and recovery" to "Prescription drug addiction". The latter is a proper encapsulation of the section -- the primary overarching issue involved whereas the former highlights equally the theft; the recovery goes without saying. Let's take your example, Rush Limbaugh which uses the heading "Prescription drug addiction". Why doesn't it read "Prescription drug addiction, doctor lawyering and recovery" or "Prescription drug addiction, doctor lawyering, arrest and recovery"?

Using my example, Betty Ford, it uses the heading "The Betty Ford Center". Why not "Prescription drug addiction, rehab and the Betty Ford Center"? Another example: Patrick J. Kennedy uses the heading "Capitol Hill impaired driving accident". Why not "Prescription drug addiction, special treatment, driving accident"?

Your examples: Winona Ryder "2001 shoplifting incident" -- why not "Shoplifting incident, drug usage and probation"? Drug usage was an issue here but not decisive. Listing probation would be irrelevant (just as recovery here is). Jim Guy Tucker's "Conviction" (why not here at Cindy's page "Investigation"?). Using your style, it should read, "Mail fraud, Whitewater scandal and conviction".

Let's keep the heading title to the crux of the matter.


 * The current heading is a bit awkward. It used to say "Prescription drug addiction and theft."  I added the bit about "recovery" to try to make it more neutral.  Even so, it's still an awkward heading: does "recovery" mean that the drugs were recovered, or that she recovered?  Additionally, I'm not sure that this whole issue of "theft" is as simple as the heading suggests.  See here.  As far as I know, she didn't sneak into some AVMT supply closet and steal pills; instead, it seems that a Dr. John Johnson wrote bogus prescriptions.  Anyway, putting aside whether the heading is currently ambiguous or inaccurate, I do think it would be more than adequate to say "Prescription drug addiction and aftermath" in the heading.  Everyone knows that prescription drug addicts are somehow getting their hands on pills they shouldn't be taking.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, make the heading whatever you want. I'm not going to get a big debate over it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To Ferrylodge: I suggest changing:"and she resorted to stealing drugs from her own AVMT." to read:"and she resorted to having an AVMT physician write illegal prescriptions." &#8756; Therefore | talk 00:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hysterectomy
I argue that "A hysterectomy in 1993 resolved her back pain" doesn't add any substance. Once a person is addicted, they don't become unaddicted once the cause that originally drove her to drugs is resolved. Therefore, what is the purpose of this statement? What implication is it making? The razor's edge question: Does its exclusion take away significant content to the issue of her drug addiction? More importantly, McCain stopped taking the drugs in 1992 which again highlights why this irrelevant.

The sources are contradictory on this issue. Paul Alexander writes in his book "Man of the People: John McCain" that she quit in 1992:"She simply stopped and somehow found a way to live with [the] ... severe back pain. Then, in January 1993, ... [after] she had [an] operation, the pain she had been suffering for years suddenly ended." However, when writing for More.Com (which is not a reliable source and should be removed from the article) he states:"After the operation, she quit the pills cold turkey." The Arizona Republic source simply states that she had a hysterectomy in 1993 but said she quit in 1992.

I don't think it is too private a detail, just irrelevant to a section that discusses her drug addiction. See also my comments below at "AVMT history".


 * If we're going to mention that the source of her pain was resolved, I think it would be more than adequate to say that it was resolved by surgery, without specifying the particular type of surgery. In the article about Carol McCain, we are deliberately omitting information that her car accident left her unable to have more kids, which is a central fact that may be very relevant to what subsequently happened to her second marriage.  The reason we have left this info out of the Carol McCain article is out of a sense of decency and privacy.  Here, specifying the exact type of surgery is not relevant to anything, so there is even greater reason to leave it out.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * More magazine is a reliable source, I don't know why you suggest otherwise. When Alexander writes for it, he's getting edited and fact-checked just as if he's writing another book.  Regarding the type of surgery, I'm okay with omitting that.  But I do believe it's easier to get and stay unaddicted once the initial cause of the addiction is ameliorated, whether that cause is physical, emotional, or mental, so I think the surgery is an important detail to mention.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll defer to your talk on More magazine; if they have a reputation for fact-checking and are considered mainstream, then no problem. We will have to differ on the issue of addiction; once addiction takes hold, it's the relief from the need and not from the underlying pain that is at issue. That is neither here nor there since, as stated, the alleviation of the pain was done after she was off the drugs. The problem is having this item unrelated to her prescription drug use under the section titled "Prescription drug addiction". But I'll suggest a solution for that under the section "AVMT History". &#8756; Therefore | talk 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's perfectly fine to mention what happened to the pain that caused her to get addicted, in the section about her addiction. Even if the pain was eliminated after her addiction ended.  Surely the alleviation of her pain made a relapse of addiction less likely, and even if it didn't then still it's okay to briefly mention what happened to the pain in this section.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, you make a good point. &#8756; Therefore | talk 00:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of this discussion was very peculiar. Since when has Wikipedia been censoring useful information for "decency and privacy"?  And in what world is a hysterectomy more embarrassing than drug addiction?  Get a grip, people - if you've got sourced facts that are interesting, you put them in.  Maybe some other woman with chronic "back pain" who reads this will realize she needs to have other parts checked. Wnt (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since when? You can go visit the Carol McCain article and see that I argued for inclusion of information about the effects of her car accident, but there was no consensus to do so.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Investigation and revelation
I want to replace:"During 1992, Tom Gosinski, the director of government and international affairs for AVMT, discovered her drug theft. ... In January 1993, McCain terminated Gosinski's employment on grounds of budgetary reasons.[36] In spring 1993, Gosinski tipped off the Drug Enforcement Administration to investigate McCain's drug theft,[36] and a federal investigation ensued. McCain's defense team, led by Washington lawyer John Dowd,[36] secured an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office that limited her punishment to financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program, [9][36] without any public disclosure. Meanwhile, in early 1994 Gosinski filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against McCain, which he told her he would settle for $250,000.[36] In April 1994, Dowd requested that Maricopa County officials investigate Gosinski for extortion. The Phoenix New Times was about to publish a negatively-cast article about the whole affair.[36][33] Cindy McCain pre-empted this[33] by publicly revealing her past addiction, stating she hoped it would give fellow drug addicts courage in their struggles: 'Although my conduct did not result in compromising any missions of AVMT, my actions were wrong, and I regret them.' ... In the end, both Gosinski's lawsuit and the extortion investigation against him were dropped.[33]" with "The theft of drugs was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Agency resulting in financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program without any public disclosure. Cindy McCain later publically revealed her past addiction in 1994 right before the local news media were about to publish the details including allegations that a fired AVMT employee blackmailed McCain and that there had been a coverup." All the background details about what sparked the investigation have little encyclopedic value -- that is what the sources are for. That she was investigated by a federal agency is of utmost importance not all of the less important, messy, questionable details involving Gosinki and his journals, allegations, civil lawsuits. You make a good point that the allegations of blackmail and a cover up should be mentioned.

That she regrets her actions goes without saying in this case; sometimes publically acclaimed regrets are appropriate to include when there may be doubt whether the offender does have regrets. But that isn't the case here. It adds little content and let Occam rule, particularly given that my rewrite shortens this section. At the least, we should replace the detail with, say, "Cindy later publicaly revealed her past addiction, expressing regrets, in 1994 ...."

I stand corrected on whether Cindy did the firing vs. John; the use of surnames in the article sometimes confuses me. Strictly speaking, AVMT did the firing both legally and according to the sources.


