Talk:Herman Cain/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Will these allegations against Cain by his "Dean Scream" moment?

Howard Dean was seen as a potential front runner -- until a video of him letting out some kind of wild enthusiastic whoop at a campaign event, that his opponents kept mocking as a sign of dangerous eccentricity, if not mental instability. (Reporters there say his whoop was not crazy, was consistent with the audiences' whooping -- but the audience wasn't miked, while Dean was.) Anyhow, whether fair or foul, it ended his Presidential ambitions.

Some of the apologists who want to scale back the coverage of the hush money we know Cain paid seem to want to do so because the will not accept it is significant. Even though most of the rest of the world would never have heard of Cain, if it weren't for these complaints, this hush money.

I follow US politics, so I knew who Cain was. But I don't remember him being covered by the CBC News or the BBC News, prior to his scandal. Now his continually morphing story is a news item practically every night. So, the scandal does merit a big portion of this article. Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. The scandal is responsible for much of the notability he has - and due weight questions should be considered accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, a quick sampling of coverage shows that his breakout poll numbers after Perry's implosion and his 9-9-9 rhetoric were the drivers to his contemporary notability. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are you sure you aren't inadvertently slipping into Americo-centrism? I repeat Cain had received essentially zero coverage up here in Canada prior to the publication of the hush money facts. Geo Swan (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say we shouldn't be so willing to totally ignore the guidelines, particularly the obvious reminder that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Particular attention to point #3 would probably be to your benefit. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

TomPointTwo, there is no question that those other factors contributed to his notability, and getting on the front page. But this scandal is what's putting him in the headlines much more frequently, and, more relevantly, bringing more people to this article. If you look at the page stats, in late October this page was getting about 20k hits per day (between 16k and 28k), and then it suddenly jumped up to 45k on October 31, the day Politico broke the story, and held steady in the low 40ks for a few days in a row in early November. Thousands of people are obviously coming here to learn specifically about the scandal.

Yes, there have been other spikes and periods of even more hits, but I'm not arguing this is the thing that is making him most notable - I'm saying it's one of the significant factors that is making him notable. Apparently, it's what's getting him coverage in Europe. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The notability standard for Wikipedia and popular culture recognition, while intertwined, are not the same metric. Your original assertion that these allegations are "responsible for much of the notability he has" remains incorrect. From a biographical point these allegations are a small part of a balanced, well constructed biography, though more extensive coverage is no doubt due on the campaign's article. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your original assertion that these allegations are "responsible for much of the notability he has" remains incorrect.

Incorrect or not, personal observations have no place here, to say nothing of the article itself. Why this POV banter is even being tolerated here is beyond me. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, it seems to me that Cain apologists' arguments boil down to "I think there is too much coverage of Cain's hush money payments, because I don't think it is a significant story. I don't care that even the most prestigious newspapers give it daily coverage.

  I don't want our coverage of the story to reflect the day to day changes in the evolving story.

  I don't want to see the size of this section expand any further -- I think it is too large as is."

  WRT WP:NOT -- I don't believe you are interpreting policy correctly. When the New York Times called it "biggest test of his campaign". Why isn't this passage in the article? This is not original research, speculation, or any of the other things that section 3 of WP:BALL warns against. Is it because Cain apologists don't personally agree with the New York Times? The New York Times is a highly respected RS. Cain apologists aren't RS at all. The opinion of Cain apologists should not take precedence over the opinions of RS.

  We have got to trust the intelligence of our readers. In other discussions I have seen good faith contributors unknowingly slip pretty far into POV-pushing because they do not respect the intelligence of our readers. They argued, "we have to make sure our readers aren't left with the wrong impression." If our coverage is neutrally written then the conclusion our readers draw aren't our concern. Intelligent readers are entitled to draw different conclusions that the ones you hold or the ones I hold. Trying to protect readers from drawing the "wrong conclusion" is POV-pushing, pure and simple. Out there in the real world I come across comments that have used material I contributed to the wikipedia, where the writer doesn't share my personal conclusion. This does not concern me, rather I see it as a sign my coverage was neutrally written. For all I know my personal conclusions that I kept out of article space were wrong, and the conclusions of those readers were correct.

  As has been pointed out readers are coming here because their past history of using the wikipedia showed them we could present balanced, neutrally written, fair coverage of other controversial topics.

  Unfortunately apologists are preventing us from giving this story the appropriate, neutrally written, fair minded coverage it deserves -- because they don't believe the amount of the responsible press's coverage and the public's interest in the story is appropriate.

  I appeal to the Cain apologists to accept that even though, in a world where they controlled the media, the story of Cain's hush money payments would have been suppressed across the board, Cain lives, and most of us live, in countries where there is freedom of the press. Your personal notions that the story shouldn't have received the prominence it has are irrelevant. Geo Swan (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Take it to user talk page space, please. See WP:TALKNO

Your long history of personalizing policy discussions and inappropriately reading into other's motivations hasn't served you very well in the past so I don't understand why you think it'll become constructive or otherwise any different here. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Misconduct section?

This page is a disgrace, what happened to the section detailing the sexual misconduct that is becoming Mr Cain's "dean scream" moment? I understand it is not a defining issue of the man himself but there should at least be a mention the scandal, even if it is a sentence on his campaign section, his scandal has probably received more coverage than anything else in comparison to sections such as "Imagine there was no Pizza", a reader with little information who would come to this page does not even see a single mention on these serious charges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.54.18 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for changes to Sexual Misconduct Section

I know heated debate has permeated the page over the past week about the sexual misconduct section. I want this post to be a reply to both the "Dean Scream" and "New Article" headings. A few hours ago I went ahead and shortened the section on sexual misconduct. The bulk of the content has been moved, not removed, to the article Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012, under a section called "Sexual misconduct accusations". This section is linked from this article for reader's convenience, and no content has been lost. On that page you can go as detailed as you want about everything, but not on the man's biography. I say this because I have the consensus of a large number of editors above, and also because of the clearly articulated guidelines at WP:UNDUE, which I will not repeat here. If the opposing editors do not buy my argument, please take it to a noticeboard and challenge it there with experienced editors instead of reverting.

