Talk:Herman Cain/Archive 1

Untitled
Is this in the public domain? It is from his personal website. Srnec 22:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is this person?
The article should start with something like "Hermain Cain is ..." before the stuff about his birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelago (talk • contribs) 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone get a picture of Cain?
It would help this article and Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 as well. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.119.245 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a free use photo of Cain. I would upload it myself, but the Flickr tool is not currently working.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the photo. Does anyone know how to upload it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.119.245 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The tool is now working so I have uploaded it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

First Comp. Sci. prez?
If Herman Cain runs for president, would he be the first person with a degree in computer science to do so? Have there been any other presidential candidates with a degree in computer science? Although Ross Perot founded two computer companies, I don't believe he had a degree in computer science. Perot graduated around the time the UNIVAC I was first sold, so computer science probably didn't even exist as a discipline back then. --JHP (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed "Business career" section
I just removed the "Business career" section because it was obviously lifted from an old version of http://www.hermancain.com/biography-narrative.asp, although now that link is inaccessible. (In my edit summary, I said it was lifted from https://www.science.purdue.edu/for-alumni-and-friends/alumni-recognition-a-awards/honorary-doctorates/83-herman-cain, but the source of that article points to the previous hermancain.com link, which contains the same language as the removed section.)

The information in that section was useful, but it needs to be added in a process that isn't


 * 1) Refer to source
 * 2) Repeat the language, making a few alterations as you go

There were two references (besides the aforementioned hermaincain.com link) in the removed section. I've included them below, in case anyone wants to reintroduce the points. If you do reintroduce them, please also don't reproduce the tone of the original section, though. The language hermancain.com was approaching puffery, as expected.

http://www.hermancain.com/inner.asp?z=1 http://wsbradio.com/inside/herman_cain_bio.html

Political views?
As he might run for President of the United States it might be good to have his known political views stated in this article. Yes, there is information about his support for the gold standard (which IS important information) but what about other important political issues? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.13.195 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Federal Reserve?
Being the head of a regional fed is huge; it's a rare and privileged position. If Chairman means that he's been the head of the Kansas Fed then it needs a proper section.
 * I dont feel its all that important. Sure its enough to mention, but its not as if thats his whole work history.  I mean what else would be in the section your proposing other then that one fact?Obsidi (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Two campaigns?
A recent Weigel piece quotes Rick Santorum on Cain: "He's never won an election! ... And it's not that he hasn't tried. He's run twice, and lost." This article covers the 2004 Senate race, but (unless I'm missing something) that's it. Who's wrong, Santorum or this article? – hysteria18 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetized sections
Do the main sections have to be in alphabetical order? Shouldn't the Personal life section go more in the middle above political views? It could also be added to.Libertybrewcity (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought chronological order was preferable. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Political Activities
Some NPOV issues have been cleaned up: - one which simply altered the order of sentences in the existing paragraph regarding his comments on not hiring anybody who is muslim in a manner which was rather misleading - one which claimed him to have been a major figure behind the overthrow of the 1993 Healthcare Bill. He wasn't even President of the National Restaurant Association, so as with all political wikis, it would be nice if people didn't try to rewrite history in so blatant a manner. Marty jar (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather than using a paraphrase (by whom?) to describe what Cain 'specifically stated' regarding no appointments of Muslim cabinet members, a direct quote from the source is now in place, which should not be misleading. —ADavidB 08:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've replaced that with a quote from Cain himself, rather than from Huffpost. The paragraph should really run in an appropriate order - rather than being a paragraph about Cain not being in favor of Sharia Law (which is obvious, and could be added to pretty much every wiki page), it's his statement on being willing to discriminate which the links are about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty jar (talk • contribs) 12:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem with direct quotes from Cain, as long as context is included. Analysis beyond the cited source(s) would seem to be original research, however.  —ADavidB 09:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're referring to as original research - I changed it from a quote from a HuffPost blogger to a quote from Cain himself. I've extended the quotes; made a couple of minor factual changes (the question in the reference cited specified that the question was asked in relation to his previous comments, and he went on to expand on his reasoning himself), and provided the major objection, which is rather important if we're getting into longer quotes.Marty jar (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fully sourced, current version of this paragraph is fine with me, no longer appearing to contain original research. I made only grammar changes and expanded citation templates. —ADavidB 08:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/
I don't see why this is a reliable source. It appears to just be some guy's blog with no notability as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.150.42 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing NACC Content
The NACC content on this page is false and is inconsistant with other wikipedia pages that claim the opposit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Competitiveness_Council). It is not sourced by a reliable source, and I got proof that it is false It was claimed that Herman Cain was representing whirlpool (as he is on the board of directors for whirl pool), however according to the NACC (http://coa.counciloftheamericas.org/files/editor/image/03%20NACC%20Members.pdf), you must be a senior executive, and not just on the board like herman cain was. According to documents released under the FOIA here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/SPPFOIADocsSecVII.pdf Sarah Bovim was the executive representing Whirlpool in the NACC. According to NACC only one executive per company is a part of this. Sarah Bovim's linked in page is here to show that she does exist and is a senior executive: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sarah-bovim/6/b38/202 Just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of the reasons that I am removing this false content, so I dont get reverted. Please at least say your reason here before you revert the changes I make.Obsidi (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Political Positions
This list on one-line statements could really be rationalized. Some of them are exceptionally inane, and from a CPOV. For example, the immigration section included insights such as that he's against illegal immigration; believes we should try to make our borders secure, and that at some point, illegals will have to become citizens...I may as well go and add those points to the pages of every politician in the country - potentially every country in the world. Marty jar (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

New article
This section will only get bigger, so I created a new article and moved everything there - Political positions of Herman Cain. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

several parts of this article carry an obvious bias
For instance, "In February 2011, Cain addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).[27] Ed Morrisey of the conservative website Hot Air said he "stole the show" and that some attendees were moved to tears by the speech.[28] In contrast, liberal website AlterNet accused Cain of pandering to white conservatives and referred to him and other black conservatives as "garbage pail kids". Cain called the news website's attacks racist and condemned its "shameful behavior"."

characterizing the, "liberal," response as racist through the comments of one man who said something is just kind of dumb-- and obviously not appropriate 98.71.96.196 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)miah

Zogby poll correction
The line reading "A Zogby poll on October 7, 2011, showed Cain as the front-runner in the Republican primary by 20%." is incorrect. The poll was conducted on Oct 5, and published Oct 6. I have changed the line to read "A Zogby poll conducted October 5, 2011" 173.28.153.186 (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been a new poll by Quinnipiac on November 2, 2011 where Cain is beating Romney in a national poll. Cain would take 47 percent to Romney's 39 percent in a head-to-head contest

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67411.html#ixzz1chDeuw4p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofmyth (talk • contribs) 01:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 "Quoting a poet"
August 12's Republican debate, presidential candidate Herman Cain quoted a 'poet' as saying "life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it's never easy when there's so much on the line." These are lyrics from the theme song to the movie "Pokemon: The Movie 2000."
 * The Mystery of Herman Cain and the Donna Summer Lyrics.87.178.126.145 (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, lyrics from songs are actually often written as poems, and then set to music... hence the term 'poet' is not an inaccurate term here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.0.119 (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