 * There is a difference between blackmail and attempted blackmail, so that needs to be clarified. Also, saying "there had been a coverup" is problematic.  Who did the covering up, and what was covered up?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I was relying on a Salon source: "There were accusations of blackmail, and a coverup." But the article doesn't detail what it means by that. I suggest then using this verbiage:"including an allegation that a fired AVMT employee attempted to blackmail McCain." &#8756; Therefore | talk 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I continue to object to this entire approach of condensing the Gosinski-related events down to near nothing. This article got over 400,000 hits last month, many no doubt from readers who've read all sorts of lurid crap about Cindy McCain's drug addiction and life in general on various web sites.  I want to inform them as to what really happened, not leave them with vaguely worded phrases whose main purpose is to keep the article as short as possible. I'm willing to fork over more dough to get articles out of the Arizona Republic archive on this, which are likely to give the best detail before descriptions got  rehashed in all these other tertiary sources, but not if the research has no place to go.  And if Therefore's master plan is to condense all the detail out of every other section in the article (which seems to be hinted at above, but I may have misunderstood, pardon me if I have), then I'm really going to object.  My goal is to make this the best short biography of this person on the planet, not the shortest.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 400,000 hits? Try 34,600.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you have mistook my master plan -- but no problem, I can see why you have that impression. My objective is to rewrite this section because of undue weight problems. An event from 11 years go shouldn't take up 1/3 or 1/4 of her life. Look at the Newsweek article, maybe it takes up 1/20 of the detail. But let's say for the sake of argument undue weight is irrelevant. My real "master plan" is to make the section more readable by shaking off unnecessary detail that these interested readers can go to the sources if interested. Employee lawsuits for unlawful termination are not relevant to this section. How is that he asked for $250,000 critical? I'm not trying to critique your writing in this section -- it's is fine and would be an excellent news article. But as an encyclopedic article, I think it detracts from the quality of the article for most readers who come to get the basic critical information. She was addicted. She used her charity to get drugs. She was investigated by the DEA. She cleaned up her act. She was compelled to release this publically. But adding so much extraneous detail that doesn't add significantly to this content serves to give undue weight. And undue weight makes this article look like it is POV pushing. I want to fix that. There is no substantial loss to the content. &#8756; Therefore | talk 00:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do you get 1/3 or 1/4 from? It is 3 out of 20 paragraphs, which is about 1/7.  How long ago it was is irrelevant, this is a biography not a current events article.  That she was the target of a lawsuit, and in turn saw that person as trying to extort her, is definitely a part of her story.  Would you take an article such as Whitewater controversy, which has a zillion twists and turns and subplots, and try to boil it down to just the initial land deal and what happened to that, and tell our readers to consult sources for all the rest?  That makes no sense to me.  Again, I'm not looking to limit the article to "the basic critical information".  That's what lead sections are for.  How can you say lawsuit and extortion are unimportant for the reader to see, while being a cheerleader, working with Down syndrome children, not fitting into the Washington scene, looking elegant at coffee shops, owning a share of the Diamondbacks, and a dozen other details, are?  For your approach to limit ourselves to only "the basic critical information" to be consistent, you're going to want to eliminate 75% or more of this article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whitewater is in no way comparable, in my opinion. Instead of debating the finer points of WP editing, please go to the bottom at "Recommended rewrite" (of this section, right after FL's "split the differentce" comment) where I'm trying to add in the additional information in a concise fashion. I'd appreciate your feedback on what substantive information is missing. Please understand that I understand the frustrations of having one's writing edited -- we work hard on our contributions and accordingly should be proud of them. The nature of Wikipedia, as I'm preachin' to the choir here, is the collaborative nature of others nosin' in and changing what we have worked on. I get frustrated when it happens to me and I more than empathize. &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To illustrate, when Therefore says, "All the background details about what sparked the investigation have little encyclopedic value -- that is what the sources are for. That she was investigated by a federal agency is of utmost importance not all of the less important, messy, questionable details involving Gosinki and his journals, allegations, civil lawsuits." I completely and totally disagree.  It's these details that fill out the biographical content — it shows she was willing to take actions, and suffer consequences, and how messy and sometimes nasty those consequences turned out to be.  It illustrates the nature of the position involved as the head of an organization.  Again, I see this article as a full short biography (not meant as an oxymoron), while I get the impression Therefore thinks of it as a high-level overview of her life and a link farm left as an exercise for readers to pursue.  Obviously, in both our viewpoints there are cutoff lines for what goes in and what doesn't, but my cutoff line is definitely a level or two lower than Therefore's.  I want readers to gain a pretty full understanding about her life, without ever having to follow down any of our sources.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Without ever having to follow down any of our sources? That is a radically different approach that I don't see much of in Wikipedia (if I'm understanding what you are saying). By that argument, this section needs to be three times as big as there are whole swaths of missing details, qualifying characterizations (from more than just Salon but extensive inclusion of Alexander's book would be required). I presume you are not inferring that Occam's razor isn't an applicable tool?


 * This is more philosophical debating. I would prefer to work on the article itself. If you are saying that we need to expand on this section (which will be required to bring it into a much more complete overview of the situation) then I will stick with the issue of undue weight and let me be clear: The objective of having this much detail is to provide the reader the sense that this event is of great weight. From WP:UNDUE:"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." That is exactly what is happening here and this must be fixed as it is a NPOV problem even if you personally believe this is the greatest scandal that John McCain has had to face. Presumably it was of greater political import in Arizona, but it doesn't equally have national significance. &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I said Keating Five was the greatest scandal McCain had to face. Cindy's addiction isn't in the top five.  If what I wrote gave you the opposite impression, let me correct that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What I wrote was, "This section is describing a number of things: a multi-year addiction to drugs, involvement in the most serious scandal her husband would ever have, committing theft, being under legal investigation, getting blackmailed, getting bad publicity, etc." That was back when K5 details were in this section, and "involvement in the most serious scandal her husband would ever have" was a reference to that K5 material.  I can see how you might have been confused, however.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, that was my misunderstanding. Sorry for the confusion! &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Secondly, Occam's razor is a scientific principle, and I have no idea how you're trying to apply it here. It relates to judging the merit of competing theories that are trying to explain observable phenomena.  It is not normally used to apply to descriptive writing.  Some of the most famous and acclaimed biographers around (think Robert Caro) write very, very, very long works, that go into incredible detail about certain aspects (think LBJ's 1948 Senate election).  Is Caro in violation of the razor?  Finally, please show me the WP guideline or policy regarding using Occam's razor to write our articles.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that biographical books are a comparison here. I appreciate the info about Occam's razor and I was using it somewhat figuratively here (just as the KISS principle is used as a figurative trope for the razor). However, this razor is a common tool for editing. The test: Is there any significant loss of content. God made editors for a reason: To cut out the unnecessary. If you are arguing that the art of encyclopdia writing isn't the art of paraphrasing, then we are, again, at philosophical odds. Here is WP's razor from WP:ATE:"Articles should use only necessary words. This does not mean using fewer words is always better; rather, when considering equivalent formulations, choose the more concise one." I really don't think it is productive to debate whether editing down isn't frequently a good tool for writing concise, clear writing. Regardless, even if you feel that paraphrasing won't improve the article, I stand strongly by the undue weight problems. &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:ATE is just giving us Strunk & White for how to write particular phrases or sentences. That isn't guidance for how much to write on a given topic; it applies equally well to a one-page report and a thousand-page book.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And I continue to stand by my belief that 3 paragraphs out of 20 isn't undue weighting. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)To follow up on "Without ever having to follow down any of our sources", of course people can (and should) read further if they want. But I want them to finish the article satisfied that they've gotten a good description of the subject. For example, when I read Tourette syndrome, I feel like I've learned a lot; I don't have any urge to read any of the medical papers or other sources mentioned. I want people to have the same feeling here. You've used several times two words earlier, "redact" and "abridge", the effect of which are almost guaranteed to leave people feeling there's stuff they weren't told. Whenever people see a document that's had redactions to it, they're always wondering what they weren't told. Do you consider Tourette syndrome to be too long or too detailed? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that User:Therefore and User:Wasted Time R split the difference.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think a 50-50 split is necessarily the way to go but I see your idea that we should add in more detail to flesh out some of the circumstances. I suggest this:"In 1992, an AVMT employee discovered the illegal prescriptions. He was subsequently fired by AVMT for budgetary reasons and went to the Drug Enforcement Administration with his suspicions. The agency investigated the matter resulting in financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program without any public disclosure. Cindy McCain later publically revealed her past addiction in 1994 right before the local news media were about to publish the details including an allegations that the fired AVMT employee blackmailed McCain by requesting a settlement in his unlawful termination suit." What am I missing (substantially)? &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's better. I don't think it would hurt to mention Gosinski's name at least once.  He's currently mentioned by name five times in the article, which is probably overkill.  Also, on a non-substantive note, I realize that "publically" is not a misspelling, but the spelling should be "publicly" in the article.  Anyway, I've got some stuff to do, so must bow out for awhile.  Later.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If consensus is that his name should be included, then I will agree. I have to say that the privacy of names in single-event situations is governed by WP:BLP:"Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated ..., it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." I tend to err on the side of caution on this matter. &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Flurry of press attention
I recommend deleting this portion:"A flurry of press attention followed; the Arizona Republic published an editorial cartoon ridiculing the motivations for her AVMT work[37] and an award dinner in her honor was canceled citing poor ticket sales." I argue that an editorial cartoon is a minor detail. WTR argues that it is an illustration of negative publicity and that unlike Betty Ford, Cindy received negative press. In fact, Cindy also received some sympathetic press: "The reporters were sympathetic. ... Given Cindy's heartfelt confession, the handpicked journalists did what Smith expected. They painted Cindy as the victim, a courageous soldier beating back the devil of drug addiction.". Betty Ford received much negative press from, naturally, partisan sources. The fact that there are some who criticized her for the lifting some of her drugs from her charity goes without saying, doesn't it? I don't see, using your example, on the Rush Limbaugh page reactions to his illegal drug usage -- I mean, it would be unnecessary since it would give it undue weight, POV pushing and is superfluous in an encyclopedic article.


