Talk:Cindy McCain/Archive 2

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * I don't trust people searches either but I trust my Eyes and if she's 54 she's the worst 54 I've ever seen in my LIFE! I just don't see how she could be 18 years younger than him. And by the way, she's never "sometimes 17 years younger and sometimes 18." She's ALWAYS 17 years and 10 months younger than him; I think that's what you were trying to say. 10 Monthis is such a large percentage of the year that if you only look at the year it looks like 18 years (83% of the year anyway).

Sixthcrusifix (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Sheesh. . . his senate campaign. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.134.141 (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Subsequent Life
Semi-protected so I can't do this myself. She's now taking part in the NOH8 campaign (along with her daughter) and is referenced in international media to this effect, a portrait of her currently has top billing on the related website. That second website could be added to the external links section also. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

article "protected"? but no padlock graphic on page
this article on ms. mccain appears to be either "semi-protected" or "fully protected." however, there is no "padlock" icon appearing on the top right page (compare articles on john mccain, george w. bush, barack obama or fellatio). why no padlock (or other mechanism) to alert user of article protection for this article on cindy mccain?--68.173.2.68 (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

minor edit requests
since article appears to be locked, i am unable (as an anonymous user by choice) to make some minor emendments to article

1. image (in "marriage and family" section) showing mrs. mccain christening ship. please add year (1992?) to caption to read "McCain seen christening the USS John S. McCain in 1992."


 * ✅ &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

2. situs for 2 images. (1) the one mentioned just above showing mrs. mccain christening shipsection and (2) the image (in "founding and mission section") showing mr. and mrs. mccain and children at ship christening. where was the christening?


 * ✅ &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

3. "role in 2008 presidential campaign"  entire section's paragraphing is rambling and disjointed. should be broken into several more paragraphs and information rearranged to present with more cohesion.


 * I suggest either putting together a rewrite in your sandbox or adding it here, the talk page. Or, naturally, make a username that offers even more privacy than an IP -- we could always use new editors with a good eye for copyediting! &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I ended up taking a stab at a reorganization. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * While I comend you for trying, Therefore, I have to say that I viewed the 2008 campaign section more favorably before it was broken up. Most of my opposition stems from comparisons to the Michelle Obama article, which is not split in such a manner, as well as the fact that the sections are short. Not to mention that it read just fine before. I like that it gives more room to possibly add another image, and I like that some of the ideas were better organized, but I would much rather have the content displayed in an appealing manner such as the first format. Happyme22 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that you preferred the previous version and you declare it read just fine. But could you address the concerns that it was "rambling and disjointed. should be broken into several more paragraphs and information rearranged to present with more cohesion", characterizations I agree with. I find the current version that you reverted back to poorly written with no semantic organization. Bascially a hodgepodge of chronologically presented statements with no coherent sense -- a natural evolution of many-editors adding in their ideas. We have a paragraph that jumbles together her political opinions and her financial situation. Another that discusses her campaign activity with her somewhat irrelevant fashion sense. This entire section suffers from an almost random appearance. Please justify your reversion beyond just making declarative statement that you like it better. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 00:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, please be careful and not just revert an editor's changes and not make the effort to note the copyediting -- you reverted all changes. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You will read in my last post that I said, "Most of my opposition stems from comparisons to the Michelle Obama article, which is not split in such a manner, as well as the fact that the sections are short." Perhaps I should have clarified: by 'sections' I meant the section headings that you introduced. I suppose the long paragraph(s) could be broken into two or maybe three smaller ones, but the section headings were completely unnecessary and unwarranted. Two or three sentences under a section heading is bad, which is what was done with the Campaign activity, 2008 Convention, and Role as first lady sections (the last is slightly misleading as well, as she is not the first lady). Her fashion sense is completely relevant as well; just check out the almost two million google sites. Maybe you meant that it was irrelevant to her campaign activity, to which I answer 'yes' and 'no'; the press and fashion experts only look at her because of her current role in the 2008 campaign as the potential first lady. Happyme22 (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a good point about the section headings. Our complaint is about the flow of the section as written. Then you would be OK with my rewritten version just sans headings? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 00:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with Happy that there should not be any subsections in the campaign section. This and the Michelle Obama article's campaign section are both already much longer than any other campaign section for any First Lady's or would-be First Lady's article.  The most important candidate spouse impact on a campaign that I can think of, Hillary in 1992, only gets one paragraph in her article!  Adding subsections here would only make this situation worse.  On the flow rearrangements that have been made, I don't agree with all of them, but c'est la vie.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with the subsections issue. So, your answer to the rewrite as I proposed is c'est la vie? I.e., you are happy with my version sans subheadings? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 01:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The recipe episode was stripped of half its content, and its new location seems out of place. But I will let it go. The biggest fault now with the article is that the lead is too short and uninformative relative to the size and content of the article.  This was originally part cowardice on my part, since once you start expanding the lead you get into all the ticklish areas. But it really doesn't look good, now that the article is even more substantial.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The recipe episode barely requires what little is given to it -- it was a campaign issue and not really an integral part of her biography. But I'm more than open to your suggestions where it should go (trash can would be AOK with me :) ). I agree with your sentiment that this section is too long -- I'd be more than happy to take a shot at trimming it if so desired. I also wholeheartedly agree that the lede should be expanded; it should be able to stand alone with the article's essentials. Be bold -- write away! &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 01:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What should the "Role in 2008 presidential campaign" section contain if not campaign issues that she was central to? My philosophy on campaign sections is to let them be long during the campaign, then trim them after it's over when we know what turned out to be important and what didn't.  And as for the lede, I'll let someone else take the arrows.  My core WP recipe for sanity is that I don't make an edit unless I believe there's a 95% chance it'll stay in the article.  That's why I work on McCain and Biden and not Obama and Palin, among other reasons.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A perfect strategy -- let it grow organically and then trim when the campaign itself is past-tense. I may make a stab at the lede; hopefully it will pass muster. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 02:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

