Talk:Herman Cain/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What's with all the surname "Cain" use as opposed to a normal pronoun?

Anyone else find this to be compositionally odd? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, sometimes articles need more pronouns, and sometimes they need the subject's name more. Pretty standard stuff. Depends on the editor adding the material at the time. Also, sometimes, pieces of the article get separated, which may cause a problem. Frankly, I'd rather use the name more often than have any ambiguity about the reference.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Are allegations of misconduct appropriate in lead?

This makes me highly uncomfortable. Anyone else? JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not appropriate in the lead - I don't even like the controversies thing, but it's at least more understandable. I've restored the article to before those additions. In the process, I removed some of your copy edits - my apologies for that.

I also removed the Update tag. First, I saw no basis for it. Second, even if there was, the tag is supposed to be followed by support on the Talk page, and the editor who added the tag didn't do that, so the tag was useless.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Could you try to articulate why it makes you uncomfortable? Geo Swan (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I disagree with User:DrakeNZer's additions to the lead. And not just because they add more detail than is necessary, but because they are jarring juxtaposed against the end sentence that uses the word "controversies". They also have a confusing aspect to them about cause and effect in terms of which allegations caused the poll numbers to be affected. Connecting polls with news can be very iffy. Nonetheless, I've left it in because of the number of changes I've made to the article today.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence of the Gary Hart, a two-term Senator, is:

• He served as a Democratic Senator representing Colorado (1975–1987), and ran in the U.S. presidential elections in 1984 and again in 1988, when he was considered a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination until various news organizations reported that he was having an extramarital affair.

By comparison, Cain was relatively more obscure before his presidential campaign. The reason for ending the campaign should at least receive a few words, just as it's in the bio of a comparable figure.   Will Beback  talk  02:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that we have to copy with the Hart article does unless we feel it's correct. But I could live with a few more words in the lead about why he suspended the campaign, but, as I said above, I don't like the way it reads now. And I'm getting off now to go eat. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges. Gary Hart's "affair" was no "allegation". JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Then how are we going to explain the reason for Cain's departure? If he left due to the allegations, as he said, then that's what we should say.   Will Beback  talk  03:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Do yu have a specific reliable source stating that as a fact (not as opinion)? I suspect t is a fund-raising problem which may be also implicated which would rather muddy the issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• “As of today, with a lot of prayer and soul-searching, I am suspending my presidential campaign,” [..] “Because of the continued distractions, the continued hurt caused on me and my family, not because we are not fighters. Not because I’m not a fighter.” “I’m at peace with my God,” he said. “I’m at peace with my wife, and she is at peace with me.” [..] Mr. Cain took what may be his last moment in the national spotlight to denounce the political culture in Washington, calling politics “a dirty game." [1]

Is there any news source which doesn't connect the end of the campaign to the alleged affair and sexual harassment?   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe they ARE absolutely appropriate, because he's most well known as a GOP nominee, and it's been widely reported that the scandals are what basically derailed his candidacy. Of course, we SHOULD tread lightly here; others have given good suggestions as to what's appropriate. But as far as facts and notability go, it's just as relevant (or more so) that he was a GOP nominee and got caught up in scandals as it is that, say, he was a ballistics guy for the Navy. That's less notable than his scandals, but seemingly also lead-worthy... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What Will said. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The allegations are now and forever a major factor in Cain's life. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup. It's odd to talk about his ending his campaign without mentioning why; the "several controversies" is unnecessary obfuscation, not entirely because the controversies were not unrelated. And, as 2001 points out, it's much more notable and much more a feature of coverage of him than some of the other lead content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Several weeks ago I asked if the emergence of circumstantial evidence that Cain was a serial sexual harrasser would prove to be his "Dean scream moment". Those favoring obfuscation of this circumstantial evidence asserted that it was too early to write off his campaign due to unproven allegations. In doing so I think they were misinterpreting our policies:
  • It was not then, and is not now, our role to decide the extent to which the claims against him were credible. WP:Reliable sources had already weighed in on the credibility of the claims. All that was required of us to write an article that complied with WP:NPOV was to select interpretations to summarize from across the spectrum.
  • Cain explicitly acknowledged some of the claims, had done so relatively early after Politico broke the story. For example, he explicitly acknowledged that some of the former subordinates who voiced concerns that he had sexually harrassed them received cash settlements.

