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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I don't see the problem with neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeLeeDunn ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with neutrality either. Nothing seems controversial. In fact, I know Senator McDaniel personally, and know the bulk of the article to be true. ScottM84 ( talk) 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Mother Jones reported that McDaniel has attended Neo-Confederate meetings in 2013. McDaniel denies this, but he may have been at one a few years prior. This has been picked up by the mainstream press. [1] [2] [3] [4] Thoughts on how to proceed? – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I re-added and commented out a bunch of poorly written but well sourced info about his activities in the state legislature. I hope to get back to it and fix it up soon, but if somebody else wants to take a crack at it, that'd be great too. Arbor8 ( talk) 14:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed a reference to the Tea Party here as the source provided just mentions Cochran's polling results versus a generic Tea Party candidate. It doesn't say anything about McDaniel and Tea Party. CFredkin ( talk) 23:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I have moved a large section of commented text in the article to Talk:Chris McDaniel/Legislative work, as keeping it in the article was making editing quite tedious. If this material needs to be incorporated later on, it is there now for safekeeping. Cwobeel ( talk) 15:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Not sure that mention is notable, as that is a primary source for that statement [5]. We need to find a mention in a secondary source for this to be included. Cwobeel ( talk) 20:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
BLP Violations have been added and re-added to this article. This is a clear BLP violation. It is also a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Undue, and WP:COAT. Please explain the rational for including stuff which McDaniel has not done and has no control over. If this belongs anywhere it would be in the article regarding the senate primary race, but not his personal BLP. Arzel ( talk) 15:30, 10 June 2014 (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.
There is disagreement on rather certain controversies should be included in the article. Of dispute is rather the article should include statement's regarding McDaniel's speaking engagements, his statements, and certain actions that occurred during his campaign. A sample of an edit that was removed is the following.
McDaniel has made various statements and spoke in front of groups that have caused a range of controversies. He spoke to a neo-Confederate conference and costume ball hosted by a group that promotes the work of present-day secessionists and contends the the Confederate States of America should have won the American Civil War. He spoke with with a historian who believes Abraham Lincoln was a Marxist and a PhD candidate, who had worked on McDaniel's first political campaign, that wrote recently that the "controversy" over President Barack Obama's birth certificate is still in dispute. [1] While, McDaniel's campaign disputed that he attended a conference, the campaign did confirm he delivered a speech at a June 22 event the group hosted. A spokesman for the group, Sons of Confederate Veterans, confirmed McDaniel was at that event. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Also, in statements made in 2006 or 2007 McDaniel offered a series of controversial thoughts on slavery, race and women. [7]
Another controversy arose when a supporter of McDaniel allegedly entered a nursing home where Cochran's bedridden wife was living and took pictures of her. [8] He posted them as part of a video to his blog, intending to advance the rumour that Cochran is having affairs while his wife was receiving care. [9] [10] Four people have been arrested in connection with the incident. [9] The connection to the McDaniel campaign is in dispute. One of the arrested included McDaniel ally Mark Mayfield, who is the vice chairman of the state's Tea Party. McDaniel and his campaign have not yet been officially "cleared" of a connection to the incident, according to Madison County District Attorney Michael Guest. [11]
Another controversy followed the primary election on June 3, 2014. Following the election, the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office announced it was investigating three McDaniel supporters who were locked inside the local courthouse, where primary ballots were held, on election night. [12]
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
bruising
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
In removing the section, editors point to WP:BLP. In wanting to keep the material, editors point to the fact that the material is backed up by multiple WP:RS, and WP:BLP should not mean whitewashing an article. This RFC attempts to answer two questions. 1. Should the material be included. 2. If so, what modifications should be made. Casprings ( talk) 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
McDaniel has made various statements and spoke in front of groups that have caused a range of controversies. He spoke to a neo-Confederate conference and costume ball hosted by a group that promotes the work of present-day secessionists and contends the the Confederate States of America should have won the American Civil War. A supporter of McDaniel allegedly entered a nursing home where Cochran's bedridden wife was living and took pictures of her. [1] He posted them as part of a video to his blog, intending to advance the rumour that Cochran is having affairs while his wife was receiving care. [2] [3] Four people have been arrested in connection with the incident. [2] The connection to the McDaniel campaign is in dispute. One of the arrested included McDaniel ally Mark Mayfield, who is the vice chairman of the state's Tea Party.