However, I am agreeable to the user above who cited NYT for this being "the biggest challenge" for the Cain Campaign, and would be amenable to inserting a sentence or so in summary style in the article. But let's not forget, this may be Cain's death knell or it may be his true moment to shine. We do not know that yet. Once we know the effects, we can expand on it properly. For now, details and minutiae do not belong on this article. It belongs on the campaign article, or in a separate article altogether. That is another discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 04:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but most readers looking for this material are going to come to this article, so there needs to be a section heading that's easy-to-find in the table of contents with a link to the section on the campaign article. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that Will added a short paragraph about the topic, with an embedded link to the section in the campaign article. I took this a small step further by restoring the heading, and adding a more obvious link to the section in the campaign article to make it easier for readers to find. I still think this article is the right place for much more material about this, but this small section, heading and link is probably good enough. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, what we have now looks good to me. Just a few sentences, with a link to the other article, but a subsection title relating to the allegations, since it's true that many readers will be looking for that. Obviously we'll need to make adjustments going forward as the story evolves, but most of the real content on this will be in the campaign article. I think the basic model we have here will work going forward and it seems most if not all editors who have commented here are fine with it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Like. Thanks for all your efforts. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

CBS News is a reliable source.

I added the following to the article:

CBS News played recordings of Cain and Bialek's voices to private investigator TJ Ward who then ran the recordings through lie-detection computer software which has an accuracy rate of 95%. Ward told CBS that the software showed that Cain was telling the truth and that Bialek was lying. The CBS TV report of this can be seen here.

An editor removed it, and commented, "BLP. even if on CBS it's just the word of some private investigator."

CBS is a reliable source.

The fact that CBS reported on the private investigator makes the private investigator notable.

And since this is a BLP (as the deleting editor correctly pointed out), it is especially important that we cite this. To not cite it means that we are not reporting all reliably sourced points of view, which is unfair to the subject.

I think the info should be put pack into the article. But I don't want to start an edit war, and I would like to know what other editors think of this.

Mk2z0h (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that information about the misconduct allegations should be only the short section we currently have, including a link to the full section on the campaign page. If this is to be inserted anywhere, it should be over there.

That said, the idea that you can reliably discern lying vs veracity on an arbitrary recording is ridiculous. Even the real deal is of dubious accuracy, but at least there they establish a base line with the person by asking certain questions for which the true answers are known, and they look at physiological information like pulse. Here he's going by what? Voice inflection? That's ridiculous. I wouldn't bother trying to insert such nonsense, no matter who reported it. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This print version of the story may be better than the youtube one for ref purposes. http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances

Local news, so notability is not as if it was on the CBS national news. A lot would hinge on the reliability/reputation of the PI and the software he is using. If other sources can be found about him being an expert in this field, I would support it, otherwise I think it is too fringe. Gaijin42 (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that it was the non-notable investigator who claimed that his software is 95% accurate, not CBS. This is not quality journalism.   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this absolutely does not belong in this or any other article. As mentioned above, lie detector tests are problematic enough as it is. This method pretty clearly sounds worse than a lie detector test, and unless research in some peer reviewed journal extols this dude's software as a virtually foolproof way to tell someone is lying simply by watching a video, I think we can safely dismiss it as nonsense.

Oh and to top it off, this is not from the national CBS news, but rather from an affiliate in Atlanta. As virtually all Americans with an ounce of sense realize, local network news is horriawful, usually about as reliable as a newspaper published by 5th graders. They do this kind of nonsense "journalism" all the time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap is that clip hilarious! Classic example of how bad local news is. The reporter literally says of the software, "it's very scientific. It's very expensive." It's scientific! Case closed! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Further, it was not a report by CBS news, the New York-based national network. It was by a local affiliate in Atlanta. The reporter does not mention doing any fact checking with other sources, and seems to have accepted whatever the investigator told him. In addition, the reporter specifically refers to an "uncut video", but the news video of that video shows that it was, in fact, edited. Definitely cheesy reporting. We have enough high-quality news sources that we shouldn't devote space to stuff like this.   Will Beback  talk  06:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not even worth discussing its inclusion, if for no other reason, it's basically what our policy on fringe material was written for. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I just looked at WP:FRINGE, and I am at a loss as to which portions of this guideline coverage of the complaints that Cain sexually harrassed women lapses from? This guideline addresses fringe theories. That Cain paid hush money is not a theory, fringe, or otherwise. Cain has acknowledged paying hush money. Could you please review WP:FRINGE -- and if you have done so, and have found particular passages you think apply here, could you then quote them here. No offense, if you can't cite passages of WP:FRINGE, and explain how they are relevant here, I think the rest of us should assume WP:FRINGE is not actually relevant. Geo Swan (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please stop making blatently false statements like "Cain has acknowledged paying hush money." He has done no such thing, and when you make absolutely false statements like that I tend to just ignore everything else you say. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What? I'm talking about the PI lie detector assertion. You know, the subject of this section. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Cain has acknowledged paying hush money." Perhaps this should read, "Cain has acknowledged that hush money has been paid." When you make absolutely false statements like that I tend to just ignore everything else you say. Richrakh (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 November 2011

Change the heading "vocals" in the index of the hermain cain article because it is ambigious and irrelevant to the index as a whole 128.255.23.139 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: "Vocals" seems to be a valid subheading of his media work, and I don't know what you mean by an "index". I did remove the "Imagine There's No Pizza" title though. — Bility (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

Please change: By mid-November 2011, accusations of sexual harassment had contributed to a sharp decline in Cain's support in opinion polls.

to:

By mid-November 2011, accusations of sexual harassment, which Cain firmly denied, had contributed to a sharp decline in Cain's support in opinion polls.

Mglott (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Good edit. Done. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Weight of allegations?

• - Is censoring any mention of the corroboration of Bialek's story here a violation of NPOV?

After adding content about the latest corroboration of Bialek's story to the campaign article[1], I added the following line, properly cited, with summary "Add key sentence: Cain denies even knowing Bialek, but Bialek's story is corroborated by two people now", to the short section on the sexual allegations in this article:

Cain has denied recognizing Bialek or even her name, but a Chicago radio personality and an ex-boyfriend have corroborated key aspects of Bialek's story.

This was reverted on the following grounds: "Its called Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012 #Sexual misconduct accusations. Use it.".

