Talk:Cynthia McKinney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Note icon
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Events."
WikiProject Women's History (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / Government / Presidential elections (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (marked as Low-importance).

Apologists for her are making a mockery of the wikipedia[edit]

This puff piece shouldn't be tolerated —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Free Gaza Movement[edit]

This is just a note that in the section "Free Gaza Movement," which I added a couple days ago, there are two viewpoints, the crew and the viewpoint of Israel officials. Editors already seem very excited about removing one of these viewpoints, thus making this section POV. - Connelly (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It appears that Cigraphix is president of the McKinney fan club as he continues to remove any mention of WHY McKinney's boat was turned around. I can't help but wonder about the accuracy of information in Wikipedia if people are allowed to remove things that are factually accurate and important to the subject. Bladious (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ME?!! I reinserted what Connelly wrote about the Israeli response after someone else rm'd it [1]. All I did to what you added was rewrite it so that it didn't add undue weight to it. The quotes were unneeded, what you really added was that Israel said the boat was told they would not be allowed in Gaza and that they feel the whole thing was done for propaganda, and there was a short & easy way of writing that so I rewrote it that way. Also the status of the boat repairs have nothing to do with McKinney so I deleted it. Assume good faith next time! CIGraphix (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes YOU. You continue to remove facts that are pertinent to the story and Ms. McKinney's involvement. She was told that Israel considered it a "closed military zone" and wouldn't be allowed to land. It demonstrates a certain amount of recklessness on the part of those on the boat. I will leave it as is so that I don't get accused of starting an edit war. Hopefully folks read the comments sections. It's sad that accuracy takes a back seat to opinion. Thankfully its already been flagged for POV. I would like to assume good faith but there are already too many reasons in this article to do so. Bladious (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The closed military zone part has been added back in, it was placed in an area outside the reference and appeared to be another piece of unsourced info and that is why it was deleted. We talk things out and improve on each other's work, this is how Wikipedia operates. Are you going to start assuming good faith now or are you going to act like a conspiracy theorist? CIGraphix (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Here we go again. Here come the Hasbarah to ruin another wikipdia article with spraying it with meaningless propoganda. Note to editors: there is no such thing as a "closed military zone". It is undefined in wikipia. It is undefined in google. It is undefined in any other encyclopedic source. Looking it up in google only brings up Israeli military directives calling areas "closed military zones". It is simply a meaningless term the Israelis have invented. It is very loosely based on an obscure 1858 Ottoman Lands Law and even its grossly distorted use by the Israelis has never before been applied to waterways. If propogandists are going to insist of the use of the "closed military zone" excuse, they should also mention that it has no prescedence in history, that no other country uses the term, and that it has no basis on international law. The attached link from Dr Franklin Lamb (former adjunct Professor of international law at Northwestern College of Law in Portland, Oregon) with regards to "closed military zones" and the legality of Israel's recent action against the seizure of the recent aid boat can be used as a source (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So I took out a reference from the "Palestine Chronicle." It does not look like an RS to me (and neither does its author), but I'm certainly willing to be persuaded it is. IronDuke 18:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Formatting error[edit]

Help I've been working on this article, and for some reason, after the succession boxes at the bottom and before {{Cynthia McKinney}}, there is an arrent: |} I can't figure out what's doing it. Can anyone fix this? Please post on my talk if you need me. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 10:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

5,000 Bush victims[edit]

The link is seriously biased. Their racism is apparent with the very first sentence. It reads, "It wouldn’t be an election cycle without Cynthia McKinney’s lunacy..." She did make the claim, and she does have proof. A link to an original source at would be better than the Bush worshipping, America hating, racist (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Give it up, 97.113, you and the other mental patients who believe one word out of McKinney's mouth are the real racists; just because the individual whose lunacy is being pointed out happens to be black doesn't make it a comment about black people, but you already know that. In fact, in the comment you quoted, where is there ANY mention of race, besides your own hateful interpretation? What you want us to believe is that 5,000 people were killed all at once, and no family has ever come forth to mention it? McKinney realizes that her sham of a campaign isn't getting enough attention, so she has to make up yet more nonsense in order to get on TV again. In this case, though, any publicity is not necessarily good publicity, because the sane portion of this nation is simply getting a good laugh at her... and you.
So it's a person who heard it from someone who heard it from someone else? And she has anonymous confirmation from the Red Cross? Sure, Rep. McKinney, sure. 433 (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussion relevant to improving the article, not general discussion about the subject. Let's keep it that way, as per WP:TALK. -kotra (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Workers World Party and Reconstruction Party (United States)?[edit]

Something needs to be added about the WWP[2] and the Reconstruction Party... I don't know more about it than that one link. Шизомби (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is McKinney part of those parties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:05, 4 November 2008
The link is pretty self-explanatory, isn't it? Шизомби (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I added a WWP reference, not sure what to do about the RP. Deserves a mention, but not extensively coverage unless it is actually formed. See also Шизомби (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Explain rv[edit]

