Talk:Corey Lewandowski

Where's the picture for this article?
A portrait-picture or action photo always enhances a WP article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Still no picture. How about a portrait-picture, or video of pulling someone down, by the collar? -- AstroU (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Announcements made by the campaign manager
Corey Lewandowski announces that Donald J. Trump will not participate in the last Repubican primary race debate before voting in Iowa. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC) --  PS:  Here's a good UK ref/article: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/jan/26/us-presidential-campaign-live-iowa-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-ted-cruz

Breitbart Incident
I created a well sourced section on the incident where Lewandowski allegedly assaulted a Breitbart reporter. A user removed the section which I undid with the following reasoning: Clearly important and possibly not even too much weight as it's prob. one of most covered aspects of Lewandowski so far this campaign. Regardless, the Trump campaign section has been mark as in need of expansion - which is definitely true - but does not preclude the ability to add well sourced info when available due to lack of info in rest of section. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  04:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the section in reference as it appeared - Incident with Breitbart journalist - it has been removed by User:DaltonCastle with the complaint of Coatrack. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  06:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking it to talk; I do appreciate the civility that is rare to find on Wikipedia. No one is saying keep zero mention of the incident. But its hard to argue that that is due weight for the incident when the section is virtually empty. There are sources down that describe Lewandowski's involvement with the Trump campaign after the many recent hits covering the incident. For example, here is a Wall Street Journal article about him. And the New York Time here. That was just a cursory look. His involvement in the Trump campaign is not notable because of this incident; it is notable because it is notable. So we can't create, virtually, a criticisms section without also including a larger section about his campaign management.


