Talk:Chris McDaniel

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.

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)[reply]

Just reads like a political attack story, a lot of which is nothing to do with the persons life history Mosfetfaser (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the material is valid for inclusion. Some is not. The salacious details about other speakers at the Sons of Confederate Veterans is excessive. The "cleared" language is misleading and should be removed. Based on the update to the lockin story, it is not interesting. Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose use of material because it reads like an attack piece which violates WP:BLP and WP:DUE. The constant use of the word "controversy" and "allegedly" is in itself undue. Suggest the article get rewritten with a neutral viewpoint and stick to what is known as fact, not "alleged." SW3 5DL (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the material cited above. There may be some valid content and sources there but my impression from reading it is that someone has a strong POV and wants to degrade the BLP subject. A great deal of the material is given undue weight, is off topic and original research.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Candidates routinely speak to all kinds of groups and people. The material above plays a sleazy guilt-by-association game. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts? Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea - still a political attack, none of this is anything to do with the person - 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.Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• McDaniel spoke to a neo-Confederate conference and costume ball hosted by a group that promotes the work of present-day secessionists and reportedly said the the Confederate States of America should have won the American Civil War.[1] - seems ok - Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The stuff relating to Cochran's wife and the courthouse definately does not belong. It is a clear violation of BLP and WP:COAT. Unless there is some evidence connecting him to these events, they do not belong in this article. The campaign article is the appropriate location. This sentence is just a strange collection of negative adjectives to imply.....what? "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." What does this even mean? Who are these mystery people and what was the capacity of the conversation? Arzel (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One was Ryan Walters who worked for him. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/gop-senate-candidate-spoke-neo-confederate-conference-august Casprings (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Article currently states: "McDaniel has also spoken at conferences held by the Sons of Confederate Veterans." Personally I think this is neutral and sufficient detail on this subject. The content regarding activity by his supporters is definitely not relevant to his WP:BLP.CFredkin (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't grasp how one can exclude any mention of the nursing home. He is running for office and indivuals with clear conections to his political campaign have been arrested. To not mention that seems a white wash. Given that he is mainly notable for running for office, that is clearly an event that deserves mention.Casprings (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he is mainly known for running for office, then his BLP will be pretty short, but that doesn't justify added things alledgedly done by some of his supporters into his BLP. The campaign article talks about the nursing home stuff, why do you think it belongs here? Arzel (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the event and his either non-involvement or involvement is a major issue for him. It should be included because it is notable in his bio, whatever his involvement. It should also be included on the campaign article.Casprings (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whatever his involvement? There is no evidence that he is involved in the least. That some moron did something really stupid and probably illegal has no bearing on McDaniel. I know that some have tried to connect him to this, but unless there is some actual evidence it is not a part of his bio. Arzel (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, whatever his involvement. It is one of the major issues in the campagin and any summery using WP:SS of the campaign in this article should mention it. Currently the summery contains mostly non-notable pro-McDaniel prose.Casprings (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Who says it is a major issue? The sources you supplied are all quite left of center, TPM, MJ, Hot Air... do you have some main stream sources claiming that this is a major factor in the campaign? If there was something that actually tied him to this event, then that would be a different story, but that is not the case. As I stated earlier, SS would be sufficient to state that his supporters have caused him problems, but there is nothing to indicate that any specific by included. Arzel (talk)
            • On sources, take your pick. https://www.google.com/search?q=Nursing+home+Chris+McDaniel&rlz=1CASMAE_enUS568US568&oq=Nursing+home&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l4.5298j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=Nursing+home+Chris+McDaniel&tbm=nws . I have no problem with a fair representation of the issue. However, any WP:SS of the campaign should mention it because it is one of the major events of the campaign.Casprings (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have read several articles and I am not seeing anything that is making it a major issue. It is mentioned, but I have yet to see anything that connects it to McDaniel. You are saying it is a major article, but the sources have it as a minor issue and most mention it in passing, thus we give it a minor, if any, mention via SS to maintain NPOV and WEIGHT. BLP trumps, and we have to be careful not to imply that he had anything to do with it unless there is explicit information which connects him to it. Arzel (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I can support the proposed edit. That makes sense to me.Casprings (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The first sentence tells us everything that we need to know. The first sentence points out that the groups did things that are controversial. It is clear from that first sentence that those groups did these things, not McDaniel, and as such these incidents may or may not be a valid topic in articles written those groups. But at any rate those incidents are not a valid topic about McDaniel. Under this line of reasoning we need to outline all of the controversial things that Planned Parenthood has done in its history in the Hillary Clinton article because Clinton has been known to communicate with Planned Parenthood, etc. It is a definitely an attempt to develop this article into a coatrack.