This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This bio was updated with recent information. There is no need to delete it now. Larryfooter 04:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Permission is not enough. Will the copyright owner allow the material to be released under the GFDL? If so, tell him/her to send an email to permission at wikimedia dot org. hbdragon88 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
When this is all straightened out, we'll need to merge it with Andrew McCarthy (journalist). -- Randy2063 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew C. McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew C. McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I deleted this section. It read:
McCarthy believes that the 2017 special counsel investigation conducted by Robert Mueller is simply a corrupt attempt to impeach President Donald Trump.
There is no citation for the claim. I am aware that McCarthy has written at length about the probe, and that he has argued the special counsel has its sights set on impeachment. But there is no evidence that he believes the special counsel probe is "simply a corrupt attempt to impeach" Trump. The implication of corruption is specifically unsupported by his writing, and the word "simply" carries some NPOV problems.
I removed the unsupported claim that McCarthy engaged in "conspiracy theories" during the Obama administration. There was no reliable source to support this claim. It is attack by an editor of Wikipedia on McCarthy. There has been no reliable source provided to support this. There needs to be a reliable source provided to support this claim before this defaming information is re-inserted into the article.-- CharlesShirley ( talk) 12:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
"I removed the unsupported claim that McCarthy engaged in "conspiracy theories" during the Obama administration. There was no reliable source to support this claim"--
the fact that McCarthy thought and repeatedly stated that Obama was a secret Muslim doesn't qualify as a conspiracy theory? That he was using the presidency to promote Sharia Law?
https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-andrew-mccarthy/
"Andrew McCarthy, who has served as an advisor to leading Republican politicians like Ted Cruz, has worked with anti-Muslim groups like the Center for Security Policy and the David Horowitz Freedom Center to advance falsified and unfounded claims about Muslims. He has also advocated for discriminatory practices that would target Muslim communities."
"McCarthy is the author of four books, among them a New York Times bestseller, on the topic of Islam and Muslims, including titles How Obama Embraces Islam’s Sharia Agenda and The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America."
"Like many who run anti-Muslim groups, McCarthy does not believe Islam is a religion, but an “ideological, sweeping system.” The notion that Islam is a political ideology or totalitarian regime, and not a religion, is a common anti-Muslim trope. It also carries serious potential consequences — Muslims would not be afforded the same constitutional protections as other religious communities."
I could go on.. Conspiracy theory is absolutely warranted as a descriptor of McCarthy's bigotry, fear mongering, and outright lies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.129.49 ( talk) 23:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
RS Perennial list: [1]. Thus, there is zero reason to remove content sourced to Mother Jones, other RS and primary sources. Content that is 100% verifiably accurate. The Daily Beast is also considered a RS per the RS perennial list, and there is ZERO reason to doubt that the content sourced to the Daily Beast is inaccurate. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Sadly, Sementelli didn’t ask about whether McCarthy still thinks former Weather Underground member William Ayers wrote Obama’s autobiography.This doesn't really support the text in any case; I think we should stick with the New Yorker source you found for this reason if nothing else. The DB source is very thin as well, and RSN says "Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Shinealittlelight ( talk) 17:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The MoJo source explicitly says that McCarthy pushed the falsehoodis just not true. The MJ source says only that
Sadly, Sementelli didn’t ask about whether McCarthy still thinks former Weather Underground member William Ayers wrote Obama’s autobiography.I'm not edit warring; we have a good faith disagreement, and we need to try to find consensus. My proposal was to accept your substitute source (the New Yorker), which seemed clearly superior to me, and to drop my concern that the matter was undue. Let's both try to give a little here to improve the article. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 18:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Here I've deleted the word "false" from the assertion, "promoted the false theory that Bill Ayers, co-founder of the militant radical left-wing organization Weather Underground, had authored Obama's autobiography Dreams from My Father". The assertion is unsupported here and is made in Wikipedia's editorial voice. There are sources reporting that Ayres has himself has claimed to have written the book ( [2]), and other sources saying that he must have been joking when he said that or, perhaps, he said that in order to hypa a book of hia own [3]). I have no idea whether Ayers or anyone else ghost-wrote the book, but if this articles is to assert that assertions that Ayers wrote it are false, that assertion needs support, and WP:DUE needs to be followed if alternative sources with different viewpoints on that exist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Following
WP:BRD, I'll respond that the assertions in the article both of promotion and of falsehood are unsupported. Your reversion resulted in an
edit conflict with my attemmpt to supply a cite supporting the promotion; that cite would have been
"the corner". nationalreview.com. October 11, 2008. Archived from
the original on October 12, 2008.