 * The flurry of press attention seems unnecessary, since she had no control over it, and we don't say that she was affected in any way by it. However, cancellation of the dinner in her honor obviously did affect her, since she couldn't go and be honored.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be glad to explore the different kinds of press attention and public reaction she got. The Arizona Republic archives would be a good source for this.  But if it's all going to get chopped out of the article, no point.  I can see already that we have vastly different ideas about what kind of material should go into a Wikipedia article.  I see these articles as short biographies, you see them as ... I'm not sure, but not short biographies.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see them as short bios also, WTR. The art of writing an encyclopedia is the art of paraphrasing. To FL: How about we add this:"As a result, an award dinner in her honor was shortly thereafter canceled citing poor ticket sales." &#8756; Therefore | talk 00:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

AVMT history
I argue that this paragraph:"AVMT concluded its activities in 1995.[28] That year, McCain founded a new organization, the Hensley Family Foundation, which donates monies towards children's programs in Arizona and nationally,[9] and she was largely a stay-at-home mom during the balance of the 1990s.[17] She also held positions as vice president, director, and vice chair of Hensley & Co.[25][24]" be moved to the "American Voluntary Medical Team and adoption" section. It has nothing to do with her addiction to drugs. WTR argues that it is useful there chronologically (a technique that isn't part of Wikipedia's summary style) and further that "Her withdrawal from public/charitable activity for several years was likely a consequence of the addiction/investigation experience, which readers would have a harder time seeing with an out-of-order treatment."

I have a problem with this. None of the sources support that her withdrawal was a consequence. If that is your intent with its insertion (and it is clear from its placement that this is the expected inference), then I argue that is a vio of WP:NOR and is a problematic POV.

I laud your objective for keeping things chronological. This part and the discussion of the hysterectomy would make more sense incorporated in this fashion if we didn't have this red flag "Prescription drug addiction, theft, and recovery" section. Eventually I would like to discuss incorporating all of these life story details into a more cohesive, chronological storyline which would avoid the problems that arise when including such details as her hysterectomy and the end of AVMT into a section that prominently features this event.

As an aside, the statement "AVMT concluded its activities in 1995." isn't supported by the source.


 * The source says "An advocate for children's health care needs, she founded the American Voluntary Medical Team in 1988, and led many medical missions to developing and war-torn countries during the Team's seven-year existence." 1988+7=1995.  Also, keeping this material in this section would be fine if we have a heading like "Prescription drug addiction and aftermath."  This would be part of the aftermath.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct on the source! I'm going to address the overall issue of this paragraph below. &#8756; Therefore | talk 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Therefore, could you point me to the WP guideline that concerns "... chronologically (a technique that isn't part of Wikipedia's summary style)"? WP:Summary style deals with breaking one article into multiple articles, which isn't relevant here.  Since when is a chronologically-oriented treatment ever discouraged?  I favor chronological organization for biographical articles because it mirrors how people lead their lives:  what happens at time T regarding matter A often affects what happens at time T + 1 regarding matter B.  I don't point out linkages between A and B unless there are good sources to support such linkages, but readers can decide for themselves if A fully or partly led to B.  Saying that chronological organization implies WP:OR is a bit of stretch, don't you think?  Then subsequently you say your favor a chronological storyline, so you leave me totally confused. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct that chronologically-orientated treatment is not discrouraged -- my point was that neither is it the gold standard which I thought you were arguing. Sorry for being unclear. That said, I will clarify why I agree with you that writing her bio chronologically is preferred and how it can be done. My problem is this: We have a section (now) titled "Prescription drug addiction and aftermath". If we are going to have such a section, it needs to relate to her addiction and its aftermath. The hysteretomy isn't applicable to either. And the termination of AVMT has no source to support the idea, that you say you are trying to get across, that it closed because of her problems. And I argue that by placing it there under the rubric "drug addiction aftermath" we are asking the reader to infer that the closing occurred because of the addiciton. That is a point-of-view that is not supported.


 * So, I want to solve this problem and there is an easy solution: Rename the section "Marriage and family" to "Marriage, family and career" and drop the artificial headings "American Voluntary Medical Team and adoption" and "Prescription drug addiction and aftermath". Then you have a single narrative thread in a straightforward chronological order that doesn't compel the reader to make inferences concerning statements under non-chronological categories (i.e., they overlap) such as AVMT and drug addiction. This will fix my concerns with both the placement of this paragraph and the hysterectomy as then they are simply part of the cohesive story. 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that's not going to work I'm afraid. Editors will come here and insist that addiction go in a heading, and that the headings have been cleansed.  Even if User:Therefore keeps an eye on this article, it will still be a battle.  And it will be hopeless if User:Therefore doesn't keep an eye on this article.  Additionally, headings that are specific to the subject are generally more informative and interesting than generic headings.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Career" is too broad, but I'm willing to fold everything currently in the AVMT and addiction sections into one section called "American Voluntary Medical Team and adoption". One could argue that since the addiction isn't mentioned in the lead section, it really doesn't belong as a section header either.  This would duck the chronological-titles-implications problems Therefore sees.  And I'm willing to take the flak for "whitewashing" the article, I'm long used to that charge ;-)  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a better solution would be to just change the section titled "Prescription drug addiction, theft, and recovery" into a subsection titled "Prescription drug addiction and aftermath". That wuold take care of the overlap problem.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For one, I can assure you that I'll be watching this article; I've watched many articles for years. If you mean by that, FL, to include a subsection to "AVMT and adoption", then I'd be happy with either WTRs or FLs solution. &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and changed the section to a subsection in the article, so it's clear what I was suggesting.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good compromise. &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I'd like to suggest an extension of this idea: break up the section titles a bit more:
 * American Voluntary Medical Team
 * Founding and mission
 * Adoption
 * Prescription drug addiction


