Talk:CeCe McDonald

Trial?

The article states both that McDonald's sentence "was the result of a plea bargain that McDonald accepted rather than face trial" and that "[i]n her trial, McDonald said she and her friends were confronted outside the Schooner Tavern." (emphasis added). Was there a trial or wasn't there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.30.228.213 (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't. Thanks for pointing this out. Weirvile (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to deal with this tho. The source cited for this sentence says there was a trial. The source is clearly wrong, but if I replace "In her trial" with "In her plea hearing" or something to that effect, I have to remove the cite or else I'd be misrepresenting the source. I'm losing the adverbial clause completely for now; anyone with a better idea please step up. Weirvile (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Speeding vs peeling

I'm not sure I agree with the replacement of "peeling away" with "speeding away" in the Background section. Per the Cambridge Dictionary to peel away or peel off means to "separate from [a] group or structure ... and move away in a different direction". Per Wiktionary it means "to separate off from the main body, to move off to one side". Neither definition implies speed. I think rather than "peeling away" being a less encyclopedic/more slangy alternative to "speeding away" it actually means something quite different; and since it's the term used by the reference we should probably stick to it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd ed., 2010) lists under the verb "peel" two phrasal verbs: peel off and peel out. I mistook "peel away" to mean the latter rather than former upon my first reading. I've edited again now, hopefully in a way that makes the source material's intended meaning more clear. startswithj (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I think that's an improvement. Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Disputing use of advocate activist

I'm not sure that I agree with the use of the term "advocate" to describe her. The source does nothing to justify her herself being an advocate, but merely says she was targeted as a hate crime and retaliated. Continuing to use the word seems to go against WP:V. Timeraner (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm seeing where our article uses the term "advocate"(?). startswithj (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Same. I recently added "activist" to the lede, which is directly supported by the title of the ref that follows the word (though not mentioned in the ref's body), so perhaps Timeraner mistook that for "advocate"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, English is not my first language. My apologies and thank you for pointing that out Startswithj. I modify my dispute to be on the usage of "activist" instead. Timeraner (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This piece from ABC News and this from The Nation use "activist". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The articles only address her as an advocate in the titles and do not use the word in the body nor address what sort of activism she has done. I think this should be classified as WP:FRINGE. Timeraner (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing how WP:FRINGE is relevant. There's a difference between a fringe theory and an under-reported fact. Care to elaborate? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see where some sort of elaboration on this has been reported. What you have presented only shows a possible misuse of the a word which would qualify as [WP:FRINGE]. Timeraner (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, how and why is WP:FRINGE relevant? It's a complex guideline and I'm sure you don't think every word of it is applicable. So how does it apply here? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, since this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, you might want to request input at the fringe theories noticeboard. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"a man who was a part of a group that attacked her and her friends"

The wording above suggests that

1. Schmitz and his associates attacked McDonald as a group, i.e. collectively and more or less simultaneously;
2. McDonald killed Schmitz during the fight that the original attack immediately precipitated and in self-defense, not in the course of some separate later encounter or for some other reason.

According to the sources cited so far, this doesn't seem to be what happened:

1. First Flaherty attacks McDonald. McDonald and her three friends collectively jump Flaherty. Only then do Schmitz and his other buddies (other than Flaherty) get involved.
2. Schmitz is still alive and essentially unruffled by the time the fight breaks up and people start wandering off in various directions. McDonalds herself admits this in her plea; it's in the transcript on page 13. McDonalds crosses the intersection opposite the tavern, Schmitz is somewhere behind her but not within immediate reach. McDonalds pulls a pair of scissors from her purse, doubles back, and "confronts" Schmitz. (p. 13–16). According to the the version of the story she tells in court, Schmitz pulls McDonald towards himself, effectively stabbing himself with the scissors she happens to be holding in her outstretched hand. (p. 17) McDonalds explicitly admits the fight was over at this point, Schmitz was not attacking, and she was not defending herself against anything because there was nothing to defend against. In another version she has offered, Schmitz "runs into" the scissors. In at least two other versions, including the original story first given to the cops, McDonalds didn't stab Schmitz at all: one of her friends did.