4. "role in 2008 presidential campaign"  1st paragraph. "During the campaign, she returned to Arizona frequently to attend to domestic duties[49] and interrupted campaigning for her overseas charitable work." campaign is not over. recast sentence "she has returned"


 * ✅ &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

5. "role in 2008 presidential campaign"  final paragraph. "On the truncated first night, she appeared with First Lady Laura Bush to deliver short remarks encouraging support for Hurricane Gustav relief efforts along the Gulf Coast" explain why first night was truncated. suggested recast sentence "On first night, truncated because of nation's attention to Hurricane Gustav, she appeared with First Lady Laura Bush to deliver short remarks encouraging support for hurricane relief efforts along the Gulf Coast]


 * ✅ &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

--68.173.2.68 (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Networth
i could have sworn i saw it in the article sometime before about how her networth is at the very least over 100 million just like other finacial moguls this should probably be placed in her little box at the top of the page with a little green up arrrow. i mean lets state facts here. people hear on the news that she has this finacial inheritence but they come to this website to find out the real numbers, you can at least give people a ballpark and i bet my left nut its over 100 million which isnt bad i mean thats fuckin baller she should be proud. --69.230.211.183 (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article still says, "By 2007, she had an annual income of over $400,000 from Hensley and an estimated net worth of $100 million.[26]" Net worths in the infobox seem to be on the way out.  I don't see one for her husband, or Michelle Obama, or Teresa Heinz (the closest parallel), or Mitt Romney, or Leonore Annenberg or ...   Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain infidelity?
Was John McCain chaste while seeing Cindy before he divorced Carol Swanson? I have seen two timelines of Carol Shepp McCain's involvement with McCain. One shows her still married to Alasdair Swanson when she began seeing McCain (though she sued him for infidelity). Is there a definitive source on this as several liberal political blogs claim a 527 group is about to unleash radio and TV ads accusing McCain of coveting another man's wife, and suggesting that later he committed adultery with Cindy McCain. CApitol3 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What happened with Alasdair Swanson is irrelevant to this article. As for the notion of McCain being chaste with Cindy while still married to Carol, this is a sore topic around these parts.  See the McCain talk archives for the endless discussions with one editor.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be time to reinsert it, or at least revisit this. Would not a quote by a naval officer, published in USA Today, claiming that McCain spent the night with Cindy in his room during the conference he met her at be allowable? CApitol3 (talk)
 * No. What point would the quote serve?  Trying to use the fact that "Naval officer said John and Cindy spent the night in the same room" to suggest anything more salacious is the remit of sleazy tabloids and low-brow journalists, not writing an encyclopedia article.  Now, if you have reliable sources to demonstrate that the couple were engaged in extramarital shenanigans I would not object to adding them - but something that notable would be easily referenced by major news outlets, not dredging around in blogs and hearsay. Shereth 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What USA Today story is this? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One plus one equals two, but we need videotaped evidence of McCain's infidelity with Cindy? Once again, I note the high standards of proof placed here in comparison to the egregiously low standards placed on reporting about John Edwards' infidelity, before Edwards confirmed it. But I'm not really surprised at the double standard in play. I'd like a look at that USA Today article too.  And Wasted is right that what Carol did or didn't do is not relevant to Cindy's article. Tvoz / talk 00:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For those masochistic enough to want to read the prior discussions on all this, check out Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain and before that Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain and before that Talk:John McCain/Archive 10 for several sections worth and also probably some other talk places I've suppressed from memory. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cindy McCain's mother's maiden name
I'm trying to resolve conflicting information in this article and the article on Mrs. McCain's father, Jim Hensley. This article claims Marguerite was born a Smith and later became a Johnson before marrying Hensley. The Jim Hensley article claims Marguerite was born a Johnson and later became a Smith. The confusion is understandable because of her nickname, "Smitty" which would lead you to believe that was her maiden name.

This article states: "Cindy Lou Hensley was born in Phoenix, Arizona,[7] to James Hensley, who founded Hensley & Co. in 1955,[5] and Marguerite "Smitty" Hensley (née Smith, formerly Johnson)."

The article on Jim Hensley states: "Hensley was injured during his service, and sent to a West Virginia facility to recover.[1] There he met Marguerite "Smitty" Smith (née Johnson, Cairo, Illinois, January 16, 1919 – Scottsdale, Arizona, October 11, 2006, daughter of Swedish American parents)"

The Jim Hensley article sites many references that would all back up the claim that Marguerite Hensley was born to Carl and Tekla Johnson, and if true (nee Johnson, formerly Smith) would be a correction for this article.

If you find that Marguerite Hensley was truly born Smith, please add your citations at the article on James Hensley, so that author can consider a correction. 70.58.9.20 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 70.58.9.20 (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch on the inconsistency between articles. Unfortunately sources are quite contradictory on this.  Wargs isn't completely reliable, but for now we'll go with them and state her original name as Marguerite Johnson.  Was Smith her middle name? Did her name become Smith as a result of her first marriage?  Was she even married before Hensley? (one source seems to say yes, but others talk of a "previous relationship", which usually implies no).  Don't know, so we'll just say her nickname was "Smitty".  We really need more biographical information here, although if McCain loses the election, Cindy will fade from public view and we won't get it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)