 * In addition, there seems to be lots of mixed messages on what actually happened in the incident, with several different levels of severity being claimed. I think for now we should certainly give the incident less weight while we await further details. Again, thank you for engaging on talk page. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Both a major editor and the young lady with bruises on her arm have resigned from Breitbart[News]. Quite interesting. -- AstroU (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, very interesting, I agree. I would elect to keep mention of the incident off the page until the story pans out more. There's almost certainly more to it. Although I can't imagine a consensus will listen to that. I'm keeping an eye on the page because this is the kind of subject that will likely experience vandalism. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi DaltonCastle - I see you removed mention of the AZ incident from yesterday with reasoning that "Removed info - bordering on COATRACK, just a criticism, no mention of protestor being unresponsive". I would like to respectfully disagree - the description in Wiki article accurately reflects the cited source - anything else would be editorializing. To remove a clearly noteworthy incident seems foolish. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  21:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If we want to fully depict the event, we would note that a protestor entered a Trump rally and after being asked to leave first, refused to do so. And that when he tried to walk away from Lewandowski and other campaign employees that he was pulled back and removed from the event. Just stating "Lewandowski pulled somebody by the collar" is not an accurate depiction. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is accurately reflecting the citation - and what is depicted in the video. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  22:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Re audio/video of breitbart/fields incident you wrote: "Removed info - again, bordering COATRACK if we dont't mention evidence that supports claim it was someone else". Where is the evidence that supports claim it was someone else? &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  21:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's already a dispute about the evidence and I think the way the article reads, roughly "here are her allegations, but Trump campaign denies" is the proper way to give attribution to an unsolved incident.DaltonCastle (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what it said originally. Once videos and audio was released, doesn't it only make sense to include? &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  22:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused here. Aren't there different videos that came out that both support different versions of the story? DaltonCastle (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. From what I understand the original videos released left some room for doubt who was the one who grabbed Ms. Fields. The later videos seemed more clear and the discussion moved on to the degree of touch. You can see how Breitbart world processed the story here &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  23:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All the same, its still speculative. I'd err on the side of less attribution for allegations such as this, rather than more, since, if its untrue, would need to be removed. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 points - 1) It wouldn't be false to say video released since the incident seem to corroborate parts of her story (or some version of that), as even if in some alternate universe more footage was released that proved it totally false, the footage released up until this point still suggested as alleged. 2) I don't think this story will ever wrap up - clearly the tactic is to deny flat out and move on so it's not like there's any future point to expect any 'real story' to be revealed. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  01:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair point. But my hesitations still remain - aren't we giving far more attribution to a minor event when the section should be about his campaign management? I believe we have proper attribution given all the information we have. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * At this risk of sounding partial, does an article like this one (Politico), along with the 3/20 Arizona incident, not seem to suggest a running theme and not just a one-off incident? <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  02:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this has panned out quite a bit already and does warrant a mention. In fact, it has resulted in further repercussions at Breitbart, although I'm not suggesting we go into too much detail about it in this bio. I agre that the Arizona incident should remain out, at least for now.- MrX 21:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While true, per se, it is unclear if there is more to the resignation or not. There is currently wide speculation, albeit from unreliable sources on both sides of the issue, over what may develop. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh I didnt' see your queries above. I'm going to reorganize and address underneath each of them. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm moving the conversation back down here to lessen confusion. Personally, I think the incident fro 3/20, having viewed the clip, is an example of sensationalism. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and therefore not meant as a place to list some unfashionable character's faults. He was criticized for an incident and the article states it in an impartial way.DaltonCastle (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You honestly don't think that if Cruz's campaign manager had pulled a protestor by the collar it would be a massive scandal? (Look what happened to Cruz's spokesman who tweeted a false video) <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  03:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know anything about Ted Cruz' spokesman's incident. But my initial reaction would be that such an event should be given appropriate attribution if reliably sourced, which I still believe should not be more than a quick mention. The most notable aspects on Lewandowski's campaign management are still what he does for Trump. This is a detail, not the story. I would say the same for whoever Ted Cruz' guy is too. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just leave this here. <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  21:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While I will keep an eye out for revelations, just to be clear, Buzzfeed is far from a reliable source. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I think that statement on Buzzfeed News is far from true. <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your | recent edits and would ask you to reconsider. All of the details you removed were heavily reported in multiple reliable sources and were central parts of the story. The fact that the Fields incident was noted by a fellow Washington Post reporter was repeatedly reported in numerous media reports, as he was the only other witness to the incident. The fact that the incident in Tucson was supposedly caught on camera has also been repeatedly reported. I think your edit has made the incident less clear and given far less context to a reader. As an aside, your assertion that "Buzzfeed is far from a reliable source" isn't accurate. I'm not sure how familiar you are with American politics, but Buzzfeed's political reporting is considered among the most reliable sources, with a stringent editorial standard and a number of exclusives that have been widely reported in the mainstream press. It's important to remember there is a difference between Buzzfeed's viral content and its political reporting. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding here. But you are giving far too much attribution to these events, aiding in sensationalism. Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Too much attribution for something like this could WP:COATRACK the article to make it entirely about allegations against Lewandowski. He is far more notable than just that. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * DaltonCastle, you changed the text of AZ incident to say that protestor was uncooperative. What is the source for that? Seems like you're making one big mix out of the whole story. On the one hand relying on Trump's statement that Lewandowski never grabbed the protestor - against clear video evidence as released by CBS reporter, while at same time claiming protester was uncooperative. <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>   (talk)  05:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I disagree with how you're characterizing the information that you're trying to remove. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS doesn't quite relate with what we're discussing here. The section says " you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research." Everything you removed was sourced from multiple, independent reliable sources, including the Washington Post, NBC News, and CBS News. Could you perhaps explain here what sort of source you're looking for, beyond the ones already used? I also do not understand your accusation of this being a coatrack article. Again, both of these incidents were covered in numerous, highly reliable sources. You say "he's far more notable than just that." You're certainly welcome to add other information about Lewandowski to the article. You'll likely find that a high concentration of coverage of Lewandowski was about these two incidents. Managers are often more low-key than candidates, but both of these incidents were highly visible and were heavily reported. I'm not really sure how it is "COATRACK"ing the article to include information about an incident involving the page's subject. If you think the article should be rewritten to make it sound neutral that is totally fair. I just think we should be cautious removing information that is helpful to a reader of the page without a good reason. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I still can't get over the fact that there is video evidence of the AZ incident which objectively shows Lewandowski grabbing collar of protester (as described in media like LA Times) and the article simply says: "campaign refutes the allegation". <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  07:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not too concerned about what the video shows, but more concerned that the fact there was a video that supposedly shows the incident is a highly relevant detail that was reported widely and also contributed to the level of reporting. It will need to be added back in I think. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not that you want to add it back, its how you want to use it. The video shows that the protestor was uncooperative and attempted to evade campaign staff, and then was pulled back. From my understanding, it was a private event and therefore the protestor was not welcome. Now this is just my personal opinion that I'm sure I'll take some flack for, but of the evidence I saw, I really cannot draw any conclusions that was violent. And media sensationalism to tear down someone's image over a minute detail is POV. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What either you or I think the video shows is irrelevant. What's relevant is what reliable sources say about it. And what they do say is the video appears to show him grabbing the protestor's collar. Wikipedia editors' personal views about whether that was a reasonable action or not is off topic and I don't think should be discussed on this talk page, or the page itself, per WP:FORUM. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but that doesn't dissuade me that this is sensationalism. Just because something is in a reliable source, does not mean it has to be put in Wikipedia. There are guidelines for this, such as WP:ATTRIBUTION which tell us that its often the correct point to pick out the essence of a reliable source rather than regurgitate their views. In this instance, it is best to keep it to a minimum. We don't want to replicate the sources' points-of-view or sensationalism; just the facts. And I prefer erring on the side of caution. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is his arrest also sensationalism? <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  15:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have corrected this sentence "On March 10, 2016, Michelle Fields, a reporter for Breitbart News, wrote that, after she asked Donald Trump a question when he approached her after a March 8, 2016, press conference in Jupiter, Florida, she was forcefully grabbed by Lewandowski and almost fell to the ground" to be "she approached him." Anybody who has watched the video can see that the reason why Lewandowski pulled her away is because she unexpectedly approached Trump. My notes here are not WP-worthy, but the correct fact in the context of this section is that she approached him. Adding a talk note here because this is contentious section. Full Decent (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If instead, the "him approaching her" is relating to something else which happened outside the scope of this sentence, then I think that is an equivocation which is designed to mislead the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulldecent (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)  Also perhaps I am falling victim misunderstanding the comma. It is not clear if the reporter is saying "this happened, then that" or if the article is saying: she said "that" after this happened.