Excuse me, but I did use it. The fact that this reverter, like most other people, is obviously not paying attention to the campaign article is exactly why it's important to keep at least a few key points in this article. If readers come to this article and all they learn is what is said here, we would be misleading them if they got the impression this is a she-said/he-said situation (which is what the current text does).

With two key aspects of Bialek's story now corroborated by separate credible people, the balance has clearly tipped, and to proactively edit this in a way that implies otherwise is a violation of NPOV, isn't it? --Born2cycle 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We have a sub-page for Cain's campaign issues. Since the affair brouhaha is largely a controversy for the presidential campaign and not really much of an aspect of the man's personal life and history, all of the back-and-forth, this-and-that details of the matter really do not belong here. And by the way, lobbing around the big-C word is pretty much a non-starter. If you wish to have an actual discussion of the matter, drop the theatrics. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The big-C word??? No idea what you mean. I agree with what you're saying. I don't see how the sentence I added qualifies as that. Can you please address the argument I made above? --Born2cycle 01:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Ah, I realize you meant censor is the "big C-word". Sorry, but that's how it felt to me. I won't use it any more. --Born2cycle 01:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used to amplify current news events: yes, the misconduct claims are strong and bad, and yes they need to be discussed. However, they are discussed in the appropiate place. Excited commentary with the latest on who said what in an encyclopedic article summing up a person's life is not appropriate. Removing it is good editorial judgment, not censorship. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the sentiments of both Tarc and Johnuniq. Colipon+(Talk) 04:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this just your personal opinions, or do you have reason to believe there is community consensus for what you're saying? Assuming the latter, would one of you please direct me to a policy or guideline that substantiates what you're saying - that there is community consensus for the notion that a BLP is not the appropriate place to discuss a scandal involving the subject of that BLP. Over at WP:BLP#Public figures I did find this:

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.

But I can't find anything that suggests a line like the one I added should not be added. Thanks! --Born2cycle 04:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I agree that "Wikipedia should not be used to amplify current news events". I also agree "Excited commentary with the latest on who said what in an encyclopedic article summing up a person's life is not appropriate", and that removing such content is good judgment.

What I don't understand is what any of this has to do with the content I added. Are you saying adding the statement, "Cain has denied recognizing Bialek or even her name, but a Chicago radio personality and an ex-boyfriend have corroborated key aspects of Bialek's story" is "amplifying current news events" and "is excited commenteary with the latest on who said what"? If so, how so?

Again, this is a key element that changes it from a he-said/she-said situation to one where it's becoming more and more clear that he's lying about all this. But if we suppress this from this article, about 95% of the readers (this page gets about 20 times as many page views as the campaign page so far this month) won't get that information.

I don't want to argue generalities. We agree on the generalities. What I want to see is a specific argument explaining why this particular statement is inappropriate - a rebuttal to my argument regarding why it is. Thanks. --Born2cycle 05:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User Born2cycle, with regards to the line you cite from WP:BLP: the point of that line is to say that if reputable media outlets publish information about a public scandal of some sort, it is not a violation of BLP to put it into that person's article. It says nothing about detailing the minutiae of the scandal, which is the subject of WP:UNDUE. Without seeing the long-term significance of the story (indeed, the story received about as much coverage as Rick Perry's "oops" moment in the debate), I even question the section having its own heading. I don't agree with you that 95% of readers are 'not getting information' - they have plenty of news sites, they can also just click on that link. Even if I were to concede this, I still do not believe Wikipedia should be place for specifics about whether we think Cain has lied, who corroborated the evidence etc. Colipon+(Talk) 14:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I kind of agree, keep all those allegation attachments , claims that a womans boyfriend agrees with his girlfriend etc on the subpage - there is enough here about it. If he is ever found guilty of anything we can add a bit more. I removed the header as undue and trimmed the detail to what I think is the noteworthy and correct weight and detail in his biography at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I continue to think that attempts to reduce or eliminate coverage of Cain's known actions and statements give the very strong appearance of lapses from WP:NPOV. User:Colipon writes above: "I still do not believe Wikipedia should be place for specifics about whether we think Cain has lied, who corroborated the evidence etc." I suggest this is a straw argument -- as I don't see anyone here advocating that any wikipedia contributors should be adding any comments here, or to any other article, as to who has lied, who has corroborated evidence -- based on what we think. That would be a lapse from WP:No original research. Neutrally written coverage of Cain's evolving story is not equivalent to calling anyone a liar. We have to respect the intelligence of our readers. Our readers may read that neutrally written coverage, and reach a conclusion that Cain and his team lied, or that his accusers lied, or that both sides lied, to a certain extent.

I suggest the argument that our readers should look at the news coverage for the details runs counter to how we try to cover other topics. I suggest our readers have been coming here, specifically, so they can find in one place, neutrally written, balanced coverage of the evolving story -- that they come here specifically so they won't have to try to go to a bunch of news sites, keep trying to find the most recent version. I suggest that the scaling back of this coverage is a serious erosion of the value of this article to our readers.

At the time I write this comment someone has scaled back the coverage to "In early November, allegations were made of sexual misconduct by Cain during his time as CEO of the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s.[9][84] Cain denies the allegations.[85]".

Frankly, this latest scaling back shocks me. Geo Swan (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I speak only for myself here when I say that my only concern with this portion of the article stems specifically from WP:UNDUE, not WP:BLP or the bigger picture of WP:NPOV. I agree with Geo Swan's point about people coming to read Wikipedia for balanced coverage, and I believe we have that balanced coverage over at the campaign page. It would appear then, that this really boils down to a matter of practicalities. I don't believe the practical consideration of this page getting more hits than the campaign article should overshadow the policy consideration of WP:UNDUE. Some users legitimately may contend this point. In the end I think two-three sentences is a good length for the sexual harrassment allegations. Colipon+(Talk) 16:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, I am fine with this revision of the page. I still prefer no-heading to heading, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to revert. Colipon+(Talk) 17:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Geo Swan that the version at the time he quoted it was much too minimal. I don't think it's undue emphasis to acknowledge that the campaign is a huge element of Cain's notability and that the accusations are a significant element in discussing his campaign; it's beyond doubt that users will come to this article looking for information about the accusations, and I see absolutely no reason why the article should make it downright difficult for them to find that information. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I note that no one has yet addressed my specific argument for why the particular statement in question here should not be included, and have mostly instead argued from generalities on which we all agree. WP:UNDUE has been mentioned, but nothing has been quoted from UNDUE which explains why this particular statement should not be included in this article. No one has addressed my argument that it violates NPOV to not include it because it leaves an impression that is contrary to what is being said in reliable sources. This is most exasperating.