Particularly in the middle of an election campaign, you cannot just make statements like "John Doe says candidate X is a child abuser" even if John Doe really did say it. PatGallacher (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk. Where does it say in policy that you cannot make such statements? I mean specifically, not just "BLP." IronDuke 19:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I understand PG's point, it seems like it could be a potentially incendiary charge made during an opportune time to cause political damage. I'm not sure about BLP but it may be against NPOV or perhaps it is being given undo weight with the inclusion of the quote. A middle road compromise seems best. CIGraphix (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I say, Alan Dershowitz is an authority on these matters. Spekaing of BLP, I wouldn't want to make negative insinuations about his motives. But what sort of compromise did you have in mind? IronDuke 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure Dershowitz is a reliable source, see WP:PROVEIT. PatGallacher (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you aren't sure Dershowitz is a reliable source, you shouldn't be editing articles where his name might come up. IronDuke 06:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Pat is saying that he's (prima facie) not a reliable source. There often a subtlety in the phrase "I am not sure that .." which you seem to have missed. And of course WP is the encyclopedia anyone (even those not 100% sure about everything in the world) can edit, so the second point is a bit moot. Having said that the piece cited would appear to be a reliable source for the fact that Dershowitz made the comments - the problem for me is that for one editor to simply assert that he is a "noted authority", and that therefore anything he says in a one-off op-ed can just be chucked into a BLP is pushing several WP rules a bit far. The "anti-semite" accusation is a political dig - and a serious one at that - from a well-known partisan polemicist, not some kind of scientific assessment. The Green party themselves appear to have described the comments as "slanderous", which should raise BLP flags, and if nothing else requires that any text here citing his comments should also reference this response. --Nickhh (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have a good source for the Green Party's remarks, by all means put it in as a rebuttal. I'm a bit disturbed that you don't seem to be aware of Dershowitz's prominence in this field. You might think about getting yourself a little more educated on the topic before you edit any more in these sensitive areas. I'll even recommend some books, if you like. "Scientific assessment?" Well, you got me there. The quote is indeed not a scientific assessment. Would you like to comb through this article, deleting anything that isn't a "scientific assesment?" IronDuke 16:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I know exactly who Dershowitz is and am well aware of his prominence as a pro-Israeli polemicist. Nothing I said above could be taken to suggest that I do not. So cut out the patronising bullsh#t about "getting [myself] a little more educated" or you "recommed[ing] me some books". Although, just to return the favour, I will patronise you by pointing out that I was not of course literally asking for a "scientific assessment" of whether McKinney is an anti-semite or not. I was making a point about this being a one-off - but potentially defamatory - comment from a partisan and controversial source, in a newspaper op-ed whose main topic was not the subject of this article. And whether, given that, it should be highlighted in a BLP or not. --Nickhh (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
That you continue to refer to Dershowitz as a polemicist, a partisan, and as maker of defamatory statements shows you have little knowledge of his work (and have probably violated BLP yourself). Perhaps, though, you can now educate me and tell me just why it is that fighting antisemitism makes one a "polemicist." I'm eager to hear why you think so. I'm glad you have retreated from the idea that we need "scientific assessments" in articles like this. What we need are opinions from reknowned scholars and analysts. Dershowitz is a well-respected scholar, his views are notable. Your opinion that his writings are a mere "political dig" is not. IronDuke 19:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but everything you've said there shows you didn't read most of what I said, or you didn't understand the meaning of what I am saying. Someone who has written a book called "The Case for Israel" is, by simple definition, a partisan polemicist. Accusing someone of anti-semitism is indeed, potentially defamatory (ask Steven Plaut). And as I explained, my reference to "scientific assessments" was in of course a rhetorical turn of phrase, not meant to be taken literally. I have not retracted that phrase, or retreated from what I meant from it. As to the point at issue, Dershowitz may be an admired expert to some, but he is a controversial writer whose assessments are frequently questioned and disputed. This is a BLP and I cannot see any outside editor coming in, or this issue going to the BLP noticeboard, and the conclusion being that it is acceptable to quote this claim here based on one comment from an op-ed piece, whoever it is saying it. --Nickhh (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I have read all that you said, and understood it fully. Fear not. As you say, Dershowitz is admired. That you do not count yourself among his admirers is no reason to censor his views. That his views may be controversial, also, is no reason to censor them. As for the BLP noticeboard, I've already had a word with you on your talk page re stalking -- I'd appreciate it if you did not force me to interact with you on yet another page. I hope you can see why. IronDuke 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, not a problem. --Nickhh (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dershowitz makes the vague statement that McKinney's supporters frequently (my emphasis) chanted anti-Jewish slogans at her rallies, without giving dates, places, or even telling us what the slogans were. If this was true of any significant political figure I think we would have heard more about it. PatGallacher (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"We" may not have heard of it, but I guarantee you I have heard of it. You know how? By reading the sources referenced in the article. IronDuke 16:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at Dershowitz's article and I don't see any sources. Claims like this need to be very clearly sourced. If I inadvertantly removed any material about Hurricane Katrina then somebody has already restored it. I have not been using any sockpuppets or IPs. PatGallacher (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant other sources in the McKinney article, which back him up. Not that he needs backing up. He is an authority on issues of antisemitism. A best-selling author on these issues. You have no such credentials, therefore your difficulties with what Dershowitz writes have no bearing on this article. IronDuke 18:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
You would have to be more specific about what the sources are for these claims. PatGallacher (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
[3] ADL Condemns Racist, Anti-Semitic Tirades At Rep. Cynthia Mckinney's Concession Speech and [4] Lessons from Rep. Cynthia McKinney's defeat, by Michael Barone U.S. News and World Report. IronDuke 18:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at both these sources, and they do not appear to support the claims in the article. As for the second source, I wonder what the reaction would be in some quarters if a pundit suggested that one reason why a candidate lost an election was that many of their contributors had Jewish names (or even Hispanic or Italian names). PatGallacher (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

They clearly support it, but it doesn't matter if they don't. Dershowitz makes an assertion. You disagree. Dershowitz is an expert. You are not. That's all that matters. IronDuke 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dershowitz quote[edit]

"The Green Party's current candidate for President is an overt anti-Semite named Cynthia McKinney who has surrounded herself with storm-trooper like neo-Nazis who frequently shout anti-Jewish slogans at her rallies. McKinney implied that the Jews were responsible for 9/11..." That's a bit unbalanced isn't it? Dershowitz doesn't back up his claims with proof or anything like it, and he slings around the label "anti-Semitic" pretty indiscriminately (ironically enough). Шизомби (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

See above. This really needs to go to the BLP noticeboard and should stay out of the article until some decision is reached there one way or the other. Even though it is clearly attributed as someone's opinion, it is a highly controversial claim, unsupported by any specific evidence relating to McKinney herself. The Green Party themselves appear to have labelled it as slanderous. The habit of stuffing WP entries with any old criticism or political mud-slinging that can be dredged up from online opinion pieces, and then claiming "it's sourced!", is bad enough as it is. When it involves this kind of accusation in a BLP it moves beyond the realm of simple bad writing and trivialisation of encyclopedia content, and into that of actual risk. --Nickhh (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've put this up on the BLP noticeboard here. That board doesn't seem to move too quickly, so I'm not holding my breath for instant resolution. Please note as well that this is meant to be an opportunity for others to take a view, not for the already-involved (whether pro- or anti-inclusion) to rehash the arguments above. Cheers. --Nickhh (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Riiighhht. You rehash the arguments there, but no one else should? Really? @Шизомби: as Nick says, see above. Dershowitz doesn't have to back his claims up, he's an expert in this field. IronDuke 00:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe put this in the campaign sub article if at all? Right now, this "material" just sticks out awkwardly without any context or rebuttal or anything. Dershowitz thinks she is scum. So how is that incorporated into the article if at all in a NPOV way? I have my own problems over at the Palin article so I'll just watch. Cheers! --Tom 15:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I put in a rebuttal. IronDuke 00:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Simply having a rebuttal is not the point, although it does at least help. The underlying BLP & UNDUE issues remain - if anything the latter is now worse since we have two large block-quotes taking up two entire paragraphs .. all ultimately from one comment half-way down in one op-ed in the middle of the campaign. As to the BLP noticeboard - I think there's a BLP problem, I made the initial post there, so of course I explained there why I thought there was an issue. The notice linked to the discussion here, so anyone who cares can see your counter-arguments. I'm not trying to stop people reading them, I just thought it wouldn't be helpful to clog up the board thread repeating all of them. --Nickhh (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
So... they should be clogged only by your own arguments? Does that make any sense at all? IronDuke 00:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Yup, if that's the way you wish to describe it.--Nickhh (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the personal attack in your edit summary aside, what you have written is unintelligible , I'm not sure what you're getting at. IronDuke 01:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Spotted this on the BLP noticeboard. This is a fairly cut-and-dried BLP violation; I'm surprised it's come this far. I hold no brief for Cynthia McKinney, but let me remind all that WP:BLP applies even to kooks and quacks – whether they are US Congressmen, Harvard Law professors, or whatever. The only defense I've seen for the inclusion of this material is the claim that Dershowitz "is an expert in this field." Dershowitz's expertise in everything but law is hotly debated, but even laying that aside: in exactly what "field" does the claim that so-and-so "has surrounded herself with storm-trooper like neo-Nazis" constitute expert analysis? As opposed to layperson's rhetoric?