. I have not added it to your post-revert article version because it only supports the assertion re promotion and does not support the assertion re falsehood. I am neither disputing that the theory was false nor asserting that it was true.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Looking at that source I was thinking of citing ( [4]), I see that McCarthy says that he was inspired by the analysis here by Jack Cashill. I see that the article on Cashill only asserts that he promoted that authorship theory, not that the theory was false. Perhaps you would like falsify it there and to to add support for that falsification to both articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
... and, looking at the edit summary of this edit and seeing that the 'Barack Obama section of the article which cites that Ref 13 mentioned there and others, I see that the body there does have more info than the lead about the promotion of the theory, but it does not assert its falsehood. The lead should not go beyond what the body says on this. I looked at this diff of the article prior to my edit and the current version, and I see that the theory is now called a "conspiracy theory" in both places without being asserted as true or false in either. As this is supported in the body, I wouldn't argue for the {{ cn}} in the lead. I would be happier if the theory was characterized as "disputed" rather than as a "conspiracy theory", and I think the cited sources support that, but I'm not going to spend a lot of effort arguing over it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, When I put the word dubious instead of false in on the information about the “death panels,” that was my attempt to compromise, but you didn’t accept it, The word false is an absolute word, meaning there’s absolutely no chance it could be true. The word dubious means it’s probably not true, but there’s a remote possibility it might be. For the purposes of this article, the word dubious, (even though it’s a stronger word than I would like), is an effective compromise, imo. Jay72091(2) ( talk) 00:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@ CharlesShirley: What's wrong with saying McCarthy did an about-face? First, he writes a book praising Trump, and Trump endorses it. Then he says Trump has done something impeachable. How is that not an about-face? We don't need any source at all for that. Would you prefer the word "reversal"? Stylistically, it just seems we need to transition into the opposite attitude; otherwise it's jarring and confusing to the reader. How do we transition without using a transitional phrase? YoPienso ( talk) 10:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The article says he defended Trump during his impeachment, then later changed his mind (paraphrasing), but this statement is not sourced and, more importantly, doesn't identify which impeachment. Since there were two of them. Hppavilion1 ( talk) 15:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
How do reliable sources describe the subject? Per BLP I would keep the lead sentence as "basic" as possible and flesh out details, ie, right wing, ect later in the article. -- Malerooster ( talk) 15:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm all about hammering on Trumpites, but this is really, beyond absurd. Are we trying to make the article utterly incomprehensible? My edits made the article demonstrably more clear, factual, and (only incidentally) more neutral--I only bothered improving it because this line is completely incoherent:
McCarthy promoted the conspiracy theory that Bill Ayers, co-founder of the militant radical left-wing organization Weather Underground, had authored Obama's autobiography Dreams from My Father. McCarthy reviewed the article as "thorough, thoughtful, and alarming".
And we're going to call *my* edits "vandalism"? OK then. Tahlor ( talk) 04:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I have a problem with the word "promoted" in the context of "McCarthy promoted the conspiracy theory that Bill Ayers...". I just read the cited article [1] and it doesn't strike me as a 100% endorsement of Cashill's book by McCarthy. Here is a quote from the cited Daily Beast article:
I think that "approving nods" is a much better description of McCarthy's cited article than "promoted", and so is more accurate that the other citations (which are partisan attempts to extract the most negative mileage from McCarthy's writing).
We also have the fact that Cashill's book is not obviously a conspiracy theory in the way that "the 9/11 hijackers landed the planes and disembarked the passengers" is a conspiracy theory; it had a facade of plausibility that matches the somewhat silly speculations as to who really was William Shakespeare, and which the likelihood of disproof is not immediately obvious. Here is another example of this uncertainty: McCarthy's then NR colleague Jonah Goldberg initially dismissed Cashill, [3] but later wrote this:
As far as I can see Goldberg never went beyond this, he never called Cashill's account to be fact (at least at NR), but this does highlight the fact that Cashill's book is not prima facie a conspiracy theory (or more precisely the source of one). It takes a bit of digging to determine it is most likely not true (incidentally, Kathryn Jean Lopez concluded that Ayers was 'putting on' the reporter who was the source of the 'admission'). [5]
Also, McCarthy never wrote another original article on this subject, he only posted two back-and-forth blog posts regarding it, neither of which give absolute promotion to the book. [6] [7] At most he wrote "Cashill has written a very thorough analysis...As I said, I resisted reading Cashill’s analysis for a long time — and he’s not the first to advance the idea that Obama did not write his book — because I didn’t want to be accused of wading into what could be taken as nutter stuff. I was then persuaded that I should at least look at it with an open mind. I’m convinced it raises major questions. I tried to treat them in a serious way." Given all this, "promotion" does not appear to be NPOV.
So, I'd like to change "promoted" to "gave credence to". Thoughts?