In summary, no group attack and no self-defense; even the convict herself makes no such claim. Weirvile (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

McDonald says things in her plea that incriminate her, but she's also said she only *took* the plea to avoid a longer prison sentence (resulting from judicial racism and transmisogyny). So it's not reasonable to take for granted that anything incriminating in the plea is true based solely on the plea. 31.51.47.29 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think drawing conclusions from her plea (a primary source) rather than the many secondary sources available is unnecessary original research. The fact that McDonald's accounts have been somewhat contradictory is probably a good example of why we don't use primary sources. I think it's important that we summarise the events in roughly the same way as the consensus among secondary sources has summarised them, but it's been a while since I've read those sources so I'm not going to propose a comprehensive alternative wording right now. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I'm actually pretty sure the transcript of the court hearing I'm using would count as a secondary source here. The person compiling the transcript doesn't make any statements; he or she is a neutral third party documenting statements made by others.

On the other hand, you are right about there being plenty of other secondary sources.

On the third hand, I don't remember there being any consensus among these secondary sources as to what happened between McDonald and Schmitz between the point where she walks away and the point where he realizes there is a pair of scissors sticking in his body. The mainstream newspaper articles I can recall mostly just report recollections offered by McDonald and various other witnesses. The witnesses don't even contradict each other very much; their statements are easy to consolidate into the consensus course of events part of which I've outlines earlier. The only notable exception seems to be McDonald, but she really only contradicts herself, and then only with regard to the final few seconds before the stabbing.

I will probably reread some stuff myself. Weirvile (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, went back and reread some old articles.

1. All major sources report that only two people are known to have had a close and clear view of the altercation in its entirety: Schmitz and McDonald.
   We can safely treat this as a fact.
2. All major sources agree that we will never know what Schmitz thought had happened. They all report, even though sometimes only through omission, that he died before anyone could interview him.
   We can safely treat this as a fact as well.
3. Some sources mention a guy named Gilbert who says he observed part of the altercation, but only part of, and only from a distance. No source contradicts this, so we can probably treat the existence (and presence at the scene) of Gilbert as a fact too. Gilbert says he saw McDonald stabbing Schmitz, then heard Schmitz saying "You stabbed me!", then heard McDonald answering "Yes, I did."
   Some sources also document recollections offered by McDonald. No major source by itself documents more than two versions of McDonald's story. If we take the sources together, however, we clearly see that McDonald has offered at least four different, mutually incompatible versions of the seconds leading up to the stabbing. In only one of the versions we know of does she not stab Schmitz. In only one other of the versions we know of is she acting in self-defence. Neither of these is the version she committed to in her plea agreement, however.
   In view of all of this, we can probably treat it as a fact that McDonald did in fact stab Schmitz.
   If we can't, then we can at least treat it as a fact that we will never know with absolute certainty. (The version were she didn't stab Schmitz may be the true one after all. False confessions happen; eye-witnesses misremember things all time; we can't ask Schmitz. However, this can't conceivably become the uncontested consensus narrative anymore. There is already too much out there contradicting it.)
   We can definitely not treat it as a fact that McDonald was acting in self-defense against an attack, much less against an attack by a group.

For what's its worth, I think your last edit on this is helpful and I'm happy with the sentence as it stands right now. Weirvile (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm also comfortable with the sentence as it stands, though I think the lede as a whole could be improved. The "Stabbing incident" section is a substantial part of the article but it's only really alluded to in the lede, when ideally the lede should summarise the content of the rest of the article. I might try and expand or reorient it at some point. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"after fatally stabbing a man in Minneapolis, Minnesota a year prior." misleading

"after fatally stabbing a man in Minneapolis, Minnesota a year prior."

This is misleading. It doesn't suggest that she was acting in self-defense because she was attacked.