Birth year
Reports about the above incident are giving Lewandowski's age as 41, which would make our given birth year of 1973 wrong. Our mistake or theirs? --BDD (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Was Lewandowski a New Hampshire State Policeman?
Slate magazine says so. Slate. So does Politico.

I spent some time researching this topic. Very few sources discuss his time in the police. This Washington Post story, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-and-lewandowski-an-unlikely-pair-of-kindred-spirits/2016/03/30/d82a58ca-f511-11e5-8b23-538270a1ca31_story.html, has verifiable attribution. It says "His own career has taken a few detours. A stint at a public relations firm felt confining, so he applied to the New Hampshire police academy, from which he graduated in 2006. For 3 1/2 years, Lewandowski did seasonal work as a marine patrol officer. But law enforcement, he said, was hard to manage against the demands of a family that now includes four children, ages 5 to 9." Some of everything (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2016
I would like to restore this content:

--- In 2013, Lewandowski worked for American Asian Ventures LLC, a Boston-based China consulting company whose company filing states it "develops and supports business operations in China... for international investors..." In a prospectus on the AAV's website, Lewandowski is listed as an instructor at a summer educational program to be held in Rhode Island for Chinese high school students. His role in the program is described thus: "he provides students with insights in State and Federal government as well as coordinates meetings in Washington, D.C." ---