 * Other activities

The paragraph about the termination of AVMT, her new org, her parenting activities and her work with the beer distributorship can be properly categorized vs. being under the "addiction" umbrella. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 02:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, generally I think it's best to take one thing at a time, and focus on what you regard as the most urgent changes. Do you think that further changes to the headings are more urgent than condensing the Gosinski material?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No and agreed. I'll rethink this later. :-) &#8756; Therefore | talk 02:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Recommended rewrite
This section is for keeping the current state of the rewrite. "In 1989, Cindy McCain became addicted to opioid painkillers such as Percocet and Vicodin,[33] which she initially took to alleviate pain following two spinal surgeries for ruptured discs[34][35] and to ease emotional stress during the Keating Five scandal.[33] The addiction progressed to where she was taking upwards of twenty pills a day[10] and she resorted to having an AVMT physician write illegal prescriptions.[34] Subsequently in 1992, her parents staged an intervention to force her to get help;[17] she told her husband about her problem, attended a drug treatment facility, began outpatient sessions, and ended her three years of active addiction.[33] Surgery in 1993 resolved her back pain.""In 1993, an AVMT employee who had discovered the illegal prescriptions was fired by AVMT for budgetary reasons. He then went to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) with his information, and he also filed a wrongful termination lawsuit which he eventually dropped. The DEA investigated the matter, resulting in McCain paying the costs of the investigations and enrolling in a diversion program, with all parties agreeing to keep the matter confidential. Cindy McCain later publicly revealed her past addiction in 1994, right before the local news media were about to publish the details. One result of publicizing her past addiction was that a scheduled award dinner in her honor was instead canceled due to poor ticket sales.""AVMT concluded its activities in 1995.[28] That year, McCain founded a new organization, the Hensley Family Foundation, which donates monies towards children's programs in Arizona and nationally,[9] and she was largely a stay-at-home mom during the balance of the 1990s.[17] She also held positions as vice president, director, and vice chair of Hensley & Co.[25][24]" &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "resulting in financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program without any public disclosure". Financial restitution by whom?  Public dislosure of what?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Better? &#8756; Therefore | talk 02:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that reads better. But, you bring up the wrongful termination suit out of the blue, without first mentioning it in connection with his firing.  Also, you say that he "blackmailed McCain by requesting a settlement".  Requesting a settlement in and of itself does not constitute blackmail; you have to explain.  Maybe you ought to just say that he was allegedly trying to blackmail her regarding the drug use, without mentioning the wrongful termination lawsuit (those are a dime a dozen).  Also, "including an allegation" by whom? And if Gosinski "discovered" illegal prescriptions then he had more than just "suspicions" right?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Help me on your wrongful termination concern -- I see connective tissue: "He was subsequently fired by AVMT ... the fired AVMT employee ... in his unlawful termination suit." Are you saying it should read: "in an his unlawful termination suit."?


 * Frankly, I would prefer leaving out the entire section about the alleged blackmail as it is nonsense but am offering it here as a compromise. The way I described it was exactly what McCain's attorney was alleging -- Tom filed a vaguely worded suit and his attorney wrote to him that he would be willing to settle for 1/4 mil which, in the letter, he said would avoid having to reveal any further details. There is little question here, legally, that this wasn't blackmail. This was a lawerly attempt to intimidate Tom and his lawyer which tactically did work. Such detail involving silly charges between lawyers really has no business here. I vote we take it out -- it adds nothing to this section except confusion -- the allegation was groundless. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 02:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't see your recommendation re: blackmail until later. I fixed that. &#8756; Therefore | talk 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of editing your draft paragraphs. Feel free to change it back if you don't like.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Naturally I have no problem with that. Thanks! &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You will need to sprinkle some footnotes into the second paragraph. Plus we need to find out what WTR thinks about this.  I tentatively support replacing the existing material with what you've written here.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The entire section will have to be carefully footnoted -- I've put off that effort until we agree on the text. Thanks for the help. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I continue to dispute the premise of this redaction/abridgment effort. I continue to object to the loss of information here, such as the mention of John Dowd as McCain's lawyer on the case, and Dowd's request for the extortion investigation, and Cindy's quote upon going public, and more.  I object to the "fired by AVMT" language.  But I'm outnumbered at the moment, and no other sane editor is going to read all this discussion and get involved, so what I object to is pretty much irrelevant.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. It's not irrelevant.  Which of those objections do you feel most strongly about?  I think mentioning Dowd is extremely trivial, and POV if we don't name the lawyers of everyone else involved.  Please keep in mind WP:Point regarding Dowd.  I wouldn't mind including Cindy's quote, even though I think it's not very earth-shattering.  Is the "fired by AVMT" language inaccurate, and if so how can it be fixed?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think the ability to bring in a high-powered lawyer with Washington connections into your federal investigation is "extremely trivial" to the outcome of your case, then you're watching a different legal system than I am. Our Limbaugh article does mention the lawyer he had on his case, Roy Black.  He got a good result too.  Funny how that works.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it also matters which "reporter" you get to write about the story. The cited source regarding Dowd and his extortion allegation is Amy Silverman writing in Salon.  Her "objective" report in Salon has nuggets like these: "The local press cooed over her hard-luck story" and "what the journalists who slobber over the senator fail to realize is that the candor is premeditated and polished."  If you want to get a reliable source that says Cindy McCain ordinarily would have wound up with a harsher punishment, then we can use the source here.  Otherwise, it doesn't seem consistent with WP:Point to try to get the same point across by innuendo about her lawyer.  We graciously provide a link to Ms. Silverman's masterpiece for people who want further details.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Gosinski and Dowd stuff is all covered in this chapter of Nowicki-Muller, which you have praised in other venues. I don't trust Amy Silverman's reporting a whole lot either, she comes from an alternative weekly and has a clear anti-McCain agenda, although some of her writing and research is decent (and some is skewed).  Once the two of you have decided what is allowed to be said in this article and what is not, I'd like to research into the Arizona Republic archives and reverify and double cite some of the items that are allowed to be said.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WTR, I'll AGF and assume that you didn't mean to suggest that there's some kind of cover-up on my part. Look, isn't it true that you're trying to get across the following point?  In the words of Amy Silverman, "defense lawyers told New Times that if Cindy McCain had been a poor minority and not married to a U.S. senator, she likely would have been locked up."  All I'm asking, WTR, is that you get a reliable source saying those things, instead of the unreliable Ms. Silverman.  Muller and Nowicki don't seem to say anything like them.  On the contrary, Muller and Nowicki say that Dowd was a bungler who pissed off journalists (not a very smart move), and whose request for an investigation against Gosinski "helped to create a public record that otherwise would not have existed."  Dowd seems to have done more harm than good, and even Silverman says the whole addiction story never would have become public but for Dowd.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) To WTR: I concur that Dowd's name isn't that important. I'm unsure even how to incorporate it at this juncture. However, let's discuss your frustrations with the loss of Dowd's request for the extortion investigation. Can you address the above concerns where we tried to incorporate it. My original idea was: "including an allegation by her attorney that the fired AVMT employee purportedly blackmailed McCain regarding her drug use by requesting a settlement in his unlawful termination suit ." The accusation of extortion was a legal tactical move and to even describe it well is cumbersome and doesn't appear to merit inclusion. As for Cindy's quote, I stand by my comment that it goes without saying and therefore doesn't contribute sufficient weight for inclusion, particularly in light of the objective of shrinking the significance of this part. Please note: I haven't eviscerated this section, I've decreased its text by only roughly 33%. If I had my druthers, it would be by my original plan 75%. Per your objection to the "fired by AVMT" language, this is supported by the Alexander book: "Events turned ugly when Gorsinki was fired by AVMT" and others. Legally, it is the company that does the firing. When you sue for unlawful termination, you sue the organization. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer Ferrylodge, no I wasn't alleging a "cover up" in that sense. To my eyes, the redacted/abridged version is harder to follow than the existing article version, and if anything, on net makes Cindy "look worse".  I think Dowd pressing for an extortion investigation illustrates Cindy taking an I Won't Back Down stance, perhaps even if it risked public exposure; I thus think it shows an important aspect of her character.  I believe in letting people speak in defense of themselves, even if it means exceeding the word count quota for the topic.  I believe in more information not less, especially when potentially controversial subjects are being addressed.  When weighting is really a concern (which I still don't buy here), I believe in moving text into footnotes if necessary, but keeping it in the article and not leaving it as a reader research project.  I believe it's our job to write, not to not write.  I believe in all sorts of things.  But I've been on WP long enough to recognize a discussion that's gone well past the point of diminishing returns, so you guys should just do what you're going to do.  Wasted Time R (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I jumped into this conversation long after it had begun, and even then I was simply urging that you two compromise with each other, until I recently got more active in the conversation. I'm certainly not trying to steamroll you, WTR, and am not quite sure where you get that idea.  Mentioning this guy Gosinski six times by name seems excessive, and so I do think it's an undue weight problem.  Whether Gosinski was actually extorting anyone is difficult to discern, and so I'm not sure that that particular episode really tells us anything about Cindy McCain; do you think that he was extorting anyone?  As I said, I'd be willing to have the Cindy McCain quote about her addiction in the main text of the article even though I don't find it particularly revealing, but putting it in a footnote would be better.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Therefore, how about if you tell us whether you think anything in the article right now is flat-out wrong or misleading? Maybe we could focus on that first.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In those sources that feature an overview of Cindy, the discussion of her prescription addiction do not discuss Gosinski, the lawsuits, the lawyers, any implication that the charity was terminated because of the controversy, etc.. This sort of residual noise that underlies every legal imbroglio is never brought up. It is only relevant to local (Arizona) coverage that is either contemporaneous or discussing John McCain's scandals (the Arizona Republic article) in general or in a 300 page book where such detail is expected or in partisan publications where it is juicy to add in "extortion", "theft", "lawsuits", "crazy lawyers", "unlawful termination", "editorials ridiculing her", etc.


