Talk:Ronna McDaniel

unexplained mass removal

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)

Not the editor who did that but I don’t think the Wynn content is encyclopedic, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER McDaniel’s job is to flack for the Republican party, just like her Democratic counterpart’s is. Her connection to the matter is ridiculously tenuous. Some people accused her of hypocrisy for not returning the Wynn money, though she called on the DNC to return the Weinstein money. Well, duh. If we noted every time a politico treated $enemyparty scandal differently from $ownparty scandal, wikipedia would fill up with ephemeral crud. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The text is supported by five high-quality sources, and there are endless more. If this were a non-story and trivial back-and-forth between political parties, it would not be covered in RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree, this more than meets basic guidelines for inclusion. Its well cited and not a flash in the pan story. It should be added back. ContentEditman (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually click through. They're all just the same quote from Sabrina Singh, the DNC's flack. Is wikipedia going to include every time an RNC spokesflack criticises the Democrats and gets quoted in the media? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recentism#News_spikes NPalgan2 (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The WaPo piece that the text sources explicitly ties McDaniel's DNC-Weinstein critique to the Wynn episode. There are countless more sources that do so. RS are not just reporting "Here's what Democrats say about Republicans". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

"McDaniel and the RNC were subsequently criticized for alleged hypocrisy." NPalgan2 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you want us to list them? Various op-ed writers (e.g. this[2], this[3] and this[4]), the DNC and some conservatives (e.g. this[5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Major national news outlets are literally running headlines and stories specifically about McDaniel's hypocrisy and her bad faith attacks on the DNC: WaPo[6], Politico[7], the Hill[8], BI[9]. Does anyone seriously object to this content, which has received significant coverage by a large number of high-quality RS, being added to the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I also believe that most of the Wynn material is not encyclopedic and should be pruned down.103.253.74.35 (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Birthday

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)

• @DB Durham NC: - I don't know, seems like nobody noticed. It's not in the "Latest Romney in politics is not a candidate" Freep source in the body. I just changed it. starship.paint ~ KO 14:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Clearly pro liberal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.85.204.226 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Uh huh. Can you point out anything specific that contains bias? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"In late July 2018, McDaniel falsely claimed that Twitter was shadow banning Republicans, including herself. Twitter did not shadowban Republicans, but due to a glitch, several prominent conservative and left-leaning Twitter accounts were not automatically suggested in the site's drop-down search results. Twitter responded, saying it would fix the bug."

This passage is not only biased but the passage is demonstrably false with recent releases of internal documents by Twitter itself. It should be altered to read:

"In late July 2018, McDaniel claimed that Twitter was shadow banning Republicans, including herself. Twitter claimed at the time that they did not shadowban Republicans, but that due to a glitch, several prominent conservative and left-leaning Twitter accounts were not automatically suggested in the site's drop-down search results. Twitter responded, saying it would fix the bug. After a change in leadership at Twitter, internal documents were released that not only indicated the company had been skewing the visibility of posts by conservatives, but was in regular contact with Democrat politicians in the federal government regarding such de-emphasis and deletion activities to remove specific types of expressions of ideas." Oculus Dexter (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Oculus Dexter, got a reliable source for that? And I don't mean the Twitter Files themselves. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Mass Removal of Content

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)

It's not a "mass removal of content" when you add a huge amount of content, two different editors who object to it remove it, and you try to reinsert it. Pinging @Snooganssnoogans:. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You both added and removed lots of content. The content that you added was (with one exception) poorly sourced and tangentially related to McDaniel. I don't think it's feasible to list all elections that that have occurred since she took over the RNC, we should only list the cases that RS tie to her leadership. So, for example, if an RS notes that she has a particular strategy (like Howard Dean's 'Compete in all states' strategy), that the RNC has a greater/worse record than was expected under her tenure or covers her involvement in a particular election, we should add it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Lede should summarize main body

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)

"Shadow banning"

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)

We can add it, but we'd need to note that her shadowban claims are false (as RS do). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think it's WP:DUE to mention it at all? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a significant part of McDaniel's story as RNC chair. Leaving it out would be strange. I strongly suggest you look at the article on BuzzFeed and read the section on "Accuracy and reliability."58.152.249.162 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I tested shadow banning long before Twitter admitted to the "bug". Twitter lied. I'm no fan of Ronna McDaniel, but Twitter's practice of shadow banning was absolutely and verifiably real. It is dishonest and unfair to this person to accept Twitters obviously disproven lie as being truthful and to label her statement as a falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.172.255.98 (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've recently removed it all because I didn't notice this discussion, and was reverted. This was probably not shadow banning as per FTN discussion determining the Vice article as fringe. However, McDaniel was 100% correct about the bug that actually happened and Twitter admitted it on its blog. Also, this is probably WP:UNDUE because of the lack of any persistent media coverage and because Twitter actually fixed the bug a month after the incident. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 16:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

POV

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)

• You never followed up...? starship.paint ~ KO 14:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Role in pushing unsubstantiated voter fraud claims in Arizona

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)

I trimmed down the section because there was way too much information about the Arizona Senate election 2018. This article is not about the senate election in AZ. This article is about McDaniel. I left in the article the relevant information about McDaniel.CharlesShirley (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: McDaniel's role in the Arizona 2018 election

There is no consensus to include this material.

Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (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.

---

Should the bolded text be kept in the article?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Politico reported in November 2018 that McDaniel called on the Republican candidate Martha McSally to be more aggressive during the ballot counting process in the Arizona Senate race. The Arizona Senate race remained undecided for several days after election night while all ballots were being accounted in a close contest. McSally held a lead by the end of election night, but her lead narrowed over the next few days, as more ballots were counted. During this time, both McSally and her Democratic opponent Kyrsten Sinema voiced support for counting all the ballots. Reportedly, the McSally campaign was being pressured from McDaniel for not being aggressive enough. For example, McSally did not lash out at election officials or suggest that there was foul play involved in the counting of ballots like Republican senatorial candidate in Florida, Rick Scott, did. There was no evidence of any fraud. Ultimately, on November 12, 2018, McSally conceded to Sinema, congratulating Sinema on becoming Arizona's first female Senator.

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)

Survey

• Support. It's absolutely crucial context to note that (1) McSally did not budge from McDaniel's pressure and (2) there was no evidence of fraud or wrong-doing in the counting of ballots. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty standard WP:SYNTH problems, and most of this doesn’t directly relate to McDaniel. A long tangent on Arizona that doesn’t actually tie in to McDaniel aside from one comment POLITICO said she made doesn’t really seem relevant. Toa Nidhiki05 14:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. So off-topic that the entire paragraph reads as WP:COATRACK material and should be blanked altogether. This content is about McSally, not McDaniel. This is demonstrated by the fact that in 3 news stories, we have only one passing reference to McDaniel. R2 (bleep) 16:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above 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.

D-Day is about celebrating Trump

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)

Disputed content

I reverted the following content:

Politico reported in November 2018 that McDaniel called on the Republican candidate Martha McSally to be more aggressive during the ballot counting process in the Arizona Senate race. The Arizona Senate race remained undecided for several days after election night while all ballots were being accounted in a close contest. McSally held a lead by the end of election night, but her lead narrowed over the next few days, as more ballots were counted. Reportedly, the McSally campaign was being pressured from McDaniel for not being aggressive enough.

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)

This is RS content about McDaniel's actions as RNC Chair, which includes in this instance, pressuring a GOP candidate who was allowing votes to be counted rather than lash out at officials for counting votes (like Rick Scott did). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that falsely characterizing the content didn't work, Snooganssnoogans is now leaning on the fact that the sources for the content are reliable. Well, there may be reliable sources somewhere that say that McDaniel washes her hair with Prell shampoo and brushes her teeth three times a day. That doesn't mean we need to include that information in the encyclopedia. The content fails WP:UNDUE. SunCrow (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The content has been in the article since November 2018. I have restored status quo ante pending consensus to remove the content. See also WP:DR and do not edit war. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Covid section

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)

Hiding a COVID-19 diagnosis and failing to inform others whom you've interacted with (thus endangering them and the broader) is notable. It's illuminating about this person and her politics. It helps readers understand her better. And it's reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hit job. She was instrumental proving covid came from China and the fake news vaccine. Can we include this 50/50 without being censored? Makofakeoh (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Incomprehensible edit by Malerooster

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:

• On September 30, 2020, McDaniel tested positive for COVID-19. She and the Republican National Committee disclosed the diagnosis publicly two days later, on October 2. The RNC did not inform individuals who had appeared at an event with McDaniel days earlier.

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)

2018 election

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)

This is a fair comment, I think. There doesn't seem to be much of anything in this article about the 2020 elections, other than the false claims of voter fraud part. What did she do prior to election day? I'm sure fundraising, GOTV programs, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

And the phrase "historic losses" with no citation or detail is problematic. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've replaced that sentence with McDaniel's promise of a "deep data dive".[16] – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Intro confused

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)

Quality Sources?

No problem with the sourcing, but presenting the media's reporting as fact is problematic. Flood87 (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

embarrassing

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)

Hi there, this is the talk page for a Wikipedia article- it is NOT a method for communicating with Ronna McDaniel. I would suggest googling. GraziePrego (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Completely Skewered

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)

Quite a few controversies are listed in the article already EvergreenFir (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Funny, we're usually getting complaints about this being a hit piece, not the "sanitized version". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

So are you getting mad that this page isn't hit piece enough for you?? Already the controversy section reads like a left wing MSNBC article. Just so you know, Wikipedia isn't supposed to take any sides either way.Bjoh249 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Strong bias

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 was (part of) a coup attempt and nobody with a healthy mind disputes that. Trump did nothing for hours to stop them. She supported the insurrectionists by defending them in her official function as RNC chair and Trump-supporter. I dont recall if she went as far as Trump calling the jailed insurrectionist "hostages". --Denniss (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

How Ronna McDaniel Backed Trump's Early Bid to Hold Power – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That is different from supporting an insurrection, and especially of that insurrection being a coup. 200.119.186.149 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you call the Trump fake electors plot if not a coup? In fact, it seems our page here doesn't cover it.... – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)