Some thing should be added so it's more clear she was defending herself after she and her friends were attacked. Mulchie (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read the section directly above this one. She wasn't being attacked at the time she stabbed Schmitz and she consequently wasn't defending herself. Not even she herself makes any such claim -- in none of the (at least) three different, mutually contradictory versions of events she has offered during the proceedings. Nobody denies she was attacked, but it was by Flaherty (whom she didn't stab), and it was during an earlier, separate altercation (which Schmitz didn't start either, and in which nobody got seriously hurt). Weirvile (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I read it but I disagree with the analysis and conclusions. The two events were in fact related. She and her friends were attacked and later the stabbing occurred. We should be as clear as possible why she stabbed someone otherwise it comes off as Wikipedia suggesting she just happened to stab some guy with no context. When you search her name only the first two sentences or so show up on Google. In essence we are calling her guilty for stabbing someone with no context that it was in response to defending herself earlier. Mulchie (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There is even doubt that she was the one who stabbed the man who died. Mulchie (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The two events are in fact related, sure. I don't think the intro implies otherwise. Do you think the sentence is leading people to believe that McDonald killed Schmitz completely at random? I'm pretty sure the sentence does not lead the average reader away from the possibility that McDonald chose to attack a specific person, for a more or less personal reason arising out of some previous interaction between the two. According to the sources we currently have, this happens to be the truth.

Note that I'm not saying the into is perfect and can't be improved any further.

As for the "doubt she was the one who stabbed the man": well yes, there will always be some residual doubt it was her. It's possible she falsely confessed to the cops, and then falsely confessed to her lawyer, and then falsely confessed yet again during her plea agreement, and the friend of hers who did kill Schmitz is happy to let her take the blame, and the other parties to the brawl are lying, and the independent eyewitness is lying too, and the only reason we don't have a single source that has picked up on this conspiracy is the iron discipline and preternatural impulse control of everyone involved.

I already admitted in an earlier remark that a scenario like this is theoretically conceivable, but what does it matter with respect to the article? We can only work with what the sources do pick up on. Weirvile (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There is great doubt that she stabbed him but that's not even the point. The lead has no indication that she was attacked initially with her friends by a group, and was still being threatened by them when the stabbing occurred. This violates NPOV. We don't even suggest she had been assaulted and threatened. We don't even suggest it was two groups of people. We flat out state unequivocally that she stabbed a man fatally, then start to present there was a public outcry. What is completely missing is that she was the victim twice, and was defending herself. Your lawyer skills would prove very useful if she goes on trial but we are changing the story here when we know it's missing key facts. Mulchie (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Where can I read about this "great doubt"? Is there anything meeting WP:RS that is documenting it? For the time being, consensus reality appears to be that McDonald admits to the stabbing. Yes, she seems to have denied having stabbed the guy in one of her three or four previous versions, but she has retracted those. The eyewitness backs up her current story. No source that we currently know of contradicts it.

Likewise, is there any useful source that confirms she was "a victim twice, and was defending herself"? Seriously, where do you get this idea? McDonald admits that she stabbed Schmitz before he had any opportunity to attack her. Depending on which source you want to believe, she either "doubled back" to the scene in order to "confront" him, or she "turned around" and stabbed him because he he was following her and she was "afraid" he might attack if she didn't preempt him. Again, no reputable source we currently know of ventures to disagree.

Regarding the edit I undid, you need to stop trying to make misleading additions to the intro.

I'll rehash the current consensus for you one more time:

• McDonald and her four besties stroll down the street.
• A couple of inebriated middle-aged bar patrons out for a smoke hurl some invective at them from across the street.
• McDonald and friends, all of them six foot or above, well muscled, and in their early twenties, cross the street, confront the intoxicated pottymouths, and threaten violence ("will not be tolerated", etc.). They probably don't think any of the short flabby quadragenarians will stand up to them, but
• Flaherty does; she is tipsy enough to accept the invitation and throw a punch, yet not tipsy enough to fail to have it connect.
• The musclefrogs collectively jump Flaherty.
• Flaherty's friends counter-jump the musclefrogs.