American Fascist?
Currently the opening to this article says "Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is an American Facist". Presume this is, er, incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.37 (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That was obviously an act of vandalism, which has thankfully been reverted.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Economics career?
The lede refers to a "business and economics career." I don't think serving as an outside director for the Kansas City Fed rises to the level of an "economics career." Mr. Cain does not seem to have any formal education in economics. I'm going to remove the "economics" reference. If you disagree, let's discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahaun (talk • contribs) 01:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you say "outside director"? He chaired it.  And as chairman of a regional Federal Reserve bank, he would have been how many promotions short of chairman of the entire U.S. Federal Reserve bank?  Would it be one or two promotions? ... The reference was not to an economics "education."  It was to an economics career.  A summary of Herman Cain's achievements should stress that his economics accomplishments and understanding is distinguished. Not many candidates for POTUS understand monetary policy as well as does Cain.  - Jemanji  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.177.70 (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Eagerly awaiting the soon to come leftist slant to this article.
as a matter of fact i'm surprised they haven't got here yet. still sharpening their claws i would guess. it will be fascinating to look at the changes to this article pre and post Mr. Cain becoming a serious contender for the Republican nomination. 107.32.181.31 (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, like when those leftists tried to change the Paul Revere article. 24.255.238.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Perhaps it might be best to limit your complaints to past or present problems with Wikipedia, rather than future issues? Mark Arsten (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mark. NPOV issues - be it a leftist or rightist slant, or other problems - can be addressed here if and when they actually arise. Making pre-emptive criticism towards hypothetical issues is not particularly constructive, and not in keeping with wikipedia protocol (i.e. WP:AGF).--Rollins83 (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversial Remarks
It seems like this section is a bit overdone in view of Wikipedia's policy "to be as concise as possible." President Obama's page has no such section although he's made many controversial remarks. Cain's page has 400+ words in three paragraphs. Perhaps this section should be more briefly summarized to not violate the NPOV and the appearance of being part of an anti-Cain campaign. Anyone else have thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume you are talking mostly about the first, 279 word paragraph, that catalogs some of Cain's comments about Muslims. I cannot think of any better way to describe Cain's apparent suspicion of Islamic motives and beliefs than his own words, which pretty much speak for themselves.  Any attempt to distill a concise formulation of the import of those remarks would be difficult without expressing a POV.  I think something that distinguishes Cain (and Ron Paul) from other politicians is their willingness, for better or worse, to say exactly what they think and then stick by their statements in the face of subsequent criticism.  Hence the need for a "Controversial remarks" section here.  Lahaun (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't contesting the validity of the three areas of criticism, just the inconsistency of this 400+ word section on him and no such section on Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A section on controversial remarks or topics would seem to be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satsuke (talk • contribs) 20:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Controversy sections are discouraged with exception for a few cases, particularly in a WP:BLP. It's best to wrap such statements into areas on how he's been received, or tie it to a particular policy issue, or some other event that is part of his notability.  Criticism sections often turn into a troll magnets for WP:RECENTISM posting the latest criticism of the day.  Morphh   (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Herb Cain
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/09/sarah_palin_says_she_didnt_mea.html


 * Worth a hatnote over there pointing here? Hcobb (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, since everything she says is true. Change the article to Herb Cain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.233.194 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement related to Occupy Wall Street
"Don't blame Wall Street," Cain said. "Don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself...It is not a person's fault because they succeeded. It is a person's fault if they failed. And so this is why I don't understand these demonstrations and what is it that they're looking for." [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/05/cain-not-rich-no-job-blame-yourself/?hpt=hp_t2v Cain: Not rich? No job? Blame yourself cnn.com].91.39.76.216 (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion for incorporating this into the article, in compliance with WP:NPOV? After all, this page is intended specifically for discussion of the article, not the subject.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If a controversy arises because of this statement, then it can be incorporated into the article. Otherwise, it should be left out. FurrySings (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Starring in a production of Cain Mutiny?
Second paragraph: "He is currently staring in a production of The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial by Herman Wouk which will be touring through all fifty states over the next year [7]"

This appears to be untrue (at best). The Reuters article cited does not mention this at all nor can I find any other mention of such a thing in a quick search. Without looking into it further it seems some are referring to his campaign as The Cain Mutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.239.21 (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The edit in question is reverted. —ADavidB 17:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sub Par and Neglected Article
When compared to the articles of the other top-tier candidates, this article needs some serious love. This man is in the running to be the Chief Executive Officer of the US economy, the Commander in Chief of the world's most capable military and the de facto leader of the free world. Please help me improve this article so interested voters or interested international observers are rewarded with a reasonable presentation. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Veriss1, wanted to mention that WikiProject importance ratings have little to no visibility. The best way to create buzz about the article is to post a note at relevant WikiProjects, e.g. WT:WikiProject Politics and WT:WikiProject Conservatism. And you're right: this article really needs to get up to at least class B. TTFN – Lionel (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture
I think the intro picture is NPOV, with Cain being seen as quite obviously an angry individual. Can there be a more suitable portrait? 180.77.103.143 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We tried, but we couldn't find an pictures where he wasn't angry. 173.57.170.173 (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He doesn't look too angry in the current image. Go away trolls.  Veriss (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

____________

Dangling Modifier

"Herman Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee, to Luther Cain, Jr., who was raised on a farm and worked as a chauffeur, barber and janitor and Lenora Caine (née Davis), a cleaning woman."

The way this sentence reads, it sounds like Luther Cain worked his wife.

I added a comma after "janitor" but it is still a horrible, run-on sentence.

"Herman Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee, to Luther Cain, Jr., who was raised on a farm and worked as a chauffeur, barber and janitor, and Lenora Caine (née Davis), a cleaning woman." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.167.146 (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I made the sentence easier to read for those who may need the extra assistance by adding some additional punctuation. However, I really don't think the sentence required it if the reader was paying attention.  Veriss (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed it to put the woman first, which I think makes it clearer. Besides, I dare say in the birthing she did most of the labor. Wnt (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement
Herman Cain didn't take part in the the civil rights movement even though in interviews he has said that if he was of college age he would have and in fact he was of college age during the height of the civil rights movement.[13] How is that not already in there?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.116.171 (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. – Lionel (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy quote
As it stands now only a single quote, from a rather sensational news piece, from Cain on the Occupy protests is included. Cain has actually had quite a bit to say on the matter so why is this the only quote provided here? Should we, in a bio this thin, even be delving into verbatim quotations on a single topic of the scope of these particular protests? My initial thought was to add more of his comments for the purpose of a more rounded understanding of his public position on the issue but it immediately ran into an undue weight problem. Thoughts on just removing it for now? TomPointTwo (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your instincts are right. It should be balanced if presented, but to do so would give undue weight to a current event in an article about the whole life of a man. I'm not sure that in the context of this article, this is notable enough to warrant the attention.204.65.34.151 (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Commentator for Fox Business Network?
We have an unsourced sentence saying this, but I can't find anything on Fox Business Network per se that's by him rather than about him. I even tried modifying to, getting nothing. My guess is someone inserted this but was actually citing some other source, maybe a Fox entity, indexed by Fox Business Network in a search? Can someone familiar point to the right link? Wnt (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As always with a biography of a living person everything added to the article needs to be sourced. I've removed the assertion until a reliable source can be found. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

9-9-9 plan
Someone cut-and-pasted text similar to that here. I took this out. We need to make text like that encyclopedic and also avoid copyright violations (though the second might not apply if it's a press release); it's also a primary source. Something can be done with it, just not this. Wnt (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain Led Radical Group That Accused Democrats Of Wanting To Kill ‘Black Babies’
I edited first, then removed the section "Herman Cain Led Radical Group That Accused Democrats Of Wanting To Kill ‘Black Babies’

Although Mr. Cains involvement in America’s PAC is correct, as well as some of the facts, it was an obvious attempt to smear and included false hoods. If someone would like to write a factual paragraph on his involvement, be my guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottie1321 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A new editor is reinserting the material, and I have reverted it as it seems WP:UNDUE, and the title does not appear to be factually accurate, as being the spokesperson of a group is not the same as leading a group. I've directed the editor to the talk page, hopefully so that discussion can take place.- SudoGhost 05:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, everything I contributed to this artical in that paragraph is factual, and comes from reliable sources that are cited. This is not an attempt to "smear" and "include false hoods". These are all factual events in his political career. Check my sources if you don't believe me. If you would like, I'll provide you with more references. Again, everything is factual and pulled from some of the most reliable media sources around, including the title. Thank you. Guitaristnate (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're correct, all of this information is in the second source. Word for word.  Unless I'm overlooking something, this makes it a copyright violation as written, regardless of any other issues with the material. - SudoGhost 06:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly word for word, mostly just the quotes (meaning It's not a copyright violation). But thank you for varifying that it's all factual!Guitaristnate (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just the quotes but the entire thing, there isn't a single sentence inserted into the article that isn't word-for-word in that source, which makes it copyright infringement (and that includes the section title itself). I also have not verified that it is factual, just that it is a word-for-word copyright infringement. - SudoGhost 06:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Entertaining, even for a moment, that it wasn't a copyvio, it also clearly doesn't clear the threshold for NPOV, BLP and in all probablitlity RS in this case. Let's get real here. If there's material to be cited from this let's cut to that instad of playing games. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The underlying reason for this problem is that we don't present a summarized version of Political positions of Herman Cain in WP:summary style. Sorry - I knew I needed to do this, but when I went to summarize his positions for the 2012 campaign article, what I came up with was so much longer I couldn't fit it here - I have to summarize my summary somehow.  If we had a place in this article for a brief summary of his entire set of political positions, then the WP:UNDUE in this on ad would stick out like a sore thumb, and we'd also see that this content (minus any copyvios) belongs there. Wnt (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
I keep trying to edit this article to say that Herman Cain is the greatest man who ever lived (which is a documented fact). Why do you people keep deleting my edits? Do you have a problem with Herman Cain? Scared of a black Conservative?--129.1.193.107 (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX.--JayJasper (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can somebody block him already? Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring NYyankees51 (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your opinion, but that's irrelevant. The point is, if you think he's the greatest man etcetera, then find a reliable source that says that.  Then we can cite it as their opinion and all moves on smoothly.  Adding unsourced, contentious information to BLPs always ends in trouble. Wnt (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