Thanks. Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk) 17:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk) 17:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This bio was updated with recent information. There is no need to delete it now. Larryfooter 04:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Permission is not enough. Will the copyright owner allow the material to be released under the GFDL? If so, tell him/her to send an email to permission at wikimedia dot org. hbdragon88 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
When this is all straightened out, we'll need to merge it with Andrew McCarthy (journalist). -- Randy2063 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew C. McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew C. McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I deleted this section. It read:
McCarthy believes that the 2017 special counsel investigation conducted by Robert Mueller is simply a corrupt attempt to impeach President Donald Trump.
There is no citation for the claim. I am aware that McCarthy has written at length about the probe, and that he has argued the special counsel has its sights set on impeachment. But there is no evidence that he believes the special counsel probe is "simply a corrupt attempt to impeach" Trump. The implication of corruption is specifically unsupported by his writing, and the word "simply" carries some NPOV problems.
I removed the unsupported claim that McCarthy engaged in "conspiracy theories" during the Obama administration. There was no reliable source to support this claim. It is attack by an editor of Wikipedia on McCarthy. There has been no reliable source provided to support this. There needs to be a reliable source provided to support this claim before this defaming information is re-inserted into the article.-- CharlesShirley ( talk) 12:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
"I removed the unsupported claim that McCarthy engaged in "conspiracy theories" during the Obama administration. There was no reliable source to support this claim"--
the fact that McCarthy thought and repeatedly stated that Obama was a secret Muslim doesn't qualify as a conspiracy theory? That he was using the presidency to promote Sharia Law?
https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-andrew-mccarthy/
"Andrew McCarthy, who has served as an advisor to leading Republican politicians like Ted Cruz, has worked with anti-Muslim groups like the Center for Security Policy and the David Horowitz Freedom Center to advance falsified and unfounded claims about Muslims. He has also advocated for discriminatory practices that would target Muslim communities."
"McCarthy is the author of four books, among them a New York Times bestseller, on the topic of Islam and Muslims, including titles How Obama Embraces Islam’s Sharia Agenda and The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America."
"Like many who run anti-Muslim groups, McCarthy does not believe Islam is a religion, but an “ideological, sweeping system.” The notion that Islam is a political ideology or totalitarian regime, and not a religion, is a common anti-Muslim trope. It also carries serious potential consequences — Muslims would not be afforded the same constitutional protections as other religious communities."
I could go on.. Conspiracy theory is absolutely warranted as a descriptor of McCarthy's bigotry, fear mongering, and outright lies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.129.49 ( talk) 23:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
RS Perennial list: [1]. Thus, there is zero reason to remove content sourced to Mother Jones, other RS and primary sources. Content that is 100% verifiably accurate. The Daily Beast is also considered a RS per the RS perennial list, and there is ZERO reason to doubt that the content sourced to the Daily Beast is inaccurate. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Sadly, Sementelli didn’t ask about whether McCarthy still thinks former Weather Underground member William Ayers wrote Obama’s autobiography.This doesn't really support the text in any case; I think we should stick with the New Yorker source you found for this reason if nothing else. The DB source is very thin as well, and RSN says "Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Shinealittlelight ( talk) 17:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The MoJo source explicitly says that McCarthy pushed the falsehoodis just not true. The MJ source says only that
Sadly, Sementelli didn’t ask about whether McCarthy still thinks former Weather Underground member William Ayers wrote Obama’s autobiography.I'm not edit warring; we have a good faith disagreement, and we need to try to find consensus. My proposal was to accept your substitute source (the New Yorker), which seemed clearly superior to me, and to drop my concern that the matter was undue. Let's both try to give a little here to improve the article. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 18:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Here I've deleted the word "false" from the assertion, "promoted the false theory that Bill Ayers, co-founder of the militant radical left-wing organization Weather Underground, had authored Obama's autobiography Dreams from My Father". The assertion is unsupported here and is made in Wikipedia's editorial voice. There are sources reporting that Ayres has himself has claimed to have written the book ( [2]), and other sources saying that he must have been joking when he said that or, perhaps, he said that in order to hypa a book of hia own [3]). I have no idea whether Ayers or anyone else ghost-wrote the book, but if this articles is to assert that assertions that Ayers wrote it are false, that assertion needs support, and WP:DUE needs to be followed if alternative sources with different viewpoints on that exist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Following
WP:BRD, I'll respond that the assertions in the article both of promotion and of falsehood are unsupported. Your reversion resulted in an
edit conflict with my attemmpt to supply a cite supporting the promotion; that cite would have been
"the corner". nationalreview.com. October 11, 2008. Archived from
the original on October 12, 2008.