I know, McDonald has at various points offered various other timelines that are variance with the above in various ways. However, they are also at variance with each other. The lady generally seems to fib at lot. Her eight (8) crimincal convictions involve two counts of making false statements to the police, one count of trying to defraud some dude with a bad check, and one count of trying to dodge the law by misrepresentating her identity to a peace officer. And even if it wasn't so difficult for her to keep her stories straight, she still wouldn't be a secondary source. Weirvile (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your view and apparent judgement of McDonald's character, and really you can only speak for yourself as I sharply disagree with the above "consensus" as presented, is noted but seems to contradict reliable sources. They were not just verbally accosted by potty-mouths, they were physically assaulted and required stitches to put her face back together. Those "intoxicated potty mouths" attacked them and provoked them with degrading racist and transphobic language. After being physically and verbally assaulted the stabbing occurred. I'm not sure what accounts you're utilizing but the consensus seems fairly clear that McDonald was definitely the victim who fought back and unfortunately a man at least strongly affiliate with the attacking group was fatally stabbed. In any case the changes I made corrected some of the inaccuracies but I'll look again to see what the sources state. Mulchie (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So which specific reliable sources do you think it contradicts? Name one. Do you see "great doubt" McDonald is younger and taller than Flaherty, like you see "great doubt" McDonald actually stabbed anybody? Do you doubt McDonald committed any of the other transgressions on her record? Do you have doubts regarding the chronological sequence of events? You keep repeating that you disbelieve essentially every article by every disintested third party that anyone working on this article has ever seen. On what grounds? Cite something.

You don't seem to make a lot of edits to any other articles, is the problem perhaps that you don't fully appreciate what "reliable source" means in the context of a Wikipedia page?

It seems to make you upset when it is pointed out to you that McDonald is not the faultless, innocent, consistently upstanding victim of a totally unprovoked attack that you try to paint her as. Why? Do you see anyone getting angry when people point out that Schmitz was a drunk with a record and a swastika tattoo? Damvile (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems you disagree with something in the main sentence changed:

She came to national attention in June 2012 for accepting a plea bargain of 41 months in prison for second-degree manslaughter of a man fatally stabbed after his friends physically and verbally assaulted McDonald and her friends.

Looking at the statements that might in dispute

• were McDonald's attackers "his friends" or is there another word we should use there?
• did they physically attack her before the stabbing?
• did they verbally assault her before the stabbing?

I'm trying got find what is the dispute so I can look to either sourcing it or correcting it. Your help is appreciated. Mulchie (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

One last time, because I'm a patient person:

1. "They" did not physically attacked her until after McDonald and her friends had started pounding Flaherty (which they didn't do until after Flaherty had taken a swipe at McDonald, which she didn't do until after McDonald and her friends had accosted and threatened her).
2. The language you want is inappropriate because it strongly implies that McDonald acted in self defense, which everybody agrees she didn't, including (1) the independent, disinterested, non-combatant eyewitness and (2) McDonald herself.
3. Your latest version is also inappropriate because it very, very conspicuously avoids saying that McDonalds is known to have been the killer, making it sound as though Schmitz might well have been killed by someone else during a multi-party melee.

Of course, by your own admission, you already read the discussion that repeatedly points out these things. You keep saying you "dispute" and "disagree" but you don't produce any sources to back you up. You're beginning to make it difficult to keep assuming good faith. Damvile (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your version of what happened does not seem aligned with what is being widely reported in reliable sources. If you have any that contradict what I've added then let's look at them, and see what can be used. It might be that we have to find a way to state who declared what. Here's a direct interview with McDonald, whose biography this is, do you think she's outright lying?

CM: Can you take me through a quick summary of what happened the night of June 5 when you got into the altercation?

CCM: In 2011, me, my boyfriend, and some friends were walking down the street and we came across a group of neo-Nazis who pretty much verbally attacked us by saying things like go back to Africa you nigger babies, and you’re nothing but chicks with dicks, and you dress like that to rape men, and so on and so forth Anything you can think of in that moment that dealt with transphobia, homophobia, and racism pretty much was said.

And the incident became physical when Molly Flaugherty attacked me, and that led to a group melee. In me defending myself, my attacker, Dean Schmitz, was killed, and I ended up having to do time for self-defense and I’m currently still on parole.

Please provide any reliable sources that contradict what we have. I've added a few more sources to the article although plenty we already there. Mulchie (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's another report: "McDonald, 26, pleaded to a manslaughter charge in the death of Dean Schmitz, 47, an ex-con and member of a white supremacist gang, who confronted her with racist and homophobic taunts outside a Minneapolis bar in June 2011. A fight ensued, and McDonald was slashed across the face with a broken glass by a friend of Schmitz, before she attacked the man, stabbing him to death with a pair of scissors."