How far should we go in including such scholarly analysis from this great "expert in the field"? Should we add to the Noam Chomsky article Dershowitz's expert opinion that Chomsky is "a Holocaust denier"? And given Chomsky's expertise regarding human rights, the media, and the workings of propaganda in free societies, should we include his expert opinion that Dershowitz is a "Stalinist-style thug" and "not only a remarkable liar and slanderer, but also an extreme opponent of elementary civil rights"?

Not everything experts say when they open their mouths constitutes expert analysis. The block quote in dispute here has a very high heat-to-light, rhetoric-to-information ratio. It is also – contra IronDuke – from an extremely controversial and not always reliable source, writing in the op-ed pages of a partisan tabloid. Not good.

Put in a single sentence saying, "Cynthia McKinney has been accused of antisemitism by Alan Dershowitz and the ADL," or something to that effect.--G-Dett (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Who "hotly" debates that AD is an expert on antisemitism? As for the rest, you raise highly interesting issues about other articles; I think we'd be well-served if you went to those talk pages and raise them there. PS: Calling Dershowitz "unreliable" is itself a BLP violation. (One can almost taste the irony, no?) I think you should strike it. "Extremely controversial?" Can we get a source on that? IronDuke 00:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
There are no (current) BLP violations on those pages, so I don't see the point of discussing the issue there. Do it yourself if you think it's a fruitful pursuit. But there is currently a BLP violation here, as well as a great deal of muddled argument advanced in support of it, so the illustrative examples do belong here.
Do you actually need me to bring you readings on how Dershowitz's buckshot accusations of antisemitism are controversial? Incidentally, I didn't say "unreliable" – you did – I said "not always reliable." I gave you an example of an assertion of fact by Dershowitz that every literate person on earth, including you, knows is false. I also gave you an example of a source of considerably greater reputation and expertise than Dershowitz, who has called attention to his pattern of misstatements.
I don't know if what I'm tasting here is irony or evasiveness. You haven't addressed my objections, but you're asking me for material you should already be aware of.
I can't promise you an endless game of verbal ping-pong. If you genuinely need help getting your bibliographic bearings on the controversy surrounding Dershowitz's reliability regarding antisemitism, I'll do that when I have the time, on my terms, and on your user page. Here, I'll be looking for you to address the key issue I raised: the block-quote you're edit-warring over is high on rhetoric and low on content. It is lay rhetoric, impressionistic and incendiary, having nothing to do with "expert analysis"; and the source – a controversial polemicist writing in a tabloid's op-ed pages – is not good enough to overcome the BLP concerns. Meanwhile, I've proposed a reasonable way of salvaging the actual content: the allegation of antisemitism, attributed to Dershowitz and the ADL.--G-Dett (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
"Do you actually need me to bring you readings on how Dershowitz's buckshot accusations of antisemitism are controversial?" No, but I'd love for you to bring me readings on how they're "extremely controversial." Also love to see RS quotes that AD is "not always reliable." On your "terms," of course, and at your leisure. Your thoughts regarding AD's expert opinion on CM are interesting, as always, but do not trump his expertise. IronDuke 01:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
You want me to find sources for the adverb "extremely"? When you haven't even read around enough to know that Dershowitz is considered "not always reliable"? Again, no ping pong. Address the key issue (BLP issues are pressing; the gaps in your reading are not). If your belief in Dershowitz's glowing reputation for unquestioned expertise in antisemitism is hindering your engagement here, start with this: what would be unsatisfactory about a single sentence, as proposed above: "Cynthia McKinney has been accused of antisemitism by Alan Dershowitz and the ADL" (with your tabloid op-ed and the ADL press release as sources)? What does the block quote about how McKinney's campaign entourage resembles the military forces of the Third Reich add, in terms of "expert" analysis?--G-Dett (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It adds in terms of the severity of AD's crit of CM. IronDuke 17:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Adding this 'severity' seems to be adding undue weight and I'm concerned it is creating a path toward the COATRACK-yness of A Journalist Mentioned It In Passing. CIGraphix (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It would add undue weight if the scholar (not a random journalist mentioned in a non-binding, non-policy essay not germane to this subject) weren't an expert in this field. He is. And issues of antisemitism have been brought up in relation to CM's campaigns more than once. IronDuke 18:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Alan Dershowitz is not a "scholar" of antisemitism, and the material you want to accentuate with a block quote is not scholarship; it's buckshot rhetoric about "storm-trooper-like neo-Nazis" from a popular polemicist writing in a crappy tabloid.--G-Dett (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course he's a scholar. I understand you're not a fan, but that doesn't mean his opinions aren't noteworhty. They are. IronDuke 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Not a scholar of antisemitism.--G-Dett (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I think he is, having written a well-received book on that very topic. And even if he somehow weren't, he's still vastly superior to the "random journalist" put forth in the essay referenced above. IronDuke 01:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, which work of scholarship are we talking about? Chutzpah? The Case for Israel? And who calls Dershowitz a scholar of antisemitism?--G-Dett (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, Chutzpah. Plus many interviews and appearances to give his views. The term "scholar of antisemitism" gets only 8 Google hits, so I guess there aren't very many -- though Dersh is one of those hits. Call him an "Expert" on AS if you prefer. His opinion on this subject is noteworthy. There is simply no way around that point. IronDuke 16:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
His many interviews and appearances make him a scholar? His opinion is noteworthy, which is why I've included it; let's not have any strawmen. The incendiary and content-free rhetoric he chooses to use in one of the cheap tabloids he regularly turns out copy for, however, needn't be lovingly reproduced word for word – and indeed in the present case cannot be, due to BLP. Meanwhile, here's what Richard Posner, University of Chicago professor and judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, has to say about Dershowitz the "scholar":

Alan Dershowitz's notoriety makes it impossible to approach his new book with a completely open mind. His notoriety is not undeserved. Although he is a professor at Harvard Law School, Dershowitz is not a scholar. His principal activities, when he is not actually in class teaching, are defending infamous criminal defendants, such as O.J. Simpson, Claus von Bulow, Mike Tyson, and Jonathan Pollard; appearing on television talk shows; and writing books and articles of a journalistic character on current events, such as the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and the 2000 presidential election deadlock. In his defense of his clients, and in his activities as a best-selling and camera-chasing "public intellectual," he is notable for a lack of self-restraint that should be surprising in an academic at a distinguished university, as when he said on Geraldo Rivera's show that a vote against impeaching Clinton would be not a vote for Clinton but instead "a vote against anti-environmentalism." In his last book before this one, he accused five justices of the Supreme Court of outright corruption in siding with Bush in Bush v. Gore, offering as prime evidence for this very serious charge such unverifiable hearsay as his unrecorded conversations with unnamed law clerks and other juicy leaks and hot tips. He has frequently blamed his losses in court on corruption on the part of prosecutors and judges...

