Talk:Cynthia McKinney/Archive 1

Open Primary Issue
The reference to the open primary as the cause of her defeat in the 02 primary seems editorial, and should be removed. It may have been a contributing factor to her loss, but like all defeated candidates, she wasn't elected because she receieved less votes than her opponent. That should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.181.194 (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism unusual?
McKinney being Catholic is hardly unusual. She shared this faith with Phil Gingrey and Jim Marshall, making Roman Catholics the second most numerous religion in the Georgia delegation behind Baptists. I have removed the statement that McKinney's religion was unusual.Bravenav 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Most divisive politician in Georgia history
That should definitely be included in this article somewhere. She's a disgrace, a joke, and a bigot.

Most divisive politician in Georgia history? Of course, except perhaps the Confederates, the Segregationists, and the Jim Crow politicians of the previous era would counter your clearly undergraduate assertion.

Doubtful. While the confederates et al. were certainly wrong, they were not divisive WITHIN the state of Georgia. She's a polarizing figure and good riddance to worthless rubbish.

Could we include her insane comments on The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, which is repeatedly quoted by Zimbabwean news sites as the source of the "illegal sanctions notion"--Economic.mip 01:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the 2002 primary loss section appears to have been written by a partisan McKinney supporter. It contains a lot of unsourced statements (such as it being 'established' that 40-50,000 Republicans voted in the primary) and attacks the Georgia open primary law. This paragraph needs to be heavily modified or deleted.

==No-show at Debates==

Perhaps this info should be added when things start to settle down with vandals.

McKinney Fails To Show Up At Two Debates Tue Jul 11 2006 11:10:09 ET

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D) failed to appear at two televised debates over the weekend, fueling criticism from two opponents who are challenging the controversial incumbent in a July 18 primary in the Georgia's 4th District.

CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY reports: DeKalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson and architectural firm project manager John Coyne, who are challenging McKinney, debated Saturday on WSB-TV and also participated in a second debate Friday that was sponsored by the Atlanta Press Club and which will air tonight at 7 p.m. Johnson's campaign said that McKinney's absence was a "slap in the face" to her constituents.

"McKinney wrote a letter to his Highness in which she asked that he send his check to a number of charities working on behalf of African Americans"

So... what happened? Did his Highness reply? --Menchi ( Talk )]] 06:57, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article doesn't summarize the political offices she held and any legaslative initiative she championed in one or two cohesive paragraph. This should be early into this long, long, article. A summary right up front would save people the task of reading this entire article. And it doesn't flow that she was beaten in the 2002 primary and the Republican Dajette won the election, but two years later vacated the seat to run for Zell Miller's senate seat. This artcile just goes on and on and on and on and on and on. An executive summary would be nice. Besides being controversial she must have accomplished something. - "McKinney has been criticised for her links to CAIR, the Committee on American-Islamic Relations, and other organizations that have been linked in a number of ways to radical Islamic terrorist groups. After her primary win in 2004, a press release from CAIR offered congratulations ; connections such as these have angered some commentators, including Cal Thomas."

I agree with the anonymous contributor that this hardly belongs in the article. That a mildly-notable right-wing columnist said something mildly negative about her at the bottom of a mostly-unrelated syndicated column is hardly encyclopedic knowledge, and referring to CAIR as "linked to terrorism" without qualification is similarly inappropriate. RadicalSubversiv E 17:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. Living in McKinney's district, I have heard most of the pros and cons about her. Her alleged link to CAIR has never been an issue as far as I know and is irrelevant to an appropriate overview of her career. Sayeth 18:53, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Are the bizarre racist comments her father made suitable for this article, or one we'd need to write about Billy McKinney ? Brodo 03:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Her father's comments are tied to her, and he is not a national figure. He was just a state representative who made some controversial statements. --JamesB3 04:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Washington post article
the link to the WPA is wrong. Could you correct that?

Blame Dubya For All Your Problems!!
There's a statement in her bio that states that the current President "stonewalled" the creation of the 9-11 Commission. GW Bush appointed Henry Kissenger to the Commission to the chagrin of Ms. McKinney. Also the House vote today on the Iraq War shows her to be one of the most radical leftists in the House today.
 * CBS News: Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel May 23, 2002.--12.217.121.245 06:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

House International Relations Committee paragraph
This section has a POV problem at the least. Is there a better way to characterize her service on the committee?Wesbo 18:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sectioning dispute
As an outside observer, the article was indeed way too over-sectioned prior to Lulu's cleanup. Just compare this to this. The former is difficult to quickly navigate; the latter is easy on the eyes. There's no need to get into a revert war over formatting. As far as I can tell, there's no content dispute. --BWD(talk) 22:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's quite correct, BWD. I really don't have any particularly disagreement with the content as it exists.  I mean, it ain't featured article quality, but basically it's sound.  I only started watching this article a few days ago because of the "World-can't-wait linkspammer", but saw some changes made in that time.  Other than the over-sectioning, there's a bit of rather awkward prose added, but I haven't even traced through exactly who added what.  Even that, however, basically seems to be intended to discuss facts worth including, and just needs some rephrasing.  But we definitely don't need a micro-chronology here, with only a sentence or two under each heading. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

White or Black POlice Officer?
The racial background of the assualted officer was not mentioned in any article, and it would be beneficial to reveal it, as an assault of a white male officer by a black female merits severe censuring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.114.71 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: the above comment was left unsigned by user —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev1n (talk • contribs)


 * And for good reason; I would be ashamed to write something like that too! Kemet 3 April 2006.


 * I think it was given in jest. If so I'd say that's pretty funny. If not, then....wow --Sirkeg 21:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would venture to say that many of Cynthia McKinney's detractors long for the good ol' days when an uppity black woman would at least get a good thrashing for messing with a white policeman, if not the noose... 69.180.49.229 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle


 * Amen to that, brother. It's about time someone on here spoke the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.30.43 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Allegedness of the Altercation
Is it not still merely alleged that Cynthia McKinney hit the Capitol Police officer? According to one report, presumably that of the officer, she struck him. Until there are independent reports, until she is convicted of a crime, this incident should not be treated as fact.
 * As she said, officers responsible for protecting the lives of our nation's elected delegates should recognize them on sight, with or without ID. Since she's been in office for 6 years, I find it hard to believe that NO one would have recognized her.  I don't condone aggression taken against law enforcement officers, but I certainly understand it sometimes.  Kemet 3 April 2006
 * It seems to me that the people who write the laws ought to set a good example for the rest of us, and obey the laws. Brandon39 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing illegal about not having an ID, nor protecting oneself against perceived or real aggression. Kemet 4 April 2006