Colipon, you write, "I don't agree with you that 95% of readers are 'not getting information' - they have plenty of news sites, they can also just click on that link.". I'm talking about what percentage of readers who come to WP searching for "Herman Cain" to find out about this story who are getting relatively complete, reliable and NPOV information from WP about it. Of the number that come to this article, only about 5% go to the campaign article. That percentage will be even lower if we leave out the sub-section heading and link. Unless that is your goal, I don't understand why you would want this. I simply don't understand your objection to including information about which of the conflicting stories regarding the allegations have been corroborated by others according to RS. There are people deciding who to vote for for president partially based on whether they believe him or the accusers in this story. As much as we try to adhere to NPOV, the "anyone can edit it" aspect of WP means many people still see us as unreliable and biased. But that's changing. Anyone who knows something about a particular issue and reads about it at WP is more and more likely to see that we do a pretty damn good job. I really believe our reputation is improving. And one area in which I think we're particularly good is giving the balanced ongoing full story in current events. Whether the story comes from politics, sports, entertainment, science... whatever... WP is generally a very good place to quickly find the latest, accurate information in a surprisingly balanced and neutral presentation. However, the coverage of this particular story is currently not that. Putting the bulk of this story in a subarticle, especially without an easy-to-find heading and link on this page, is the equivalent of bias in news papers expressed by burying certain stories on back pages specifically to limit public exposure to that item.

Off2riorob, this in particular is outrageous: "I removed the header as undue and trimmed the detail to what I think is the noteworthy and correct weight and detail in his biography". With all due respect, we don't decide what to include in articles based on what Off2riorob (talk · contribs) thinks "is the noteworthy and correct weight and detail". We make these decisions based on coverage in reliable sources. And when it comes to current events, that means coverage in news sources. We're supposed to look at all of it, and give the reader a reasonable summary based on NPOV, UNDUE and other applicable policies and guidelines. In this case, every major news source covering the election has found both Bialek's revelations, and the subsequent corroborations from the Chicago radio host and her ex-boyfriend doctor, to be worthy of coverage. Unless someone is a Cain supporter seeking to specifically obscure these facts, I don't understand what the motivation would be to suppress it.

If my argument remains unaddressed, and this story is not given appropriate coverage in the article where readers will naturally seek it (this one), with its own easy-to-find section, I will take the next step in dispute resolution. --born2cYcle 21:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is undue weight on the man's life. It is not undue weight on the man's campaign, which is why it is discussed, in detail, in the man's campaign. Go look at the bill clinton main article. Does it contain every twist and turn of his denail, and evidence coming out, and who corroborated what? No. It has brief details, and a link to an article that contains much more detail. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution , count me in. And her boyfriend supported her does not belong here at all - there is a location to get that away from this biography and that is the best place for it. This person has not been charges with any crimes at all, never mind found guilty of anything. - and unless he is then a complete minor comment in a WP:BLP is sufficient, we are not here to add all the accusations against living people that are never confirmed or they are never found guilty of. A non partisan like myself who is completely uninvolved would give more weigh to the fact that as he is wanting to be a major politician in his interview didn't seem to know anything about libya. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gaijin, no one is suggesting putting "every twist and turn of Cain's denial" into this article. Please address what is at hand, not some hypothetical situation.

Since you suggesting comparing to Bill Clinton...

1. The Clinton story is now about 15 years old. I suggest that the coverage that story gets at Bill Clinton would make a good precedent to follow for the coverage the Cain scandal gets in Herman Cain... in 2026.
2. What percentage of people arriving at that article do you think are looking for information about the Monica scandal? Whatever you estimate that percentage to be, how many times higher do you think the percentage of readers arriving at Herman Cain are looking for information about his alleged misbehavior? Do you think how much interest there is an issue should affect how it's covered in the article people are mostly likely to first look for it?
3. Please note that despite these points, the Bill_Clinton#Sexual_misconduct_allegations section is considerably longer than Herman_Cain#Allegations_of_sexual_misconduct.

--born2cYcle 23:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A spin off is created for the allegations - they are just that , minor allegations - they are a minor issue in this persons notable life story. as it is in the news and there is currently lots of of citations about it that isn't a reason to give it encyclopedic biographical space and weight in his life story. Its imo misleading to compare articles as every combination can be asserted. Justin Bieber, a woman is alleging he is the father of her baby - a similar unconfirmed and without legal confirmation or charges or convictions. Users wanted to add all the details, a couple of paragraphs with all the he said and she said short term newsy redtop content, but after discussion of uninvolved editors a single comment was included. - This is not a newspaper and if users come here wanting to find all the stuff they are finding in their newspaper they are in the wrong place and we are not here to provide that for them. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

While no one disputes that Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper, you might want to review what it says about that:

...editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and the development of stand-alone articles on significant current events.

Your words, "if users come here wanting to find all the stuff they are finding in their newspaper they are in the wrong place and we are not here to provide that for them", taken in context with what we're talking about here (not literally "all the stuff they are finding in their newspaper", because we're not talking about that), seems to do the opposite of what WP:NOT (and many other policy and guideline pages) says: you seem to be discouraging editors like me from including "current and up-to-date information within its coverage".

I don't know of any basis for your opinion about this in policy, guideline, convention or actual behavior of most editors. Do you? --born2cYcle 23:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple guidelines and policy that support this position - WP;WEIGHT -undue - BLP itself. -not news - wp:blp itself. and ultimately the foundations own statement of its scope and aims and ambitions - this is not a redtop partisan newspaper - its an educational project. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please provide actual quotes from any of these guidelines and polices that you think support your opinion that editors should be discouraged from including current and up-to-date information about current events in Wikipedia because WP is not a newspaper, or because it's educational, or for any other reason. --born2cYcle 00:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

details

• - Harassment accusations have since been made in regard to two other women.