Out of curiosity, does his schtick on Geraldo Rivera – like his op-eds for FrontPageMagazine and the New York Daily News – form part of his scholarly resumé of "interviews and appearances" as you see it?
Finally, your one Google hit for Dershowitz as "scholar of antisemitism" is from something called, "the world's leading people search engine" (currently in beta), which doesn't actually call him a "scholar of antisemitism," but rather offers that phrase – along with "animal rights movement" – as a "related search." The content on Spock's page, moreover, is simply drawn from Wikipedia. A tinny echo from the bottom of the barrel. --G-Dett (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Posner? Really? You are aware of the long-standing acrimony between these two men? Yes, I suppose WP would be vastly more fun if we judged people by what their enemies had to say about them, but I don't think that's policy. " The incendiary and content-free rhetoric he chooses to use in one of the cheap tabloids he regularly turns out copy for, however, needn't be lovingly reproduced word for word – and indeed in the present case cannot be, due to BLP. " Need not? Begging the question. Cannot? Well, of course that's not true. Indeed, what you have written about Dershowitz on this page and elsewhere is arguably worse than what he has to say about CM. WP:CENSOR... we provide information, and let the reader draw his/her own conclusion. IronDuke 19:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've explained at length why we "need not" add Dershowitz's feelings about McKinney's campaign entourage resembling Nazi stormtroopers (adds nothing of substance, is incendiary lay rhetoric not expert analysis), so there's no "begging the question" on my side. As for why we cannot, well, BLP. Extraordinary claims extraordinary sources, yadda yadda. If you want to argue that whenever a popular published writer says something in a tabloid about someone, we have to include it otherwise its CENSORship, then make that case; otherwise it is you who's begging the question. Yes, I'm aware of the longstanding acrimony between Dershowitz and many of the experts in whose fields he trespasses; hence my reference to him being "extremely controversial." Finally, frank evaluation of the quality of sources is what talk pages are for, and nothing I've said about Dershowitz (i.e. that he writes unrestrained copy for cheap tabloids, that he's extremely controversial, etc.) is out of bounds, and certainly none of it is tantamount to calling him a neo-Nazi.--G-Dett (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(ß-outdent) You said he was not “reliable” (still have seen no source for that, and please no Chomsky kvetching about footnotes), that he asserts things that every literate person on earth knows is false (PS, flattered that you include me there), his writings are “incendiary,” “content free,” and he is “trespassing” in the field of anti-Semitism, he writes for “cheap” and “crappy” publications. Also, you reproduce a blistering attack on him from Posner (but no blistering attacks are allowed from AD to CM). You are free to evaluate sources here, of course, eg, when you say he is not a scholar of AS, that is a totally legit, non-trivial, non-insulting opinion. When you say that other stuff, you start to cross the line. Whatev, I’m not about to make a federal case about it. (Still haven’t seen you provide any source that says AD is “extremely controversial” or even “highly controversial.” Really, the only time he seems to be labeled that is in regard to his ideas about torture which, I admit, are quite controversial. Can you find any “scholar” who says AD’s views on AS are controversial?)

Yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, but no claim is being made here, that is, in the narrative voice. AD is making a claim, and that claim is vigorously refuted denied by CM’s camp. Seems fair to me.

And I don’t know what you mean about the NY Daily News being partisan. For whom? What political philosophy undergirds their publication? It is a perfectly acceptable source… was there a decision made, say, at the RS noticeboards that it wasn’t? Heck, it doesn’t even matter: AD’s views on this are noteworthy, even Posner would admit that, I think. If AD self-published this in his own blog, it would still be quotable here. IronDuke 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