 * According to all the published media reports (see especially the AJC articles), he "touched her on the arm or shoulder." He didn't taze her or beat her or otherwise assault her.  He was performing his duties in stopping an unidentified person from circumventing security.  And as to "he should have recognized her": have you seen her lately? The new hairstyle makes her look completely different from her congressional ID picture, which is what the officer would have referenced.  Furthermore, the officer is responsible for protecting the lives of ALL the delegates, a function best served by securing the site where they gather - which is exactly what this officer was doing.  YggdrasilsRoot 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I second the exaggerated difference in the current appearance of Cynthia McKinney compared to the 'respectable' look from her 2000-2002 term. In her current appearance, I can definitely see how the officer would have mistaken her for an average DC'er versus a congresswoman. 65.12.162.36 21:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that I also said PERCEIVED aggression--it doesn't matter if you or anyone else would brush aside a touch on the arm or shoulder; what matters is that SHE felt the officer's actions were aggressive. As to recognizing her, I had no problem recognizing her face even after the change in hairstyle, and I have not seen her on countless occasions for the past 6 years--if the security guard lacked this basic and essential visual skill in his field, after repeatedly having seen her before, then he's in the wrong profession.  Kemet 4 April 2006


 * There are 500+ congressmen and women, and there's some turnover every 2 years. That's quite a challenge to remember. Especially when erring on the safe side means stopping someone you don't recognize, not letting them by. There is no expectation that each guard is supposed to recognize congressmembers on sight and nor should that be sufficient criteria to let them pass security.--Mmx1 21:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And your point is? I'm sure that virtually everyone sees well over that amount of people yearly, and could begin to recognize those among them who have been around for 6+ years.  No one suggested that she get past security without her documents, by the way.  Kemet 4 April 2006.

I'm glad you have such perceptual skills that you could identify a person "rushing to an important meeting" so you likely would have seen her from the back or rear quarter angle. Even face on, you can't know enough to pass judgement. Cops work shifts and different assignments. It's entirely possible he had never seen her before. I think your comments are a disingenuous.

Her perception has nothing to do with the issue. At the point she was touched by the officer (well within the scope of his authority in dealing with the incident), she was no more than an unidentified person bypassing the detector. Her race, gender and status not an issue unless he was planning on groping her in front of a line of people waiting to be cleared. No, I think he was just doing his job and Cynthia, ever the grand-stander was doing her job as well. That aside, I agree with the previous section on the abundance of sections and poor flow as written. I would take a stab at it, but not with this issue at hand. Seems like any major edit would be overly scrutinized. --Geneb1955 06:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about her race, gender and status?? But, since you brought it up, all of those things should have made her even[ MORE recognizable.  Just how many African American congresswomen have been going to and from their offices over the past 6+ years to not be recognized?  Thank you for the pictures, I immediately recognized her, and as I said (contrary to your ironic comment), my skills are not necessarily especially acute in this regard--it just ISN'T that difficult.  I don't know how many people approach security stations from "back or rear quarter angle[s]," so if she approached facing them as we all do, then I don't see your point in including those odd orientations in your retort.  Since McKinney is as you assert "ever the grand-stander," anyone not living under a rock for the past several years should have immediately recognized her upon sight, given her media attention well before this incident.  Kemet 5 April 2006

I'm sorry, I failed to notice the sign. I leave you to talk to yourself.

Really, isn't the bottom line here about two things - following the rules and respect? Everyone has to show ID and wear the congressional pin. Failure to do so is simply not following the rules. If you can't follow the rules, you deserve to be detained and questioned. I think Ms. McKinney has been in Washington long enough to know the rules right? So maybe the officer should recognize her, maybe not. That is subjective. Following the rules is not, it is objective. And she didn't follow the rules. Then, after not following the rules, apparently she didn't respect the officer's wishes. Therin lies the problem. Isn't racism about respect? How can Ms. McKinney expect to espouse that this is a racist incident when she herself does not have respect for the rules or those paid to enforce them? Kansas Boy 5 April 2006
 * No one suggested that McKinney get through security without her ID. As for respect, it is awfully insulting to have passed through the same areas for years (in her case more than a decade), and not be recognized for her person or status (as she asserted, the new hairdo is an inessential point).  Respect is contingent upon ALL parties involved; the officer should have addressed her in appropriate ways (and dare I say, especially since she is a woman sex) to neutralize the situation.  It is not as simple as following the rules, but also acting in ways to neutralize tension when rules are't followed (Police and Community Relations 101!).  Kemet 7 April 2006
 * It really is a simple as following the rules. The problem is not what the officer did, it is what she did.  You respect law enforcement.  You respect those charged with protecting us.  CM has repeatedly tested the police on Capital Hill, as if she want's to provoke them.  Stating that the officer should recognize her is rediculous, and subjective, and not part of the rules.  He is not trained in facial recognition of all 500+ members on Capital Hill.  He is trained to protect.  Anyone who knows anything about the military or law enforcement knows that they are taught to be objective and avoid at all costs anything subjective.  It is what keeps them alive and you and I safe.  I guess I should be recognized at Hartsfield since I travel a lot and should not have to show my ID at security or the boarding gate right?  I am a multi-million miler so all of the Delta employees should recognize me and abondon the rule book, because I want them to and think that they should.  Yeah, right.  Kansas Boy 10 April 2006
 * Respect is dialectical, not unilateral, and it diffuses tension...anyone who knows anything about the military or law enforcement knows THIS. And as for objectivity, its a farce to think that no one in the above-mentioned occupations makes daily decisions based off SUBJECTIVE instincts---if they saw everything as black and white and didn't follow their SUBJECTIVE guts (while guarding the law), then they would quickly be taken out by someone with a more supple mind.  This is off the point, but you brought it up.  Kemet 19 April 2006

Metal Detectors
This wasn't the same place that Officer Jacob Chestnut was shot at was it (see: U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1998))? Titus Flavius 23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Should people be really expected to remember 535 peoples faces? And what is the turn over for those 535 people each year? And would you if you were in charge of a security area of the White House would you even consider not asking for i.d. if that was the job requirement?

