This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ronna McDaniel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A red account has removed half the content under the RNC Chair sub-section without explanation [1]. It looks like a case of whitewashing to me. Can the red account explain this removal? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The official GOP Twitter account is wishing McDaniel a happy birthday today, March 20. The Wikipedia entry says her date of birth is January 19. Where did that come from? DB Durham NC ( talk) 16:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Clearly pro liberal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.85.204.226 ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
There was a mass removal of content from the page. Mainly information regarding fundraising and involvement in the 2018 cycle special elections. From my view the special election information was properly cited and relevant as she is the RNC Chair during these. HouseMoney44001 ( talk) 04:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The lede should note that she's been a prolific fund-raiser and that she has been staunchly pro-Trump during her tenure as RNC chair (including examples). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Is not a thing. [10] We should not include McDaniel's criticism of a practice that isn't real. Agree or disagree? – Muboshgu ( talk) 13:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I added a POV template to this article because we have one editor here, famous for edit warring, who is very careful to word everything he posts to paint the subject of the article in the worst possible light. I will be posting specific examples shortly. 112.119.86.163 ( talk) 02:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
An editor keeps removing text that provides context around McDaniel's role in pressuring McSally to contest the 2018 Arizona Senate election ballot counting, despite zero evidence or indications of wrong-doing. This text should of course be in the article. As the head of the RNC, this is one of the notable actions that McDaniel has taken in her life. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Should the bolded text be kept in the article?: Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
McDaniel's sycophantic remarks about Trump belong here, and were covered by multiple RS, including CNN, [11] Haaretz, [12] Huffington Post, [13] the Hill [14] and and WaPo's Dana Milibank. [15] It clearly meets WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I reverted the following content:
References
Who cares whether McDaniel thought McSally ought to have been "more aggressive" in 2018? Why was this content in the encyclopedia?
Snooganssnoogans reinstated the material, asserting the following: "restore long-standing content. obviously due that the RNC chairwoman is pressuring candidates to falsely suggest wrong-doing and election fraud if they are losing".
The problem here is that Snooganssnoogans is full of bologna. Nothing in the disputed content says anything about McDaniel "pressuring candidates to falsely suggest wrong-doing and election fraud if they are losing". So his argument that the content should stay does not hold water. I removed the paragraph once again and maintain that it should stay out. SunCrow ( talk) 07:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I am bringing this diff here for discussion. I think having a Covid diagnosis—even behaving irresponsibly with respect to it—is not sufficient for a section. What do others think? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 02:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The editor Malerooster, who has recently come off a 3-month topic-ban on all topics related to Donald Trump and is back to stalking me across Wikipedia, removed the bold part:
The editor removed the bold part with the following edit summary, "the citation does not say this. The waited before telling donors." Which is exactly what the text above says: they publicly disclosed it on October 2. This is what the WaPo says: "For 36 hours after her diagnosis, the RNC made no attempt to inform donors who had attended the extended, indoor fundraiser with McDaniel. Only on Oct. 2, after the president had also tested positive, were attendees told they might have been exposed." By omitting the bold part, the editor is removing content about how McDaniel interacted with others while positive and made no attempt to inform those whom she might have infected until two days later when the President got infected. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 06:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
If there are any more disruptive edits, here, please feel free to file for repercussions. ( talk) 10:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
This article included a long discussion of major defeats of the Republicans in 2018. It’s obviously out of date. That was four years ago.
I could say a lot more about its tendentiousness, but I won’t for the sake of the writer and respect for him or her for all the work put into creating this article. Plus, thanks for the footnotes. It certainly makes an article more reliable.
What happened, however, in 2020 in the congressional races is exactly the opposite of what occurred in the “historic losses “ of 2018 for Republicans. So, why isn’t there a discussion of these “updated,” newer elections?
And, in fact, why doesn’t the writer or writers or anyone else also discuss in passing the presidential election in 2020, which would provide balance?
As a frequent Wikipedia user, it is so depressing to me to see articles that are out of date for up to 10 or 12 years-not speaking of this one-many just “stubs,”with tiny parts of them updated. This can lead to confusion as to what is current and what is not.