. I have not added it to your post-revert article version because it only supports the assertion re promotion and does not support the assertion re falsehood. I am neither disputing that the theory was false nor asserting that it was true.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Looking at that source I was thinking of citing ( [4]), I see that McCarthy says that he was inspired by the analysis here by Jack Cashill. I see that the article on Cashill only asserts that he promoted that authorship theory, not that the theory was false. Perhaps you would like falsify it there and to to add support for that falsification to both articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
... and, looking at the edit summary of this edit and seeing that the 'Barack Obama section of the article which cites that Ref 13 mentioned there and others, I see that the body there does have more info than the lead about the promotion of the theory, but it does not assert its falsehood. The lead should not go beyond what the body says on this. I looked at this diff of the article prior to my edit and the current version, and I see that the theory is now called a "conspiracy theory" in both places without being asserted as true or false in either. As this is supported in the body, I wouldn't argue for the {{ cn}} in the lead. I would be happier if the theory was characterized as "disputed" rather than as a "conspiracy theory", and I think the cited sources support that, but I'm not going to spend a lot of effort arguing over it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, When I put the word dubious instead of false in on the information about the “death panels,” that was my attempt to compromise, but you didn’t accept it, The word false is an absolute word, meaning there’s absolutely no chance it could be true. The word dubious means it’s probably not true, but there’s a remote possibility it might be. For the purposes of this article, the word dubious, (even though it’s a stronger word than I would like), is an effective compromise, imo. Jay72091(2) ( talk) 00:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@ CharlesShirley: What's wrong with saying McCarthy did an about-face? First, he writes a book praising Trump, and Trump endorses it. Then he says Trump has done something impeachable. How is that not an about-face? We don't need any source at all for that. Would you prefer the word "reversal"? Stylistically, it just seems we need to transition into the opposite attitude; otherwise it's jarring and confusing to the reader. How do we transition without using a transitional phrase? YoPienso ( talk) 10:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The article says he defended Trump during his impeachment, then later changed his mind (paraphrasing), but this statement is not sourced and, more importantly, doesn't identify which impeachment. Since there were two of them. Hppavilion1 ( talk) 15:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
How do reliable sources describe the subject? Per BLP I would keep the lead sentence as "basic" as possible and flesh out details, ie, right wing, ect later in the article. -- Malerooster ( talk) 15:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm all about hammering on Trumpites, but this is really, beyond absurd. Are we trying to make the article utterly incomprehensible? My edits made the article demonstrably more clear, factual, and (only incidentally) more neutral--I only bothered improving it because this line is completely incoherent:
McCarthy promoted the conspiracy theory that Bill Ayers, co-founder of the militant radical left-wing organization Weather Underground, had authored Obama's autobiography Dreams from My Father. McCarthy reviewed the article as "thorough, thoughtful, and alarming".
And we're going to call *my* edits "vandalism"? OK then. Tahlor ( talk) 04:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I have a problem with the word "promoted" in the context of "McCarthy promoted the conspiracy theory that Bill Ayers...". I just read the cited article [1] and it doesn't strike me as a 100% endorsement of Cashill's book by McCarthy. Here is a quote from the cited Daily Beast article:
I think that "approving nods" is a much better description of McCarthy's cited article than "promoted", and so is more accurate that the other citations (which are partisan attempts to extract the most negative mileage from McCarthy's writing).
We also have the fact that Cashill's book is not obviously a conspiracy theory in the way that "the 9/11 hijackers landed the planes and disembarked the passengers" is a conspiracy theory; it had a facade of plausibility that matches the somewhat silly speculations as to who really was William Shakespeare, and which the likelihood of disproof is not immediately obvious. Here is another example of this uncertainty: McCarthy's then NR colleague Jonah Goldberg initially dismissed Cashill, [3] but later wrote this:
As far as I can see Goldberg never went beyond this, he never called Cashill's account to be fact (at least at NR), but this does highlight the fact that Cashill's book is not prima facie a conspiracy theory (or more precisely the source of one). It takes a bit of digging to determine it is most likely not true (incidentally, Kathryn Jean Lopez concluded that Ayers was 'putting on' the reporter who was the source of the 'admission'). [5]
Also, McCarthy never wrote another original article on this subject, he only posted two back-and-forth blog posts regarding it, neither of which give absolute promotion to the book. [6] [7] At most he wrote "Cashill has written a very thorough analysis...As I said, I resisted reading Cashill’s analysis for a long time — and he’s not the first to advance the idea that Obama did not write his book — because I didn’t want to be accused of wading into what could be taken as nutter stuff. I was then persuaded that I should at least look at it with an open mind. I’m convinced it raises major questions. I tried to treat them in a serious way." Given all this, "promotion" does not appear to be NPOV.
So, I'd like to change "promoted" to "gave credence to". Thoughts?
Thanks. Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk) 17:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk) 17:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)