Obfuscation of the historical record, to protect Cain's reputation, his dignity, his future in politics, was inappropriate then. It is even more inappropriate now that he has dropped out.

I strongly believe we have to respect the intelligence of our readers. Cain has not acknowledged sexually harrassing anyone. I don't know, none of us know, for a certain fact, whether Cain's protestations that all the circumstantial evidence is just a surprising chain of coincidences and misunderstandings are true. But the proper reaction to doubts is not obfuscation. The proper reaction is to neutrally and soberly reflect what WP:RS have to say. Obfuscation, based on our personal doubts, is a serious lapse from WP:NPOV.

So, was the emergence of circumstantial evidence that Cain was a serial sexual harrasser his "Dean scream moment"? There was the circumstantial evidence that Cain lacked sufficient knowledge to exercise the power of the US Presidency (Uzbekibekibekibekistanstan anyone?) to be entrusted with the power of the Presidency. There was the concern that his 9-9-9 economic plan didn't add up. But even if it wasn't the only factor, that circumstantial evidence of serial sexual harassment was an important factor -- thus deserves mention in the lead. Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Here is a source for the buyout of Godfather's Pizza from Pillsbury, and I hope someone can add it: [2] 184.100.184.253 (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

According to the manual of style MOS:LEAD, the lead is supposed to be at most 4 paragraphs, and the first paragraph of the lead is supposed to describe why the person is famous. Anyone want to fix the lead to follow guidelines? FurrySings (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 January 2012

The link to Herman Cain's website is incorrect. It is now "cainconnections.com" without quotes.

Jjandrt21 (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Recentism in response to Obama speech

I deleted a section that discussed Cain's response to Obama's 2012 State of the Union speech. In my edit summary I cited WP:NOTNEWS but I mean to refer to Wikipedia:Recentism.

The nature and substance of Cain's response does not give me any sense that it has long-lasting relevance to his biography. In light of the fact that we deleted a section discussing ten years of Cain's work with Aquila, I cannot see that one night of talking deserves its own section unless it somehow proves to be a major element of Cain's life. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a sub-section of "Political activities." In this context, it is relevant. Multiple reliable sources discuss this subject. Also, although it was recent, it is not Wikipedia:Recentism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable per coverage in reliable sources (many). Notable per event. Notable per person making the speech. Not an example remotely covered by "NOTNEWS". Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the speech is noteworthy enough to include. But our coverage probably should be kept fairly short. It might not merit a section of its own.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the section should not be long. I will work on a more concise version. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Daily Show appearances

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-june-28-2012-tenacious-d

Could it be added to the article somewhere that Cain has appeared twice on The Daily Show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americium-con (talk • contribs) 08:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Official site?

http://cainsolutionsrevolution.com/, currently listed as Cain's homepage, just loads a "system offline" message. His Twitter account, https://twitter.com/THEHermanCain, lists http://hermancain.com/ as his homepage, but that page is empty. There is also http://www.caintv.com/, but that appears not to have a personal section. Where should we be linking with officialsite? Does anyone know if the not loading problem is new or ongoing? FiveColourMap (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Herman Cain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 02:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   Two citation needed tags in the article covering a significant amount of content.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Biography does not appear to have been updated since 2013.

   B. Focused (see summary style):

   WP:RECENTISM

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Four large paragraphs devoted to unproven sexual harassment claims from 2011?