All of the charges against McKinney were alleged and besides lots of media and a public discussion based on the media hearsay, no evidence has ever been produced. In keeping with NPOV standards, that should be stated in certain points during the article. There is quite a bit of potentially damaging information to not have it offset by the established fact that no evidence has ever been provided to support the claim besides the witness of the one officer. And his testimony contradicts the testimony of the congresswoman. Not that we should believe the congresswoman's account over the officer but we certainly shouldn't believe the testimony of one police officer over the congresswoman's. Ingemar Smith

It is worth noting that the entire Capitol Police incident rests on the testimony of one white officer, while black officers, who have a class action lawsuit pending through the Black Police Officers Union have testified that racism within the Capitol Police is rampant which would lend considerable credence to the Congresswoman's version of events. Is Officer McKenna, the white officer, more credible than the black officers?IIngemar Smith
 * No, your comments are totally incorrect. Evidence has been produced.  You talked about one piece of evidence:  the statement of one of the police officers.  Also, there were statments from other police officers present at the scene.  Also, there is other evidence:  the security photos at the Capitol entrance.  Wikipedia is not about your personal opinion, but rather about facts.  You have not provided any information to back up your personal opinion. --Getaway 22:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Titus, it was not the same place. Officers Chesnut and Gibson were killed at the Document Door (since renamed Memorial Door) of the Capitol. The incident with McKinney occured at the main door of the Cannon House Office Building across the street from the Capitol. And Ingemar Smith, you are way out of line. At least three and maybe four staffers who witnessed the event gave testimony to the grand jury. This is not based on one officer's account. Your comments on the labor grievance filed by the black officers are unrelated to this incident. --Daysleeper47 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

america
i like how in america the white vice president can shoot someone almost to death and the person apologizes to him for getting in the way of his bullets.

and when a black congresswoman hits someone with a cell-phone in self defense (how much can getting hit with a tiny cellphone hurt?) there is a huge freakout and the policeman who was hit is threatening to sue her. ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.207.240 (talk • contribs) )


 * I agree that it's ridiculous that the VP accidently shot someone and the injured party apologized. However, your comparison doesn't hold water:

1) The shooting was accidental; McKinney's assault of the Capitol police officer was not. 2) McKinney was in violation of the rules by refusing to wear her ID pin and refusing to obey the cop's order to stop so that she could be identified. Anyone, white, black, Asian, or Andorian would have been physically grabbed in such a situation, as that is the appropriate action to take against an unknown individual who is attempting to circumvent security. 3) There's no evidence that the cop's actions were racially motivated, nor is there evidence that Cheney's accident was racial in nature. -- Sci 07:27 24 April 2006 UTC

To my knowledge, many of the whites don't wear their tags either. You're blind, as are most of the persuasion that instigate these encounters. Panda


 * The race of Cheney's victim in the shooting probably bore little if any on the victim's decision to pursue legal action. The "freakout" has been caused primarily by McKinny, who has held multiple press conferences to talk about it.  I have not seen the officer, the Republicans, or the Democrats coming out to talk about this.  It's a media feeding frenzy.  Further, no lawsuit has been filed, McKinney has not been indicted for any wrongdoing at this point (unless it happened VERY recently, I haven't followed the story that closely, last I heard was that a grand jury was being convened).  Finally, attacks and threats against a law enforcement officer are handled with more rigor and seriousness than those against ordinary citizens, no matter how slight.  There is an undertone of racial tension in most confrontations between people of different race in America, but I hardly think that this phenomenon is unique to the United States, and our discourse on how to resolve it here in America is typically more metered, civil, and peaceful than in the overwhelming majority of the planet.  Yes, you can point to countless examples of flagrant acts of racism, but they're the exception rather than the norm.  That's why it's such big news, it's not normal. Bjsiders 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement that Members wear their pins. It is a practice recommended by the Sergeant at Arms. --Daysleeper47 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Channel and the Feud with McKinney
I takes no time for the Fox News people to attack on McKinney. Instead of further the investigations with congressional figures that lobbyist Jack Abramoff, congressmen Tom DeLay, and Bob Ney. Fox News plays race and politics as they usually do. They pick on a woman who had an altercation with a security officer instead of a multi-million dollar lobbyist. The spin is there, am I right? LILVOKA.

Fox is picking on her because she seems out of her mind, and it makes for an interesting story. CNN is doing the same thing. --Tengen 20:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

McKinney herself made this a race issue, and it backfired in a big way. It was never a race issue. It was her trying to act like she is privildged and doe not have to show any id. She didn't have her id on her, and she wasn't wearing her pin. All she had to do when the police officer asked her to stop was stop. Then explain who she was, and have them call to verify it. That's it! Instead, she tried to make it a race issue. I hope the cops sue her in court to get some just in this case. You can't just go throwing the race card around accusing a person of racism who was just trying to do their job! Enough is enough!

Why isn't the excessive contributions from pro-Islamic contributors listed in her article? It should be. They can be verified (one example), and I am sure there is more/better examples. In the interest of fairness this should be listed. It is a legitimate fact in this day and age of the global war on terror, and modern day terrorist are primarily Muslims (not all Muslims are terrorist though). -jlmccay

Semi-protected
I've semi-protected this for now since it's quite a vandal magnet. Friday (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The main cynthia mckinney page states the following...

"It has now been established that some 40,000 to 50,000 Republicans crossed party lines and voted in the 2002 Democratic primary."

There is absolutely no truth to this statement, it is NOT an "established" fact, they couldn't even include a source....pretty damn weak huh.

I don't know if there is any truth to this or not, but a source is necessary for sure. -XI

I don't even think that many people voted in the 4th disrict democratic primary.--mitrebox 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrible article
This article is the poster child for the dangers of a wiki encyclopedia. Most appears to have been written by McKinney supporters. The article is awful. It needs a big 'neutrality' tag up at the very top to cover the entire thing. 24.16.74.233 18:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Shrink
Ok, this article is hugeeeeee. And a lot of the huge amount of info is trivial. The entire "crazy bitch" incident can be severely shrunk down, as can a lot of the past. Alternatively, make new aricles to deal with specific instances, though, I do not think it needed. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Race Card section
This statement needs to be removed: "McKinney had been variously described as a "crazy bitch", "race baiter", "freak", etc" This leans the article in opposition to McKinney. Let the readers judge for themselves. Panda

Prince Alwaleed's 10 million dollar check
Just an external link to http://www.house.gov/mckinney/news/pr011012.htm does not do justice to the outrage caused by the incident involving Saudi Prince Alwaleed's rejected 10 million dollar donation to New York City. McKinney's subsequent 'apology' to the prince, asking that he re-allocate the money for her favorite causes was certainly a significant contributor to her 2002 primary defeat. The letter itself does not tell the whole story. Furthermore, the Prince Alwaleed incedent is related on Rudy Giuliani's page, why not McKinney's?  --Ericzundel 17:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to mention it, as long as you follow NPOV and other Wikipeidian rules. --Getaway 20:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Early Returns

 * McKinney doesn't appear to be doing too well.