I’m not able to update for personal reasons involving a disability, but surely somebody could. Since I’m an attorney from a well-known law school, maybe I should give it a try. But I’ve researched enough for “proper” footnotes in my life! 63.155.42.108 ( talk) 06:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
In the intro is the following: After Joe Biden won the 2020 election and Trump refused to concede, McDaniel and the RNC made proven claims of voter fraud, This should read UNproven. Also the citation has nothing to do with the sentence. MarkWegman ( talk) 12:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
No problem with the sourcing, but presenting the media's reporting as fact is problematic. Flood87 ( talk) 19:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ms. McDaniel,
THE DEBATES IN MY OPINION WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE. ALL OF THESE CANDIDATES ACTED LIKE KIDS. THERE WAS NO REAL DISCUSSION ON
THE ISSUES IN A CIVIL MANNER. THE DEBATERS DID NOT STAY FOCUS ON THE QUESTIONS. THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY CANDIDATED ON STAGE. I AM AFRAID THAT UNLESS YOU CHANGE THE SIZE AND STRUCTURE. THE DEMOCRATS WILL GAIN SEATS AND WIN THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN. 47.184.245.68 ( talk) 03:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
If I wanted the official, sanitized version of Ronna McDaniel, I could have gone to the old RNC web Page.
The drivel written here is not even remotely helpful. And Wikipedia bugs me about donations at all? This is no "service." JeremyNLSO ( talk) 14:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Whether the January 6th insurrection was a coup attempt is highly disputed, even by some of Trump’s critics. Also, it can’t be stated for a fact that McDaniel supported or promoted it, for it is very different to support a peaceful demonstration, than to promote the storm of the Capitol. For example, Trump refused to call in the National Guard while the attack was taking place. McDaniel did not support a coup. It can be debated what her impact was, regarding the fake electors plot and else, but accusing her of a coup is an egregious exaggeration. Trump promoted an insurrection. McDaniel did not. 200.119.186.149 ( talk) 23:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ronna McDaniel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A red account has removed half the content under the RNC Chair sub-section without explanation [1]. It looks like a case of whitewashing to me. Can the red account explain this removal? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The official GOP Twitter account is wishing McDaniel a happy birthday today, March 20. The Wikipedia entry says her date of birth is January 19. Where did that come from? DB Durham NC ( talk) 16:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Clearly pro liberal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.85.204.226 ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
There was a mass removal of content from the page. Mainly information regarding fundraising and involvement in the 2018 cycle special elections. From my view the special election information was properly cited and relevant as she is the RNC Chair during these. HouseMoney44001 ( talk) 04:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The lede should note that she's been a prolific fund-raiser and that she has been staunchly pro-Trump during her tenure as RNC chair (including examples). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Is not a thing. [10] We should not include McDaniel's criticism of a practice that isn't real. Agree or disagree? – Muboshgu ( talk) 13:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I added a POV template to this article because we have one editor here, famous for edit warring, who is very careful to word everything he posts to paint the subject of the article in the worst possible light. I will be posting specific examples shortly. 112.119.86.163 ( talk) 02:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
An editor keeps removing text that provides context around McDaniel's role in pressuring McSally to contest the 2018 Arizona Senate election ballot counting, despite zero evidence or indications of wrong-doing. This text should of course be in the article. As the head of the RNC, this is one of the notable actions that McDaniel has taken in her life. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Should the bolded text be kept in the article?: Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
McDaniel's sycophantic remarks about Trump belong here, and were covered by multiple RS, including CNN, [11] Haaretz, [12] Huffington Post, [13] the Hill [14] and and WaPo's Dana Milibank. [15] It clearly meets WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I reverted the following content:
References
Who cares whether McDaniel thought McSally ought to have been "more aggressive" in 2018? Why was this content in the encyclopedia?
Snooganssnoogans reinstated the material, asserting the following: "restore long-standing content. obviously due that the RNC chairwoman is pressuring candidates to falsely suggest wrong-doing and election fraud if they are losing".