David Duke
Why should we only have a reference to David Duke running as a Republican? He also has run as a Democrat. Personally, I don't think a reference to that ties Duke to either major party would be appropriate.

Part about his ad going viral
Where's the part about his ad featuring a cigarette smoking guy going viral? Seen so much about it on news sites of late. -  Niri M / ನಿರಿ   10:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is his personal BIO. That information, if deemed notable, would be included there.  Although, I don't know if TDS and Colbert making fun of it really qualifies as a bunch of news on the issue.  Arzel (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of sexual harassment
WP should not report on the accusations of sexual harassment until the media discloses the details of what Mr. Cain was alleged to have actually done. Discuss. Nstrauss (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Story is all over the media today and I believe we accordingly have to indicate that unspecified allegations have been made. Having said that, at present a new subsection should be avoided (a line should be sufficient) and the media are currently just repeating what POLITCO has dug up and it would be preferable if another organization could do some investigative reporting on this.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with adding imo : in order to be NPOV and BLP compliant, we would have to be so wishy washy as to be not valuable. "Reports of an unspecified sexual harrasment issues, made by unknown claimants, at some time in the past, have been reported". etc. has WP:Weasel all over it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we can report what reliable sources are saying, without straying into the realm of speculation or tabloiditry. Given the widespread coverage by the reputable media, I think this falls under the portion of WP:BLP which states: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. I will take a shot at it. MastCell Talk 19:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Squarely falls into NOTNEWSPAPER category. This story is losing steam faster than one of my Auntie Abbie's souffles.– Lionel (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, the story seems to feature prominently in pretty much every major American news outlet. That's probably enough to justify a brief (3-4 sentence) coverage in this extensive biography; that's substantially less ink than we expend on his "Imagine There's No Pizza" song parody, after all. It may well be that the story loses steam, in which case our coverage can be proportionately reduced when that happens. Or the story may be the defining point in his campaign, in which case our coverage will be expanded over time. Who knows. For now, I think existing sources (which are legion) warrant brief coverage here. MastCell Talk 19:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We can and should cover his own denials. Hcobb (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, and we do. MastCell Talk 19:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it meets the criteria. There is one source for the information, and it is full of non verifiable information. "sources say", etc. its essentially gossip at this point. WP:BLPGOSSIP "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources" that is very clearly the situation we are currently in. To HCobb - if every denial is notable, you are setting a VERY low bar for BLP. The accusation has to meet the criteria for the denial to make any sense. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to put this on the page right now. It is a new story and could very well end up being a smear campaign with nothing behind it. As of now, I have to agree with Lionel that this is in the NOTNEWSPAPER category. If in a few days or weeks it turns into something bigger, i.e. he admits or is proven to have sexually harassed someone, then it could be added. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject has commented on the story multiple times, so it's not just what people are saying about him, it's also what he is saying himself.   Will Beback    talk    19:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless his comments on the story are "Yes, I sexually harassed all of those women", then it shouldn't be added to the page right now. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We only report things which the subject agrees to? I don't think that's the appropriate standard.   Will Beback    talk    20:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was only pointing out that if he gave that statement, it would prove the allegations, warranting inclusion in the article. As of now they are only allegations, and I believe we should wait and see if anything comes of them before hastily including them in the article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But that approach is explicitly at odds with WP:BLP, which states that notable, relevant, well-sourced allegations against public figures should be described. MastCell Talk 21:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP requires allegations to be well-documented, not just well-sourced. According to the first definition of "well-documented" I could find: "If something is well-documented, people have written a lot about it and so the facts about it are clear." While many people have certainly written about this, very little has been written and the facts are far from clear. Therefore I don't think you can call this "well-documented." Nstrauss (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to argue about what specific words in policy mean, since it's usually a sign we've lost sight of the meaning of the thing. That said, WP:WELLKNOWN makes it clear that "well-documented" refers to documentation in reliable third-party sources. There's no requirement that the facts of a matter be perfectly clear before we can mention it; surely that would be impractical? MastCell Talk 22:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the entries per WP:BLPGOSSIP until such time as more concrete accusations are formed. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The accusations that there was a settlement are concrete.   Will Beback    talk    20:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't gossip, and WP:BLPGOSSIP isn't really the right citation. This very clearly falls under the portion of WP:BLP which reads: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. This allegation is notable, relevant, and well-documented. Period. By the way, you all should go on to read that section of WP:BLP. It cites the following example:
 * "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source."
 * This is exactly analogous to our current situation, right down to the New York Times coverage, and WP:BLP is explicitly clear that the allegation belongs in the biography. You're violating clear guidance from the policy by removing it. MastCell Talk 20:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I dont think it is well documented. There is one source for the majority of the information. And Gossip specifically identifies "anonymous sources" as an issue, which the articles are full of. someone says that some other unnamed person, made an accusation of unknown nature, and there was a settlement of unknown nature to go along with it. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. There are numerous sources for the fact that this has been discussed in the media by the subject and his campaign manager, et al. The matter has gone beyond the original story published in Politico.   Will Beback    talk    20:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The intent of the policy is not to prohibit any material which relies upon anonymous sources. Most investigative reporting uses such sources; if we excluded material attributed by reporters to anonymous sources, we would be unable to cover Watergate or cite Woodward and Bernstein's articles on the subject. A "poorly documented" allegation would be one that appeared solely in tabloids or other unreliable sources. This allegation is well-documented. As best I can tell, every reputable news outlet in the U.S. has covered it, from the New York Times to the Washington Post to the Boston Globe to Reuters to the AP to... well, name one. MastCell Talk 20:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Im not saying its not notable, it clearly is. But the bar for BLP is higher than notability, especially for highly negative information. How many of those articles are doing anything other than providing discussion based on politico. Regarding the actual allegation, there is one source (discounting denials). The allegation is extremely vague. No source, no victim, no detail of what the harassment was, no details about the settlement (the settlement very well could involve the women paying cain not to sue! (according to the level of detail we have in the story)) In comparison to the NYT example above, which has a specific allegation contained.  Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really following your argument. There is a specific allegation here: that Cain made inappropriate remarks to two female employees. Cain has acknowledged the accusation but firmly denied its validity. That's not gossip, and it's not vague, and it's not poorly sourced. It meets all of the criteria set forth in WP:BLP for coverage. I think you're creating some artificial requirements that are nowhere to be found in policy. MastCell Talk 20:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Show me why WP:BLPGOSSIP does not apply (specifically the unnamed sources part), and I will concede. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't apply because this isn't gossip. Gossip refers to material circulated on tabloids, blogs, and the like. When an incident has been covered by every major, reputable news organization in the U.S., it's no longer gossip. It's an allegation - one which may be true or false (and we take no stance on that question), but one which a serious encyclopedia is expected to describe. I think you're focusing on the "anonymous sources" wording to the detriment of applying the policy as a whole. As an aside, I removed quite a bit of blog-sourced material from this article today... can we use some of this sudden BLP interest to help clean up the sourcing? MastCell Talk 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made a notification on Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard for this issue to try and get a broader consensus of which policies are applicable. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times is calling this the "biggest test of his campaign" and accordingly I think something has to be said. Language I added to the campaign article has apparently been approved by another editor since that person made only technical changes to it. I've accordingly moved those couple sentences over here as well. I suspect the larger issue now as far as this article is concerned is how much to expand this mentioning. Many editors may be inclined to expand this to a large paragraph or even multiple paragraphs but to do so at this early stage would likely be WP:UNDUE weight. I would add that the NYT has indicated that it tried to dig further into this story and didn't come up with much. This suggests that there is a good chance no one else will either. Finally, consider the Politco report, "There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable." Rather than adding the view of some pundit who has taken the liberty of claiming to know what "gestures that were not overtly sexual" means, it may be best for Wikipedia to avoid overplaying a story with such vagaries.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for inclusion straw poll
The developing sexual harassment claims are obviously notable regardless of their veracity. Still, with their tenuous nature and our policies on undue weight and of caution with BLP it makes the inclusion of such material on a biographic article difficult and probably inappropriate at this time. I purpose, pending a greater consensus on the nature of the allegations and a clear resolution of its affect on his biography, that we focus all coverage of the allegations in the narrower, more relevant article Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012 as this is the area of greatest consequence with concern to the allegations. Support, opposition or comments? TomPointTwo (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Polls are evil. Polls can sometimes be useful to see where consensus lies following a complex discussion, but i don't see a point in creating a poll for a new proposal.  Will Beback   talk    23:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * support. More relevant as a campaign issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's okay, you're not compelled to participate. In the mean time if we can quickly establish a consensus for where this swiftly developing and notable BLP hot potato belongs all the better. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If this poll is intended to affect the editing of the article then it's out of place. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by polls.   Will Beback    talk    23:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of how wikipedia works but I appreciate your concern. Polls are excellent tools to help survey a consensus, or a lack of one and have a long, well established record on wikipedia of doing just that. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It'd be less contentious if you'd just make your proposal without tying it to a poll. As for the overall issue of including this allegation in the article, it's clear even without a poll that there is a conflict of opinion, and no consensus either way. Adding it to the campaign article doesn't require prior discussion. If you think that it's relevant there then go ahead and add it.    Will Beback    talk    23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added language I think would be BLP-compliant to the campaign article. Polls are not the best way to INITIATE discussion (especially when unclear; a "support" here is relevant to THIS article insofar as it is supporting NOT including the allegations in this article), since they serve to PRECLUDE discussion. Polling should come AFTER the matter has been "argued out" to a large degree, since that would be the time to invite some "audience participation."--Brian Dell (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There was already language in the article, now the issue is covered in two difference sections (career, 2012). I believe that is WP:Undue and one of the sections should be removed. Im not sure which section makes more sense, since it happened during the career, but is only notable due to the election. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, one section is plenty and we should be wary of giving undue weight. I originally placed it in the "career" section, since the allegations relate to Cain's time with the restaurant association. On the other hand, the allegations seem most notable in the context of the 2012 Republican primary. MastCell Talk 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