It was removed by User:Neutrality at 00:16, 1 April 2016‎ on the basis that the sources are all primary. However, Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources clearly states that primary sources are ok for an article about a person, where the primary source is the person's employer: "a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source". This is the case for the American Asian Ventures references. On that basis can you please re-instate the removed content. --TheTrumpFiles (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

TheTrumpFiles (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. You boldly added the content on March 30  and  removed it on April 1. Please follow WP:BRD and establish consensus over the changes.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Trump Campaign
Seems like a lot of articles in past month have been written about Lewandowski's position and managerial role in the campaign that can be included here (e.g. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-corey-lewandowski-shrinking-role-campaign-221487 http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/trump-campaign-overhaul-manafort-lewandowski/) <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  04:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

18 september 1973
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3514166/Trump-campaign-manager-Corey-Lewandowski-charged-battery-grabbing-reporter.html --Danielvis08 (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A Politico article mentionts DOB by citing probable cause affidavit. I've used this source in our article. Politrukki (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Political "Operative"
Can anyone tell me why he is listed as a "Political Operative" rather than a "Campaign Manager"? Hillary's manager Robby Mook is listed as campaign manager, as is Jeff Weaver for Sanders. Political operative has a shady, negative tone. 98.66.63.219 (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because Mook was a campaign manager throughout his career, Lewandowski was an operative. <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  03:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mk17b. The reliable sources reflect this usage, see, e.g.:
 * Washington Post: "Lewandowski, a longtime political operative"
 * Another Washington Post: "intense political operative"
 * NPR: "Until recently, Corey Lewandowski was an obscure political operative."
 * The Guardian: "While Trump has stood by Lewandowski through the controversy, the political operative’s influence has been waning in recent weeks."
 * Neutralitytalk 15:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The reliable sources you listed are to the left. I mean, Washington Post? Why not just use MSNBC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:A980:8A00:E1C8:7076:2842:E7E5 (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * One user has changed "political operative" to "political consultant." Since this is somewhat related to the earlier discussion, I'm posting about it under this section. As explained above, the broad array of reliable sources describe him as an "operative."  For most of his career, he was not a "political consultant," and this is reflected in the most-recent materials (even after he was hired by CNN). For example,
 * Associated Press (June 24, 2016): Corey Lewandowski, who debuted as a CNN contributor three days after being fired as Donald Trump's campaign manager, is hardly the only political operative that a cable news network is paying to talk about politics. Paul Begala (Bill Clinton's former aide), David Axelrod (Barack Obama), Karl Rove (George W. Bush), Steve Schmidt (John McCain), Donna Brazile (Al Gore) and Joe Trippi (Howard Dean) all work at either CNN, Fox News Channel or MSNBC.
 * CBS News/AP: CNN snapped up former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to work as a political commentator on Thursday, only three days after the political operative was fired.
 * Neutralitytalk 16:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Every other person in that AP list is listed as a political consultant, political strategist, or campaigner on Wikipedia. The question is not whether media refers to him as that, but instead whether it is an accurate and unbiased description. AidanWelch (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, why would we question a news organization headed by the brother of one of President Obama's NSAs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:A980:8A00:E1C8:7076:2842:E7E5 (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Massachusetts candidacy
"In 1994, while an undergraduate student, Lewandowski ran for a seat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, losing to Thomas A. Golden Jr., a Democrat."

The Massachusetts Election Statistics for 1994 says Golden was elected without Republican opposition. The source for that claim on here didn't mention a candidacy. But biographical articles on Lewandowski from 2015 mention a 1994 candidacy, implying he faced Golden directly. The Guardian had a story that Lewandowski tried to qualify for the election by running as a write-in candidate in the primary but he failed to amass enough votes. Just some extended information on the edit I made. --RobbieFal (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Great catch, thank you for this. Neutralitytalk 15:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