Hi, can someone please detail and provide a citation - what is this about? Two unnamed people have said he harassed them? Are there some ongoing legal investigations or charges about these allegations? Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You really don't know and you're engaged in this discussion? I suggest you read the linked-to section on the campaign article. That said, this summary is poorly worded and poorly cited. I'll fix it. --born2cYcle 23:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Two unnamed people have said he harassed them? Are there some ongoing legal investigations or charges about these allegations? - If you can just answer and provide simple comments that would be great. I am of the opinion that these unnamed claims have no place in a wikpedia BLP , so if you have evidence supported by reliable externals I would appreciate that, thanks.Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Three women claimed sexual harassment while employed at the National Restaurant Association (NRA) by Cain and were given hush money. None of this is in dispute, not even by Cain (he denies doing anything inappropriate, but not that they were paid to keep quiet). Despite the agreements to not say anything one of those three has been identified, and she was given permission by the NRA to speak.

In addition, a fourth women claims, and has described in detail, inappropriate sexual behavior by Cain after she was no longer employed at the NRA. Cain is claiming he doesn't remember her or her name; she says they talked recently at a tea party event and he recognized her. Her story is corroborated not only by a witness at the tea party event, but also by a doctor who was her boyfriend at the time she was allegedly groped by Cain - he has said that she told him about that at that time.

Cain has been forcefully denying any wrongdoing, and it's pretty effective to anyone who is unaware of all these undisputed facts. But when you bring them all into consideration together, it's pretty damning if you ask me, especially when juxtaposed with his denials. --born2cYcle 00:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Is it possible for a contributor who personally believes Cain, that he did nothing wrong, to nevertheless, provide neutral coverage what we know about the hush money payments, and the complaints of impropriety? Sure, why not?
• Clandestine hush money payments do not prove a man is guilty. An innocent man who has no confidence that the US justice system will confirm his innocence might choose to make clandestine hush money payments. An innocent man who thinks the fact that the accusations were made public would be damaging to his career, even if the justice system confirmed his innocence, might choose to make clandestine hush money payments.

  If there were no reliable sources I think we would all agree the wikipedia should provide no coverage of this story. But the undeniable fact is that there are lots of reliable sources. We shouldn't be putting our own notions of his Cain's credibility, or the credibility of the complainants, into the article. Not only would that be counter-policy, it is not necessary -- as there are lots of reliable sources which comment on credibility.

  Unfortunately, scaling back coverage of widely covered information, because some of don't personally find the stories credible is a lapse from WP:NPOV just as much as an insertion of editorializing would be.

• As to whether coverage of this story should be entirely confined to the article on his campaign -- when did the events in the complaints occur? Did any of them occur after he started campaigning? Didn't all of them occur prior to his campaign? I suggest this means additional coverage belongs in this article. Geo Swan (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

a specific weakness

The article currently says "Cain denies the allegations" -- without adding that Cain and his team have acknowledged that hush money was paid to the women.

An alternate wording -- "Cain denied the validity of the first two complaints, while acknowledging both women were paid to keep quiet."

It seems to me the coverage of the hush money payments in the "Sexual misconduct accusations" section of Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012 is also inadequate -- in its coverage of Cain's acknowledgment of paying these women to keep quiet. Geo Swan (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think both "hush money" and "paid to be quiet" are very POV. Something along the lines of "admitted that settlements were made" is much less pov, and I would agree to that level of detail being added to the main article. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we use "hush money" in the article, unless WP:RS use the term. Oh, wait a second, I just checked, and WP:RS do use the term. "Hush money" is a short succinct term that accurately describes what Cain did. As I wrote above, it doesn't necessarily imply guilt. It is however a clear sign of a coverup. I dispute that it is in innapropriate to use that term here, when it has been used in RS:

• Chris Stirewalt (2011-10-31). "Cain Campaign Gets Smoked on Harassment". Fox News. Retrieved 2011-11-16. Now, even as Team Cain tries to handle the sexier story of harassment hush money, the more boring claim bubbles up that Block violated federal campaign finance laws by having a company he established in Wisconsin improperly finance Cain's campaign launch. mirror
• "Herman Cain: Scandals just don't kill a candidacy like they used to". Baltimore Sun. 2011-11-08. Retrieved 2011-11-16. That was a key lesson of the botched Watergate affair. Richard Nixon was undone not only by the plot to break into the Democratic National Committee and the hush money payoffs to the burglars hired by the Nixon re-election committee. His aggressive efforts to cover up the whole mess were what nailed him in the end. mirror
• Martha T. Moore (2011-11-11). "Cain controversy is propelled by video coverage". USA Today. Retrieved 2011-11-16. So many political figures have been caught up in sex scandals that echoes abound in coverage of Cain. Bialek and the women who received settlements from Cain's employer after filing complaints evoke notions of "hush money." Cain's calling Bialek "a troubled woman" isn't far from commentator David Brock's characterization of Anita Hill as "a little bit nutty" during her 1991 testimony that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas harassed her. mirror
• Camyron Lee (2011-11-16). "Avoiding what's politically correct". Daily Titan. Retrieved 2011-11-16. Former Presidents John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, Senator John Edwards, former U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner and now Herman Cain, a GOP candidate for the presidential election, all found themselves in the midst of the historically prevalent "political sex scandal" at some point in their political careers ... North Carolina Senator John Edwards had a very public infidelity scandal that broke in 2008, when an extramarital affair led to a love child and an alleged $900,000 in hush money to cover up the scandal. mirror
• "Herman Cain re-remembers amount of hush money paid to employees". Daily Kos. 2011-11-01. Retrieved 2011-11-16. mirror
• "Why the Herman Cain Sex Scandal Is Good For America". US News and World Report. 2011-11-08. Retrieved 2011-11-16. The restaurant association apparently resolved some of the complaints against Cain by making modest payouts to the accusers, allowing them to leave and seek other work. On one hand, those payouts seem like hush money that allowed Cain to stay in his job without having to account for the incidents. mirror

Geo Swan (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The concern I have over your suggested alternative to "paid to be quiet" is that ""admitted that settlements were made"" leaves open the possibility that the payments were open, above-the-board, transparent payments. Isn't it clear that these were confidential payments? Geo Swan (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Geo Swan, try to to make your Ax-grinding a little less obvious. We're not putting loaded terms like "hush money" into the article. It is a bit over-the-top for this talk page, even; WP:BLP applies to all parts of the project, not just articles. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please offer a fuller explanation of your objection to "paid to be quiet"? Are you disputing that Cain entered into a secret agreement, where, in return for dropping their complaints, and not telling anyone about their complaints -- he handed over money? If you are not disputing that Cain did in fact pay the women to drop their complaints, and to be not talk about the complaints, but you do have a policy based objection to the specific wording I suggested then please, by all means, offer an alternate wording -- one that still responsibly informs our readers that although he denied doing anything wrong Cain did pay the women to be silent.