should insert the MONTH in 1999 he stopped working for NRA
The article says he stopped working for the NRA in 1999. One sexual harassment allegation dates to July 1999. It would be useful to insert the month in 1999 that he stopped working for the NRA.

Does anyone know the month?76.218.9.50 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Executive career
Without further verification the first statement should be amended and the second removed:

"In 1977, he moved to Minneapolis to join Pillsbury,[30] soon becoming director of business analysis[31] in its restaurant and foods group in 1978.[citation needed]"

"Under Cain's leadership his region went, in three years, from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable.[citation needed]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.220.34 (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I sourced your first item. Howev wrt the second--the Cain turn around of Philly Burger Kings from least to most profitable--what I've found (so far, anyway) is this assertion from either Cain's own various websites' biography of him or else sources that quite obviously repeat it. But, this 1988 NYT piece says, "[Cain] joined Pillsbury in 1977 and is credited with turning around Burger King's Philadelphia region." Is that sufficient?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Snippet from an article in today's Minneapolis/St. Paul Star Tribune: "The Philadelphia region of Burger King ranked near the bottom among Burger King's 12 groups. Cain brought analytical strengths and energy. He fired and hired. He praised and exhorted the survivors. He turned the region into a top performer within two years."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From NRO: "[...B]etween 1983 and 1985, Cain revitalized Burger King’s 450-store Philadelphia region. He moved it from a laggard to a leader among the company’s twelve geographic territories."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

as the story morphs
In this edit with an edit summary stating "Statements by PR people are generally not news, especially if Cain has already spoken" another contributor removed coverage of Cain's press secretary's comments on the allegations of sexual harrassment.

First, since the official versions coming from the Cain campaign are in a constant state of flux, removing comments because "Cain has already spoken" doesn't make sense to me.

Seriously, as the various official lines from the campaign morphs, shouldn't we keep track of each version? Surely BLP doesn't mean the article should be a hagiography?

Second, that other contributor wrote "PR people are generally not news". But Cain's press secretary Jeffrey D. Gordon would be a special case, as he initiated a high profile series of complaints that he had been sexually harrassed. He claimed a very highly respected reporter had harrassed him when he was a press officer at Guantanamo. He continued to write bitterly over her "profane" language as recently as August 2010. The press is commenting on Cain's odd choice of Gordon as his press officer, and over the irony that a press officer who alleged that due to that reporter's use of profane language he had been abused worse than any of the Guantanamo detainees, would so blithely dismiss the allegations of Cain's former subordinates. Geo Swan (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the spokesperson statements can be used, if they are made in their official capacity. But I do not think following the entire evolution is appropriate, as it would be WP:Undue. Every politician scandal follows this pattern, and detailing each additional detail as it is revealed in the article would make every single politician article dominated by nothing but scandal. Update to the "current state". If this issue ends up taking down Cain, then it would be appropriate to be expanded further. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Statements by a candidate's press secretary are appropriate if they add something new and significant. Otherwise they're just cumulative. If the newsworthiness of a statement requires explanation, then that explanation should be in the article as well. In this case, based on your explanation, the comments you quoted seem more relevant to Gordon himself than to Cain. Nstrauss (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I was originally opposed to saying much more than what's already been said, but it now seems that it's a full blown scandal. It might still fade away but it'll remain a big enough story I would no longer be opposed to this topic getting its own sub-section and/or note that the Cain campaign has pointed a finger at the Perry campaign, etc.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at what is currently included in the article about the issue, it seems to be neutral and factual and I have no problem with it. My prior concern was that the story just came out and not enough was known about it to determine whether it had any weight or significance. I still believe that with sensitive issues like this that are happening in real time, it would be better to give some time for the story to develop or to discuss the content to be included here before adding it. I guess I'm just naturally a cautious person. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this story requires its own sub section now.Kentpaulgta (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It definitely deserves a section in the campaign article, but it's still just a blip in the overall biography, IMO.   Will Beback    talk    01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Though growing more prominent every day).   Will Beback    talk    00:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Radical Madwoman Show on MSNBC just said that the accuser count is up to six. Should we switch to a table format? Hcobb (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When you choose to use the real name for the show, drop the piss poor attitude, maybe we'll consider it. Seriously Hcobb, that was about the lowest thing you've done yet. Use the real name! --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

in hindsight
I think the article should have continued to include a reference to each version of the official lines from the Cain campaign, as the story morphed, on its day to day basis. Other contributors reverted this kind of information, out of an excess of caution, asserting that we didn't know that this wouldn't be more than a one-day story, meriting only a sentence or two.

Cautious types, I suggest that this story was clearly going to be important from day one. It seems to me that the excess of caution that tried to keep coverage of this story artificially brief has made proper coverage of the story considerably more work. I hope our cautious types will consider how badly caution backfired before they argue for this level of excess caution with future stories. Geo Swan (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Please bear in mind that your caution was misplaced


 * BLP overtrumps your view of Cautious types everytime. Besides there are thousands of newspapers for which your approach would fill, and WP is not one of them.  Arzel (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * BLP proscribes the certain kinds of material, unless it is well documented. This material was well documented.