State Attorney's statement
I have restored a bit of context of the State Attorney's statement from the article, which another editor had removed (on the ground that it was "overquote"). I don't think it's excessive overquotation, as it the statement is important, gives the reader some important information about how prosecutors viewed the case, and not duplicated elsewhere in the article. In the context of the full article, this snippet seems quite short. Neutralitytalk 23:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditto with the salary info here, which I've restored. This info is less important to me than the State Attorney's statement (for which I think it is actually misleading to omit the full quote), but I nonetheless feel that this is worth a short mention. It's well-sourced&mdash;from a Wall Street Journal article focused on Trump's campaign staff and their compensation. I think that reflects some degree of noteworthiness justifying a short sentence. I've just added similar salary info to the article on Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager. Neutralitytalk 23:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

'Collar video' dispute
The statement about what the video shows is followed by a disputation and cites articles headlined with denials. I thought a disputed tag was in order until we get this resolved. I believe that there is no question the fact this statement is in dispute is verifiable. Incidentally, who makes a writing utensil that looks just like the thing they stick you with and tell you its a test for diabetes? 55378008a (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Womp Womp
This new article is declined. Please support by editing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Womp_Womp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.204.154.155 (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

While this shouldn't be a stand alone article, the incident was noteworthy enough to include it in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? Must be a slow news cycle.(womp, womp)--Malerooster (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a constructive comment and its nature suggests that you approve of Lewandowski's comment and find it humorous. Am I getting that right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No.--Malerooster (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So what was the point of the "womp, womp"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No point, just womp womping, I am allowed.--Malerooster (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Finding something humorous and approving of it in all contexts are not the same thing. AidanWelch (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

age of his children?
Today Corey Lewandowski testified (or refused to) and a privilege he referred to was referred in turn to as being like the Tooth Fairy (i.e.: nonexistent). He responded that his children were watching, thanks, to imply that they were of an age that the conversation might tip them off that the Tooth Fairy. (Saying that outright would be original research, but that isn't my intent.) This raises the question, of a man whose testimony does not impress as truthful, what are the ages of his 4 children? Are any of them REALLY of an age to believe such? This testimony makes the question relevant. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:643B:6BBA:E36D:159F (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Section header states that he was drunk with no support
The section says that whether he might be drunk was questioned; the section heading says drunk. 98.7.201.234 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"only work sets you free" as 2020 Senior Adviser
I don't know if wikipedia need to be put this on but here is the informations if wiki needs it.

The entire video. She might not be available for eternity but there is a link to the video.

Transcript : ''Hey, this message for the Alpha Freedom Friends This is Corey Lewandowski. You know me as President Trump's 2016 campaign manager and his current 2020 senior adviser. Look, I want to say freedom only for the members of the government or only for the members of the party is no freedom at all. We need to end the China virus lockdown, and only work sets you free. Let's get everyone back to work, let's get our economy growing again, let's send Donald Trump and Mike Pence back to the White House for four more years.''

I don't know if he knows what the sentence refers to in German.

Newsweek : pretty biaised media in my opinion but it's just a start to know what happend.

the video on twitter if the link to the original video doesn't work anymore.

Other news channel have not begin to report it because I post this very early.

2A02:A03F:C92F:3F00:71D5:25A:1CCB:2BC4 (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That Kristi Noem
Is Corey tappin that or no? Lots of media reporting its been going on for years and well known in GOP circled 2603:8081:8700:3E9C:C442:43B8:2BF5:5FEF (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Vanity Fair is the best source we have, and it's referring to a Daily Mail story, a deprecated source, so we should wait for much better sourcing. It's only an allegation at this stage, so we write nothing until there are several very RS that report it, and then, true or not, we do write about it according to BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE instructions. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining that do well. I get it 2603:8081:8700:3E9C:C442:43B8:2BF5:5FEF (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Womp Womp defense should be improved
In this CNN video he argues that the "Womp Womp" was directed towards what he was implying was politically motivated compassion, that should probably at least be mentioned in the portions talking about his defense of it. AidanWelch (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)