But all in all, the whole Dershowitz criticises McKinney thing seems trivial - not that important in an article about McKinney. One person, regardless of who it is, throws his hat into the critics circle, jumps right into an example of Godwin's Law, no other source ever references his words, and his target doesn't even bother to address his allegations directly (she leaves it to her surrogates). Dershowitz himself is not that important to McKinney, that is why it seems to be undue weight. However, if Dershowitz's article and words were the spark that created a fire storm against McKinney, that would be different. CIGraphix (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke, the catalog at the head of your post is pretty systematic in its distortions: I say that one thing Dershowitz says is widely understood to be categorically false (that Chomsky "is a Holocaust denier"); you make it plural. I say that a rhetoric flourish accompanying one of his claims is incendiary and content free, and needn't be quoted at length to get the gist of his claim; you change that to a general claim about his writings. I say that he trespasses in many fields, meaning that as a highly prolific generalist he often occasions the disdain of specialists; you write "trespassing in the field of anti-Semitism," which sounds pointed and sinister. I write "not always reliable"; you change it (twice, even after correction) to "not reliable." I can only conclude that you agree with me that my comments were within the pale (and certainly not comparable to claims about "storm-trooper like neo-Nazis"); otherwise you wouldn't go through systematically altering them.
The fact that the NY Daily News (along with other breathless tabloids) is not a good source for potentially BLP-violating material does not mean it's categorically non-RS; no, there was no decision at the RS noticeboards that you missed; again, please, no strawmen.
It seems to me that you are taking the position that anything a popular generalist says in any venue on any of the various subjects he's written about is quotable in Wikipedia, no matter how incendiary, so long as the quote is attributed, and a rebuttal included where available. I disagree with that position. I think BLP is pretty clear about the wrongness of that position.
You keep asking me for sources challenging Dershowitz's status as a scholar expert in the "field of antisemitism" but you haven't produced a single source attesting to this status. A phrase in the "related searches" field of a beta "people finder" search engine that siphons information from Wikipedia doesn't count. You tell me Chutzpah is a work establishing Dershowitz's scholarly expertise in antisemitism. My parents had that great tome in the magazine rack next to the toilet of my childhood. I read it from cover to cover in three-minute intervals over the course of a year. Tolstoy would have been ill-served by this kind of staccato attention, but it worked with Chutzpah; when I'd stand up to flush, Dershowitz was usually changing the subject anyway. I remember it as an engaging, refreshingly pugnacious if slightly scattered account of Jewish American life over the past half-century; the spirited outtakes of a poor-man's Saul Bellow. Perhaps you can refresh my memory as to the place it carved for itself in the scholarly literature on antisemitism.
If I may ask, out of curiosity, is Dershowitz an expert in all of the ten or fifteen different "fields" he's strolled through in his annual production of topical bestsellers? Or just those that he's appeared on Geraldo Rivera and in FrontPageMagazine to talk about?--G-Dett (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this is getting a little off track, the discussion is almost entirely about Alan Dershowitz's crediblity and not how all this relates to Cynthia McKinney. Read my last post. CIGraphix (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Cigraphix, there was an edit conflict; yes, your last post efficiently sums it up.--G-Dett (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
While I am sure your parents are/were wonderful people G-Dett, I hope you can forgive me for saying that the G-Dett family excretory functions do not a reliable source impugn, however colorful that window onto your home life may be.
You know very well that AD is an oft-quoted source for matters AS; I could have this argument with someone who didn’t know that, but you clearly do. As Cig points out, the McKinney camp would not have bothered to correct him if his opinion were not important.
As for “distortions,” I merely quote you. “Not always reliable” = “not reliable”, by the way, for our purposes. But either way, it’s a BLP vio, without very strong proof. I don’t think I altered any of your comments, but I do think I pointed out that they were closer to the line that you would probably like, to put it mildly.
If the Daily News is a RS, why are we having this discussion about it? “Crappy?” “Cheap?” What are those terms in aid of, then? And in what way was it partisan, again?
“It seems to me that you are taking the position that anything a popular generalist says in any venue on any of the various subjects he's written about is quotable in Wikipedia…” Um, yeah, that is exactly what I am saying. Your recapitulation of my position in no way traduces it to an easily digestible and refutable tidbit. I mean, c’mon. You’re always on about strawmen, did you really think that would fly? Why don’t you express my arguments as you truly believe I am making them, and then refute them? Your position will be that much the stronger thereby.
Dershowitz is quoted freakin’ everywhere regarding AS. I can come up with many, many examples. People seem to value his opinion on the subject. Maybe not everyone, but a lot of folks. (Also, FWIW, Saul Bellow loves AD’s work. Does that increase its status?) Again, you know this, right? I’m not bringing any news to you.
We could have a wide-ranging discussion on what AD is an expert in, but I think we’ve our hands full here.
PS: I’m glad you’re being nicer to me. Though I think you’re wrong here, it really is a delight to discuss these matters with a tough, smart interlocutor.
@ Cig: other sources do reference his words. IronDuke 01:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind closing words. Kind words tend to sap my rhetorical energy, so I'll be brief. I know AD is widely quoted on antisemitism. Bloggers are widely quoted. Everyone's widely quoted, and antisemitism is a hot topic. But I am not aware of any of the serious scholars of antisemitism – and trust me, by "serious" I don't mean only those who share my political leanings, I just mean those who have highly regarded, densely researched peer-review works on the subject – quoting Dershowitz. I'm not being coy here; I was genuinely taken aback by your descriptions of him as a highly regarded scholarly expert on this subject.
If it's a BLP violation to say that such-and-such source is "not always reliable," then I don't understand how conversations like this can proceed at all. Talk pages are the place for valuation of sources on the scale of reliability, yet you're saying it's a policy violation not to agree with you.
When Arafat died, the New York Daily News published a picture of his coffin borne aloft by mourners with the caption "Takin' Out the Trash." I was no more a fan of Arafat than I am of McKinney, but this is not how serious journalism deals with anyone's death, much less that of a national icon. If The Nation does this when Sharon dies, I will never read The Nation again. WP:RS provides a baseline standard; WP:BLP provides a higher one for negative material.
I know Saul Bellow liked Dershowitz. He also liked Joan Peters' discredited book, and even blurbed it. He was something of a Romantic on questions of Israeli policy. I don't much go in for the romanticization of states; I find it by definition troubling. But I love Saul Bellow and in gratitude for Augie March, Henderson the Rain King, and Herzog, would forgive him almost anything.--G-Dett (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I was being more specific to the words in his article - those pertaining specifically to McKinney - being referenced by other sources. Also, there is a huge difference between having surrogates recognizing importance and making a response as opposed to the candidate making a personal response. For a large quote like what you want to be included, his words should spark a storm of criticism against McKinney in which those words are repeated, one which she would have had to address personally, otherwise the words themselves are trivial and what is important is that he made the criticism and it all only warrants a mention since the surrogates saw importance (a sentence or two like I said was a good compromise earlier). CIGraphix (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
@Cig. Your post was a bit hard for me to understand (I may be extra thick today). What I gathered was that you wanted to see AD’s remarks on CM create more of a stir before quoting so much of them. That’s by no means a silly proposition, but it really would only apply if we were breaking it out into its own article. We don’t need to justify every quote in every article with “It provoked a storm of criticism.”
@G-Dett: You’re welcome for the closing words; I meant them. Though if you keep up your end, I shall miss being called things like a velvet-gloved pettifogging fraud. That was most impressive (though less so as you continue to use the term “pettifog” elsewhere).
As for who quoets him, I did some digging. I found Simon Bronner quoting him. And while he doesn’t have “Scholar of antisemitism” emblazoned on his forehead, he is a scholar, intellectual, and has a lot of experience writing about the Jewish experience; Meyer Weinberg quotes him (Weinberg was a professor of Afro-American studies and has written on that and on antisemitism); Elaine Marks at the U of Wisconsin has expertise in Jewish writers, and seems to like his work; David Ellenson, Professor of Jewish Religious Thought at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion quotes him… and there are more. So… have we established his bona fides?
No, it is not a policy violation to disagree with me; but can you and I agree in principle that it should be? When you say AD is not always reliable, in the context you use it, I read “makes shit up” (and I know you know I’m pretty good at reading comprehension, just as you are). And then there were all the other things that were (putting I very mildly) less than friendly. That’s what I mean about the BLP vio.
As for NYDaily News, I agree that such headlines are unhelpful, but they tend to be left-leaning, which ought to make them less hostile to CM than, say, the New York Post. And in any case, this would only be about their reliability or political axe-grinding if we suspected they had faked the Dershowitz piece. But we obviously don’t. So. IronDuke 17:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. It is never a BLP vio to say of a source, on a talk page, that they're "not always reliable." No, the list of names doesn't establish his bona fides as an expert on antisemitism. I don't care about the phrase "expert on antisemitism"; what I would want to see are academic citations of his work qua academic work. "Liking" him is beside the point.--G-Dett (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Cig, just saw your compromise version. Looks good, thanks for thinking about/working on it. IronDuke 22:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]Cigaphrix, I don't agree with the 'compromise' version. The part about McKinney's supporters being "stormtrooper-like neo-Nazis" was the least acceptable part of the quotation, in the sense that it was rhetorically demagogic and content-free. (Unless of course Dershowitz is literally saying that McKinney's demographic base is neo-Nazis white power groups or whatever. But I don't think he is; I think he's just saying "neo-Nazi" in the way he says it of Norman Finkelstein or Noam Chomsky or whoever, that is, as a standard-issue Dershowitz epithet.)