 * Overly cautious types tried to get the Chesley Sullenberger deleted   on specious BLP grounds during its early hours -- another instance that I suggest cautious types should consider more moderation in their caution.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Koch brothers
This is simply WP:UNDUE plus WP:RECENTISM. There is no reason why it should be included unless it receives significant continued coverage. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We could probably fold the "Relationship with the Koch brothers" section into the "2005–2011 work for Americans for Prosperity" section.   Will Beback    talk    01:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It has been added to the "2005-2011 Work for Americans for Prosperity" section.Kentpaulgta (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Harrassment accusations
The article currently has a section entitled "Sexual Harrassment accusations". Jon Stewart made an interesting point last week, responding to media types who were trying to soft-pedal this story as just complaints, allegations or accusations -- where we don't know the details, and there might be nothing to the story.

He pointed out the story had already moved long past the complaint, allegation, accusation phase, back when Cain, or his people, authorized paying the complainants in return for their silence.

We could follow Stewart's lead, and give the sextion a more accurate subheading, like: Settlements of sexual harrassment complaints. There remain aspects of the story we don't know. We do know that Cain, or his people, considered the complaints as serious enough to justify paying the complainants for their silence. Geo Swan (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or we could stick with the current heading because it is the place of the courts to decide guilt in such matters, not Wikipedia. I remind you that Stewart is, first and foremost, a comedian. He is not a journalist and generally not subject to journalistic integrity, even if his program is often used as a commentary on the subject. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is undue weight for a section in his BIO. The incident is relevent only in the context of his presidential election.  I returned it to the previous area.  Unless there is any consequence to the allegations then it is clearly undue weight for the article as is.  Arzel (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that the lawyer Gloria (where's the camera?) Allred is getting involved & this whole stuff turns into more Reality TV, the section title will likely be changed. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @OuroborosCobra, sorry, but you responded to something other than what I wrote.
 * (1) I wrote nothing about Cain's guilt. I wrote nothing about his guilt in a legal sense -- the man hasn't even been charged.  I wrote nothing about his guilt in a moral sense.
 * (2) Stewart is a comedian. However, he is a comedian who tackles the same kind of topical issues as political reporters -- at least some of the time.  That he is a comedian will not prevent him from making valid points.  So, rather than dismiss my comment because Stewart is a comedian, could you perhaps respond to his point?  I'll repeat that point again.  While there are many aspects of this story that remains unclear -- what we do know is that Cain paid off women with complaints, in return for their silence.  So we should retitle the section to focus on what we know, that Cain paid for silence, rhather than what we don't know about -- the accusations.  Is it possible that you and I, if we knew all the facts, would agree with Cain that he was innocent?  We might agree that Cain was innocent, and that he only paid out the hush money because he knew those point-headed liberals in the lame-stream media would distort the truth so he looked guilty...  But our agreement would be irrelevant -- as we have to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:NOR and WP:BLP.  The clearest thing about this story -- not denied by anyone -- Cain paid women for their silence.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I remember that about a year ago, when the same type of allegations were brought against Al Gore, a very vocal minority fought to keep the information out of the article, even in proper context. Sorry to break the conversation, I just wanted to point out the obvious hypocrisy.-- JOJ Hutton  19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah but al cgore was not accused by four different women!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.111.22 (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know whether Gore secretly paid hush money. For the record, I told User:Jojhutton I would support the inclusion of the allegations against Gore in his article.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Talking about how to deal with this
Just sticking a note here referring to this discussion section I started in the Cain campaign article after adding some text there. I'm not sure it matters where it happens, but it might be good to have one unified conversation about how to handle, across various Herman Cain articles, the matter of these accusations. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Length of section
I, too, wanted to discuss this section, but for a different reason. Right now the section reads like a news article. We have a lengthy paragraph dedicated purely to these sexual harassment accusations. In my view this smacks of recentism and NOT NEWS, and thus should be condensed to a sentence or two, with the bulk of the material moved to the Presidential Campaign subpage. In the grand scheme of things, this is a developing story, we should let the dust settle, and really judge how important these allegations are in light of the man's biography. If Cain's entire campaign is brought down by the allegations, then perhaps they deserve more prominence in light of his failed political career. But as of now, they should not be placed in such prominence. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this sentiment. Right now this is a developing news story and a small aspect of Cain's life. The bulk of the text on it should be in the campaign article--since that's obviously the context for it--or, as I think will be the case in the end, in its own standalone article. As I said above though I do think we should centralize discussion of this since as of now we have two somewhat different versions of this controversy in two different articles. But as we do that I'd be fine with trimming the text we have in this article to something more limited. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would respectively suggest that we currently risk understating the significance of this aspect. Until I filled the gap today, the "third woman" seemed to be entirely missing from our account.  When a presidential candidate is accused of harassment by (so far) four women in the midst of a campaign, this matters!  I have also proposed a brief low-key reference in the lede. Nandt1 (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed your 'low-key' reference in the lede. Honestly, unless he dies from some kind of unnatural cause, stories that have not yet escaped the news ticker should not be in the lede, no exceptions. It is clearly recentist, and also gives undue weight, almost a subjective prediction of its effect on the candidacy and the man. Let it play out first and judge in a week or two. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Obama's presidency hasn't yet escaped the news ticker, but we discuss that. We had an entire article on the 2011 Japanese Earthquake before the aftershocks stopped rumbling. While there's no hurry, nor is there any reason to intentionally delay. Let's just make sure that we're being conservative and avoid over-covering an issue whose weight is still difficult to assess.   Will Beback    talk    04:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The 4th's claim of what Cain said cannot be included here. This is a BLP violation.  We can not, under any circumstance, give the impression that he said anything using only her words.  Arzel (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to give the details in this article at this time. It's enough at this point to just say that the 4th person has come forward.   Will Beback    talk    05:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The NY Times says that Allred read from sworn affidavits from witnesses testifying that she had told them of the incident at the time. Readers coming here to get the facts about this story would want to know that. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In view of its mention above, I just re-read the BLP policy. The following quote may be pertinent in present circumstances:


 * Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source. Nandt1 (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How ironic. Everything I just added stemming from the NY Times account was just excised.   I'm restoring it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The story is in development, so maybe a statement should be added "The facts in this section are current events." I wanted to find out a bit about the sexual harrassment charges, so I went to the article "Herman Cain".  I would not think to go to the article "Presidential Campaign".  As for the length, it answered my questions right now.  If things stay that way that they are, the section is fine.  If it grows to the point of bringing down his campaign, then maybe it should have an article of its own with a link in this section.  This is a current event article.  Playing games of where to put the info, so it most encyclopedic is dumb.  When the dusts settles, the article will no longer be current events and it will be history, which will make it easier to figure out how best to write the article.  But for right now, do the readers a favor and just present the facts.  And don't distort the facts with the title of the section.  The current title is fine, because it will quickly lead a person to the correct area and they will go that area to read the details.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzmonty (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bialek accusations
I've cut down on the accusations from Sharon Bialek, which at this point absolutely do not warrant an entire section in a BLP about a guy who has lived a long time and done a bunch of things. There is some major recentism at work in loading up his bio with that much detail about accusations that are literally less than 12 hours old as I type this.

I happen to think that these accusations are a pretty big deal, at the very least for Cain's presidential campaign, and perhaps for his life as a whole in the end. But we don't know yet and we are not journalists.

A larger section at Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012 on all of these accusations would be appropriate, and here in the main bio article we can use summary style and link the reader there. Even better, to my mind at this point, would be to create an actual article on this entire scandal and then link to that within both this article and the campaign one. This has already gone well beyond one man and his campaign and has touched on issue of race and sex and caused many to invoke, or disagree with the invocation of, the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings and the accusations made by Anita Hill.