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm quick-failing this for the above reasons. A message has been left on the nominator's talk page reminding them of the importance of being a significant contributor so as to avoid future quick fails. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Herman Cain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110509030559/http://people.forbes.com:80/profile/herman-cain/2151 to http://people.forbes.com/profile/herman-cain/2151

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Other Political Views

This section seems arbitrary to me. If there were multiple opinions of Herman Cain's that were neglected in the above sections, then it makes sense to add this in, but not for a one sentence claim. Additionally, if this article is to include the statement that Cain thinks blacks are "brainwashed," it should include his reasoning behind thinking that, rather than just one sentence that comes off as a somewhat bogus claim without detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKC051 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 6 December 2011‎ (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Herman Cain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121155149/http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-01/politics/politics_gloria-cain-profile_1_herman-cain-team-cain-campaign-trail/3?_s=PM:POLITICS to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-01/politics/politics_gloria-cain-profile_1_herman-cain-team-cain-campaign-trail/3?_s=PM:POLITICS
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://kansascityfed.org/publicat/newsroom/2011pdf/press.release.05.26.11.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130130200355/http://www.omaha.com/article/20111011/NEWS01/710119907/0 to http://www.omaha.com/article/20111011/NEWS01/710119907/0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111228002805/http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/herman-cains-revised-9-0-9-tax-plan-raises-new-doubts to http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/herman-cains-revised-9-0-9-tax-plan-raises-new-doubts

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herman Cain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120529192838/http://new.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=172858 to http://new.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=172858

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Fed Nominee

Someone has updated this to indicate that Cain is a nominee for the Fed. This is premature. Trump has said he's likely to nominate him, but they are still waiting on the background check. No nomination has yet been made. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/business/herman-cain-federal-reserve.html 2600:8803:7D00:250:702D:1DF9:8D6C:C6C6 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Random Guy Who Cares About Facts

• I agree that there was premature coverage, given Trump merely said he was a nominee. However this edit removed a brief passage that accurately said Trump spoke about nominating him. I think that coverage was appropriate, so I requested the editor who made it to return here, and discuss it. But, if they don't, I think I will revert them. Geo Swan (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Unless the nomination has been made, we shouldn't add that passage to the lead section per WP:NOTNEWS. However, it could be placed in a different section like the education and career section instead. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Herman Cain's previous Federal Reserve Bank experience????

Is Herman Cain's previous Federal Reserve Bank experience true? I am very surprised that NO news article that I have come across has ever mentioned this.

I posted the above question about 1 hour ago. Now I have just come across the FIRST article that DOES indeed mention his being on the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. "Cain joined the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1989, later becoming its deputy chairman and then chairman." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-he-won-t-nominate-herman-cain-federal-reserve-n997136 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennypackard (talk • contribs) 21:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This article needs semi-protection

Look at the revision history for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.197.209 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator Valereee. 2 days. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Change his name from "PeePeePooPoo" in Google search, please.

When you Google search 'Herman Cain,' the leading result starts with "PeePeePooPoo" from wikipedia. Please change this. This is INSANELY disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.204.91 (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@65.130.204.91: edit reverted. Thanks. Note that Google might take a while to notice it. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I've used the "feedback" tool on the Google Knowledge Panel to report the inaccuracy -- I imagine given the high profile death it will be purged from their cache soon. It intermittently shows up for me -- on some refreshes I see it and on some I don't. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

CNN source formatting

Is this a legitimate source? It appears to be just a link to CNN's wikipedia page and a claim that "Event occurs at 10:30 AM Eastern." How is this verifiable? Kire1975 (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't look at the citation template closely enough when I adjusted the source. I've replaced it with what I thought I was sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

"Health and death" should include counter viewpoint to covid-19 contraction

The article currently states: "His staff said there was no way to be certain where or in what way he contracted the disease.[108][109]"

This seems like a suspicious passage to include when even the linked articles are implying that he likely could have contracted Covid-19 at the Tulsa rally, where he was present without a mask. Current news articles are heavily speculating on this as well, such as this headline:

"Maverick former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain DIES of Covid-19 - after going to Donald Trump's notorious Tulsa rally WITHOUT a mask then being diagnosed nine days later" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576921/Herman-Cain-DIES-Covid-19-going-Donald-Trumps-notorious-Tulsa-rally-WITHOUT-mask.html

In the interest of public health, I don't think it is neutral to keep the "no way to be certain" line without contrasting this against his public and high-risk appearance which fits the timeline of his infection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.237.132 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you caught the article during a brief period where that information was removed. Paintspot restored it in this edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

The sentence in the introduction, "Cain died on July 30, 2020 from complications due to COVID-19, possibly contracting the disease after attending a Trump rally in Tulsa without wearing a mask or socially distancing", should be shortened to simply "Cain died on July 30, 2020 from complications due to COVID-19". Making such a speculation about how and when he contracted the virus is unnecessarily contentious, and should be removed. He could have contracted it at the grocery store, for all anybody knows. 75.175.118.155 (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Cannolis (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Herman Cain's Death

Surely if Herman was not wearing a mask at the rally, he was likely not to wear a mask anywhere not required. This sentiment is touched upon by Herman Cain's site editor, who announced his death. At the very least, the sentence reading that he "may have died" not wearing a mask at a trump rally should be expanded upon to capture why this is theorized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somewordswrittendown (talk • contribs)

^ This sounds like speculation - original research...? By the way, Mr. Cain attended a Trump rally. There is no such thing as a "trump rally", whatever that is. Surakmath (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to specify why people are speculating that Cain may have contracted the disease by not wearing a mask to a rally with 6,000+ other people, many of whom were also not wearing masks, where there were known COVID-positive attendees. That said, I could support those details being added if a source specifically mentions them when suggesting that was where Cain caught the virus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not the job of editors to make conclusions about how/why Cain died, or where/when he contracted the virus. That is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Save it for the doctors. KidAd (💬💬) 20:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Nor am I suggesting we do so in the article. I'm not sure if you intended to reply to me or just indented your comment unusually, but if you did, you may want to re-read what I said. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t intend to reply to you directly. Fairly sure we agree. KidAd (💬💬) 21:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying! GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

The word "communist" in the first sentence is wrong; it should read columnist. Calling Herman Cain is defamatory, scandalous and wrong. It smears the good name of this man. 204.154.192.252 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Already done - It's hard to tell where that was introduced with the rapid editing, but it's not in the article at this point. - Aoidh (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, it was added in this edit by a user who has been blocked for the edit at 15:26 and removed in this edit 1 minute later, so you must have caught the page between those two edits. - Aoidh (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It's wrong, but it's neither defamatory not scandalous. -- 72.194.23.121 (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