For the record, I don't agree that Dershowitz is an expert on antisemitism. He is not described as such by anyone, he has no academic publications on antisemitism, and IronDuke has provided no RSs indicating this is his reputation. Even if he were a scholar or expert of this subject, there is no sense in which the line about "stormtrooper-like neo-Nazis" would constitute expert analysis.--G-Dett (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he uses more colorful language than a lot of academics; that doesn't mean he isn't one, or that he isn't an expert in this field. And it's not merely a list of names, it's scholars who quote him in their own work -- lots of RS's there. I don't know what else we could use to establish AD is a serious analyst of AS matters. IronDuke 01:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
A better quote than the one about "stormtrooper-like neo-Nazis" would be a start. Scholarly citations citing AD's work qua scholarship would be a finish.
A list of people who are said to "like" Alan Dershowitz is neither one nor the other.
Even if your case for AD as an "expert" were strong, which it isn't, I still wouldn't buy your premise that if someone's an "expert," then anything they say, even on "his own blog," would (a) automatically pass BLP and (b) deserve to be showcased verbatim in a block quote. Norman Finkelstein is a political scientist with acknowledged expertise in the political discourse of antisemitism, with a peer-reviewed work of scholarship about Alan Dershowitz published by University of California Press, and I still wouldn't support a block quote showcasing his opinion that "if a true word actually came out of [Dershowitz], he would probably implode."--G-Dett (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the quote about he alleges about her supporters "who frequently shout anti-Jewish slogans at her rallies" should be used instead of the neo-nazi quote. It is closer to being scientific (if not really supported, like the stuff that was yelled about Obama at McCain/Palin rallies was supported with evidence) than an example of Godwin's Law, which is just inflammatory. CIGraphix (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This makes sense to me.--G-Dett (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
When we start talking about what's "scientific" in regard to real scholars/experts/analysts, I start getting nervous. No one on this page is an expert, but ecperts are being quoted. I know you don't mean it this way, Cig, but what you wrote implies you are more competent than AD... that you find it inflammatory is neither here nor there. And the Mckinney camp response is to all of his statement, including bits that may be "inflammatory." Maybe the whole quote is better. G-Dett, maybe I'm confused... the blog thing is neither here nor there, as we're not really talking about that -- even if I concede your point, it doesn't matter here. You asked for scholarly cites of his work, I gave them. Was that not enough? IronDuke 04:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that, I just used the wrong word. What I meant was the anti-Jewish slogans can theoretically have evidence, like video / audio recordings, to back it up if it is true, but it is doubtful there is any evidence to put them on a level with criminals and murderers like neo-nazis. And I'm pretty sure worse has been considered notable enough on Wikipedia (I'm sure Rush Limbauh's stupidity has been quoted ad nausum - ugh I just used an other crap exists arguement). Eh, the compromise tastes a little sour but it still is the best idea going, I just wish everyone would just work together more on this, I seem to be the only one trying to find middle ground. CIGraphix (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
To Cig: I am supporting your latest compromise proposal. The charge that her followers are shouting antisemitic slogans – whether true or not – is at least a substantive charge. That they remind AD of Nazi stormtroopers is not.
To Duke: the term "scholarly citation" means a cited reference within one academic text (scholarly book or journal article) to another academic text. It doesn't mean a list of names of academics accompanied by an attestation that somewhere, in some context, said names say something, presumably but not necessarily nice, about Alan Dershowitz.
In fact, as I indicated before, the whole issue of whether the reference is positive or negative is beside the point. A scholarly citation may be about the flaws in another's work. The point is that it recognizes that scholar's contribution as a significant contribution to the field, whether it accepts or rejects its conclusions.
One place where you will find a motherlode of scholarly citations to Alan Dershowitz's work on antisemitism is in Norman Finkelstein's peer-reviewed Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, published by the prestigious University of California Press. He concludes that Dershowitz's research on the topic is fraudulent; not flawed but fraudulent. I don't know of any other scholarly citations of Alan Dershowitz's work on antisemitism, and you haven't provided any.--G-Dett (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

--G-Dett (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we're agreed here... yes? No? G-Dett, the folks I listed above do cite AD in their scholarly works. I feel like I keep saying that, so perhaps I'm missing your point. But if we're all set, we may not need to hash it out. IronDuke 16:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] For the record, here are Duke’s “scholarly citations” establishing Dershowitz’s academic expertise in anti-Semitism:

  1. Simon Bronner in Jewishness: Expression, Identity, and Representation: “Yet American intellectual Alan Dershowitz, for many readers the most public Jew they know, hardly shies away from chutzpah. In fact, he had the chutzpah to…” We don’t know what he had the chutzpah to do, or what if anything it had to do with the "field of antisemitism," because Google Books, where Duke found this, offers only a snippet view.
  2. Meyer Weinberg, Racism in Contemporary America. This is an all-inclusive bibliography, with some 15,000 entries covering everything from op-eds in student newspapers to scholarly texts. Chutzpah is included in the “Antisemitism” section of the index, which, again, is inclusive enough to list op-eds from Zmag and In These Times.
  3. Elaine Marks, Marrano as Metaphor: The Jewish Presence in French Writing. Marks is the author IronDuke says "seems to like his work." She introduces Chutzpah as an "autobiographical text" which "she read with a certain ethnic intensity but little intellectual pleasure," and goes on to describe Dershowitz's book as "narcissistic and exhibitionist," comparing it unfavorably to the author of a "philosophical volume" by Yirmiyahu Yovel, which she read "with great intellectual pleasure." She is referencing Dershowitz as a popular writer on Jewishness and assimilation; there's nothing here about antisemitism. She dispenses with Dershowitz's autobiography in one sentence and goes on to talk about Derrida, Charles Swann, and Leopold Bloom, the latter two being fictional characters from Proust and Joyce, respectively, and apparently now "experts in the field of antisemitism," according to IronDuke's criteria for "scholarly citations." In fact, there's no scholarly citation here at all, except to Yovel.
  4. Finally, we have David Ellenson discussing Jewish pride in ethnic distinctiveness following the 1967 war, in the process of which he introduces an "autobiographical vignette provided by Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz in Chutzpah," wherein "Dershowitz contrasts a number of his own sensibilities regarding matters of Jewish American identity and values with those of the renowned US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter."

In short, we still have no scholarly citations demonstrating Dershowitz's expertise in antisemitism. The closest thing in IronDuke's hastily thrown-together list is the entry in Weinberg's bibliography, which includes everything written about racism and antisemitism written in any venue.

I will implement Cig's compromise without further ado.--G-Dett (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I didn't mean that compromise, I meant the one already in place. Ah well. I will not revert, nor argue further (though I have, unsurprisingly, much to say). I'm not best pleased at agreeing to a compromise between my position and G-Dett's, then having that compromise withdrawn and a new one substituted that constitutes a compromise between my position and the inital proffered compromise. However, I'm also outnumbered here, and that does mean something, especially given that the two people disagreeing with me seem to be 1) smart 2) acting in good faith. Pending an influx of editors stridently demanding the IronDuke way, I think we can call this closed. IronDuke 01:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Folks, for best results, can we please keep comments focused on the article, and not on other contributors? I'd also like if everyone could try to keep edit summaries very calm and neutral. There's obviously a dispute here, but finger-pointing is not going to help resolve it. Instead, calm and civil discussion is better, and/or one of the other steps in dispute resolution. A good technique to de-escalate things, is to try and write posts in the third person. The simple exercise of avoiding the words "you" and "your", though sometimes challenging, can really have a remarkable effect in re-focusing discussions. Good luck, --Elonka 01:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand how one editor is managing to get this pointless and deeply unpleasant accusation included in the article, when four other editors want it out. These experienced and thoughtful editors consider it it's getting highly UNDUE weight, and must be removed on the basis of the mandatory WP:policy BLP. Instead of which, 6,500 sprawling (if not completely time-wasting) words have been generated to block an improvement to the article. Substantive material has appeared - but it's all heavily against using Dershowitz for anything (I'd have added more if I'd got here earlier). There's not even been an attempt to justify the opposing claim that Dershowitz is an "expert on antisemitism". It would be nice if administrators would defend the policy of the project from the patently tendentious conduct which is going on here. PRtalk 15:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Later I can't believe I'm seeing this. The same editor who has overturned policy with the insertion of this very, very nasty smear was at RSN in March making the claim of BLP for the opposite purpose! Here he is, bad-tempered-ly fighting 6 thoughtful editors to take out an entirely proper, fully-referenced, non smearing quote. The dispute there concerned commentator Daniel Pipes who apparently has "anti-Arab views.[5] He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most,"[6][7] and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers."[8][9]" I'd assumed we were just seeing naked partisanship, damaging but probably forgiveable when this editor eventually backs down. But what I've seen now makes it look much more like disruptive wiki-lawyering for extreme POV-pushing and article-distortion. Am I wrong? PRtalk 17:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to stop assuming good faith as random writer as reliable source is a totally different discussion than random college professor as reliable source and so opinions can differ on each. And Kristine McNeil does not have a Wikipedia article on her, Alan Dershowitz is considered notable enough to have one (sidenote: I'm not taking a position on one being more notable than the other, I'm just pointing out that there is a difference). Furthermore, Wikipedia works by both a consensus of editors and a set of policies and rules, not a majority vote. CIGraphix (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"Am I wrong?" Yes. IronDuke 23:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