 * http://www.wsbtv.com/politics/9640750/detail.html


 * Granted, that gap will dramatically decrease as the evening progresses, but I still think Johnson's lead up to this point will hold.


 * We'll see later tonight whether or not she'll be ousted from Congress...again.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thugs in McKinney's Campaign Staff
There was a report last night that some of McKinney's thugs beat up a reporter. And so many wonder why she lost. --Getaway 12:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On Tuesday, 8 August, there was an incident between a photojournalist and a member of McKinney's entourage. A local Atlanta news station caught some of the incident on tape and posted an article about it. The URL is http://www.11alive.com/specials/local/decision2006/decision_article.aspx?storyid=83138

McKinneys mother and a security guard were both struck in the head by boom mikes from the media. The security guard receiving following the incident. User:therubenstein 02.49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So? McKinney and McKinney's entourage started the pushing and shoving.  May be McKinney would still have a seat in Congress if she discouraged this type of behavior.--Getaway 16:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To speak of "Thugs in McKinney's Campaign Staff" is utterly uncalled for
The sentence beginning this section is extremely disingenuous. It starts out with "There was a report". Then it ends by gratuitously assuming that the "report", and the allegation that McKinney employs thugs, are accurate. The fact is that these slanders are routinely employed against all and everyone who dares to apply the same moral and ethical standards to Israel as are routinely applied to other countries. The behavior of Israel toward its Arab citizens, and toward the Palestinian population in general, would be called ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide if that behavior were indulged in by any other country. McKinney should be commended for her courage in exposing Israel's practices in this regard. Unfortunately, the Israel lobby in this country is quite skilful in disseminating unevidenced accounts of alleged misbehavior on the part of its critics. This lobby has often succeeded in slandering public servants whose only crime has been to stand up for the rights of the Palestinian people. We should all express our outrage to the media when they conflate any criticism of Israel with "anti-semitism", and when they mindlessly follow the suggestions of groups like AIPAC and the so-called Anti-Defamation League. Indeed, the latter ought to be called the Pro-Defamation League because its main activity is to defame all and everybody who tells the truth about Israel's gross and continuous violations of the human rights of Palestinians.

Encyclopedia or News Source?
Unless we're trying to make Wikipedia a timely news source — which, according to its official policy, we're not — there's no reason the info about her defeat last night should appear in the introduction. After all, she lost her seat once before in 2002 under similar circumstances, so there's no reason to consider that in hindsight, this particular loss will constitute a greater milestone in her career. The introduction should explain who she is and why she's significant (i.e. worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia), not who she is and why she's significant right now. Cribcage 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, her enormous defeat should stay in the introduction because her defeat was a watershed event in Georgia politics. Also, it is a major part of who she is now, in the past, and in the future.  In the future because, if she comes back, she will have to comeback from that embarrassing defeat that she suffered last night. In the past because she has been a politician most of her adult life and now she has been defeated AGAIN.  The main point of her life story is the fact that she earned a spot in Congress and she wasted it twice. --Getaway 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is still a "current events" tag attached to the top of the article, so I'm sure that the introduction isn't set in stone.Ruthfulbarbarity 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Four Alleged (Anonymous) Capitol Policemen Insinuate it was a Set-Up
It seems the only source supporting the claims of this section is a documentary about Cynthia McKinney, this would be a source of dubious reliability and not considered a reputable publication. Has this story been published in a reputable newspaper? If not, the section probably needs to go, as unverifiable original research.

Mytwocents 03:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, it can be attributed to the documentary. --Striver 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not good enough. Once again, it does not meet the rules of Wikipedia in terms of verifiability: Verifiability.  I think that it should be removed immediately because it violates the rules in relation to a living person: Biographies of living persons.  Basically the information alleges crimes that have been supposedly committed by the General Counsal John Caufeld.  Unless someone can provide better verifiability other than, well, it was in a documentary then I'm going to remove it quickly.  Wikipedia is not a place to allege crimes that supposedly were committed.  If these so-called officers are aware of crimes, then they have a duty to report them and allow the legal authorities to follow up on them.  Wikipedia IS NOT that forum.  Also, the way the material is presented borders on original research: No original research. --Getaway 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Getaway. The section was put back in by another editor, I just deleted the block quotes to make the section shorter. This just serves to let other editors see the section with the NOR tag and chime in with their thoughts. I think consensus will decide this section needs to be deleted for lack of verifiable sources.  It's basicly a puff for the American Blackout documentary.
 * Mytwocents 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Even the title violates Wikipedia policy. It uses the word "Insinuate," indicating that they, the police posers, do not know even know if it was a so-called "set-up."  --Getaway 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, the allegations from the American Blackout movie should not be in the article. Until the Washington Post or the Alanta J & C write a story about it, the tale should not be told here.
 * Mytwocents 03:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

She Lost
All I can say is thank god! Another horrible politican on their way out!--216.52.73.254 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

grab some suntan lotion and get some fresh air for a change.

Revision
Revised re identity of "officers" Revision as of 15:57, 10 August 2006 Bob Geissler Can we add "Nutcase" to her categories listing?

175 Stitches
Can anybody verify the extent of the injuries sustained by Officer McKenna claimed on the page? "...sending officer McKenna to the hospital with a severe concussion and 175 stitches"

That seems a hell of a lot of stitches for a blow to the chin and another to the chest,with or without a mobile phone in the hand. I've tried to research this, but have not found anything to justify this surprising claim. Perhaps US sutures are some new kind of 'microstitches'? Suggest this number is replaced with 'a number of stitches'. Centrepull 09:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Race card
An entry should be added to the "race card" section noting criticisms of Capitol Police for apparently invidious distinctions in their behavior towards different members of Congress, especially glaring in their handling of the Tom Lantos incident (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos#Traffic_accident). In that case, Rep. Lantos ran over a child's foot in his motor vehicle without stopping. Despite rather damning accounts of eyewitnesses at the time who were chaperoning the children, Lantos was not charged with hit-and-run. Indeed, the adults who were responsible for chaperoning the children were themselves threatened by the Capitol Police. This further context is highly relevant to charges against Capitol Police made by McKinney and her supporters. Gberliner 23:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I fail to see the comparison.


 * One is an accident, while the other was assault.


 * No, Lantos was not charged.


 * However, neither was McKinney.