I don't see any issues whatsoever on why that material should not be included. It is factual information supported by an abundance of reliable sources. All it is needed is just some minimal editorial tweaking. Cwobeel ( talk) 22:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
McDaniels even defends his participation: State Sen. Chris McDaniel (R-MS) defended the Sons of Confederate Veterans, an organization whose events he has attended, as singly focused on historical appreciation and not "racist." "We're talking about an organization that our governor is a member of, that in the past that our senators have been members of, that many members of our House and Senate are members of," McDaniel said in an interview with The Weekly Standard published on Friday. "It's not a racist organization. It's a historical organization filled with reenactors and collectors. That's all it is." - So here is the notability of this controversy: MacDaniel himself is defending it. Cwobeel ( talk) 00:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
COMMENT I came here through the Feedback Request Service. The material as written in the quotebox at the top was removed properly. It was way too long, and way too detailed. The proposal above is better, if still a bit more detailed than it needs to be, but it's difficult to read. The controversies most certainly belong in the article, as he is a politician and controversies are political by definition. One opinion I'm seeing here is that all the controversies should be excluded from this article and placed in the article about the election. Consider that for a second. You'd end up with important, notable information about McDaniels that only exists in an article that's not about McDaniels. It's ridiculous. Anything notable about him (and controversies about politicians are almost inevitably notable) deserves mention in this article. That is not to say that this article needs to contain all the details of that controversy, however. In fact, the details and specifics absolutely do belong in the article about the election, because they were more important to the election itself than to the people involved.
The question then, is how much weight should they hold? The answer, I believe is about one or two sentences each. If someone could write up a single paragraph, with 2-4 sentences that gave a quick look at each of those controversies without the use of any weasel words, then I would fight to keep that in. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow, lotsa partisan tension here - any discretionary sanctions attached to this article? is there any connection to this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics ? Mosfetfaser ( talk) 05:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
COMMENT FROM AN OUTSIDER - I don't have an opinion on whether the material should or should not be included, because, as a neutral reader who knows nothing about the subject, I have no idea whether the material is important or not. I need more context. The lack of context is the real problem here. If the material does matter, the reader needs more information to know why it matters. For example, simply saying that McDaniel addressed a neo-Confederate conference does not give us any context as to why he addressed them and what he said to them (did he make statements supporting their goals? did he make statements opposing their goals? or did talk about something completely unrelated to their goals?). Perhaps more importantly, the reader needs to be told what was the fall out from this address was (was he criticized for speaking to them? Who by? Did it cost him votes in the election?). Blueboar ( talk) 16:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Chris McDaniel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
With Roy Moore in and McConnel targeted, his role is another watershed event in the takeover and citations indicate that consensus. Wikipietime ( talk) 13:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Nov 26 2017 Notch Up. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/double-barreled-bannon-he-targets-both-mississippi-gop-senators-n823051?cid=eml_nbn_20171126
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 17:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
bruising
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I don't see the problem with neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeLeeDunn ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with neutrality either. Nothing seems controversial. In fact, I know Senator McDaniel personally, and know the bulk of the article to be true. ScottM84 ( talk) 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Mother Jones reported that McDaniel has attended Neo-Confederate meetings in 2013. McDaniel denies this, but he may have been at one a few years prior. This has been picked up by the mainstream press. [1] [2] [3] [4] Thoughts on how to proceed? – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I re-added and commented out a bunch of poorly written but well sourced info about his activities in the state legislature. I hope to get back to it and fix it up soon, but if somebody else wants to take a crack at it, that'd be great too. Arbor8 ( talk) 14:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed a reference to the Tea Party here as the source provided just mentions Cochran's polling results versus a generic Tea Party candidate. It doesn't say anything about McDaniel and Tea Party. CFredkin ( talk) 23:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I have moved a large section of commented text in the article to Talk:Chris McDaniel/Legislative work, as keeping it in the article was making editing quite tedious. If this material needs to be incorporated later on, it is there now for safekeeping. Cwobeel ( talk) 15:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Not sure that mention is notable, as that is a primary source for that statement [5]. We need to find a mention in a secondary source for this to be included. Cwobeel ( talk) 20:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
BLP Violations have been added and re-added to this article. This is a clear BLP violation. It is also a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Undue, and WP:COAT. Please explain the rational for including stuff which McDaniel has not done and has no control over. If this belongs anywhere it would be in the article regarding the senate primary race, but not his personal BLP. Arzel ( talk) 15:30, 10 June 2014 (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.
There is disagreement on rather certain controversies should be included in the article. Of dispute is rather the article should include statement's regarding McDaniel's speaking engagements, his statements, and certain actions that occurred during his campaign. A sample of an edit that was removed is the following.