Let's be clear here, isn't the most significant thing we know about the complaints that Cain has acknowledged he paid the complainants? I continue to think it is a serious mistake that this fact is not covered in Herman Cain, at all, and barely mentioned in the campaign article. Geo Swan (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to Geo Swan's argument. There is a distinct lack of balance if we do not mention that part of the controversy... the question is whether putting that in this current section is appropriate. The misconduct allegations have an effect on the campaign, but is also undoubtedly part of his earlier life at the NRA. So it would be a bit awkward to slide it all under the 'campaign' section. I would like to put forth a suggestion that will hopefully bring some middle ground to this debate. We take the current information on the controversy and bring it over to a new level-1 heading called "Personal Life" and then have a sub-heading with the "Sexual misconduct accusations". This way we can expand it to include more information (but not overly so), and put it in the context of his life, not just the campaign. Of course, this still has a big effect on the campaign, so the campaign article can remain unchanged.

This section should not be written in the form, "on November X, Y came forward to discuss allegations Z", instead, it should just be a synthesis of everything that has been reported, in strict summary format. I aspire to create some consensus here, please lend your views. Colipon+(Talk) 19:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"The most significant thing we know", is clear OR/POV. We do not know anything about the details of those settlements, so to say what the most important thing about them is - is quite a leap of faith. There is a well known idea of "nuisance settlements", and not knowing what is in the settlements, some of all of these could qualify. I would ammend my earlier compromise to say "cain admits that settlements were made, which included payments to the women". This gives the core facts that we know, without putting POV in place. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful in your responses. In your response you ignored a key phrase in my comment -- [that] we know.

We don't know if Cain assaulted anyone, or made lewd suggestions. Cain suggested one woman's complaintant may have been solely based on misinterpreting a comparison he made between her stature and his wife's stature. For all you or I know all the complaints are based on misunderstandings. We just don't know.

The key aspect to the cash payments is that they are not in dispute. Cain acknowledged them. That cash payments were made is one of the few things we know for sure. So, I stand by my description that they are "the most significant thing we know", a very different assertion from a claim that the payments will turn out to be the most important thing about the case -- an assertion I didn't make, that seems to be the one you chose to respond to.

Consider Richard Jewell -- the target of incredible press coverage, who was very unfairly implied first by the FBI director, and then by just about all the press, to be a bomber, not a hero. If we were covering him at the height of the hysteria, I think our role would be to neutrally and non-sensationally cover both what was known about his discovery of the bomb, and to neutrally and non-sensationally cover what the FBI director and press were saying about him. I think that would have been our role even if you or I had personally been foresightful enough to anticipate he was a hero after all. To choose not to cover aspects of the story that are not in dispute, out of sympathy for Jewell, or sympathy for Cain, because we guessed Jewell really was a hero all along, and guess Cain's payments payments made in response to complaints Cain was a sexual harrasser may have been "nuisance settlements", seriously lapses from neutrality.

As of this note the article still doesn't cover Cain's acknowledgment that two complainants were paid off. Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I see the problem -- on what basis do you call the payments "Cain's payments"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I struck "Cain's payments" and replaced it with payments made in response to complaints Cain was a sexual harrasser.

I continue to be very concerned that this article leaves out the key information that Cain has acknowledged the organization paid the women who complained, and that the terms of the payment bound the women to silence. Geo Swan (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Geo Swan. Cain has not made any such statement that he paid anything to the accusers. In fact all evidence available from the RS's is that he played no part in the settlements in any capacity. The only settlement document noted did not have Cain's name as a signature, thus it would have been highly improbable that he to have even seen it, since it was confidential. So PLEASE stop making that statement, it is not true and is a WP:BLP violation even within the talk page. Arzel (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your concern. Are you saying that the payments we know were made, because Cain acknowledged them, can not be covered in the article, unless we know Cain personally signed the checks? Are you saying that the payments we know were made, because Cain acknowledged them, can not even be discussed here on the talk page, that doing so is a violation of BLP, because we don't know whether Cain personally signed the checks?

I was going to say that I hadn't written that Cain personally paid the women. But I checked, and it seems I did state or imply that -- on November 8th and 9th. I forgive myself for this mistake -- because various people keep removing coverage of the payments from the article. This information belongs in this article. People like me need this information to remain in this article in order to help keep us from making good faith mistakes.

You assert that Cain "played no part in the settlements". Are you suggesting that substantial cash payments were made to women who complained that Cain harrassed them, without Cain "playing a part"? In most organizations, if a complaint is made about one employee's behavior, by another employee, that first employee is asked for their version of events. You say it is highly improbable that Cain was aware of the settlement? Are you really suggesting whoever did sign that check did so without asking Cain for his version?

I checked. News reports say it was the restaurant organization Cain headed which paid the women, not Cain personally. I question your description that this means Cain "played no part". If this relevant information was in the article, I wouldn't have to have checked the news reports for myself. One more reason I am not happy that this information keeps being removed from the article. Geo Swan (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I replaced "Cain denies all allegations of sexual misconduct" with "Cain denies all allegations of sexual misconduct, while acknowledging that the restaurant organization made financial settlements to complainants". Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The one lawyer who did talk about one of the settlements stated that Cain was not a signature to the statement, and that the settlement was dated after Cain left the NRA. That lawyer also stated that since it was confidential Cain would not have been privy to the document, thus it is highly unlikely that Cain had seen the document or known what it entailed, as the RS's have stated. Cain did state that he was under the impression that the accussor was given a termination of employment settlement. You are confusing two aspects. Did Cain give his version, Yes, obviously. Was Cain aware of some type of settlement, Yes, as I just stated. Was Cain aware of the specifics of the settlement, No, not according to the RS's. Did Cain play a part in the settlement, No, it was handled by the NRA after Cain left. Thanks for striking your incorrect statement, but you still are trying to make a linkage which does not exist within the RS's. Arzel (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the assertions of the lawyer you cite can be taken at face value, is your comment an argument for rewriting that passage?