The problem here is that Snooganssnoogans is full of bologna. Nothing in the disputed content says anything about McDaniel "pressuring candidates to falsely suggest wrong-doing and election fraud if they are losing". So his argument that the content should stay does not hold water. I removed the paragraph once again and maintain that it should stay out. SunCrow ( talk) 07:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I am bringing this diff here for discussion. I think having a Covid diagnosis—even behaving irresponsibly with respect to it—is not sufficient for a section. What do others think? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 02:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The editor Malerooster, who has recently come off a 3-month topic-ban on all topics related to Donald Trump and is back to stalking me across Wikipedia, removed the bold part:
The editor removed the bold part with the following edit summary, "the citation does not say this. The waited before telling donors." Which is exactly what the text above says: they publicly disclosed it on October 2. This is what the WaPo says: "For 36 hours after her diagnosis, the RNC made no attempt to inform donors who had attended the extended, indoor fundraiser with McDaniel. Only on Oct. 2, after the president had also tested positive, were attendees told they might have been exposed." By omitting the bold part, the editor is removing content about how McDaniel interacted with others while positive and made no attempt to inform those whom she might have infected until two days later when the President got infected. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 06:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
If there are any more disruptive edits, here, please feel free to file for repercussions. ( talk) 10:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
This article included a long discussion of major defeats of the Republicans in 2018. It’s obviously out of date. That was four years ago.
I could say a lot more about its tendentiousness, but I won’t for the sake of the writer and respect for him or her for all the work put into creating this article. Plus, thanks for the footnotes. It certainly makes an article more reliable.
What happened, however, in 2020 in the congressional races is exactly the opposite of what occurred in the “historic losses “ of 2018 for Republicans. So, why isn’t there a discussion of these “updated,” newer elections?
And, in fact, why doesn’t the writer or writers or anyone else also discuss in passing the presidential election in 2020, which would provide balance?
As a frequent Wikipedia user, it is so depressing to me to see articles that are out of date for up to 10 or 12 years-not speaking of this one-many just “stubs,”with tiny parts of them updated. This can lead to confusion as to what is current and what is not.
I’m not able to update for personal reasons involving a disability, but surely somebody could. Since I’m an attorney from a well-known law school, maybe I should give it a try. But I’ve researched enough for “proper” footnotes in my life! 63.155.42.108 ( talk) 06:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
In the intro is the following: After Joe Biden won the 2020 election and Trump refused to concede, McDaniel and the RNC made proven claims of voter fraud, This should read UNproven. Also the citation has nothing to do with the sentence. MarkWegman ( talk) 12:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
No problem with the sourcing, but presenting the media's reporting as fact is problematic. Flood87 ( talk) 19:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ms. McDaniel,
THE DEBATES IN MY OPINION WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE. ALL OF THESE CANDIDATES ACTED LIKE KIDS. THERE WAS NO REAL DISCUSSION ON
THE ISSUES IN A CIVIL MANNER. THE DEBATERS DID NOT STAY FOCUS ON THE QUESTIONS. THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY CANDIDATED ON STAGE. I AM AFRAID THAT UNLESS YOU CHANGE THE SIZE AND STRUCTURE. THE DEMOCRATS WILL GAIN SEATS AND WIN THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN. 47.184.245.68 ( talk) 03:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
If I wanted the official, sanitized version of Ronna McDaniel, I could have gone to the old RNC web Page.
The drivel written here is not even remotely helpful. And Wikipedia bugs me about donations at all? This is no "service." JeremyNLSO ( talk) 14:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Whether the January 6th insurrection was a coup attempt is highly disputed, even by some of Trump’s critics. Also, it can’t be stated for a fact that McDaniel supported or promoted it, for it is very different to support a peaceful demonstration, than to promote the storm of the Capitol. For example, Trump refused to call in the National Guard while the attack was taking place. McDaniel did not support a coup. It can be debated what her impact was, regarding the fake electors plot and else, but accusing her of a coup is an egregious exaggeration. Trump promoted an insurrection. McDaniel did not. 200.119.186.149 ( talk) 23:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)