 * WRT has an understandable pride of authorship and sees his construction as having all the necessary planks sufficient to convey the full meaning of this event. However, even though he naysays the undue weight problems, they do exist. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Particularly as the article currently stands in relation to the full scope of her life, the weight given to this event is out of proportion, whether it is 1/4, 1/3 or (in this case) 1/7. This prominence occurs because the depth of detail provided, the (previously) first level heading and its placement before the more critical aspects of her life, her involvement in John's campaign.


 * WRT can't see that his creation can stand credibly and clearly (and better) because all he can see is the loss of extraneous details. Through consensus and compromise I've been willing to add back in stuff that frankly isn't necessary even if not flat-out wrong or misleading. What is misleading is the out-of-balance weight given to this event -- my preferred page version is set out below.


 * I like this resolution since WRT appears to object to narrowing the scope of this event: Rewrite this section using the below text (which is more than sufficient to convey the important aspects of this event) and WRT creates a new article with all the detail per WP's summary style. This page would then have:


 * "(see main article 'Cindy Hensley McCain prescription drug controversy addiction')""In 1989, Cindy McCain became addicted to opioid painkillers which she initially took to alleviate the pain of surgery and ease emotional stress during the Keating Five scandal.[33] She even resorted to having an AVMT physician write illegal prescriptions.[34] Subsequently in 1992, her parents staged an intervention to force her to get help;[17] she told her husband about her problem, attended a drug treatment facility, began outpatient sessions, and ended her three years of active addiction.[33] The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigated the matter resulting in McCain paying the costs of the investigations and enrolling in a diversion program. Just before the local news media were about to publish the details, Cindy McCain publicly revealed her past addiction in 1994.""AVMT concluded its activities in 1995.[28] That year, McCain founded a new organization, the Hensley Family Foundation, which donates monies towards children's programs in Arizona and nationally,[9] and she was largely a stay-at-home mom during the balance of the 1990s.[17] She also held positions as vice president, director, and vice chair of Hensley & Co.[25][24]" That would satisfy the problem with clear undue weight problems (which isn't the intent of WRT but is a fact of the page) and allow WRT his complete creation. &#8756; Therefore | talk 14:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see enough material yet for a full article about the prescription drug addiction, but I could be wrong. Let's wait and see what WTR says.


 * In a situation like this where there is disagreement among three editors, I think we ought to go really slow and focus on one small thing at a time. I'd like to focus on whether "stealing" and "theft" is the best way to characterize what Cindy did.  If she got a doctor to write fake prescriptions, then that seems a bit different from stealing and theft, and this article ought to clarify this matter.  Can we just start with that one issue?  I think we could all agree on improvements if they are well-sourced, and get them into the article right away (and this would help to establish that we did the right thing by removing "theft" from the header).  We may eventually get to the point to where there's enough material for a spinout article (though I'm skeptical).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need to include any of the Gosinski noise but I've compromised to include the unlawful termination suit (which is fluff), that he was the discover and reporter of the problem, and that he was fired. Any mention of extortion is lurid and inconsequential.