    Do you have a link to that lawyer's comments?

    Are you suggesting Cain's knowledge, or lack thereof, of the terms of the settlement should require a further rewording? If so, what do you suggest?

    I heard Cain acknowledge knowing about the settlement. I didn't hear him say the settlements were offered after his departure.

    I continue to be concerned that we are suppressing important coverage of this important story and showing an inappropriate deference to Cain. Geo Swan (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I find it disturbing that you don't believe you can take the lawyer's word on this fact, when you are taking the same lawyer's word for everything else that fits your narrative. The following sources answer your concerns, and considering it is from the accuser's lawyer will I assume that you will believe it to be true? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67627.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318500-503544/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/ Arzel (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for offering the URL upon request. Since you referred to it I think it was important for you to share it so we can all look at it. Sorry, I don't understand what you find disturbing. I don't know if I knew all the facts I would agree with the complainants, or whether I would agree with Cain's description that there had been a series of misunderstandings, as per the explanation he offered about comparing one complainant's height to that of his wife's stature. I continue to think we are showing too much deference to Cain. I continue to think that the facts that are not in dispute -- like that Cain acknowledged being aware complainants were offered financial settlements, are important, and deserve mention in this article. The facts that are not in dispute deserve mention without regard to whether we believe Cain was simply misunderstood or is a serial sexual harrasser.

    According to that article:

    • Cain did not complete his three year term. I didn't know that.
    • The complainant this article refers to as the first complainant is still bound by non-disclosure terms in her settlement -- which I believe confirms what I wrote above -- that the complainants were paid to be quiet.
    • The politico article you linked to [2], provided links to three earlier articles [3], [4], [5]. I am sure Politico didn't intentionally introduce this confusing element, but while the different articles all refer to the "first complainant" and the "second complainant", they seem to have confusingly reversed which complainant they referred to as "first" and "second". One of the complaints came in May 1998 -- over a year before Cain stepped down. That complainant went immediately to two board members. She left sometime in 1998 -- that is seven months to a year before Cain stepped down.
    • [6] says: "Yet, about 10 association board members serving at the time said they were never told of any investigation – or even complaints against Cain. He resigned as president of the NRA effective June 30, 1999, before his three-year term was up, yet these board members say they were never fully informed as to why." Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

User Born2Cycle, please take this to dispute resolution, since we are going in circles here. I am fairly confident that you do not have much of a case there, and that third party editors will agree with the view being advanced by the majority here. But try it anyway. Colipon+(Talk) 01:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Before we do this, I'd like to reach some semblance of agreement on what issues we have disagreement about. In general, I think we agree that the big issue is about how much, if any, of the story about Cain's alleged inappropriate sexual behavior should be covered in this article. That is, we're not disagreeing about whether some content is inappropriate to be in WP at all per BLP (which is largely what BLP is about), it's limited to whether it should be in this article versus the campaign article. Yes?

In particular, the issues are, or at least have been:

1. Should this story about the allegations have its own subsection heading in this article? Why or why not?
2. Whether it's in its own subsection or not, how much about the story is too much?
3. In particular, is adding the line about Bialek's story being corroborated (see top of this section), "too much"?
4. Is it a violation of UNDUE, NPOV or BLP to note in the summary that accusers were paid to not speak about their accusations? Or is this so key to the story that it would be a violation of NPOV to exclude it?
5. Is it a violation of WP:NPOV to present the summary of the story in a way that suggests it is a typical he-said/she-said situation when information in RS -- one side's story being corroborated by others in a way that RS consider to be credible -- clearly indicates otherwise?
6. In general, what guidelines do we use to decide where to draw the line with regard to what to include in the summary of this story, and what not?
7. Should how much coverage a story about someone is getting in RS news be a factor in determining much weight that story is given in the article about that person?
8. Does WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER discourage us from including current and up-to-date information about an ongoing story related to a person in that person's article?

Is that about right? Anything else? --born2cYcle 20:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

edit-warring over an image

1. 
2. 

Why has this been the subject of a slow-moving edit war over the last month? Is there any tangible difference between the two? Tarc (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

2 is clearly a better picture from all aspects. The subject is in a posed stance and the lighting is far better. 1 has the subject talking during the picture and makes the subject appear angry. Ken has continually changed the image to 1 without any discussion at all on his edits. I believe the editor is just trying to be disruptive. I also believe this has been previously discuss with 2 being the preferred choice. Arzel (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As of today, there seems to have been some abuse regarding the default picture for Herman Cain. I was going to comment on the discussion page of the photo, but it said not to, so I brought the conversation here. Someone has taken the original picture of Cain and darkened it heavily, with some redness on his nose.Stopde (talk) 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted edits to five articles (including this talk page) in which Ioio32l (talk · contribs) substituted the vandalized image, and tagged the image itself for deletion. Just keep watch for a while to ensure if the disruption abates. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Good move. #2 is clearly the better image. FurrySings (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

In the lead, Cain didn't end his "nomination". He ended his "candidacy". 174.99.127.20 (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done pluma Ø 19:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Campaign suspension

Regardless of what the world believes, we can't say that Cain is no longer a candidate because that's not what he or the sources say. In addition, he suspended his campaign, not his candidacy. That's also the word used by the sources. Let's please stick to the sources. I'm not going to revert the latest tense change (incorrectly back to was in the lead) because I'm making too many changes as it is (or as it was, heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I accidentally changed the wording - I was trying to change the tense; "was" to "is." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2011

(UTC)

Yes, I know, I agree with your changes (to my material, too), even though I think the ultimate result will be he drops out of the race, but we can only say that when it's supported by sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It is said that Cain suspended his campaign "following allegations of sexual harassment and adultery." That insinuates that he suspended the campaign simply because those allegations were hurting his campaign. The reason he's given on multiple occasions was that allegations have begun taking a toll on his family life, and I think that's worth being noted.