date of death

None of the included sources seem to say he died today. They all seem to say the death was announced today. He could easily have died yesterday. —valereee (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have gone through and removed a bunch of claims that he died today, as none of the sources in the article claim he died today, just that it was announced today. I agree that the specific day should not be re-added without a quality source stating the date of his death (not the date of the announcement). GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This source does say that he died Thursday morning. Other sources have cited Newsmax as he "had recently joined Newsmax TV and had planned to launch a new weekly show prior to his death." - Aoidh (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm.. WP:RSP#Newsmax shows no consensus for the reliability of the source. I'd be more comfortable waiting for a more reliable source (not the ones clearly citing from Newsmax) but I'm also not familiar with the outlet. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel the same way about Newsmax, having never heard of it before today. That's not to say that it's not reliable for this, and other sites have cited it, but I'll keep looking and see what I can find. - Aoidh (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Forbes is calling it Thursday morning, and his official twitter account retweeted this article that mentions the Thursday morning date, but everything else I could find was local newspapers which I have no doubt are just repeating from a more central source. I'd feel comfortable using Newsmax and Forbes to use as a date, but given the heaving editing back-and-forth on that point, I'd rather not jump in too soon; if it was this morning then it's still very recent and more sources will come out that will clarify, I'm sure. - Aoidh (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Someone else has provided this Rolling Stone article, which specifies he died today: [3]. I've updated the article accordingly, since Rolling Stone is generally reliable (WP:RSN#Rolling Stone) GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moncrief: You may be interested in this conversation. Regarding your recent edit summary, Rolling Stone is a RS. And please don't accuse editors of "chasing cites because you want to be the first to report the date" when they are updating the article in accordance with policy... GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Politico also says today. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox News specifies "Thursday". Schazjmd (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it necessary to say flat "July 2020"? It's obvious he was still alive three days ago, but the way the article is phrased at the moment makes it seem like he might've died any time this month. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel the same way about Newsmax, having never heard of it before today. -- Newsmax is an extremely well known right wing noise machine site. -- 72.194.23.121 (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Moncrief:@GorillaWarfare:@Aoidh:@Valereee: On Herman Cain's website itself, his webmaster (and apparently someone who works with him directly), Dan Calabrese, specifically states that he died today. See The post on his website - near the bottom of that post he writes "But I want you to understand just what our world has lost today..." then he goes on to specify Cain's passing. He wrote it today, July 30, so we can reasonably state that he died today. After all, Calabrese can be considered a primary source and this is from Cain's website/estate itself.Rush922(talk) 17:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I crawled through that post looking for a date. I know it sounds like nitpicking but I don't think that cuts it as far as verifying the death date. The world lost something today with this announcement, or via his death? It seems like WP:OR to put intent behind the words when it's not clearly spelled out. - Aoidh (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Rush922, agree, we cannot use that as a date of death, and there's zero reason to guess if we don't know. —valereee (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Can this statement be changed to the following? Cain died on July 30, 2020 from complications due to COVID-19, ten days after attending a Trump rally in Tulsa without wearing a mask or socially distancing.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Where did you get 10 days from? The Tulsa rally was 40 days ago from what I can tell? - Aoidh (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume they mean that Cain attended the rally 10–11 days before testing positive for the virus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like that change was just made by Tktru, though I'm not sure I agree it should have been. It seems to imply a much stronger causation than there really is. While I support the inclusion of that fact, it ought to be made clear like it is in the "Health and death" section that no one has definitively tied his contraction of the disease to the Tulsa rally. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I see that "possibly" has now been added, which I'm much more okay with. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The article's moving too quick for me to keep up, but the versions that say "Went to the rally on X. Tested positive on Y" is fine, it's the "Y happened because of X" versions that I have an issue with because while that may or may not have been the case, we just don't know and reliable sources are taking pains to make that point clear, I don't think the article should make assumptions that sources won't. - Aoidh (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Rush922 I don't see in that article that a date of death is specified? It just says 'we lost today'. That's not a date of death. He could be referring to the announcement, just like we are. There would be zero surprise if someone dies at 11pm and their family doesn't announce it until morning. Please let's leave this for now. —valereee (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'm not sure if you realized, but your removal just now of the day was undoing my change, which I added based on both the Rolling Stone and Politico sources—it was not added based on the source Rush provided. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, sorry, it's back! Added the Forbes too! —valereee (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I still have not seen any substantiated evidence the he died on July 30 and not, for example, the late night of July 29. WHY ARE YOU IN SUCH A RUSH TO CHANGE THIS? Let the information come out as it comes out. It's pretty clear, from past experience, that news sources without the very strictest obit standards will rely on an individual journalist's interpretation of primary data. So, for example, the Forbes article writer likely saw the word "today" on the Cain website announcement and interpreted it as him dying today, when that's not necessarily the case. I feel like the rush is about ego and your desire to be "first" rather than being sure we have the facts correct. That a few random journalists without any more relationship to the primary data than we have, say something is true doesn't mean that it's true. Moncrief (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already asked you to be more civil in my comment to you above; now you're WP:SHOUTing and saying "the rush is about ego and your desire to be 'first' rather than being sure we have the facts correct"? We both want this article to be correct–you seem to be more motivated by taking an extremely conservative view as to what constitutes a verifiable claim, whereas I am more willing to assume that three separate, known reliable publishers have done their fact checking. Neither stance is necessarily wrong, and certainly neither one warrants the kind of attacks you are resorting to.