POV Check[edit]

I flagged this article for POV review. I am neither a McKinney supporter or detractor, but just wanted to learn about her background. I found much of the article, and in particular the section on her 2002 primary defeat, had a definite "pro" McKinney bias in the wording used. After reading the talk section, however, I can see that Ms. McKinney is a controversial figure with many avid supporters and detractors and therefore writing without bias may be very difficult. Mikeashe (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC) (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Quote "Cynthia Ann McKinney (born March 17, 1955) is a former United States Representative and the 2008 Green Party nominee for President of the United States. McKinney served as a Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993–2003 and 2005–2007, first representing Georgia's 11th Congressional District and then Georgia's 4th Congressional District. She is the first African-American woman to have represented Georgia in the House.[1]" Unquote.

Strange way to start; seems the second sentence is the correct one, and the first sentence is an attempt at derrogatory bias.

The term "United States Representative" seems odd also; it seems unnecessarily vague. Isn't "Member of Congress" the correct description?

Bladious (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC) How can ANY discussion of Ms. McKinney not include a section on her well known anti-Semitic comments? This is definitely NOT a neutral article.

There are sections that bring up alleged anti-Semitic comments and connections:
"Other factors in her defeat were her controversial statements regarding Bush's involvement in 9/11,[17][25] her opposition to aid to Israel, a perceived support of Palestinian and Arab causes, and alleged antisemitism by her supporters. McKinney's 2002 campaign and statements had been characterized by some as anti-Semitic [26][27][28][29][30], and on the night before the primary election, McKinney's father stated on Atlanta television that "Jews have bought everybody ... J-E-W-S."[17] Cynthia McKinney had been through a long contentious relationship with AIPAC[31], and commentators such as Alexander Cockburn allege that money from out-of-state Jewish organizations, angered by her stand on Middle East issues, was key in her election defeat. Cockburn also wrote that "Buckets of sewage were poured over McKinney's head in the Washington Post and the Atlanta Constitution."[32]"
In October 2008, Alan Dershowitz accused McKinney of anti-Semitism and alleged that her supporters "frequently shout anti-Jewish slogans at her rallies." [80] The Green Party responded calling the allegation "slanderous" repetition of "accusations, lies, and distortions"[81] CIGraphix (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
"...her opposition to aid to Israel, a perceived support of Palestinian and Arab causes, and alleged antisemitism by her supporters. McKinney's 2002 campaign and statements had been characterized by some as anti-Semitic..."---You are kidding me right? PERCEIVED?? Characterized??? Are we now living in a day and age when everybody's version of the truth is accurate? I would provide some direct quotes but you have already demonstrated that you will remove them. Same with a list of her major contributors. There are very good reasons why this article should be considered NOT neutral and those are just a few. Bladious (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like it was written by a member of her fan club. (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Advance knowledge of the attacks[edit]

McKinney gained national attention for remarks she made following the 2001 US attacks, charging that the United States had advance knowledge of the attacks and that US President George W. Bush may have been aware of the incipient attack but failed to warn New Yorkers, allegedly due to his father's business interests: "It is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle Group, had–at the time of the attacks–joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which have soared since September 11."

Can someone kindly provide a verbatim transcript of McKinney's remarks? She did not say the U.S. had advanced knowledge of the attacks or claim the president was profiting from them, in her March 25 2002 statement (from which the above quote is lifted). [10] What is the basis for the above passage? Dynablaster (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We would have to find other secondary sources, introducing primary sources would be original research Cs32en  23:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
McKinney is okay as a primary source, on condition we do not place our own interpretation on her remarks. "Primary sources that have been reliably published ... may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." WP:PRIMARY I propose that we quote her directly. This is such a damning accusation it's important that we get it right. Dynablaster (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with using primary sources, introducing primary sources without a secondary source that establishes the notability of the primary source would be original research. The source here is obviously not particularly supportive of McKinney, and I assume there are probably other secondary sources that might have a more precise or more balanced description of what she has said. The secondary source that is currently included does not explicitly say to which remarks of McKinney it refers to, so we cannot introduce any specific WP:PRIMARY remarks without a secondary source that reports on them.  Cs32en  00:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're applying that correctly or not. Regardless, perhaps there's an argument here in favor of striking it entirely until a better secondary source is found, because it is at least true that the article does not prove its claim. Or, alternately, putting the claim in the claimant's mouth; i.e. saying this is something so-and-so says McKinney believes, rather than saying it is something she believes. (I do believe it is possible she believes this.) Шизомби (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
A "citation needed" could be stuck in that following "charging that the United States had advance knowledge of the attacks and that US President George W. Bush may have been aware of the incipient attack but failed to warn New Yorkers," I suppose. Шизомби (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Times [11] says:

In March 2002, Representative Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia, spoke out against “persons close to this administration who are poised to make huge profits off America’s new war’’. She went on to say, “We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11 . . . what did this administration know and when did it know it . . . what do they have to hide?’’

Naming the Carlyle Group as an example of the cronyism she was talking about, McKinney was implying that the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming, allowed them to happen, and was now reaping the profits, both financial and political, through its connections to the Carlyle Group. The Republican counter attack lambasted McKinney for a total lack of responsibility. Senator Zell Miller from Georgia called her “very dangerous and irresponsible’’. Kathleen Parker, a nationally syndicated columnist, called McKinney's statements “idiotic’’ and bordering on treason.
McKinney would eventually back off a little from her comments, saying, “I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9/11.’’ But at least part of what she said was dead on: persons close to the Bush administration were in fact in a position to gain financially from the September 11 attacks.

We can change the wording in order to reflect what multiple sources say.  Cs32en  02:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That might be good. Although the above is another case of a quote that doesn't say what they say it does. Шизомби (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The best idea is probably that people who are really familiar with McKinney look for additional secondary sources. As of the moment, we have no indication that the content of the article is wrong, although it may need some adjustment. We don't know exactly at this point which particular adjustments are needed, however.  Cs32en  04:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Cynthia McKinney is clearly suspicious that members of the Bush administration may be profiting from the attacks. But her words are more carefully measured than reports suggest. The Times piece says she "eventually backed off" from her comments, adding, "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9/11". But, in fact, she made that exact remark in her original speech, and not at a later date. I'm not familiar with McKinney but I will try and look for something that fits more closely with her actual words, time permitting. Dynablaster (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the issue! We have to be very careful here, because changes in a particular part of one sentence can change the meaning of related statements. Note, for example, that she specifically says "President Bush or members of his administration" (this does not include G.H.W.Bush) and "personally profited".  Cs32en  13:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Checked sources and statements[edit]

I checked the sources for the statements on anti-Semitism in the 2002 primary defeat-section, in [[12]] version.