Ruthfulbarbarity


 * Allow me to make the comparison more explicit for you then: "A sitting Grand Jury was subsequently presented with McKenna's charge of assault of a police oficer." Thus, the allegations against McKinney were referred to a Grand Jury. That constitutes an escalation in the seriousness of the pursuit of the matter against McKinney which did not occur in the Lantos case. Arguably, one was assault with no documented injuries to the victim, while the other was potentially a felony hit-and-run, with documented, serious injuries to the victim. Arguably, the treatment of Lantos on the part of the Capitol Police in a far more serious case was far more deferential than the treatment of Cynthia McKinney in a far more trivial case.


 * These invidious distinctions in Capitol Police behavior, including their treatment of the teachers chaperoning the student hit by Lantos, reflect very unfavorably on Capitol Police, and lend credence to McKinney and other critics of the Capitol Police force. It is highly relevant and only fair that they be included, when so much has been made of this incident by McKinney's opponents.

Gberliner 06:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, whether or not the victim sustained any significant injuries is irrelevant to the discussion.


 * Secondly, you have no idea whether or not he sustained injuries.


 * Perhaps being stabbed with a cell phone didn't do any damage to the Capitol Hill police officer who was assaulted by McKinney, but you don't have any evidence to substantiate that claim.


 * Finally, describing the assault of a Capitol Hill police officer as "trivial" merely illustrates your views on law enforcement officers, it does not lend any credence to the accusation that the police force is engaging in some sort of clandestine racial profiling, or unethical behavior.


 * It was not trivial, even if no one was ultimately charged in the incident.


 * Whether or not problems exist within the Capitol Hill police department is not the subject at issue.


 * Even if the Capitol Hill police force had major structural flaws, a deranged, unreliable crackpot like McKinney has neither the credibility nor the standing to make that accusation stick.


 * If Ronald Kessler, or another authority with similar credentials, were to make allegations of that nature, then perhaps we could entertain the theory. Within an article related to the Capitol Hill PD, not one dealing with the erratic, irrational behavior of a disgraced former congresswoman.

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In your zeal against McKinney, you are suffering some confusion. The allegations of invidious distinctions in the behavior of Capitol Police, and racism and unprofessional conduct, have multiple independent sources, not just people who are being put up to this by McKinney. There is, for example, the employment discrimination lawsuit by 350 black Capitol Police officers (eg, see http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1166.shtml). These various allegations, even if they are being referenced by McKinney's supporters as evidence that supports her accusations of bias and unprofessional conduct, do not become invalid or irrelevant merely because McKinney or her supporters are the ones referencing them. Irrespective of your opinions about McKinney, the evidence cited stands on its own weight.


 * If you are entitled to draw attention to accusations against McKinney by Capitol Police in a wikipedia article about her, then her supporters are equally entitled to draw attention to factual evidence that impugns the credibility of Capitol Police in the same article.


 * As to whether the accusations against McKinney were "trivial" in comparison to those against Lantos, I base that estimation solely on the actual available information about the reported injuries sustained by the respective victims. If you have other information, then the onus is on you to provide it, not on me to prove a negative, which is impossible (ie, that such evidence does not exist). I have not said anything about the relative seriousness of negligently injuring a child and absconding from the scene in a motor vehicle, versus deliberately injuring a police officer.

Gberliner 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not relevant.


 * Unless and until it's demonstrated that that police officer was acting improperly-and thus far there has been no evidence that that is the case-all of these allegations, and even lawsuits, have no bearing on the behavior of Cynthia McKinney, who-need I remind you-is the focus of this article.


 * Attempting to obfuscate the subject-by deflecting attention onto unproven allegations against the Capitol Hill police force-does not alter the actions of Cynthia McKinney, which are extremely relevant to this article.


 * This is not a debate over "institutional racism," or whether the statements of one side have more merit than the other.


 * As much as you would like to transform this into an informal debate consisting of dueling accusations-in order to buttress the awful reputation of Ms. McKinney-that is not the objective of this article, which is simply to lay out the facts in as objective and fair a manner as humanly possible.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Other Controversies
"Cynthia McKinney is no stranger to controversy." I feel this violates NPOV, feedback?

I suppose it could be phrased a bit differently, but the statement itself is accurate.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement as it is violates NPOV. It should read "Cynthia McKinney has been involved in several controversies before." I am going to change it unless it has already been fixed. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Event Template

 * Would it be fair to say that retaining this template is unnecessary at this point in time?

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems like a fair assessment. I'll remove it.  TheKaplan 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Tom
Didn't she also call her black opponent in the Democratic primary, an "Uncle Tom?" 24.0.77.170 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Cynthia McKinney did not call anybody "Uncle Tom." The comment was made by a supporter, simply a memeber of the general public. The article claims that she herself said it, which is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.119.8 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 August 2006


 * The article is extremely biased against McKinney, trying to make it seem like she approved of one of her "supporters"' anti-Semitic tirades, which certainly is not the case. Stancel Spencer 00:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not disagreeing or agreeing, but can you propose some edit changes? -- Sholom 19:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Another county heard from
I came over here because of a discussion that has been taking place at Talk:Tom Lantos about a police incident in Lantos's career. When I complained that it was receiving disproportionate coverage in that article, I was referred to this one. I think what is here on the Capitol Police incident is even more disproportionate. It certainly deserves a paragraph or so, because it was a factor in her losing an election, but this blow-by-blow is absurd. If it had resulted in an indictment, then it might be a different matter, but it didn't. 30% of this article is devoted to one incident, which does not particularly tower in importance over other matters the article discusses.

