Talk:Herman Cain

COVID-19 vs complications of
Please discuss before changing again, this is silly. —valereee (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Damn silly. The lead and infobox blame COVID directly, no citations. This is somehow supposed to reflect the body, which blames complications, citing a Rolling Stone article which blames nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the sources say CV-19 then we say that, but if they just says complications we should not add our own guesses. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, though, there are no "the sources". Some say neither, some choose either, some say "coronavirus" which can imply both end results. Our only currently-selected guy (Peter Wade) leaves it up to our imagination, can't guess why we chose him. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While we decide who we want to echo, I've removed any cause from the part citing a story without one, and am thinking about removing the unsourced bits blaming COVID (but one's in the lead, which I swore to not touch). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * undid this, claiming "COVID-19 complications" is in the title. Even if headlines counted, I see "coronavirus". Discuss? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is your suggestion that Cain died of some other coronavirus? The title is clear that "Herman Cain, Former Presidential Candidate, Dies From Coronavirus at 74", and COVID-19 is specified in the article body. I'm not sure what is even being argued here—there are plenty of other reliable sources explaining that Cain died of COVID-19 if for some reason Rolling Stone is not clear enough. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The coronavirus leads to COVID-19, but that can lead to other things, like drugs, ventilators or secondary infections (among other "complications"). The headline does nothing in deciding how it ended for him. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why removing the cause of death entirely was the best solution here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And I still don't see if you believe the source says he died of COVID-19 or of its complications. You're saying the former and restoring the latter. We need to use a clear source, first step. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion one way or another on whether we say he died of "complications from COVID-19" or just "COVID-19"—my objection was to removing any mention of COVID-19 in the cause of death when that is a) supported by the source inline, and b) supported by countless other sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Which cause of death is plain textually supported by the source inline? Neither. Find one that claims whichever cause of death we do. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're saying the Rolling Stone source doesn't support this, when the title is quite clear, but rather than go back and forth on it I've just added one of tens of sources out there that also supports this fact. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * First, headlines are meant to attract, not report. Whole other department. Even if trusted on "dies from coronavirus", the coronavirus can result in death from either COVID or complications. Wade didn't specify, so both were assumptions. This NBC guy (Adam Edelman) does give a cause, which does confirm ours, so that's 100% better, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He died of coronavirus... FactCheck.org 2607:FEA8:BE1:5180:B095:DB9E:320:E0E5 (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Anon
 * Nobody is saying we should say he died of cancer. The pedantic argument that's going on here is "died from COVID-19" versus "died after COVID-19 complications". The two mean exactly the same thing, the latter being more clinical and accurate, the former being a shorter (hence why it's seen in a lot of headlines) but slightly less medically accurate way of saying the exact same thing. The latter formulation is definitely more appropriate for an article like this, but for some absurd reason some people hallucinate some sort of political difference between the two formulations, despite them meaning the exact same thing, and are insisting that "complications" be left out, as if it's some sort of Republican conspiracy theory to use medically accurate terminology. The way COVID-19 kills is by causing further pathophysiological complications: acute respiratory disorder syndrome (ARDS), a cytokine storm which can further result for example in blood clots, which can result in thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolisms, ischaemic events, multiple organ failure in particular heart and kidneys, septic shock etc. Anyone interested in being medically accurate would write "COVID-19 complications" (as long as they have the space to do so), at least if they understand anything at all about the pathophysiology of COVID-19 and how it kills people. But editors are instead of focusing on what formulation of the sentence sounds most politically useful to "their side". MarcelB612 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, there are people (incorrectly) claiming he died of a colon cancer that he'd been in remission for 14 years and hadn't returned. Check the edit history of the article, you'll see COVID19 being replaced with "colon cancer" fairly regularly. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm aware, but nobody is proposing that here in Talk. MarcelB612 (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He had cancer, he would not have made it through the year anyway. 47.188.140.129 (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Think should be included in lead. Clearly relevant that he opposed mandates and protection and then died of Covid. Ponyshine (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Herman Cain with wife.png