Compromise?

v1

I suggest we stick with the Mulchie version from 00:02, 17 November 2014‎, except we remove the words "physically and." This still points out that Schmitz and his friends were the side that ultimately initiated the exchange, which is what Mulchie wants, but doesn't go beyond the sources, which is what the other authors agreed to do. Filjil (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm super tired of being Captain Negativity, but your version makes it sound as though McDonald killed a man in cold blood just because he said a few nasty words. This is every bit as misleading as the POV Mulchie is trying to hammer into the article, just in a different direction, and I don't think that's what you wanted. I'm not American, but I believe public perception of transwomen among US millenials is heavily influenced by angry hulks with DIE CIS SCUM tumblr blogs, so there will be readers out there who will readily get the impression that Schmitz didn't do anything except incidentally tick off the wrong nutcase. This is not an impression the article can risk giving.

Obviously a compromise is better than a revert war, but could you maybe suggest a different one?

As an aside, I see nothing wrong with emphasizing Schmitz' record over McDonald's, as long as it doesn't hijack the intro. Schmitz had a documented history of violence, whereas McDonald's convictions were convictions for fraud, theft, and various fabrications. This doesn't compare. We know for a fact that it was in character for Schmitz to get into a street fight; we can't say the same thing with the same confidence for McDonald. Damvile (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Your defense of a neo-Nazi and white supremacist gang member and his drunken attacking friends is admirable. Public perception of trans women is thankfully being shaped by these wildly violent episodes that are not as easily brushed aside. And Schmitz et al are the nutcases if anyone for being so inhuman as to harass a bunch of black youth with racist slurs then also pick on the trans women with transphobic slurs. In the LGBTQ communities that means they are ready to attack because they are too drunk or high to keep their mouths shut. I've seen no compelling account of the story that doesn't present that McDonald and her friends were verbally and physically attacked by Schmitz and his friends. Nor that she wasn't acting in self-defense and the entire court case was textbook is how to carry out missteps in justice. As always let the sources do the talking. Mulchie (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

v2

Damvile, I'm revising my proposed compromise to address the objection you raised. The new draft

1. expressly states that the fracas did not go from verbal abuse to stabbing with nothing in between
2. expressly states that we are talking about vicious (racist and transphobic) verbal abuse, not harmless jabs
3. does not imply that McDonald was acting "in cold blood." It expressly points out that there was a violent quarrel just minutes before the killing, so readers will automatically assume that McDonald was still agitated. (To the best of everyone's knowledge at this time, she was.)

I think this should take care of your concern. Filjil (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It does. Your current version works for me. Damvile (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I've re-added the sources, and tried to use some quotes to clarify what sources are used. I hope that and the other changes help fix rather than create problems. I'm here to help! Mulchie (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Mulchie, you didn't just re-add the sources, you also completely rewrote the intro again. Again, it is quote mining to imply a sequence of events that almost certainly did not occur in the form suggested. Before you go off on another rant about how I'm a Nazi sympathizer or something, please read this carefully:

1. The lead section needs to be a summary of the article.
2. As such, it needs to be as neutral as the article as a whole. It's OK if there are individual sections that emphasize one point of view over competing point of views: Allegations by police, View of Mormon apologists, Criticism by the aestheticist movement, whatnot. The lead section, however, has to be scrupulous in presenting an unbiased overview of the totality of the source material. If there are two or more points of view supported by reliable sources, the lead section absolutely cannot uncritically privilege one of them over the other(s).
3. Numbers as such don't matter. There are thousands of times as many people publishing horoscopes as there are peer-reviewed scientific publications saying that astrology is bunk. There are thousands of times more cable news segments, talk radio tirades, and newspaper opinion pieces that deny global warming as there are scientific publications that allege it. There are hundreds of times as many gold standard cranks with blogs or editorial columns as there are professional macroeconomists. The articles in question still can't uncritically side with them in their lead sections.
4. You keep insisting that there is "general consensus" that McDonald was unilaterally attacked by "a group" with no prelude whatsoever, that she only stabbed Schmitz because she was forced to, and that her conviction was a miscarriage of justice. This consensus does not exist. Sure, there are dozens of sources that promote these views, but they are openly, explicitly, proudly biased. There are few, if any, sources purporting to be neutral that uncritically accept the McDonald narrative as factual. There are plently of sources that document the existence of other versions. The independent eyewitness is documented to disagree. Law enforcement is documented to disagree. Other participants in the altercation are documented to disagree. McDonald herself is documented to disagree, in 3+ out of the 4+ versions of her testimony. Editing the lead section to pretend otherwise is completely out of the question; it would violate Wikipedia's one essential core principle.