 * I too am skeptical of its value as a spinout article but am getting to the point where it may be the only solution. There is way too much material in the article and if WRT is unwilling to take out the details (sans, say, an RfC), then let him have keep his contribution in a new article. The issue of "stealing" and "theft" has already been resolved -- my compromise paragraph addresses this as does my alternative (and preferred) text with spinout. The only remaining issue is whether there is undue weight. There is and he categorically disagrees. Either we spinout his text so he can keep ownership  and resolve the undue violation or we need to go to another step of resolution.  &#8756; Therefore | talk 18:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I didn't make myself clear in my last post overnight. I have withdrawn from this discussion. I will not edit this section. The two of you can do whatever you like with it. Regarding the notion of making a spinout article, no, I do not think it is warranted, absent real world changes (major new evidence, becomes big campaign issue, she runs for office herself someday, etc., all unlikely). Wasted Time R (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead and make the changes in the article regarding theft and stealing, if you're sure they're well-sourced. As far as I know, no one has objected, so why not get it done?  We don't need to let that change get stalled on account of a condensation argument.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, please make the changes and improvements to the article that we've discussed and agreed upon, without condensing (note that the headings seem okay the way they are for now). Once you're done changing and improving, then we can deal with the condensation issue.  Why not accomplish now what no one objects to doing, and then deal with the disagreement afterward?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did make the change concerning the "theft" v. "illegal scripts" because there is no dispute and it has WP:BLP problems. I'm hesitant to make other changes (such as the removal of the editorial) as they are less critical since the weight issue is 90% of what is left: Gosinski stuff, mea culpa quotation and the editorial. OK? &#8756; Therefore | talk 19:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Was the "restitution" a payment to AVMT for the drug, or was it a payment to the federal government for the costs of the investigation, or both?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And your changes will be reverted if they are not properly sourced. The bit about illegal prescriptions was not supported by the cited source, so I put in a "citation needed" tag.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed that. Guaranteed that the end product will be meticulously sourced. Restitution was for the cost of the investigation. &#8756; Therefore | talk 19:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindet) I'm going to work on this section at my sandbox for awhile, double checking all the references and the like and then will ask for feedback. If possible, maybe we could keep the section static for awhile so that I don't have to incorporate all subsequent changes? Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm done for now, but I would prefer if we could just make changes one at a time rather than all at once. Each change needs to be carefully reviewed, so why not just do it here?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I was unclear. WTR has exited from the discussion and has deferred the decision to us. I made the (very possibly incorrect) assumption that you were satisfied with the compromise rewrite at the beginning of this section. What I'm doing at my sandbox is working on the rewrite with complete citations with some minor copyediting. However, I'm now going to hold off until I get agreement that this course of action is appropriate. &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion. Just so you're aware (and just between you and me), I have a lot of respect for WTR, and he has put in an immense amount of work on a multitude of articles about McCain and other political figures.  There are numerous articles where I have worked (and expect to continue to work) with WTR.  I don't want to give the impression that he is being steamrolled here.  Although he seems to have left in somewhat of a huff, that doesn't mean that we should just do what we want regardless of what he said.  Generally speaking, I agree with his philosophy that it's best to include stuff in a short article like this, when there's disagreement, rather than exclude it, unless there's really a BLP issue.  So, for now, how about if we just try to be inclusive, and focus on making the section neutral and accurate.  When we're don doing that, we can discuss some more whether Gosinski is given undue weight here.  Okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I understand. However, undue weight is my primary concern and I do believe that is a BLP issue. I don't have much interest in going through the existing text and fine tuning, say, whether there was a team of lawyers involved. My concern is that this is given undue weight, ala, say, Rezko on the Obama page, or hundreds of other examples. This deserves mention but this is a vio of NPOV that it is given this much detail and hence is a BLP problem. I can see that WTR somewhat walked off but my interest here is in resolving this problem. Are you saying that you disagree that the rewrite which only decreses the text by a third isn't a fair take? I personally don't care for the text and would much prefer the alternative text I outlined above (sans all of the Gosinki irrelevancies). If you think it would be better, we could ask for an RfC to see if the BLP community sees this as a problem and I would abide by their opinion. Are you and I really in dispute here? &#8756; Therefore | talk 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm presently eliminating excess verbiage, and making it more NPOV, while trying to keep the stuff that WTR thought was important. Please give me a little longer today, and if you don't like then we can discuss more tomorrow.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This section is now down to 327 words from 461, without really eliminating any significant information.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Naturally I have no problem with you taking a first stab. Have at it! &#8756; Therefore | talk 21:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's in pretty good shape now. If you want to do an RfC to get further feedback, then of course you may, but I'm satisfied that the article is now much improved from what it was a few days ago.  I don't see further info in this section that needs to be cut right now.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Elegance
"She impressed Republican voters with her elegance at coffee shops and other small campaign settings..." What is this supposed to mean? It seems a little biased perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaughnstull (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It means candidate spouses are often judged by appearance and manners, and she did well in that respect. It's not biased; we're saying what Republican voters thought, not what we think. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guidance
What guidance is there on what is legitimate to include in pieces like this? Are some areas of private life believed to be inapropriate? If so, what are these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.10.238 (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See BLP. The guidance changes, the more publicly known a person is.  Political spouses are probably semi-public figures in the legal sense, but I imagine the closer to First Lady you get, the more a public figure you are.  Cindy McCain's positions on the boards of several well-known charitable organizations also increases her public figure quotient.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Half-sister
This was on the HuffPost today... don't know what to make of it, but it sure is interesting... especially the stuff from "Portalski's son Nathan." Seduisant (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cindy McCain's half-sister tells Us Magazine that she won't help put her famous sibling in the White House: Cindy McCain's half-sister tells Us Magazine that she won't help put her famous sibling in the White House:

"I'm not voting for McCain," Kathleen Hensley Portalski tells Us. "I have a different political standpoint.

"I'm voting for Obama," the Phoenix resident says. "I think his proposals to improve the country are more positive and I'm not a big war believer."

"Portalski's son Nathan, an aerospace machinist, is also backing Obama.

"I wouldn't vote for John McCain if he was a Democrat," he tells Us. "I would not vote at all before I'd vote for him.

"I question whether Cindy is someone I'd want to see in the White House as first lady," he adds.

Portalski went public with her connection to the McCains after hearing Cindy say on the trail that she was an only child.

"I'm upset," she told NPR. "I'm angry. It makes me feel like a nonperson, kind of."

"It's terribly painful," Portalski added. "It is as if she is the 'real' daughter. I am also a real daughter."

The Washington Post subsequently reported that Cindy has another half-sister who seems to have slipped her mind: Before her marriage to Hensley, Johnson had a daughter, Dixie Burd, by a previous relationship. Burd, who is much older than Cindy, could not be reached for comment. [18:32, August 28, 2008 Seduisant]


 * Both half-sisters are already in our article, using the NPR and WaPo stories. But the half-sister and son's views on who to vote for are irrelevant to this article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this entire text, other than to have people witness their support for Obama? Particularly, why is Nathan relevant? Many people consider themselves only children if they were not raised with half-siblings. The wiki article on Cindy McCain is biased using the term "acknowledge" in reference to siblings. I thought what constitutes a family is fairly subjective. Let's not dictate what constitutes a family, eh? It is reasonable for a child raised alone to consider themselves an only child. This article should be edited, but it is locked.97.83.104.146 (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Obama/Nathan stuff above is not in the article, just this talk page, so don't worry about it. As for the article, I agree that the considers only/doesn't acknowledge part probably doesn't belong.  I've removed it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Owner of This Article Needs to Give It Some Attention
"Her wealth from an expired trust from her parents providing significant loans to the campaign. [fns. ommitted]" This is not a sentence and this article cannot be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.52.151 (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks for the spot.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But please note that there is no "owner" of this or any other article, and it can indeed be edited, just not by brand-new editors or anonymous ones because of vandalism issues. Tvoz / talk 19:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Name (again)
Back in July there was a brief discussion about the name of this article that didn't seem to get resolved, so I am bringing it up again.

Per WP:NCP, the primary criteria for the name of a biography article is the most generally recognizable name. Issues of proper/legal name aside, Mrs. McCain is referred to as "Cindy McCain" almost exclusively by the press and in public. Compare roughly 20,000 Ghits for "Cindy Hensley McCain" and 1,130,000 for "Cindy McCain".