Meanwhile, the article is almost devoid of serious discussion of her politics. Wanting to rename the J. Edgar Hoover building, advocating the impeachment of Bush, etc. do a good job of indicating that she is near the left edge of electoral politics in the U.S., but the political discussion here is nearly all sizzle and no steak. - Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree -- can you propose some specific edit changes? -- Sholom 19:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know a ton about her other than a few high-profile events, so I can't. As I say, I came over to look the article because of a remark on a different talk page, and a lot of it reads like something from a scandal sheet. - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that this is admin edit only now, so I would just offer that the article from The Nation is less biased and more to the point of the December 9th Impeachment Effort - It quotes her, rather than ranting about the police scuffle that took place many months ago. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=146722 The Nation  Pco 05:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My concern with that article is it is really more of an opinion piece then a straight reporting of facts. If you were siting the article to support a specific statement she made that would be one thing, but as a general article about the impeachment bill, it seems biased.  I would like to combine the two separate sections on  impeachment,  but I lean towards dropping The Nation reference. Master shepherd 06:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are the leaders of Cuba and Venezuela "Marxists" or are they "Leftists"?
Well, first let me point out that I don't like the tone of this commentary by Musaabdulrashid and that tone is not going to get us anywhere. Second, Castro himself calls himself a Marxist. Please review the Wikipedia page on Fidel Castro. It states: '''In a nationally broadcast speech on December 2, 1961, Castro declared that he was a Marxist-Leninist and that Cuba was adopting Communism. On February 7, 1962, the US imposed an embargo against Cuba.''' So, yes if other editors want to call Castro a Marxists then the article will say that and Musaabdulrashid will just have to live with it. Also, I have not reverted the article three times, but Musaabdulrashid admits in the above commentary that he has already done that. Now, I don't see how Castro is going to be offended if we call him a Marxist, especially since he calls himself that. Wikipedia chooses to call him that. Now, if Musaabdulrashid does not want McKinney's name associated with a Marxist then she needs to stop hanging out with Marxists. Wikipedia also points out Hugo Chávez's ideology. Wikipedia states: '''Chávez's version of Bolivarianism, although drawing heavily from Simón Bolívar's ideals, was also influenced by the writings of Marxist historian Federico Brito Figueroa. Chávez was well acquainted with the various traditions of Latin American socialism espoused by Jorge Eliécer Gaitán and Salvador Allende and from a young age by the Cuban revolutionary doctrine of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.''' Once again, he is described by Wikipedia and many other sources as a Marxist. The people listed as his influences are all described as Marxists by Wikipedia. For example, Che Guevara is described as "an Argentine-born Marxist, politician, and leader of Cuban and internationalist guerrillas." Also, an another example is Salvador Allende. He is described by Wikipedia as "was President of Chile from November 1970 until his removal from power and death on September 11th, 1973. He was the first democratically elected Marxist president in the world." And finally the last influence listed by Wikipedia is Jorge Eliécer Gaitán. Wikipedia describes as "In 1933 he created the "Unión Izquierdista Revolucionaria" ("Leftist Revolutionary Union"), or UNIR, as his own dissident political movement after breaking with the Liberal Party." So, we will keep the term Marxist in this McKinney article. Third and lastly, Musaabdulrashid implies that I am the only editor making changes and that is not true. Please don't repeat that comment again.--Getaway 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't make those assumptions. All content must have sources and if McKinney has specifically said any of what you said, there might be some sort of evidence.  I don't who you are trying to communicate with here; I left a message on your talk page and you seem to be trying to respond here.  You also copied and pasted my message to this talk page, and I have removed it because I intended to communicate with you.  This entire edit war is fairly trollish.  The sentence: "CNN stated that McKinney praised leftist leaders" is true, we have sorsces for it.  The sentence "CNN stated that McKinney praised Marxist leaders" is false, as there are no sources to back it up and the source we do have contradicts it.  Since you cannot cite yourself as a source, if you want the article to say "... McKinney praised maxist leaders" you will have to find a notible source to back that up. The depth you're seeking could really only be accomplished with a transcript of exactly what McKinney said. Musaabdulrashid 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You want to talk about the article then we will talk about it here--on the talk page. That will be the way that it is.  It is not up to you to decide that we are going to discuss the Cynthia McKinney page on my talk page.  That is not appropriate.  Don't call my work trollish because that won't get you any where. Please stop and review the policy that concerns personal attacks:  No personal attacks.  I gave you the Wikipedia sources in the previous comments. Wikipedia has defined these two people as Marxists.  Castro calls himself a Marxist.  You have not responded to that FACT.--Getaway 03:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. While Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez may be admired by 21st century marxists and influenced by 20th century marxists, we don't have any direct link from either of those two characters to this article.  Furthurmore, their ideology is best discussed on their own articles and not on this one.  If you can find a source saying that McKinney specifically mentioned them during her consession speech, then we can specifically mention them in this article, but until then, CNNs more vaugue description of "leftist leaders" is all we can write. Musaabdulrashid 04:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that CNN's remark was about "leftists", changing it to "Marxists" would be quite an inappropriate paraphrase. - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Marxists" are a sub-set of "leftists". But which is a more accurate description of these two leaders? Castro is clearly and historically a Marxist. His Marxism is self-declared and citeable. Chavez less so, but he is a sycophant of Castro so.... We need to avoid euphemisms. This is an example where PC speech, if used across the board, even in the news media articles, serves to water down the truth. We could use two cites for the quote.  One for the quote, and one to show Castro and Chavez are each, indeed, "Marxists". Mytwocents 15:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Directly quoting CNN with who we assusme they are talking about in brackets seems fine for now, going a step further to label those figures is right out. I would acctually like to archive this entire disussion somewhere as it is essentially an edit war and there is much more important work to be done. anyway, everyone have some cookies: Musaabdulrashid 16:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) [[Image:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|200px|I tried to find pizza but im in a hurry]]

The CNN article cited states the leaders are "leftists" and since there is no citation for both leaders being "Marxists" this must be changed to reflect the citation of the CNN article as both leaders being "leftists". If the "Marxists" will stay then this must be cited, from what I can tell Hugo Chavez is not a Marxist, Fidel Castro may or may not be. Postmako 07:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the reference to Marxist. It is not necessary and is not in the cited article. One can debate whether Castro and Chavez are Marxists but that is better done elsewhere like may their talk pages. Master shepherd 07:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Add Categories
Add her to the category American Roman Catholics.

Also, does she really belong in the conspiracy theory category? 75.2.250.145 06:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

add her to that group RACIST101

McKinney herself maintains that she opposes anti-Semitism
Hi Moshe

From edit history: 19:46, 1 November 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs) (the reason I used "claims" is precisely because it carries a connotation that what is being claimed is not universially believed, however I will change it to "maintained" as a sign of good faith)

From WP:BLP Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

and

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule.

From WP:LIBEL For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.