--NK (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More inline with Clinton speaking in front of the Communist Party of the United States with someone that worked for your first campaign. Sometimes, a group is so far out of the mainstream that addressing them is notable and picked up by multiple WP:RS. That is the case here.Casprings (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There are tons of problems with the information. It is not notable. The information does not have a tie to the topic of the article, which is McDaniel. Also, to include it is POV-pushing and the creation of a coatrack.--NK (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information would also violate BLP.--NK (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its POV-pushing not to include it. It is information on him that is covered by multiple WP:RS. It is far more significant information than rather he is a member of the exchange club. Where in WP:BLP does it say articles can not cover negative information? These are covered by many WP:RS and should be included in the article.Casprings (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the statements you just made are all true, but you are dancing around the issue that I have clearly pointed out. You have not made a tie to the subject of the article Chris McDaniel. This article is about Chris McDaniel. It is not about the Confederate group so therefore there is no notability. Please show us the reliable source that says McDaniel is a member of that organization. Also, please show us the reliable source that states that McDaniel broke into that nursing home. I am ready to review whatever reliable source that you have.--NK (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring. No one is saying that there are sources that say that McDaniel is a member of that right wing organization. But he spoke at their events and that is a fact, which has been reported in multiple sources. We do not say that MacDaniel broke into the nursing home, but people directly involved in his campaign did, which is a fact reported in multiple sources as well. Cwobeel (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This does prove that the topic is prefect for the article that talks about the 2014 Mississippi Senate campaign, but it does not provide notability for the Chris McDaniel article. Nothing you provided shows that McDaniel is a member of the organization. Do we include in the Hillary Clinton article the information about every far left organization that Hillary Clinton defends or supports or even talks to? No. And the same applies to Chris McDaniel. Should we integrate into the Barack Obama article every single organization that he has every talked to or defended or supported? No. And the same applies to Chris McDaniel. I'm still waiting on a reliable source that proves that McDaniel is a member of this organization. If it isn't POV-pushing shouldn't you simply mention this information in the campaign article and move on? Yes.--NK (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about controversies, not about public speaking issues. The controversy itself is what is notable. Cwobeel (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And lets not leave out the nursing home. This is an issue he has responded to and is continued to be used in connection to him. This is another example: http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/10/gloves-off-thad-cochran-calls-chris-mcdaniel-a-dangerous-extremist/ Casprings (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are all campaign issues, they belong in the campaign article. They are a controversy for the campaign, but not McDaniel personally. The most that should be here is a summary, something along the lines of "McDaniel's campaign was subject to some controversy because of the actions of some of his supporters." with a link to the senate campaign article. Arzel (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it being included per Wikipedia:Summary style. However, summary should include the most notable events. The nursing home and the speech in front of the sons of the confederacy are among them. Much of what is currently there isn't.Casprings (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with a WP:SUMMARY either. Cwobeel (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CFredkin: The edit you reverted 1 was made per the discussion above. If we want to use summery style, that is fine. However, the summery should have the most notable elements of the linked page. That section is not that. The way it is written is a violation of WP:neutral and reads as something out of a Mcdaniel promotional product. It should be removed and a discussion should be had on what are really the most important elements of the linked article to be used in a WP:SS. I would ask that you revert yourself and talk about it.Casprings (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm ok with removing the endorsements. However the other content in the edit is well-sourced and relevant.CFredkin (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

issue is sadly that it is weasel words that are desired, no one is gonna write a neutral version of this and a neutral version has no place in this story anyways - when a neutral version of the story is written it is clear and apparent that it has no place in this story . This is the story of his life, what he has done, not what others may or may not have done on some associated angle - add it to some related controversy story, not here in his story Mosfetfaser (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One needs to note that user:CFredkin seems to have Wikipedia:Canvassing NK here Both editors have a very similar view on the content and I believe this notification was done to skew the normal consensus process.Casprings (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NK has a history of editing on this page.CFredkin (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As did many other editors. If you informed all editors who edited the page, there would be no problem. However, you informed the one editor who you thought would view the content in the same way you view it. As per Wikipedia:Canvassing, " canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion ". If you want to make it right, I would suggest informing all editors who edited the article or the talk page.Casprings (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's at least as neutral as this edit.CFredkin (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was made to a noticeboard. Per Wikipedia:Canvassing, that is not canvassing.Casprings (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is an article in American politics, so I would assume that there is a possibility that a decision in the case would effect the article. Also some of the people who took part in the case, including myself, are editing the article.Casprings (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no decision yet that I see, so I don't know how relevant that ArbCom case is at this point. Cwobeel (talk)

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)[reply]