I am not sure what kind of evidence you are looking for, though. In other articles I have edited where a person has recently passed away, I have pushed like you are pushing here to remove unverified claims of a date of death (or I think the most recent case it was a cause of death that people were rushing to add). In all instances I have been involved in, the contention ends when reliable sources unequivocally state the date/cause of death, which has happened here. Now granted I often stay out of "breaking news" type events, but normally the RS making the claim is sufficient and we don't wait for something primary like a death certificate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Moncrief, there are multiple RS reporting he died this morning. They may be jumping to conclusions like so many editors here did, but before this we didn't have anyone saying it definitely. Like you I'm wondering if we'll soon discover he actually died late last night, but for now I think we have to go with the RS. —valereee (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

NYT very carefully not yet saying he died today here. —valereee (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ditto NPR. —valereee (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Moncrief (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change

Cain attended a Donald Trump rally in Tulsa on June 20 without wearing a face mask or socially distancing.

To

In 2020, Cain attended a Donald Trump rally in Tulsa on June 20 without wearing a face mask or socially distancing.

The current paragraph gives no indication of when it occurs. If it weren't a current event, it would not be obvious how many years it occurred over. The preceding paragraph says 2006, so an inference could be made that he got sick in 2006. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. —valereee (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

Remove the suggestion that Herman Cain caught the virus at the Trump Rally. Pure conjecture and speculation! Know one knows where he caught the virus, and the incubation period is anywhere from 14 to 27 days after exposure. 70.190.80.166 (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what exact change you are asking for. I don't see wording that seems to suggest that on WP's part. We report what RS are saying, and RS are reporting that he attended the rally. We also report that his staff say it's not possible to know and that people will speculate that's what happened. We can't simply ignore what's being widely discussed in RS. —valereee (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Godfather’s Pizza, Inc.

Herman Cain lead a leveraged buyout of Godfather’s Pizza, Inc. from Pillsbury with two other businessmen, who served as VP and legal counsel of GPI with Cain continuing on as CEO in the early 1990’s. Ssmcintire (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ssmcintire, hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Do you have a specific change you're suggesting? We do mention that in the section on Burger King and Godfather. —valereee (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Need to remove the clear political bias.

There is an excerpt at the top of the page related to his death. Given the current political climate and the even the fact that so many doctors are divided on the subject matter, we should not have the blurb "without wearing a mask or socially distancing." It's sad enough we lost a great man. However, this is painting him in a bad light simply for political reasons. We do not say when someone dies of lung caner they were smoking right before they died. The same rules should apply here. Let's show some respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh.jeremy (talk • contribs)

Please note that the Template:Recent Death explains that this article is being edited heavily. It is difficult to catch every edit that contains problematic language as you are suggesting. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Doctors are not divided. -- 72.194.23.121 (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice non answer from a mod by the way, the bias on this page is frankly disgusting. -unbiasedpredator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpredator (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Unbiasedpredator: Wikipedia reflects what the reliable sources have to say on a subject, and if reliable sources say a person died from lung cancer and tied the death to smoking then we would as well (and indeed we do: Johnny Carson, Nat King Cole, Sammy Davis, Jr.). Reliable sources have connected Herman Cain's death and the fact that he attended the Tulsa rally without following guidelines around mask-wearing or social-distancing, and so too do we. I will note that Super Goku V is not a mod–and if they were, it would not matter. What is and is not included in an article is decided based on policies and consensus, not individual users' particular userrights. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I could have just unhelpfully said that the changes were already done without saying anything else, but I figured that it was easier to just note that the article is being heavily edited. (Somewhere around 175+ edits and at least one for each hour since the announcement.) The protection could be increased if you argue it is vandalism, but that is usually heavy-handed when it isn't even guaranteed. So if something is posted and stays on the article for 10+ minutes, feel free to report it here for someone to take care of if you don't feel confident editing the article to remove it. (Additionally, anyone can use Template:Unsigned, even the user who forgot to sign their comment. And my name is in blue for having an actual userpage, no matter how basic it is. Neither make me a mod.) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You're mistaking the lack of your own extreme bias in others for bias. -- 72.194.23.121 (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Magazine is the stated source for the controversial and debatable Covid death attribution. I'm not making that up. Rolling Stone.