Rather than trying to dump content regarding Bialek et. al. into this article, I'd recommend that editors inclined to do that simply create an article on this overall controversy, as it will be a matter of historical note whether Mr. Cain is vindicated, or deemed to have committed grievous wrongs, or something in-between. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At the end of 2010, this article was about 8k bytes. Now it's almost 4 times bigger, at 30k bytes. What happened?  Did Cain live 3/4 of his 65 years in the last 10 months?  Is this sudden growth a violation of WP:RECENTISM?  Of course not.  What happened was that he ran for president, and started doing well, and that made everything in his life of greater interest than it had been before.  As far as I know, no one from 2020 is getting in a time machine to come read this 2011 version of his biography.  That is, all the readers arriving here today are reading with an eye for what's particularly relevant today.  From  today's reader's perspective, the 4th accuser's press conference from yesterday is an absolutely critical aspect of Cain's life.  What does she claim?  Can it be corroborated?  To do our job well, we need to answer these questions for our readers as best as we can.  The various events in a person's life change in importance over time, and that means the weight they should be given change too.  A Bill Clinton biography written in 1999 gives more weight to the Monica affair than a biography written in 2011.  Right now, this incident is of monumental importance in Cain's life, and we should cover it accordingly. Editors in 2020 can worry about whether the weight is still appropriate or undue for readers  in 2020, and can adjust the content accordingly.  Our concern must be 2011 readers.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * None of this really has anything to do with the policies of the encyclopedia, and the statement "right now, this incident is of monumental importance in Cain's life" is simply not true, or at least not yet. This is a big news story, and it might have a huge effect on his campaign, or it might vanish within days for reasons we don't yet know (personally I doubt it, but the point is this is not yet a day old and we don't know what effect it will have).


 * The fact that this article has expanded more in 2011 is utterly irrelevant--this happens with articles all the time, and the fact that it has expanded recently does not mean we give more weight to things that happened recently, which is your implicit argument. A good Bill Clinton (encyclopedia) bio in 1999 would not have given extra weight to the Lewinsky matter--that's what a newspaper, not an encyclopedia, would do and you seem to be misunderstanding that.


 * I'd like to hear from Born2cycle if that editor is okay with covering basically all of this stuff in detail in a sub-article and linking to that from a section here written in summary style, which is traditionally what we do here and what I suggested above, a suggestion which went unresponded to. I am not trying to limit the info on the controversy, I'm just interested in it being in its proper place, which is in a sub-article on the campaign or the controversy itself rather than the main bio article. I don't see how that's a disservice to readers--the opinions or convenience of which are not, it should be said, determinative of the kind of content we have--in the slightest and it conforms to our core content policies about WP:NPOV (and WP:UNDUE) as well as WP:BLP.


 * I'd hope others could weigh in here since this is going to be an ongoing issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you review the essay on WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not an ordinary encyclopedia.  We edit in real time, and respond to events as they unfold.    When a traditional encyclopedia is edited, it must be edited with a perspective that tries to make the material properly weighted for years to come.  Since we're not published in a permanent print format, we're not subject to the same constraints as those encyclopedias are.  We are able to adjust weight on an ongoing basis as events unfold in real time. I'm not against a separate article about the accusations and controversy, but newspapers devoted long multi-paragraph articles to this incident today.  Out of all that we have culled a few short sentences into one little paragraph.  For now, that seems to be the appropriate weight.  We can do a lot more in a separate sub-article, but the basic summary in this bio, at least for now, needs to answer the questions I posed above, and it currently does exactly that, in full compliance with all applicable policies and guidelines, including WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This will go a lot more smoothly if we both acknowledge that the other editor is experienced. I've edited here for a number of years now, and am an administrator, which means I'm not a complete newbie. I don't need to be told to read essays that any experienced Wikipedian knows, and I certainly don't need to be told that Wikipedia is different because "we're not published in a permanent print format." I'll assume that you also know basic facts about Wikipedia as an experienced Wikipedian, deal?


 * Let's cut to the chase and try to work something out. I would be okay with a bit more material on the new accusations than there was after my culling, though it is not my preferred option. What I do not want to see, and what I think is just a blatant violation of WP:UNDUE, is an entire section devoted to Bialek's accusations, on top of another entire section about other sexual misconduct allegations. We'd end up with as many sections, and nearly as much content, on news stories from the past week as we would have on his entire family and education life. That is a very big NPOV and BLP problem any way you slice it.


 * So how about we just have one section called "Sexual misconduct accusations," changing the second word because Ms. Bialek's accusations arguably go well beyond simple harassment (but I'm not super passionate about that wording change and am open to another). We can keep much of the current content on the Bialek accusations, but I do think that needs to be trimmed a little bit, bearing in mind that part of her specific account is in footnote 90, and that we can/should have a fuller account in another article with a link to it right in the section that any interested reader can and would click on.


 * What I'm proposing is more than I want to include, but I'm hoping you can show a little flexibility and meet me halfway here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, combining the two sections into one is fine, and I just did that. As to culling the material, I think we need to work on that.  I know those details are in the footnote, but they're vital, I think. Yes, let's cut to the chase.  I have found that Wikipedia is remarkably good at giving a balanced account of what is going on about a given controversial issue, including current events.  If I want to know something, WP is often the first place I go for that reason.  I presume others do the same.  So I put myself in the position of someone who did not watch the press conference today, and did not read the articles, but is coming to WP to find out.  The obvious place to go is the Herman Cain article, and in particular the section on the sexual misconduct accusations.  Whether the material on Bialek is in a separate section or a separate paragraph in the same section is not a big deal, except it is a bit easier to find if in its own section.  But here's the thing.  We finally have our reader right where he wants to be - now what is he going to learn from us?  Shall we simply say there was another accusation, and leave out the details, hoping he clicks on the footnote and reads the quote from the newspaper article?  How many readers do you think actually do that?    Most people I've seen use Wikipedia wouldn't even think to do that, that's for sure. I just don't know how we can tell this part of the story without  explaining the facts that are in there right now:


 * As I read and reread, I honestly don't see what we can leave out without creating a disservice to our reader. But, to be fair, let's look at what you had in your last edit:


 * Now, again, put yourself into the position of someone who knows nothing about what was actually said, and wishes to get an inkling of whether this is just part of a witch hunt or is something real. If you read just this, there is no indication of the  gravity of the accusation, no explanation of why this incident is an assault, why this incident is not legally harassment, the level of detail provided by the accuser (which goes to credibility), the apparent corroboration in sworn affidavits (also credibility), etc.  In other words, it is much less informative to our readers. Honestly, even if we shorten "Following a dinner meeting to discuss her job search, her encounter with Cain ended, she alleged, after Cain reached under the skirt of her suit for her genitals and pushed her head toward his crotch." to "She alleged Cain reached under the skirt of her suit for her genitals and pushed her head toward his crotch."  the context is lost, and it's much less real.  The real story is not conveyed.  See what I mean?  --Born2cycle (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't get into this in depth now as I'm signing off shortly, but I'll try proposing something in the near future. Again, a more full story of the Bialek accusations can be told in the campaign article or a standalone article, and here we should just use summary style. Fact is, a lot more is going to come of this--either it will derail Cain or not, Bialek will be deemed credible or not or something in between, etc.--and that stuff will actually matter more than a complete description of the accusation in the end. Part of what I'm trying to do here, and this includes limiting the accusations to one section, is to account for the fact that we will have to say more and what we have is already bloated relative to the rest of this BLP.


 * As I said I'll come back to this later, but thanks for your willingness to work on this and be flexible on the number of sections. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The wording as such is heavely weighed in favor of Bialek's point of view. It is troubling that there is so much recentism in this section as well as undue weight.  Born2cycle, those affidavits that you keep trumpeting mean absolutely nothing since they have thus far refused to state who is making the statement.  I beleive it is a BLP violation because the give a presumption of guilt by stating that they exist.  If this was ever taken to court those anonymous affidavits would be tossed immediately.  None of her statements should be included purely based off recentism and WP not being a newspaper.  Arzel (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is all well and good to invoke recentism, but it is frankly hard to see at this stage how the story of Herman Cain is going to be told in future without reference to these accusations. He may survive politically, he may not, but sometimes a narrative gets permanently altered by specific events, and that is surely what has just happened; we may as well be realistic about it.  Nandt1 (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read up on WP:CRYSTAL. Arzel (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And, since you mentioned recentism, I suggest you read WP:RECENTISM. Recentism is not necessarily a bad thing.  In fact, we are able to adjust due weight in our articles in real time in accordance with recentism.  Something that just happened is going to naturally garner more interest, and it's appropriate for that event to take up more of an article the week it happens than five years later.  Cain will be having a press conference later today - I presume we will be adding a summary of the salient points about that as covered by RS too.  I also presume whatever it is that is added today, will be given less weight (if any) a few years from now, and maybe even less a few days from now.   Or maybe it will be given more.  Who knows?  We will say where it goes in the RS, and will follow accordingly.  The point is when you account for recentism you given more weight to something when it's recent. As to the affidavits, Allred's claim that they exist is salient to the story.  For us to intentionally obscure that fact changes the story.  As long as we state the facts as reported by RS like the NY Times, we are serving our readers well and being fair to all involved.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of things on this. First, Born2cycle is simply incorrect, as I've already pointed out, with the point that "Something that just happened is going to naturally garner more interest, and it's appropriate for that event to take up more of an article the week it happens..." No, absolutely not, and Born2cycle could cite no policy that says that anywhere (WP:RECENTISM is just an essay, and anyway Born2cycle is pointedly ignoring the opening sentences of said essay, which apply 100% to this situation and completely contradict the above quote). It's extremely important to point out that filling a bio article with more content from the current news cycle is not how one writes this or any other encyclopedia, it goes against our NPOV and BLP policies, and it is just something that is apparently a personal belief of Born2cycle, not a policy.


