Talk:Heather Mac Donald

message: I'm changing my views as I get more experience at Wikipedia, and seeing that the ideas proposed above by my opponent are reasonable, and maybe I was a little too gung-ho in the expansion a while back, and that there is a good case for trimming this article, possibly deleting more of the primary sources. At this point the article is perhaps better but it still might use some more trimming, possibly. I paraphrased some of the quotes, took out a few lines, and tightened, but perhaps it needs more tightening.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Update September 2011

message: most of the article is just attacking her and you can see it by the choice of words.. "MacDonald argues", "MacDonald criticized", "MacDonald blamed", "MacDonald criticized", "MacDonald criticized", "MacDonald criticized" and on and on and on...wp is a jooooooke...107.39.156.254 (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a joke except, perhaps, one might argue that some anonymous contributors to discussion pages have a talent for making nonsensical arguments. In the article, statements such as "Mac Donald argues..." and "Mac Donald criticized..." are statements of fact; it's what Mac Donald did -- she argued, she criticized, etc. If you can make a better case that the article is biased or slanted, please try to do so, but remember to be civil, stick to facts, and avoid hyperbole.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surprise, Surprise - its just the same ol' slanted article that wp is known for. 

message: Mac Donald is a controversial thinker, with well-argued outspoken views on a range of subjects who is writing in a nation which is deeply polarized. This suggests it is easy for Wikipedians to read her writings which are technically primary sources, draw conclusions and inferences about what they mean, but if we write them here, it may constitute original research. The recent addition about Mac Donald's views on rape are an interpretation of Mac Donald from a Wikipedian; what we really should have are views from impartial sources -- not Mac Donald, not a Wikipedian, but journalists, op-ed writers, textbook writers, etc as per reliable sources. At present, to clean up this article, the only references to Mac Donald's writings should be a mention of what subjects she writes about -- that is it -- but there can be external links to her writings for those interested, but I am removing comments in which Wikipedians, myself included, try to guess what she means.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Amusing that Wikipedia considers an op-ed writer an "impartial" source.192.160.165.63 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with this article 

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to get interested in this issue. Really trying. Snooze.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: Could an established editor add a brief explanation on why the subject of the article uses a space in her last name (i.e., "Mac Donald" instead of the conventional "MacDonald")?  Is it just an affectation?  Thanks....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.82.246 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody responded, and I've wondered the same myself. Nicmart (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space in last name? 

message: MacDonald's contention that there was/is a "war on cops" has been devastatingly demolished from several quarters, including by economist Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute. Surely the factual incorrectness of her claim should be included in this entry. Nicmart (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on cops 

message: What evidence is there that she is known for "secular"? Has it been the subject of one of her books or any of her articles? Nicmart (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secular 

message: Regarding this edit, we do not assume that people are married or unmarried, nor that they have children, nor that they don't live alone. This is for the same reason we don't automatically mention their height or pet's names or similar. Not all verifiable info is encyclopedic. As for living in New York, sure, but...
Does this source actually mention any of this info? I do not have access to the WSJ, but versions I've found online do not mention this information at all. We need to look at reliable sources, (hopefully independent sources) and summarize what they say in context. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: I've removed inline reference to non-primary source needed. The reference is to the use of primary sources e.g. the award of the Bradley Prize. I fee that the use of the primary source is reliable, verifible and illustrative (of the subject's award history) and so does not need a secondary source. Editing on the basis of WP:BRD.  Emmentalist (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards

message: The intro paragraph says, misleadingly:
:She is known for her ... opposition to criminal justice reform.
But that implies that she has no objection to 
*racial profiling
*police brutality
I highly doubt that we can find any record of her favoring such abuses. 
Merely because she testified against one "reform bill", doesn't make her a supporter of the things the bill proponents say they are against. Such a claim makes for a one-sided account.
It would be better to use the formula A says B because of C and identify which of her opponents have branded her as opposing reform. 
Absent that, we might try providing her rationale for opposing certain legislation, for example if Mac Donald said that the proposed measure wouldn't actually solve the problem it was designed to address. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Views section includes her opposition to no-racial-profiling programs and that she thinks criticism of police brutality encourages crime. And the body, not the lead, is the appropriate location for drilling down into those views. That said, I think the lead sentence would better serve the readers if it were more specific about her policing views rather than relying on the vague "criminal justice reform" (which can mean different things depending on the POV of the speaker). Schazjmd (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Criminal Justice Reform

message: The cited article uses out of context quotes. She only objects to removing all references to race (or religion) when trying to identify terrorists. How is this "racial profiling"? Are we Wikipedia editors adopting the POV that any mention of race, when good guys are trying to catch or stop bad guys, is necessarily racism?
I think it would be better to say that Person A called Mac Donald an advocate of racial profiling, and provide their reasoning (if any). 
Wikipedia articles should be neutral, and they should not automatically approve the conclusions or POV's of critics. Rather, the articles should attribute those critical views to those who advance them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Mac Donald's views on racial profiling

message: I think this should be included in the Article.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-dei-crusader-heather-mac-donald-rants-about-nannies-of-color-in-racist-tirade 2A02:3037:40B:1DA1:E35:3056:32D7:429E (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist remarks about 'low IQ nannies'