McDaniel has made various statements and spoke in front of groups that have caused a range of controversies. He spoke to a neo-Confederate conference and costume ball hosted by a group that promotes the work of present-day secessionists and contends the the Confederate States of America should have won the American Civil War. He spoke with with a historian who believes Abraham Lincoln was a Marxist and a PhD candidate, who had worked on McDaniel's first political campaign, that wrote recently that the "controversy" over President Barack Obama's birth certificate is still in dispute. [1] While, McDaniel's campaign disputed that he attended a conference, the campaign did confirm he delivered a speech at a June 22 event the group hosted. A spokesman for the group, Sons of Confederate Veterans, confirmed McDaniel was at that event. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Also, in statements made in 2006 or 2007 McDaniel offered a series of controversial thoughts on slavery, race and women. [7]
Another controversy arose when a supporter of McDaniel allegedly entered a nursing home where Cochran's bedridden wife was living and took pictures of her. [8] He posted them as part of a video to his blog, intending to advance the rumour that Cochran is having affairs while his wife was receiving care. [9] [10] Four people have been arrested in connection with the incident. [9] The connection to the McDaniel campaign is in dispute. One of the arrested included McDaniel ally Mark Mayfield, who is the vice chairman of the state's Tea Party. McDaniel and his campaign have not yet been officially "cleared" of a connection to the incident, according to Madison County District Attorney Michael Guest. [11]
Another controversy followed the primary election on June 3, 2014. Following the election, the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office announced it was investigating three McDaniel supporters who were locked inside the local courthouse, where primary ballots were held, on election night. [12]
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
bruising
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
In removing the section, editors point to WP:BLP. In wanting to keep the material, editors point to the fact that the material is backed up by multiple WP:RS, and WP:BLP should not mean whitewashing an article. This RFC attempts to answer two questions. 1. Should the material be included. 2. If so, what modifications should be made. Casprings ( talk) 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
McDaniel has made various statements and spoke in front of groups that have caused a range of controversies. He spoke to a neo-Confederate conference and costume ball hosted by a group that promotes the work of present-day secessionists and contends the the Confederate States of America should have won the American Civil War. A supporter of McDaniel allegedly entered a nursing home where Cochran's bedridden wife was living and took pictures of her. [1] He posted them as part of a video to his blog, intending to advance the rumour that Cochran is having affairs while his wife was receiving care. [2] [3] Four people have been arrested in connection with the incident. [2] The connection to the McDaniel campaign is in dispute. One of the arrested included McDaniel ally Mark Mayfield, who is the vice chairman of the state's Tea Party.
I don't see any issues whatsoever on why that material should not be included. It is factual information supported by an abundance of reliable sources. All it is needed is just some minimal editorial tweaking. Cwobeel ( talk) 22:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
McDaniels even defends his participation: State Sen. Chris McDaniel (R-MS) defended the Sons of Confederate Veterans, an organization whose events he has attended, as singly focused on historical appreciation and not "racist." "We're talking about an organization that our governor is a member of, that in the past that our senators have been members of, that many members of our House and Senate are members of," McDaniel said in an interview with The Weekly Standard published on Friday. "It's not a racist organization. It's a historical organization filled with reenactors and collectors. That's all it is." - So here is the notability of this controversy: MacDaniel himself is defending it. Cwobeel ( talk) 00:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
COMMENT I came here through the Feedback Request Service. The material as written in the quotebox at the top was removed properly. It was way too long, and way too detailed. The proposal above is better, if still a bit more detailed than it needs to be, but it's difficult to read. The controversies most certainly belong in the article, as he is a politician and controversies are political by definition. One opinion I'm seeing here is that all the controversies should be excluded from this article and placed in the article about the election. Consider that for a second. You'd end up with important, notable information about McDaniels that only exists in an article that's not about McDaniels. It's ridiculous. Anything notable about him (and controversies about politicians are almost inevitably notable) deserves mention in this article. That is not to say that this article needs to contain all the details of that controversy, however. In fact, the details and specifics absolutely do belong in the article about the election, because they were more important to the election itself than to the people involved.
The question then, is how much weight should they hold? The answer, I believe is about one or two sentences each. If someone could write up a single paragraph, with 2-4 sentences that gave a quick look at each of those controversies without the use of any weasel words, then I would fight to keep that in. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow, lotsa partisan tension here - any discretionary sanctions attached to this article? is there any connection to this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics ? Mosfetfaser ( talk) 05:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
COMMENT FROM AN OUTSIDER - I don't have an opinion on whether the material should or should not be included, because, as a neutral reader who knows nothing about the subject, I have no idea whether the material is important or not. I need more context. The lack of context is the real problem here. If the material does matter, the reader needs more information to know why it matters. For example, simply saying that McDaniel addressed a neo-Confederate conference does not give us any context as to why he addressed them and what he said to them (did he make statements supporting their goals? did he make statements opposing their goals? or did talk about something completely unrelated to their goals?). Perhaps more importantly, the reader needs to be told what was the fall out from this address was (was he criticized for speaking to them? Who by? Did it cost him votes in the election?). Blueboar ( talk) 16:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Chris McDaniel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
With Roy Moore in and McConnel targeted, his role is another watershed event in the takeover and citations indicate that consensus. Wikipietime ( talk) 13:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Nov 26 2017 Notch Up. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/double-barreled-bannon-he-targets-both-mississippi-gop-senators-n823051?cid=eml_nbn_20171126
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 17:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
bruising
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).