Talk:Ken McKenna (attorney)

I am a law student in the Los Angeles area studying sexual harassment and civil rights law. In the process of doing vast amounts of internet research on attorney Ken McKenna, whose cases are taught about in law schools nationwide, I noticed there was no Wiki page written about this attorney. While there are pages for lawyers such as Johnnie Cochran, Mark Geragos, Vincent Bugliosi, and Clarence Darrow. This page does not deserve to be deleted from Wikipedia any more than theirs' do. This is my first Wiki page so maybe I am formatting something incorrectly, but the content itself should not be rejected. I appreciate your help and consideration in adding this page to the Wiki-verse. Thank you!

It's filled with cruft and peacock terms, but, if the facts are true, the article should be kept. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect Adreamer323 is employed by Mr. McKenna's firm or somebody closely related to him and that's why there's so much "crufty stuff" - it's essentially an advertisement. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• You'll also note that all of the images in this article are copyvios. Judging by the way the text is written, I'd suspect the same of it, too. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And the only thing McKenna is known for outside of Reno is the Judas Priest case. Otherwise, he is just another attorney. TristaBella (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the truth of this statement, from the article: "McKenna proved that a series of subliminal "do it" messages were embedded in the song "Better by You, Better than Me"." As I recall, the existence of these subliminal messages was a point of contention, neither "proved" nor conceded. A citation would be helpful. In addition, the article fails to mention the most important point of the whole trial: it was dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aramis1250 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I highly suggest you read the transcript of the trial as your "recollection" seems highly inaccurate as to the facts. Unfortunately the transcript, as of this writing, is not available online or easily referenced for the purposes of wikipedia yet. When it is I will add the reference immediately. Hard copies are available through the official archives of the judiciary of Nevada. You will find that the case was NEVER dismissed. It was a first of its kind to recognize subliminal messages to be outside the bounds of free speech as defined in the Constitution. It indeed went the course of a FULL trial. The official ruling was a first of its kind in that the recognition of subliminal messages were indeed real, present, and audible. The ruling yet deemed the subliminals in this particular case to have been unintentional however and ultimately not the impetus for the young boys' suicide attempts. Regardless of personal feelings or emotions that may cloud your objectivity, most legal scholars familiar with the case look to it as being a very unique case that examined the extent of the 1st amendment as it pertains to the definitions of artistic expression. --Adreamer323 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I highly suggest that you produce a transcript that can be read, since the article is your work. There is no other evidence easily available about the outcome of the trial, something that I find interesting. If it has been so important, why isn't there any readily available information about it? I also highly suggest that you get off of your high horse: nowhere in my note was there anything emotional; a different article on Wikipedia says the case was dismissed. I challenge you to prove otherwise, with an accessible citation. Putting links in the citations that resolve to 404 errors is in poor form, and useless for research. Aramis1250 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I do note that in a similar trial, Waller v. Osbourne, the judge granted summary judgement for the defendant because the plaintiff couldn't prove that the subliminal message existed. Perhaps the other article's author is referring to Waller rather than Vance. Aramis1250 (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made changes to this article to reflect the nature in which Ken McKenna conducts his business over the years, only to see it removed a few days later by these curious law students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseysch (talk • contribs) 00:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You call into question my credentials, accusing me of posting false information, without ANY evidence to the contrary. All this while YOU, YOURSELF, post wildly baseless inaccuracies merely for the purposes of puerile slander and some form of petulant digital revenge against Mr. McKenna. Since Wikipedia takes this kind of libelous behavior VERY seriously, I will be reporting you after posting this reply. Furthermore, I state unequivocally, I DO NOT work for Mr. McKenna in any sort of a capacity whatsoever. I am extremely familiar with his work however and knowledgeable of the facts of his practice and record. --Adreamer323 (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This article would appear much less of a WP:Vanispamcruftisement if Adreamer edit any other article besides this one and didn't blow a gasket every time somebody else did anything even mildly negative toward McKenna. It would also make it more believable that Adreamer was NOT McKenna. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. More accurate information will be posted today and watched.

Adreamer323 is McKenna's son. He claims to have copyrights to the images used on this page. This is highly doubtful as he was born in 1981. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0256194/) and the trial took place in 1990. He was 9 years old at the time the photo was taken. Further, there does not seem to be any evidence that McKenna has made the rounds on national media. The only video that appears to exist of McKenna on any sort of national news media is a clip from VH1 discussing the Judas Priest trial. This entire article is filled with unverified statements (including the alleged resolution of McKenna's tax issues) and is more an ad or puff piece than a biography of a notable individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.249.98 (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. At best, the article suggests that McKenna is an attorney, that he is anti-death penalty, that he briefly held a position on a state board, and that he was counsel in a somewhat notable trial. Judas Priest's page already contains a section describing the trial in detail and this just seems redundant. Further, the page appears to have started as essentially an advertisement created by either McKenna himself or someone closely associated with him, and numerous attempts to meet the notability guidelines have not gotten it up to that point. 71.94.79.243 (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)