By your own admission, the reason you inserted the word "claims" is because (paraphrase) it is not universally believed that she opposes anti-Semitism. That is a serious charge, not opposing anti-semism is akin to being an anti-Semite. There is nothing in the article to indicate that she has these views. If it is not "universially believed" then please cite reliable sources to that effect, and re-instate the claims clause. Until that time, I must insist that it be removed. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 21:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing libelous about it. McKinney is a controversial person, and much of this controversy surrounds gaffs with the Jewish community.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To suggest that there is doubt that she opposes anti-Semitism, and to not provide a single source to back that idea, is risky to me. I would agree to something like "McKinney herself opposes anti-Semitism, however this is not universally accepted source". The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with maintains. She deserves the benifit of the doubt, unless proven otherwise with reliable sources. I suggest some sort of outside mediation, maybe in the form of a WP:RFC. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 21:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Use a direct quote from a reliable source. Paraphrasing positions on contentious topics is always problematic and it is hard to find a right answer even in the best cases.  The trick is to rely more heavily on reputable sources.  --Deodar 22:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:NPOV: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth" If there's a dispute about this, and there certainly appears to be, then the positions of each side are attributed, and neither is asserted as truth. This is very basic editing, people. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jayjg, thanks for coming. Thats exactly my point though. Inserting a word like "claims" without some evidence she is lying is just inapropriate, I think. If it weren't, one could inject 'claims' into any statement about any person, and would never need to explain why. Again, I have no problem with it, just give me a quote from a reliable source which suggests she supports anti-semitism, and you can argue that she claims otherwise. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 01:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There have been numerous accusations of her being antisemitic (see my latest edit), and where there is a controversy Wikipedia attributes what people say to those saying it. Wikipedia doesn't say what the truth is; we don't assert she is telling the truth, nor do we assert she is lying; we simply attribute opinions to those who hold them. That is the essence of WP:NPOV; trying to frame this as "they say she is lying" issue is a fairly gross misrepresentation of some basic Wikipedia policy. Remember WP:V; "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that verifiability supercedes truth. WP:BLP states be very firm about high quality references and there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from. For that reason, I have removed your references and repalced them with a fact tag. See the reasoning below. If she has made anti-Semitic remarks, for the reasons above, there really needs to be a reliable, secondary source, which includes primary sources.
 * The JCPA article barely mentions McKinney and cites no primary sources for her alleged anti-Semitism
 * The Seattle Times article interprets a NY Times article (his is The New York Times' delicate way of alluding to the stridently anti-Semitic character of McKinney's 2002 campaign). It also cites no primary sources
 * The National Review article comes closest, but doesn't explicitly link her actions to anti-Semitism
 * In this case, truth is important, because of the rules of WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP. If you have an article where someone can quote her making anti-Semitic remarks, for example, I'll gladly submit. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 02:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be best to use the fuller quotes from those articles. The Seattle Times article should be quoted, not interpreted.  National Review should be quoted as well.  We don't judge the sources whether they are accurate (thus arguing the JCPA doesn't provide primary sources is not that relevant) but rather whether they are accurately reflected in the article (thus use full quotes to avoid problems with misleading interpretations or paraphrases.)  --Deodar 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, we don't make the decisions about whether or not her remarks qualify as antisemitic, or do our own analysis of the veracity of comments made in reliable sources based on their use of "primary sources", we simply repeat what reliable sources have said. The Seattle Times, JCPA, and National Review all qualify as reliable sources under Wikipedia's policies, and the views contained therein are represented with all due respect to Wikipedia policy, including WP:BLP, but particularly WP:NPOV. Regarding Deodar's comment, I, in fact, did quote the sources, and I've brought even more, and quoted them as well. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NOR are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. They are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. ... Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. The sources you provided were commentary without any primary sourced information. The JCPA article was particularly bad, with only a brief mention of McKinney. I guess I have no right to question the judgement of a WP:ARBCOM member, but I think some outside mediation on this matter might be benificial. I'm personally not convinced that the statement, or sources, fit the stricter requirements of WP:BLP. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to follow up, Jayjg. Are you saying that the WP:V policy verifibility, not truth takes precident even in a WP:BLP? I'm worried then that any dubious statement, published in a reliable source like the Seattle Times, could be included in a biographical article about a person. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V is not "taking precent" over WP:BLP; you are falsely characterizing them as being in opposition in this case. The article does not state that McKinney is anti-Semitic, but rather that some commentators accused of being so. This is not only true, but more importantly verifiable, and stated in a neutral way. Accusations of anti-Semitism are an important feature of McKinney's candidacies and campaigns; not mentioning them would be the "elephant in the room" as far as this article goes. Whether or not these accusations are true are beyond what we would attempt to determine; we just report them in a neutral and fair way; indeed, we give far more prominent placement to McKinney's own arguments that she is not anti-Semitic, which is quite in line with BLP. It's rather bizarre to even imagine an article which has McKinney stating "I am not anti-Semitic", but don't allow the article to even state what she is responding to. Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uncle Bungle, Wikipedia isn't about determining "truth" but rather documenting what other RS people/publications think and say. I'm not a fan of Jayjg -- have a look at my talk page to see some recent sparing if you don't believe me -- but I would recommend following my advice above.  --Deodar 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I just don't expect any opposition to a Counter Punch or Indy Media article being used as a source about people in the future. Thanks everyone for your help, I appriciate it. Kind regards. --Uncle Bungle 03:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * CounterPunch is okay if the author themselves are notable (which is often the case), but IndyMedia is pretty crap and usually not used. --Deodar 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You think that Counterpunch and Indymedia are the equivalent of The Seattle Times? How... unusual. Counterpunch is a left-wing conspiracist website; its reliability ultimately depends on the reliability of the authors published on it, which is highly variable. Indymedia is basically a large blog. In any event, you again misunderstand the issue. We are not using these sources as proof that McKinney is anti-Semitic, but rather as proof of a much less controversial claim, that people have accused her of being anti-Semitic. This mild claim hardly needs any source at all, yet your rather unusual interpretation of policy has forced me to come up with 5 sources so far for this obvious point (and counting). Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've accepted that we don't need to prove she is an anti-Semite, as long as someone has been published saying she is. That said, we're supposed to question the author? In that case, who is Bryan Preston of the National Review, a conservative leaning political opinion magazine. --Uncle Bungle 03:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * National Review is the right wing equivalent of The Nation -- both are partisan long-running published magazines, although if the author is an expert in the area they are writing more prominence can be given. FrontPageMagazine is the right wing equivalent of CounterPunch -- both are dubious unless the author is notable.  --Deodar 04:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. It seems to me that we're doing a disservice to the readers by making a statement and backing with a stack of editorial commentary, but I guess the rules are the rules. Thanks everyone. Cheers. --Uncle Bungle 04:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We're really not doing a disservice at all, there is nothing wrong with using non-fringe editorials when you are showing a viewpoint, the problem with editorials only comes into play when you try to use them as support for something that is stated as fact something we are not doing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk


 * So if the article said "Cynthia McKinney is an anti-semite" we could not use editorials. Because we have "characterized by some", editorials are ok? Sounds like Weasel Words to me, but I guess its not because we have done the originial research necessary to find those some.