 * Second, I basically agree with this change by Arzel, which is along the lines of what I would have proposed in terms of trimming. In particular, removing the mention of the affidavits is wise, because that's excessive detail and frankly no one has even seen them so far as I know, meaning we don't actually know anything about them (though personally I don't doubt their veracity). So I'm fine with the current wording for now, though no doubt it could be improved. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As to the affidavits, when a practising lawyer states that she has sworn affidavits in hand, she puts not just her reputation but her career on the line. Stating you have such sworn statements when you do not would be grounds for disbarment. To suggest that we cannot mention her statement about the affidavits here risks, with due respect, being "more Catholic than the Pope". Nandt1 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am certain that they say something, but unless she actually releases them and what they actually say, simply saying that she has them means absolutely nothing. Also, what Bialek said that Cain said is not quoatable as a pharaphrase against Cain.  It is pure hearsay and since you want to be all lawyerly about it, that statement would stricken from any legal proceedings as hearsay.  This is a clearly violation of BLP.  Arzel (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Absolutely nothing"?? I wouldn't come to that conclusion and neither, I think, do serious media outlets of record.  We are obliged to be careful and precise in how we phrase our statements about the affidavits, and it seems to me that the current wording meets this reasonable -- if not necessarily "lawyerly"  -- standard (we are not in fact in court): (a) we report that the lawyer in question has declared publicly that she has affidavits from two people that the accuser told them about the alleged incident at the time, and (b) we qualify this by saying that they have not to date been released publicly.  Readers can put those two 100% factual statements together and draw their own conclusions. Nandt1 (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, Arzel. I see that you have now gone ahead and deleted all reference to the affidavits in the article.  Your grounds are undue weight and anonymous sources.  Clearly I disagree with the cut and the grounds. The relevance of the statement can hardly be questioned since it bears on the credibility of the key witness in a scandal that could conceivably affect the identity of the next President.  The basis for the deleted material is the well-referenced public statement by the lawyer Gloria Allred that she has these affidavits.  She is the source and she is not anonymous, and as I tried to explain above, it is her professional obligation as a lawyer -- subject to highly punitive sanctions -- not to make misleading statements on such a matter.  I am tempted simply to revert your edit but worry that then we will just have an edit war.  Instead, therefore, I am inviting other third parties please to weigh in on whether our article should or should not include a reference to Allred's statement that two affidavits endorse Bialek's having spoken of the alleged incident at the time. Nandt1 (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Length of Section, again
I revisited the article today and not surprisingly found that the size of the "sexual misconduct" section has multiplied to rival that of the entire "Career" section. If this doesn't violate basic Wikipedia policy on recentism and undue weight then I really don't know what does, and I reckon that the majority of experienced Wiki users would concur. I don't disagree with users who say that Wikipedia is a great place for balanced objective coverage during an unfolding news story, I simply disagree on where such a controversy should be presented. Above I present the case of moving the bulk of the text to Herman Cain Presidential campaign, 2012, and having a summary or two sentences or so here. I did not want to jump the gun because I know there are several editors whose beliefs are quite strong about having a large section dedicated to this issue. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's obvious that this is where people expect to find information about Herman Cain, including all of the latest about his alleged indiscretions. I honestly don't see the point in making them to click through to some other article.  It's one thing to argue that material does not belong in the encyclopedia at all.  But to argue that it belongs not in the bio but in the campaign article, is something else again.  It makes sense for the bio of a presidential candidate to be weighted in favor of current events.  WP:RECENTISM, by the way, is an essay, not policy, and notes that there are advantages.  At this point, in terms of what's relevant to most people looking him up, one can argue that these accusations are as important as his career, and so giving them about the same weight is appropriate.  If he ends up ending his campaign because of this, this section will be even more important.  If it turns out the allegations really are just that and there is no actual misconduct, they will be reduced in weight.  But for now, it's very important. Finally, I would like someone to explain what exactly is the harm in having the section be about as big as the section on his career, and how exactly the encyclopedia is improved (for whom?) if most of it is moved to a sub article that gets much less traffic. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE, for starters. This is a biography of a living person, we are writing about the person, his life, career, what makes him notable.  The sexual allegations are not a significant component of the man's life, any more than the birther accusations are a major part of Barack Obama's biography.  The bulk of this should go into the campaign article, it is much more relevant there as it affects Cain's run for the presidency.  At most, the bio here should contain 3-4 lines, then the link to the campaign article. Tarc (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle, WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. If you want sensationalism I suggest you go somewhere else.  The goal here is not to increase readership by exaggerating the weight of this issue to the point of looking like an attack on the subject.  Arzel (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I respect Born2cycle's views, but reject the arguments. In my view, even if the sex scandal had already brought down his career, it is still given undue weight with two long paragraphs, describing all the details, including the exact wording of the accusations, the minutiae about he-said she-said. We are an encyclopedia, and yes, at times some leeway should be given to current events, but the weight given to this issue as it currently stands far exceeds basic encyclopedic standards; even if Wiki has been only loosely adhering to this concept of due weight when news breaks, we should strive to uphold it whenever we can. You will notice that in the best Wikipedia articles due weight is maintained strongly and consistently - for example on the article of Bill Clinton, you will find that there is only a few sentences about the Lewinsky Scandal, and much of it placed in the context of the wider impeachment trial. Similarly you will notice the same due weight standard maintained at rapidly changing biographies, such as Barack Obama, and to a lesser extent, Brad Pitt.


 * I think the following sums up my views, from WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." I again propose that the text be moved to the campaign article and reduced here to two to three sentences. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree as well, it is definitely UNDUE at the current length. reduce to a few sentences, and possibly include a "main article" link. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So far the only harm I'm hearing about is to the subject of the BLP. Does anyone disagree that readers are not harmed, and arguably benefit, by giving this material what is arguably "undue" weight?  If so, then it seems to me we have to weigh the harm (to the subject) against the benefit to the readers.  Yes?    --Born2cycle (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In effect that is only an argument for sensationalism. Of course every reader wants to hear the juicy details. But WP is not about having articles that are more interesting to read. It is about building an encyclopedia. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * born2cycle - your argument is in fact the exact reason FOR the BLP and undue policies. The policy is specifically designed to provide that weighting so we are not making that decision on a case by case basis. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We can and will obviously work out the specifics, but in this discussion section it seems to me (and admittedly I'm a partisan in the debate) that for now there's a clear, policy-based consensus to minimize discussion of the recent sexual harassment controversy in this biographical article and cover it more thoroughly in another sub-article. Here I would count editors Colipon, Tarc, Arzel, Gaijin42, and myself as those arguing to keep it short in Cain's bio and tell readers the full story in a more topical article. Only Born2cycle is suggesting that we include, and I quote with emphasis from the original remark, "all of the latest about his alleged indiscretions." There's no consensus for that and it flies wildly in the face of our NPOV and BLP policies.