r/HermanCainAward
This will likely go into a "Popular Culture" section if this subreddit becomes anymore famous. It's a subreddit dedicated to granting a fictional award named in Herman Cain's honor to people who died of COVID after routinely promoting "anti-mask, anti-vaxx, or Covid-hoax views", similar in spirit to the Darwin Awards.--Craigboy (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Herman Cain Awards now is being mentioned by mainstream sources. --Craigboy (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I updated your source link to point to the story, not the newspaper's current 'front page'. —ADavidB 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added two sentences about it given the attention it's received, though I see reverted a link to it about a week ago over BLP and undue weight concerns. Citing (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again, sorry - thank you for the ping. To use the example provided above, and without implying any qualitative similarity between the work of Cain and Darwin, I will also note that Darwin's page makes no mention of the Darwin Awards, as despite their increased prominence compared to the reddit sub-page, the award is unconnected to the person except in the name and in the inspiration; the connection is simply too tenuous to warrant inclusion. The same reason applies to Cain; inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. BilledMammal (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Citing (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not fair enough. Herman Cain is not as famous as Darwin, and is unknown in most parts of the USA and completely unknown to the rest of the world, had it not been for this award. It would also be completely reasonable for the Darwin page to include a section on "Darwin award", either as a "See also" or "Popular culture". The absence in one article does not justify the absence in the other, especially given the difference in how famous/infamous the two are for a global audience. Ctrlaltdelete200390 (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I should also add that there is considerable debate on the talk page of Darwin award whether it represents true Darwinism, and should therefore be associated with Darwin. As for the Herman Cain award, the link clearly more obvious as representative of people succumbing to, while holding onto, what most people would call conspiracy ideas, hence the link to the irony of the situation. Ctrlaltdelete200390 (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Does it still fall under BLP considering he is dead? 51.37.145.224 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BLP provisions can be extended for up to two years after death, per WP:BDP. I will note that while I believe that this subject would fall under that clause, the fact that over a year has a passed since he died means that if others object to their continued applicability I am willing to accept it.
 * However, I would continue to believe that any such inclusion would be undue, and would request that a discussion is held here to determine whether there is a consensus for its addition before the addition is made. BilledMammal (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been readded, and while I continue to believe it is undue I will leave it there for now, particularly as it seems a recent "spike" in views is likely attributed to this award which, depending on the long term consequences and coverage, might mean that his notability is sufficiently related to the "award" that its inclusion would be due. BilledMammal (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * With more evidence, I think it should be permanently removed as WP:UNDUE. It resulted in a September news cycle blip that briefly brought attention to this article, but that blip was very brief WP:NOTNEWS applies, with it being clear that the enduring notability of Cain is entirely unrelated to the award - it seems very unlikely that a future biography of Cain would even mention the award. BilledMammal (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: Tweets. I won't re-remove this sentence, particularly now that it sourced (see source three; one and two don't cover the response) but my concerns about whether a mention of the award is due is even greater for the tweets; I see no reason why they are more than a quirky story that will never have any long-term impact on his notability, particularly since the tweets have not been connected to the creation of the award, despite the implication currently in the text from the use of "consequently". BilledMammal (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone and removed it now. Apart from the brief initial coverage, it has had no long term relevance in discussion about Cain or in general. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that its presence is unwarranted in Cain's biography. If the subreddit had its own article it would be appropriate for said article to link to Herman Cain, but not vice versa. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Just as Darwin Awards isn't mentioned on Charles Darwin, and Let's Go Brandon isn't mentioned on Joe Biden, not every aspect named after or related to a subject warrants inclusion in the article on the subject, despite what trivial dregs clogging far too many "in popular culture" sections of otherwise decent articles might suggest. I think WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROPORTIONATE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:VNOTSUFF argue against inclusion for now. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My impression is that Cain's anti-scientific views in relation to COVID-19 transmission mitigation are likely worth a mention if reliable sources exist. The "award" is only a side effect of that and it's important to avoid misrepresenting it.  "Celebrate" in this case would also obviously be a metaphor.  Activists don't party when people die, they try to increase public awareness, a type of education against ignorance and its consequences.  The context is similar to public vigils where people visit or light a votive candle (yet it's not impossible that divisive agitators or foolish people also participate).  If the latter should be documented, it belongs in articles like Controversial Reddit communities or at one of the subarticles related to, etc.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Shocking that Herman Cain Award is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Seems ridiculous to not reference it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:1C00:943:9D26:82B9:50FB:DC98 (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Celebrate
This word generates unnecessary heat. One source (WaPo) sees schadenfreude in this. One source (Vice) says "celebrate" about the Darwin Awards, not the Herman Cain one. One source (Slate) says "celebrate" twice, about the cain Awards. But that is no reason to put that in Wikipedia voice. Schadenfreude is an opinion. "Celebrate" is still an opinion, but one notch higher. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Slate didn't present it as an opinion, it presented it as a fact - and while it seems that some editors personal research into this suggests otherwise, we don't base our articles on our own research. However, as mentioned in my edit summaries, I have no objection to replacing "celebrate" with "schadenfreude", as it is a term used by all three sources, rather than just one.
 * I will note that I still think this section is WP:UNDUE, but while we have it, it should reflect the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The award is worth mentioning since it is well covered in rs. I think though the term "celebrate" is meant ironically. TFD (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly well covered; it was mentioned part of a brief news spike (WP:NOTNEWS), and we also need to consider whether it is relevant to this article, and I don't see the fact that it is named after Cain to be sufficient evidence of this. BilledMammal (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: It should be mentioned that a parallel discussion regagaring this topic is occurring at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. I think the bulk of discussion regarding the inclusion of HermanCainAwards and how to characterize it should remain here and not there, so that consensus is more clear and future editors don't need to mine the backwoods of Wikipedia to find past relevant past discussions. Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Herman Cain award
Currently, the subreddit r/HermanCainAward has over 400,000 subscribers. I think that's worth a mention... 71.212.126.227 (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So what? r/science has over 26 million subscribers, yet it is not mentioned at Science. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unlike science, Herman Cain's recent mentions in notable media are primarily about the award. 14.203.183.15 (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

COVID tweet
I reverted the tweet that was recent added as a quote to the "Health and death" section and wanted to start a discussion about that. The tweet was placed there because it was supposedly ironic that he tweet it, but that tweet, with no elaboration or explanation does not belong in "Health and death" at all. For one, even though it says "Herman Cain's account" it still makes it sound like he tweeted it, which he obviously did not. The fact that his Twitter account manager still tweeted after his death may warrant some small mention in the article (though I doubt it), but the edit that was introduced is absolutely not the way to do that. - Aoidh (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)