No wonder people mock Wikipedia. Your unabashed and unrelenting bias continues to shoot yourself in the head.2600:6C56:6600:1ECF:8095:BA07:B387:5A79 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is considered a reliable source per perennial sources at WP:RSN. I'm not sure why you think it's not a reasonable source for this information. —valereee (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is supporting the statement: After four weeks of hospitalization, he died from the disease's complications at age 74. What part of that is controversial? Are people arguing that Cain didn't die of COVID complications? I've yet to see that, but there are dozens of additional high quality sources that could be provided to confirm it if it is indeed controversial. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

removing death from lead?

Hey, InedibleHulk, the fact he died (and the cause) seems to me definitely appropriate for the lead. We can argue about whether the fact he was a vocal opponent of mask mandates belongs in the lead, but the fact he died and the cause do seem like important details. —valereee (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The death date (strongly implying the death fact) is already in the very first sentence, and the cause already immediately to the right. Seemed like recentist overkill to repeat both so soon. But if you two want to politicize it, I don't object. Should probably add something about the mask debate, though, just to make the point clear. Deaths from natural causes are typically rare in bio leads, especially elderly people's, and I'm not the only one who removes them. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

There doesn't tend to be recentism with the recently deceased. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic or making a typo? If neither, look again. Nothing attracts bloat and editorial attention like a new dead celebrity. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Typo. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank god! I added that contextual bit I suggested earlier, by the way. Not blaming the victim, not NOT blaming him, just how the chronology went. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't appreciate the ABF that Valereee or I are trying to politicize anything. I disagree that infoboxes are replacements for the lead paragraph—lead paragraphs would look very different if we didn't repeat information from the infoboxes in them. A very unscientific perusal of the various people I'm familiar with who've died of COVID-19 complications show that some include the fact in the lead (Alan Merrill, John Horton Conway, Adam Schlesinger, Patricia Bosworth) and some do not (Floyd Cardoz, Ty (rapper), Sergio Rossi (shoe designer), Lorena Borjas). Is there a guideline about this anywhere? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for assuming, seems like one of those partisan messes, in general, as much to do with Trump as COVID. I salute you for personally not playing that game. Not aware of a guideline, just see patterns, anecdotal stuff really, confirmation bias aplenty. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, how can including a cause of death be 'a partisan mess'? He either died of something or he didn't. —valereee (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That something is COVID, in general a divisive election-themed mess, as the death in the article body (and campaign in the lead) attests. If it's in the lead, it reflects the body, even if shortened. If you know another way this cause is significant, tell me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not, really. Some folks decided to treat mask wearing, distancing, closings/openings as if there's a political component, which is unfortunate, but there's no inherent political component. Covid itself and the stuff scientists are recommending isn't even a tiny bit politicial. It's a purely scientific issue: people are more likely to get this virus if they don't mask/distance. If they're older and/or have underlying conditions, they're more likely to die. There's nothing political about it. But for many journalists, it is worth mentioning when someone vocally opposes masking and then dies of the disease, and RS did in fact mentioned it. That still doesn't make it political. It just makes it significant for our purposes. I'm totally open to argument that it's not significant enough for the lead. That's always going to be a judgement call, which means it needs consensus. —valereee (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I object to the characterization of including a 100% normal fact in the lead as an attempt at politicization. —valereee (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to you, too, I'm a bad judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You aren't a bad judge. You just made a hasty assumption. :) —valereee (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