Note that I'm not saying there is anything wrong with supporting McDonald. I'm also not saying there is anything wrong with (a) citing sources that support McDonald or (b) having the article point out that there is a huge number of sources supporting McDonald. The article can and should do both of these things. It just can't pretend that the McDonald narrative is the clear and proven one and only truth that nobody sane has ever disputed. Damvile (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If you choose to disregard what the majority of reliable sources state and make choices to sympathize with the white supremacist gang member on meth and cocaine over that of the target of racist and transphobic verbal and physical assaults then those choices will help others form opinions. You have presented a lot of text but many specific issues are never addressed or glossed over. Instead all my work, reliable sources and direct quotes have been thrown away. Meanwhile I have tried to incorporate all constructive criticism into each new version. McDonald and her friends were first verbally then physically assaulted. I thought Mother Jones' account told it rather well without claiming who was at fault. I thought attributed direct quotes would be better. You keep deleting all sources and quotes but I'll try again.

To address the number posts;

1. I don't think anyone disputes the lead section should summarize. The article needs a lot of work but if the very introduction is misleading I maintain we should try to fix those issues. Calling Schmitz her victim is one striking example of that.

2. If there are competing stories then we lean on what the reliable sources state. After journalists who are paid to dig through evidence have heard the differing sides what do they report? Those are the sources I look for guidance.

3. I guess I need a specific example of where what we've quoted is in any disagreement with the majority of reliable sources. If we have something wrong, we should fix it. If there are presently no examples then I'll take this as a caution to be aware multiple views on some aspect exist.

4. I'm going by the majority of reliable sources when I look for news sources, not first-hand testimony and court transcipts. How are reputable sources reporting these events with a few years' hindsight and all previous material available to them? Sure there are differences but nothing on the scale to what has been suggested. Mulchie (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

How about we all step away from the ad hominems for a while?

Mulchie dearest, in the comment of mine that made you call me a "defender" a of "a neo-Nazi and white supremacist gang member" for the first time, I wasn't defending Schmitz, I was defending you and your edit against Filjil's criticism. Here is there entire exchange, in words of no more than one syllable each:

MULCHIE: Let's say that Schmitz is an ex con.
FILJIL: No we can't do that. She is an ex con too. It would be slant to say that he is an ex con if we don't say that she is an ex con as well.
ME: Yes we can. They are not the same kind of ex con. She is known to cheat and steal but does not seem to pick fights a lot, if at all. He is a known thug who picks fights all the time. Mind you, a fight is why we have this here page in the first place.
FILJIL: I see your point.

But hey, don't let it get to you. I'm sure you have great reading comprehension in real life and you work well with others. Damvile (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

My comment was pointed at several of your comments rather than just this one. In those comments McDonald was generally disparaged while greatly playing down that she was defending herself against a ex-con white supremacist on cocaine/meth who was making racist and transphobic taunts with other bar patrons including his ex-girlfriend, who then stabbed McDonald. Then that same ex-con went after a retreating McDonald who was bleeding from the face. The rest of your comment here seems to support my concern. I do appreciate your edits although I don't agree with all of them. I will keep looking at sources to see how the article can improve. And I thank you for taking the time to present your views. Mulchie (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140122144811/http://www.citypages.com/2012-05-09/news/cece-mcdonald-murder-trial/ to http://www.citypages.com/2012-05-09/news/cece-mcdonald-murder-trial/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Science and the Gendered Body

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 9 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adpoyser (article contribs).

Ethnicity

@Kbabej: you removed "African-American" from the first sentence of this article citing MOS:ETHNICITY, but this seems like a case where that guideline instructs us to include ethnicity, i.e. one where ethnicity is relevant to the subject's notability, insofar as McDonald's notability stems in large part from her response to a racist attack. I'd be interested to know what you think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)