 * I'm fine with putting full discussion of the controversy in a sub-section of the Cain 2012 campaign article, but I think I'm more amenable to creating a standalone article on this whole mess, since there are all sorts of side-discussions happening about this matter. As I've said above and elsewhere, I do think it wise to make a collective, central decision about how we handle the accusations going forward sooner than later, so I hope we can do that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

New article?
I'm (still) curious as to what other editors feel about doing a full split-off article called Herman Cain scandal or something along those lines (personally I don't think the exact title matters much--it would be the thing we link to with respect to the current situation, and I think "scandal" in a way lets the views of both supporters and detractors of Cain into the discussion, since what exactly is "scandalous" is pretty subjective).

Just looking up a couple of things off the top of my head, the sort of precedent I have in mind (without really reviewing them in any detail) are articles like John Edwards extramarital affair, Larry Craig scandal, Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair, and Lewinsky scandal.

Does it make sense to create some article along these lines for Cain at this point--knowing we could merge it back to a parent article later--or should we just keep our main coverage of it at Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012 for now? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A new article would have to be reliably sourced as being notable independent from Cain himself otherwise it's simply a content fork. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree Tom. I'm not remotely married to this idea, but what I would be going for would be a well-sourced independent article that would be cited summary style here in Cain's BLP and in Cain's 2012 campaign article. My reason for thinking such an article would be useful is the level of response and discussion this situation has engendered, going well beyond Cain or even his presidential campaign. The controversy seems (to me at least) to be becoming one of those cultural touchstones here in the U.S., which engrosses issues relating to race, sex, fame, the media, etc. I'm admittedly probably being a bit more crystal-ballish than I ought, but I think it would be quite easy to establish the notability of this entire controversy independent of Cain and his presidential run, though that's obviously the genesis of it.


 * But really, if others agree I'm jumping the gun here let's just keep the discussion in his campaign article for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A standalone, spinoff article focused on the sexual harassment allegations would be an example of WP:SUMMARY, and would be permissible. WP:CFORK addresses the problem when two articles cover the same topic, which should be avoided.   Will Beback    talk    08:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The topic must be notable in of itself to not be considered a fork. To quote SUMMARY: Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies both to the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, all articles must be on notable topics. However these allegations have received considerable coverage. The alternative is to keep increasing the amount of space devoted to them in this article, per WP:WEIGHT.   Will Beback    talk    08:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm not endorsing the creation of such an article at this time. But it may be the best way of handling new material if this story continues to develop.   Will Beback    talk    09:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're not advocating the creation of a new article than I don't see the need to debate policy other than to dissuade the notion that it's advisable in the future barring changes in the composition of reliable sources. The only actual "alternative", as you've described, is to give it a proportional and duly weighted amount of coverage in the parent articles. As I stated before, the campaign article is the best place for this material, until such a time that a substantial number of reliable sources can be assembled asserting the topic's notability independent of the biography's subject, as per relevant policy. No assertion has yet been made by a significant number of reliable sources that these events are notable outside the paradigm of Herman Cain or his presidential campaign. TomPointTwo (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just think you're setting the wrong standard. We have dozens, perhaps hundreds, of articles on battles which occurred during WWII, none of which are "notable outside the paradigm" of their parent article. It's sufficient that they are notable topics, even if they are subsidiary to another topic. Anyway, let's cross that bridge bridge when we come to it.   Will Beback    talk    09:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We are so far doing quite a competent job in summarizing the essential facts in a mere two paragraphs. Why the fuss?  Why the rush? Nandt1 (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is editors, i.e. you, rushing here to add every new claim, counter-claim, etc...to the article as news breaks. Again, this is a biographical article on Herman Cain.  While the current scandals is the talk of the town, it has only been going on for a month or so, we're not at Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon-esque levels yet where the scandal becomes a defining factor in the biographies.  An encyclopedia is not TMZ, we do not need to rush every screaming headline here the split second we hear about it. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, Tarc. Not sure we have encountered each other before.  However, your recent reference (elsewhere) to SPAs notwithstanding, I in fact have a long record of editing on a broad range of topics, and -- I would claim for myself -- generally editing pretty judiciously (in any case, the record is there).  Do we need to catch every headline? No, I agree with you that we do not.  But should we just deliberately allow ourselves to be out of date (and in effect inaccurate and/or misleading) when important facts are changing, perhaps quite rapidly (or use "recentism" as the basis for potentially arbitrary silence on materially relevant facts)?  I would argue, no, we should not. It seems to me that we have been covering this issue accurately, with balance and reasonably succinctly, and so it is not clear that we need either swingeing cuts here or (so far, at least) a new article. Nandt1 (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters whether we have the spinoff article about the alleged misconduct or not. What does matter is that we have a place to put relevant and well sourced material about this story that is easy for readers who are looking for it to find. That means it has to go into the appropriate section of this article, or it goes into a section of another article, or into a spinoff, and there is link to that in this article.  What is not acceptable is that material keeps getting removed from this article on the grounds that it does not belong in a BLP while there is no other place to put it either. The way it should work is we keep adding it here for now.  If anyone believes it's too much for this article, then they should create the spinoff and move the material there, not just delete it from here.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't actually agree with the contention that this is somehow a violation of WP:BLP. TBH the spirit of that policy is to prevent things like extreme slander (things that you make up about a living person that is totally untrue). In this case even if the allegations are false they deserve a place in the article since the subject area (Cain) is affected by the event, whether he is guilty of sexual harrassment or not. The problem I have, again, is still Due Weight, which user Born2Cycle simply refuses to acknowledge, but most other users as part of this discussion have signed on to. I won't beat on it further, but I suggest a good compromise is to have a link on this article to a subsection on the Herman Cain presidential campaign page, where the allegations are discussed in more detail, and reduce the section here to two sentences, get rid of its heading, and contexualize it as part of the bigger picture. Colipon+ (Talk) 22:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest it's revealing that you link a phrase accusing me of refusing to acknowledge a point not to any evidence of me actually doing that, but to WP:IDNHT. I find that to be certainly uncivil and arguably an attack. Of course I acknowledge the point about Due Weight.  I even addressed it in the comment above (" If anyone believes it's too much for this article, then they should...") to which you're responding (ironic that you're accusing me of IDNHT). That aside, like I said above, I'm also fine with putting the bulk of this material in another article, including on the campaign page.  But getting rid of the heading is going too far... we should make it easier for people to find the material they're seeking, not harder.  Getting rid of the heading seems like an overt act to make it harder to find.  This issue is significant enough to have a heading in the article about him, along with a link to wherever we  go into the topic in more detail. But until that place is established, we should not just be deleting material from this article that would not be inappropriate there.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I do apologize if I was slightly harsh in the previous comment. I hope you do not disagree that the consensus on the Due Weight issue has been sliding towards removing the bulk of the text from this page. I will now act on this, confident that I am supported by archived discussion materials on this page. Please do not revert until a more refined consensus emerges. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Being harsh isn't the problem. You're not engaging in the discussion. That's the problem.  No one is arguing this material does not belong in the encyclopedia.  No one is arguing that it is inherently inappropriate or a BLP violation in that sense.  The only issue is about whether the material belongs in this article.  But even out of everyone who is arguing it's a due weight issue, no one is arguing that it's a such a big problem that it absolutely must be deleted right now!.  Even if you believe this material is inappropriately placed in this article, the solution to inappropriately placed material is not to DELETE it, but to MOVE it. So, unless the material is moved to another article, and linked appropriately from the right section in this article, I will restore deleted material that is properly sourced etc., and I'm sure I'm not the only one.   --Born2cycle (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dead wrong. When dealing with questionable material in a BLP, the only correct action is to remove it.  We err on the side of caution here to protect the interests of living people, no matter how personally distasteful one may find them or their politics.  Material that is removed is not lost for good down some memory hole, it is always retrievable, viewable (apart from something grossly egregious that needs to be oversighted of course), and reusable elsewhere if desired.  And if you declare an intent to edit war to restore questionable, negative material into a BLP, I will see to it that you are sanctioned and hopefully blocked, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Tarc (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * When dealing with questionable material in a BLP, the only correct action is to remove it. Agree! But this material is not questionable.  The only thing being questioned and debated here is not whether the material is questionable, but whether it takes up more room than it should on this article.  That's certainly not justification to delete all of it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not remove all of it, please read the reply below. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? What, pray tell, did you not delete from this article regarding this topic in this edit? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)