... and alleged antisemitism by her supporters.
RE: Unsourced, "alleged" unproven, and is about her "supporters", not herself. Removed.

McKinney's 2002 campaign and statements had been characterized by some as anti-Semitic.
RE: About the references here, numbered 26 to 30 in the pre-edit version:

Note 26.

"She also, as The New York Times said in reporting her victory, had made 'a series of other incendiary, often racial comments.' This is The New York Times' delicate way of alluding to the stridently anti-Semitic character of McKinney's 2002 campaign, in which 'Jews' were repeatedly blamed for her faltering in the polls and for her eventual defeat." Alexander, Edward.
RE: The author Alexander Edward (AE) uses an (unreferenced) NYT-article that uses the word "racial", and then AE concludes that it is NYT-way of writing anti-Semitism. This reasoning does not stand serious RS-check. First, why would NYT write something else for what it intends to write, and second why is AE the one to interpret this for us? The claim of anti-Semitism is not referenced here, so we remove the ref. The latter part, from "in wich ...", is unclear about its source (NYT or AE), but anyway does not substantiate or support any statement on anti-Semitism. This fact or statement is unrelated, so to be deleted here in itself.

Note 27.

"McKinney ended up losing the Democratic primary in 2002 to Denise Majette. Majette rode to victory largely on the negative publicity that flowed McKinney's way both when the 'Bush KNEW' accusation made national news and when her anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist beliefs were exposed." Preston, Bryan
RE: But which "anti-Semitism and pro-Islamist beliefs" were exposed? (Beliefs?!). Where? The source itself only mentions her taking positions that are not in line with the then USA-Israel political mainstream rationale and non-rationale. The piece calls her conclusive "the most virulent and anti-American and anti-Semitic elected politician in the nation". Not agreeing with Israels policy, or with a US pro-Israel policy, does not make a person anti-Semitic. Not relevant to the anti-Semitic-claim, removed.

Note 28.

" the past McKinney has been accused of making anti-Semitic comments during interviews and speeches." Leibowitz, Rebecca.
RE: "has been accused" - by whom, where, when? Just an unreferenced statement. RS: cannot be checked, so we remove this reference.

Note 29.

" Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) and her supporters have had a long history of anti-Semitic statements." Lasky, Ed.
RE: The quoted sentence is the only mentioning of McKinney in the 5700-word article. No reference is there to support that "history" they "have had". Not a source at all. Further, on the quality of the whole article: it is about the (decreasing) Democratic support for US-pro-Israel-policy. But without any bridge or explanation it jumps to anti-Semitism and back to policy, on an average of say once per paragraph. Since the author does not discriminate between these two, the article is of substandard quality as a source here.

Note 30.

"A year later, Representative Cynthia McKinney, a black Georgian Democrat, ran and anti-Semitic campaign against her Jewish opponent." Heineman, Kenneth J. God Is a Conservative: Religion, Politics, and Morality in Contemporary America, New York University Press, p. 234. ISBN 0814735541 This book was published in 1998. Cannot refer to a 2002 campaign then. Not a source at all.

Summary: since no references remain, there is no base for an accusation of anti-Semitism. The line is removed. -DePiep (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate you taking this to talk, and for making your reasoning claer, that reasoning couldn't be more specious. You disagree with the methodology of these reliable sourcs. That's fine, you have that right. You might even want to consider emailing themto tell them so. But your opinion that they ought to have wirtten of what they perceive as McKinney's realtionship to antisemtism in a different manner is of no relevance on this talk page. They are reliable sources, you are not. IronDuke 18:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life is missing[edit]

As with most people that have bios on wikipedia, they have a Personal Life section. I for one would like to know more about her family and the divorce from her husband Coy Grandison.

Born March 17, 1955 (age 54) Atlanta, Georgia Political party Democratic (January 1993 – September 2007) Green Party (October 2007) Spouse Coy Grandison (divorced) Residence Lithonia, Georgia —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

Qaqwewew (talk · contribs) seems to insist on changing the lead picture of the article. [13] [14].

My view is that the image File:Cynthia McKinney.jpg is more appropriate than File:CynthiaAnnMcKinney.jpg. What do you think about this?  Cs32en Talk to me  18:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Article problems[edit]

I found a faked quote in the opening paragraph of the article (which I fixed). There appear to have been a number of such edits over the past couple years; untangling them from legit edits will be a challenge. Also, the article is too long. Significant editing will be required; we'll also need an audit of the sources used to be sure they really say what the article is claiming they said. Wellspring (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


Why the disparity between the top portion of the box and the subsequent portion regarding her terms in office and predecessors and successors? I realize there was confusing redistricting, but can't we keep it simple and eliminate the top part? Yopienso (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Hi, I recently cleaned up this article's external links in accordance with our guideline and there were some reliable sources which didn't belong in the section yet they could still be used for citations. I'm posting them below for future reference.

ThemFromSpace 01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
None of the above as opinion sites meet the WP:RS guidelines. Most come from the advocacy site DemocracyNow!, one comes from an opinion newsletter and for the single source that does meet the criteria, the particular article cited is editorial page content (past precedent indicates that these not be used). Thanks for removing them! However, editors should find alternative sourcing for any content attributed to them. Wellspring (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There are still several attributions to CounterPunch in the bio. These should be changed, but not having a Lexis-Nexis account handy could someone find appropriate sources? It doesn't appear to be a BLP problem so I'm not going to remove the cites or content at this point. There's a couple other links I found attributing facts to activist groups but these seem ok because they're being used purely to document that the press release occurred. Wellspring (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Visita à Líbia[edit]

Former U.S. congresswoman McKinney speaks on state TV in Libya —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

According to CNN, McKenney spoke on Lybian state TV late Saturday (May 21, 2011) and said the "last thing we need to do is spend money on death, destruction and war." "I think that it's very important that people understand what is happening here. And it's important that people all over the world see the truth. And that is why I am here ... to understand the truth," McKinney said in a live interview. "I want to say categorically and very clearly that these policies of war ... are not what the people of the United States stand for and it's not what African-Americans stand for." "Under the economic policies of the Obama administration, those who have the least are losing the most. And those who have the most are getting even more," she said. "The situation in the United States is becoming more dire for average ordinary Americans and the last thing we need to do is to spend money on death, destruction and war."

McKenney is also reported to have appeared on state-run TV in Iran earlier in the week. She was in Tehran attending the International Conference on Global Alliance Against Terrorism for a Just Peace. drh (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Special Report does not mention her[edit]

I checked the Special Report on the Ituri Clashes ([15] and [16]) and it makes no mention of her or her legislation. -- (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Electoral history of Cynthia McKinney[edit]

unjustified split, amounting to promotional over coverage in WP by having two articles where only one is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


I, personaly belevie that the president of the United states of America should be someone who serves the people, asks questions that citizens want the answers 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Quote from father in intro[edit]

Having a large blockquote from her father in the intro strikes me as probably WP:UNDUE. It wouldn't be fair to implicitly attribute her father's views to her in so prominent a way, although I agree the information belongs in the body of the article. Mel Gibson's intro doesn't mention his extremely controversial father at all (though maybe it should to some extent).--Pharos (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)