 * Your taking things too far. --Deodar 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Should this person be in the Category:Anti-Semitic people ?? Why is this person in the Category:Antisemtism ?? 69.156.78.24 13:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Documentary" more accurate term
The article refers to McKinney being featured in a "motion picture." However, American Blackout is specifically a documentary film, so I recommend changing the very broad, possibly misleading term "motion picture" to the more descriptive term "documentary film." — Robinlyn 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti Semitic Charges in 2006 primary and primary runoff
The section after "took aim at the efficacy of electronic voting machines and offered several swipes at the media." is out of place. It doesn't have any relevance to the 2006 runoff to mention allegations of racism in 2002. The allegation is noteworthy so keeping it is called for but I am moving it to the "Other controversies" section where it seems more appropriate. Billyjoekoepsel 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews
Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.


 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or [mailto:nicholasmoreau@gmail.com e-mail me].

Thanks, Nick --  Zanimum 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic remarks
The article as it is reads, "She made anti-Semitic statements during her 2002 campaign," and lists 5 sources. Four of these sources do not quote McKinney as actually saying anything. I am not able to check the fifth source at this time, since it doesn't appear to be online. I read the earlier talk section about this subject, but I don't think this issue was adequately addressed. The current article unequivocally declares that McKinney made anti-Semitic statements, but does not provide actual quotations. It only provides commentators' assertions that she made such statements. If no one can produce an actual, verifiable quotation, it cannot be unequivocally written that McKinney made such statements.

I propose that the sentence "She made anti-Semitic statements during her 2002 campaign" be deleted, and that its citations be attached to the previous sentence in the paragraph: "Allegations have been made that McKinney is an anti-Semite, though she herself denies this." It is this statement that the sources cited support -- they cannot seriously be said to provide evidence that McKinney made anti-Semitic statements, but they do prove that commentators allege that she is anti-Semitic. --Kleebrum 04:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This article, as published, reads more like an apology on McKinney's behalf than a simple encyclopedia entry. Do you think that some of the more blatant "appeals to passion" could be revised until this essay doesn't sound like a campaign ad?

Not Speculation, She is running for President.
At the School of Americans protest recently it was mentioned that she was seeking the nomination of the Green Party in her introduction and she did nothing to refute it. Also, she has a campaign manager. Currently there is a section on Green Party Speculation, however, clearly it's no longer speculation. Here's a link to a video of her speaking with the introduction that makes mention of her campaign McKinney at SOA Protest

ChipMD (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and Credibility of Sources
Does Wikipedia have a policy for assessing the credibility of sources cited in articles? Although it is true that several of the cited articles accuse McKinney herself of making anti-Semitic comments, none of them, in turn, cite any sources for these allegations. Until someone can come up with an arguably anti-Semitic quotation alleged by a credible source to have come out of (Cynthia) McKinney's mouth, I don't think this article should contain the allegation that she, personally, has made anti-Semitic remarks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.231.138 (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of references cited, and plenty of mainstream articles (notably Edward Alexander in the Seattle Times http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001999939_alexander09.html among others) that have credibility in that regard. I have reverted your citation accordingly. --Mhking (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mainstream sources, yes, but none of them include any allegedly anti-Semitic statements actually made by Cynthia McKinney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.231.138 (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just checked the citations again. Only two accuse her of making anti-Semitic comments, so I've rearranged and specified accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.231.138 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Green Party
Face it. The Green Party section is awful. It's not very informative, and very dull. Will an experinced wikipedian please fix that section? Thank you very much. 75.38.111.187 03:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Much like the Green Party itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.237.133 (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.90.22 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert of deletion of Daniel Pipes link
The Pipes link might be a personal weblog but the author is an expert in the field. See his [biography http://www.danielpipes.org/bios/] on the same site for support on this point. That it is published on his weblog instead of elsewhere should not make it POV. Kisdm001 (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Pipes' blog totally fails WP:V. Sorry.

Political positions of Cynthia McKinney
I am new to Wikipedia. So, I'm sorry that I am not doing this myself. But I am asking for someone to please add a section to this article devoted to her political positions and her proposed policies. If possible, I would like to have a whole Wiki article made about it like those of other politicians. For example, this Wiki article on the Political Positions of John Edwards. Also, This website seems to have some information on the topic

Rmob1988 (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?
The Barack Obama Featured Article, part of this project's scope, now has an important discussion on its talk page (at Talk:Barack Obama) that could affect other articles, including this one, on other presidential candidates. There is already talk on that page that the articles on other presidential candidates may need to be changed, so editors involved in this article may want to get involved with the discussion there.

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples: Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles.
 * Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
 * Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (and Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko)
 * John McCain and John C. Hagee
 * Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik

If you click on the first link I give here, you'll find a comparison I did of negative information in the Clinton, McCain and Giuliani articles. I've also posted that information on the talk pages of those articles. In that discussion (and at the McCain, Clinton and Giuliani talk pages), I've also posted a comparison of what negative information is presented on each candidate, especially in relation to associates who give the candidates bad publicity. I think editors of this article would find the comparison useful. Noroton (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin', won't do it again (here, anyway). Noroton (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What?
What does this mean:

"Majette declined to run for re-election to the House, opting instead to become a candidate to replace retiring Senator Zell Miller, a conservative Democrat. McKinney instantly became the favorite in the Democratic primary. Since it was taken for granted that victory in the Democratic primary was tantamount to election in November, McKinney's opponents focused on clearing the field for a single candidate who could force her into a runoff election.

However, her opponents' efforts were unsuccessful, and five candidates entered the Democratic primary. As a result of the fragmented primary opposition, McKinney won just enough votes to avoid a runoff. This all but assured her return to Congress after a two-year absence. However, contrary to traditional practice, the Democrats did not restore McKinney's seniority. Had she been able to regain her seniority, she would have been a senior Democrat on the International Relations and Armed Services committees, as well as ranking Democrat on an International Relations subcommittee.[17]"

If she ran for Zell Miller's seat, she'd have been running for the SENATE, not the house. So, I'm a bit confused. very very confused.

Also, and maybe this is just me, but I'd prefer a better citation for the idea that it's 'traditional practice' to give back seniority, since the examples counterpunch (putting aside my problems with that organization) gives are either speculative, the result of a prior deal, or people who switched parties, rather than leaving the house and coming back. Either way, the Zell Miller thing is just wrong.216.98.233.245 (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I read it right now. Majette ran for the Senate, leaving McKinney free to resume her house seat. I still think that needs to be cleared up a bit. 216.98.233.245 (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited the second sentence in this excerpt to clarify that McKinney became the favorite in the House Democratic primary, because I was mystified too. - July 22, 2008