My snakelike reflexes aren't even my worst feature. I have semilawful carnal knowledge on the infomedipolitical complex ingrained straight through my being, I can't handle this crap impartially and would poison this panel, the jury and all of you in the peanut gallery if given the chance to testify further on such matters. Your friendly consolation is hereby overruled, I am recused and the fate of this lead rests squarely in the hands of whomsoever should want a piece of said action. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

lol on snakelike reflexes. You realize your input isn't dismissed here? I value any reasonable argument that differs from my own first instinct. We can't make contentious articles right unless we have people willing to keep arguing from various viewpoints. And, er, do I want to ask about your semilawful carnal knowledge on the infomedipolitical complex? I'll take the red pill. —valereee (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If you insist on badgering my witness (represented by myself), we'll disclose this much: Everything you hear on cable news is brought to you by drugs, very big weapons and life insurance scams, never by objective public health officials. Choose wisely! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sidenote

June 30 and July 2 events currently precede June 29 stuff in "Health and death", can't paste, little help? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

__ Damn just let the man be. People trying to tear him apart even when he’s in a grave.WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not being a vile ghoul here, just saying chronological order had been lost; looks better now. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Cain not masking in Tulsa

I don't believe this is important significant enough to go into the lead, but it's been added several times. Let's try to find consensus instead of going back and forth.

• The fact Cain wasn't wearing a mask or social distancing at the June 2020 Trump rally is as of July 30, when no one is reporting he got the virus there, not important significant enough for the lead. Agree or disagree?

As proposer: Agree —valereee (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't seem important. EricCharmanderillo (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Changing wording to 'significant enough' to resolve confusion —valereee (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Can you clarify if you are hoping to discuss specifically whether Cain's choice not to wear a mask or social distance should be added to the lead, or whether any mention of his attendance of the Tulsa rally should be added to the lead? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I think the specifics of not masking/social distancing/attendance in Tulsa is inappropriate for the lead unless/until RS are reporting that's where he got it, which I doubt they ever will be able to report. It's not like his family is going to want to try to have that proven. That he was publicly advocating against masking and refused to wear one generally, yes, I think that could definitely go into the lead. NYT speculating this morning on whether his death could affect masking support among Republicans, Reuters and Slate talking about his advocacy against masks. —valereee (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just added information about his general dismissiveness of masking/social distancing, but I'm not sure it belongs in the death section. I do think there's enough about that -- it's literally the headline of most of the stories -- that it could go into the lead. —valereee (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't think we should say in the lead that Cain contracted the virus in Tulsa, but it does seem that a ton of RSes are speculating that is where he got it. We could add that (that there is speculation that he got it there), but certainly nothing implying that is definitively where he got it. As for his dismissiveness of mask-wearing, I do think it should be described in the article body. I'm not sure if it belongs in the lead, but I could go either way on that. If it is in the lead, I don't think it should be placed alongside the fact that he died of COVID -- perhaps it could go in the previous para. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you think separating the two statements feels kind of...I don't know, kind of almost weirdly begging the question? Understand I have zero strong opinion here yet. It's really a difficult question, and a balancing act. —valereee (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with putting them together and implying that Cain's anti-mask stance was directly tied to his death, which hasn't been (and probably won't be) said in RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. So do we put it into the lead at all, then? Because if it's in the lead, it's going to be very strange not to have it alongside (or at least very near) the mention of covid. And there are so many RS mentioning the mask-mandate opposition in the same breath as they announce his death that it feels like it might need to go in the lead. Maybe we need to wait for some RS to do a deeper analysis that more directly connects the ideas, leave it out of the lead until/unless? —valereee (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If many high-quality RS are mentioning it in the same breath than I guess I'd be okay with it going in the lead near the death info. But it might also make sense to wait -- hopefully more sources will come out in the next few days. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Adding just that one aspect from the 'Health and death' section in addition to his death is inappropriate. —ADavidB 07:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

EricCharmanderillo turned out to be a sockpuppet, so striking through their edits as block evasion. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)