I propose that this article be moved to Cindy McCain in accordance with our naming conventions. Shereth 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Liquor distributor, but a Baptist?
Since Baptists don't drink, can someone explain or clarify the Wikipedia statement that she is a Baptist, but that she runs a company that distributes beer? This is so totally contradictory to my Baptist upbringing that I find it confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysgram (talk • contribs) 02:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I've never seen anything that discusses this. Will keep a look-out for it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Although her faith is listed as a Congregationalist, to a Baptist in 1991 many forget the time period between there where Cindy and John were both members of First United Methodist Church in Phoenix Arizona. Cindy had grown up down the street from the church and parents were members as well. They were married by Reverend DeWayne Zimmerman in 1980 according to records. As members of this open-minded faith it was questioned when they dramatically switched beliefs to Southern Baptist in 1991 in regards to Cindy's family distributing business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser20082009 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when do Baptists not drink? I've never heard of this and I was raised Freewill Baptist. (my grandfather was a preacher) Maybe she doesn't know about this no drinking policy either...? -Ashley Irwin
 * Apparently Mysgram is unaware that there are several sects of Baptists, some of which allow drinking and some of which don't. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"2008 Republican National Convention appearances" section
Happyme22 has added a "2008 Republican National Convention appearances" section to the article, with a fairly detailed description of Cindy's two appearances at it. I'm not disputing the accuracy of it, but I fail to see its relevance at this length. Every presidential nominee spouse speaks at their convention, all saying pretty much the same thing (great spouse, wonderful family, will serve our country faithfully, stress the positives, etc). If you look at our Laura Bush article, her 2000 convention appearance is dealt with very succinctly, and convention appearances aren't even mentioned in our Theresa Heinz, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Reagan, Pat Nixon etc. articles that I can see. Even our Elizabeth Dole article doesn't mention her appearance, although it got the best reviews at the time from any that I remember. Seems to me that this Cindy content could better be placed in the 2008 Republican National Convention article (which currently suffers from bad overweighting of the protest activity), and that her appearances could be described in one sentence in this article, no new section required. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree -- best to push this to the Convention article. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 02:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are probably correct. I was only trying to do something similar to the Michelle Obama article, which deals in great length about her convention speech. Perhaps I should have given WP:WEIGHT some more thought, though. So yes, it might be best to move the full content into the 2008 Republican National Convention article, while still mentioning her two appearances and the gist of what she said. --Happyme22 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done the boil down here, and removed the dedicated section. I moved the first night appearance material into the RNC article, but I didn't move in the final night appearance material, as it didn't really fit the way that article is structured right now (especially the last-to-first ordering of the speakers each night).  You can pursue that further there if you want.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheerleader redux
Cindy McCain was never a cheerleader at USC. This has been reported and repeated but is not accurate.____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortpants (talk • contribs) 02:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm perfectly prepared to believe that this got introduced in error by some press story and has been repeated in error ever since. I've seen it happen more than once with other subjects.  But we need some kind of evidence that it isn't so.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To verify this you can check the USC yearbooks (El Rodeo)or ask her good friend and sorority sister, Susie (Hahn) Hillgren who actually was a USC Song Girl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.244.202 (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This site explains how to see the yearbook back issues. Unfortunately, I'm on the wrong coast.  (I did research alternatives to the Song Girls, but the USC Yell Leaders were all-male until 2006, when they were replaced by the new co-ed USC Spirit Leaders, so it looks to be Song Girls or nothing.)  Meanwhile, I've marked this with  the  tag in the article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Long WaPo story on the AVMT drugs episode
This long Washington Post story on the AVMT narcotics episode came out today. But we're not "allowed" to use much of it here. I sure hope Therefore and Ferrylodge are writing letters of complaint to the Post public editor right now, about how the story is undue weight and prints the name "Gosinksi" too often. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a little disappointed WTR -- I have nothing but the highest respect for your editing and it is unlike you to be so biting to a peer editor (I watch many political pages that you happen to be involved with). In fact, I previously read the WaPo article and it erases some of my concerns because it is a national source who did additional investigational work vs. the older local sources. I believe it would be appropriate to add in (some) mention of the lawsuit and the allegation of blackmail by McCain's lawyer. Whether the use of Gosinki's name or the lawyer's name is useful is an editorial decision of which I side on the negative. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I strongly disagreed with the artificial limiting of this section's contents by an undue weight reasoning that I thought was badly misapplied. But I'm glad to see that you're willing to reconsider at least some of your stance on it (I mean that sincerely, as it's all too easy to fall into a mindset of defending a previous position regardless of new developments or new views from others, I've caught myself doing that a few times).  I'll leave it to you to make the additions you see fit.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a shot later this evening and you can tell me if I did it justice. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, your changes look good to me. The only thing I'd be tempted to add would be that the AVMT physician lost his license and never practiced medicine again.  It shows another significant consequence of the episode.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Self-Identified Drug addicts" category
Regarding the dispute over whether Category:Self-identifying drug addicts should be added here. I think Dr who1975's edit summary point is that once you're an addict, you're always an addict, even if you never relapse into using again. And in any case, the category includes people who are deceased (e.g. Carlin, Pryor), so currency of addiction wouldn't seem to matter. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether this is a really useful category. It's less than a month old, and has already had an inconclusive CfD against it. Its contents are woefully incomplete; there are dozens of famous people with addictions who aren't included (hell, half of Category:Rock musicians could belong). There is an older, similar Category:People self-identifying as alcoholics that's also very, very incomplete.

So I guess my position is, if this is a valid category, this article belongs in it, but both this and the alcoholism category seem a bit dubious as well as underused. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with WTR though I will go one step further and rgue that this category isn't necessarily applicable here even if valid. After 20 years, she is no longer a "self identified drug addict". The category, as used here, is sensationalistic and should be added only if consensus is reached. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 04:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to point editors to a discussion at my talk page regarding this. Happyme22 (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes... feel free to read my comments there. They amount to the same points I make below.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now copied the comments to this discussion...--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just becasue a category is underused doesn't mean it shouldn't be expanded... quite the opposite in fact. I added several people to this category at the same time I added Cindy McCain... including Patrick Kennedy. Nobody has objected to the category being on his page. Most addicts refer to themselves as such even years after they have cleaned up... it's part of the whoel 12 step realize that you have a problem thing. I don;t beleive Cindy McCain has ever given a speech where she declared "I am no longer an addict: Even if the person's major addiction issues were long in the past this category would still be applicable as. The wording is "self identified" which implies past tense. As a good example... Kurt Cobain is dead... he can;t identify himself as anythin in the present tense... yet he remains in the category. Let me also say that this is a factual issue.

While concensus is not a defining factor when we're talking facts versus not facts. Most of the people who have commented so far seem in agreement that Cindy belongs in the category, lets see where this discussion goes.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) The fact no one has objected to adding Patrick Kennedy (a minimally monitored page I would suspect) has no bearing here -- I can cite hundreds (thousands) of Wikipedia pages that have crap on them. That "most addicts" refer to themselves as drug addicts, a dubious assertion, is not relevant either -- does McCain refer to herself as such? The fact that you can't cite McCain saying "I am no longer an addict" does not in any sense imply that she feels otherwise. Neither can you cite that she says she is an addict. We don't even know if she entered a twelve step program. Find a cite (verification is what counts, not what you determine to be a "fact") that states she self-identifies as an addict, then it would be a candidate for inclusion. Consensus is the pillar that Wikipedia rests upon -- to include such a contentious category will require consensus per BRD. If, as you say, "most of the people" agree with you, then I bend to consensus. Corbain died a heroin addict. McCain, 20 years ago, had a prescription drug addiction. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Happyme22 Talk Page: My comments are first.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Every rehabilition program for drugs and alcohal forces the addict to come to terms with the fact that they are an addict for life . You do not stop being an addict just because you stop using. For insatnce, Geroge Bush often discusses his struggles with alcohalism but he has never said "I am no longer an alcohalic" it's something he admits to himself and to the world on a regular basis, it's not something to be ashamed of.
 * Also, I think part of our impass is the wording of the cats.... They should read "self-identified" not "self-identifying". After all, Kurt Cobain and Richard Pryor aren't "identifying" themselves as anything these days. I have already fixed the drug category and I will take care of the alcohalics one soon. The wording will also help with any addicts who go into denail and do say "I am no longer an addict". Otherwise... by your logic... nobody would be in the category at all because I've never heard of an addict admit they were an addict while they were still using.
 * Your edits seem focused to Republican's such as Cindy McCain and George W. Bush. Did you even know I also added Patrick Kennedy to the category? He's not using drugs anymore either but his page seems free of any reverting edits by you. You need to apply a rule across the board if you truly beleive in it.
 * Lastly, if you must persist, please cite for me a source where Cindy McCain has proclaimed she is no longer an addict (it can't just be one saying she is reformed or has stopped using).
 * See my comments at Talk:Cindy McCain on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Drwho.
 * Do you have a citation that every person who was at some point addicted to drugs/prescription pain killers/ etc. is an addict for life? According to dictionary.com, an addict is "Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance." It mentions nothing about a lifelong problem that cannot ever be stopped. What about people who have quit smoking? If your logic were correct, then 90 year old Betty Ford is still a drug addict (?!?).


 * If the wording of the cats is off, I'm glad to know it is fixed. However I still agree WTR on this point (see Talk:Cindy McCain).


 * My edits have been on pages about Republicans because George W. Bush and Cindy McCain are both on my watchlist. Patrick Kennedy is not.


 * Gladly. From : "Cindy McCain, 40, told them that she had been a drug addict for three years. From 1989 to 1992, as the Keating Five made headlines, she was addicted to Percocet and Vicodin." Similarly, you said that President Bush is still an alcoholic; not according to this or this (quote: "President Bush spoke more candidly than ever before about his past alcohol addiction"), as Bush gave up alcohol in 1986. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me respond to each point:

--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I have changed the name of the category to "self identified" drug addicts. It is now for anyone who identified in the past tense. Having a category for people who currently identify themselves as addicts is rdiciulous because some people do not continue to identify themselves as addicts, dead people can't self identify in the present tense at all, and nobody ever identifies themself as currenyly being adrug user. The category has validity now and to apply your logic to it would make it an empty category. If you have a problem with the category as a whol then I suggest you ask for it to be deleted.
 * 2) same as 1.
 * 3) I accept that you are only watch listing Bush and McCain.. I was not trying to impune your motvies. However, it does not change my logic about the selectivily using logic. Even after I have brought this to your attention you still seem very disinterested in the other pages (again I'm not impugning your motives, I just don;t think you are correct to tackle this issue on only two pages).--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Same as 1.


 * Please see my comments above (result of edit conflict). Go ahead and add "self identified alcoholic" to the Bush page, get consensus there arguing "it's a fact" and I will withdraw my concerns here. Do the same for Barak for "self-identified marijuana user". Clearly, this is a contentious category and will require consensus. I don't believe you have achieved that as of yet. That McCain had an addiction to prescription drugs 20 years ago does not make her a "self-identified drug addict". Per your comment on my talk page, my objective here isn't to undermine you but to avoid sensationalistic categories misapplied. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. However. There is no Category:Self-identified marijuana user. I even checked Tommy Chong and Snoop Dogg. Seems like a seperate subject as it does not deal with addiction. Please do not make up categories that do not exist in wikipedia (although if you think it should feel free to creatre it). If you're not going to take this discussion seriously then I will have to look elswhere.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Therefore... I'm suprised you would make a comment like that. You've always seemed pretty impartial. If somebody wants to create categorys for marijuana user and add Obama to that then they're free to. I actually didn't originally create the two categories that we're discussing here. As I said above... I'm adding Democrats like Patrick J. Kennedy and Kitty Dukakis to them as well as people like Cindy McCain and George Bush... bringing up Obama's Marijuana use is a seperate issue. Feel free to create a category on Marijuana users... maybe whatever happens with it will have some bearing on the feasability of these two categories.... I don't know. We can create all kinds of cats and see what the fallout is... maybe one for guys who cheated on their wives so Bill Clinton and John McCain can go into it. But please don't make an off the cuff remark in a discussion like this... if it would not be relevant to a discussion of Patrick Kennedy then it would also not be relevant here.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

DrWho, with this edit you removed my comment here from last night. Any particular reason? Anyway, here it is again:
 * The doubt about "once an addict, always an addict" expressed there could be resolved by changing the category to something that meant "People who at some time in their life acknowledged they were addicted to drugs". Then Cindy would obviously fit. But these kind of categories are generally frowned upon by WP. I wouldn't support adding Cindy to it unless it was a widely accepted and approved category, with many more entries in it than the one now has. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I continue to believe that all of these possibly pejorative personal life categories (drug addicts, drug users, alcoholics, cheaters on spouse, etc.) are frowned upon in WP, because they lead to trouble and are hard to source (there's no way to cite a category, for instance). The best BLP categories are nice innocuous ones like "Businesspeople in the beverage industry" and "Delaware lawyers" and "American military personnel of the Vietnam War", where there's no question who belongs and the coverage within WP is extensive. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CATEGORY, "Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists and navigation boxes) help readers find articles..." The whole point of categories is to assist readers in finding articles relating to a common subject; most are similar to the aforementioned by WTR. Those are categories that have a purpose of helping readers find articles, but those such as "Drug addicts" are much too vague, and apparently do not distinguish former drug addicts from current drug addicts. Therefore they are not assisting readers in an encyclopedic manner.


 * Regarding my editing articles of Republicans: I figured that this discussion would encompass all discussion relating to the categorization of multiple articles. In other words, I've not started a discussion at Talk:George W. Bush, Talk:Patrick Kennedy, and Talk:Kitty Dukakis because it is easier to discuss it in one place. Happyme22 (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * responding to DrWho's comments to me above: I know there is no category for marijuana use; that was, regrettably, said tongue-in-cheek and I apologize. I do stand by my other comments, though and support WTR and Happyme22's points. This category is contentious by its nature. You will never get George W. Bush categorized as a self-described alcoholic for just that reason. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 01:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm supporting no on this. The attempt smacks of political motivation, because, as noted, it's being selectively applied to ONE party, is sensationalistic, is only in the most *technical* sense true (considering Cindy McCain is no longer addicted to pain killers, and is true only by applying AA's philosophical standards to her case, which is not legiatimate, IMO.) The term "self-admitting" is used, apparently, as a way of legitimizing the smear, as much as a "self-admitted America-hater" cat would be a vicious and unfair smear on Michelle Obama, or as user:Therefore legitimately notes, a "self-identified marijuana user" cat would be politically motivated if applied to Barack Obama - or Bill Clinton. If a Cindy McCain quote from this election cycle can be found stating that 'yes, i'm still an addict,' then you have a case. Otherwise, it's an attempt to 1) smear a candidate's wife, 2) keep the issue before the voters as a disqualifier and a liability for her husband's election and 3) confuse voters who came here seeking information into thinking she is STILL actively abusing drugs (that last one seems to me to be the most powerful reason AGAINST this category applying here.) Either way, it's laughable that it would be included here, in a so-called NPOV article. - Nhprman 15:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with much of your comments, I believe DrWho is working in good faith here in applying the category in a non-partisan fashion. His intent is to create a category that he believes would be a useful tool for grouping together biographies of people who have struggled with addiction. I am skeptical that the addition of the category would be noticed by the vast number of readers and hence I don't believe that is DrWho's motivations. That said, I agree with everything else you said -- the category's use here is contentious and, at best, only technically correct and would require seeking consensus. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 16:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So we agree... since the categories still haven't been removed from Patrick J. Kennedy, Kitty Dukakis, etc... then it should also be applied to Republicans as well. I'll give you all a day or so to reply.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My focus is on McCain's page and here consensus would be required. Kennedy's page has many less eyes and much less interest than this page. Same with Dukakis' page which is catagorized as an alcoholic and not drugs and that cat includes Republicans (Foley, Ford). My comments were to your motives which I assume are good. To include the cat here would require consensus which I don't think you will get. The category is contentious and whether it is applicable to McCain is arguable. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Like Therefore said. You can't set the bar to be what happens in articles that aren't actively maintained and watchlisted.  I continue to think that pejorative personal life categories are a bad idea, and my guess is that this category would lose a CfD.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)