Here's one source I just polled it from, though I've heard from many other news outlets: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/03/cain-prepares-to-discuss-campaigns-future-after-damage-assessment/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKC051 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 6 December 2011‎ (UTC)

Aquila financial collapse

I put Cain's involvement with Aquila, Inc. into its own paragraph but other editors have deleted or trimmed it down. Here's what I composed:

From 1992 to 2008, Cain was on the board of directors of Aquila, Inc., a Kansas City-based power company that failed in the financial market and was bought by its competitor. Investigative reporter Wayne Barrett wrote that Cain's flawed leadership of the Aquila conglomerate contradicts Cain's description of himself as a man with "business savvy and financial acumen".^[1] Barrett writes that the energy industry deregulation Cain favors is the same deregulation which led directly to once-conservative Aquila investing heavily in volatile trading practices. This risky strategy backfired, with Aquila losing 90% of its stock value and causing the loss of retiree savings along with thousands of jobs.^[1] Barrett writes that Cain did nothing to halt the damage—that Cain rubber-stamped the plans of the company's top leaders: brothers Richard and Robert Green. As chair of the Aquila compensation committee, Cain approved of $19.7 million paid to the Green brothers in February 2002 when the company was laying off 500 workers.^[1] This controversial action brought an investigaton by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).^[1] Eight months later, Cain okayed another $7.6 million given as a severance package to Robert Green.^[1] The board of directors, including Cain, was sued for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in encouraging employees to invest their retirements in risky and speculative derivative funds.^[2][3] Aquila settled the case for $10.5 million in April 2007^[4] then began selling off company assets.^[1] When the company was sold in July 2008, Cain approved bonuses of $6.5 million to the Green brothers along with $1.3 million in annual pensions for the men.^[1] Cain's continuing positive attitude toward executive bonuses was expressed in a blog entry he wrote in March 2009 about the "bonuses melodrama" of the AIG bonus payments controversy.^[1][5]

References

1. Barrett, Wayne (November 21, 2011). "Herman Cain's Aquila Dealings Undercut His Business-Acumen Claims". The Daily Beast. The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC.
2. https://motherjones.com/files/1232_cid_3_amended_consolidated_complaint.pdf
3. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/herman-cain-aquila-lawsuit-2012
4. http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/080326.mbx
5. Cain, Herman (March 23, 2009). "The Real Headlines While You Were Watching the AIG Bonus Sideshow". Herman Cain's blog. North Star Writers Group.

One of the complaints was that the Cain blog entry was in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, but Barrett specifically links the blog to Cain's actions in giving executives large bonuses. There can be no violation of the synthesis or coatrack guidelines as the connection is being made by the reliable source.

Another complaint is that the paragraph is undue emphasis on Cain-as-board-member. This stance assumes that Cain had little influence on the board of Aquila. Barrett shows that he had greater responsibility because Cain was the chair of the compensation committee which a) gave out bonuses, and b) encouraged Aquila employees to invest in Enron and their own volatile stock. This puts Cain in the driver's seat for two significant activities.

A further complaint was that the material draws too deeply from Wayne Barrett. Of course, the Mother Jones article, "Herman Cain's Enron-esque Disaster", is a big part of the paragraph, too. More sources are out there saying the same sorts of things:

• "Lawsuits targeted board, Cain over retirement fund". News Tribune. Associated Press. November 22, 2011.
• Henry, Rav (November 21, 2011). "Herman Cain Company, Aquila, Settled Lawsuits Over Retirement Plan, Gas Price Manipulation". Huffington Post.

It seems to me that the paragraph can be expanded to encompass more details about the class-action lawsuit in which Cain was named as a defendant, and is identified as chair of the compensation committee until 2003. I argue against any trimming of the paragraph as it is a significant part of Cain's career. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Who says it is significant? Left wing editors and publications? The Daily Beast, MJ, and Salon are hardly close to the middle or neutral. Regardless, you cannot link to the Hermain Cain blog and make that statement. That blog has absolutely nothing to do with Barrett's claim, and just because he references it, does not mean that we can reproduce the original research, which now equals synthesis of material since the statement advances a claim not explicitly contained within the source. If you are really interested in the career of Cain why not expand upon all of the good work that he did with the other organizations he worked with. It makes little sense (outside of POV pushing) to create a section about his career greater than his work with Godfathers Pizza when his is most notable for his work with GF Pizza. My initial trim was to present this information relative to the rest of his career, that you reverted almost immidiately tells me that you are more interested in presenting what appears to be little more than a hit job against Cain. Arzel (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are scattered and vague. Because the blog URL is supplied by Wayne Barrett and discussed on page 3 in his article, it is okay to reference it in the Cain biography. The fact that Cain's blog doesn't mention Barrett is irrelevant. Even without citing the blog URL the text I composed stands on its own merits as reliably sourced by Barrett. The only reason I put Cain's blog URL into the mix was for balance, so that readers could click on the link and see what Cain had to say on the topic of executive bonuses. The Cain URL is only there for balance and completeness.

Your argument hinges upon the paragraph being a violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. That's preposterous, as Barrett makes all the debate points himself and I simply report them. NOR and SYNTH require the Wikipedia editor to make novel connections—there is none of that in my paragraph. There is only the summary of Barrett's points.

Another part of your argument hinges upon the left-wing sources that I cited. C'mon, you know as well as I do that our reliable sources are not required to be neutral, just verifiable. It doesn't matter that the sources are leaning to the left if they are accurate and relevant.

Why don't I write about Cain's good works? I looked at the article and saw that they were already covered, that is, the ones I was aware of.

So why did I write a paragraph about Cain's involvement with Aquila when a) I don't really care about his role in the 2012 presidential elections (I think it will be a junior varsity engagement—I think that the heavy hitters will show up in 2016) and b) I have not yet taken part in putting positive material into the article? Here's why: I turned to the Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012 article two days ago, looking for recent information, and saw that it was stale. I found that nobody had bothered to tell the reader that Cain had slipped significantly in the polls following the high of October. I took it upon myself to add something about that to the article, and in so doing I found a few other recent news items about Cain which were not at all covered in Wikipedia articles. One was the Barrett piece which led me to the Mother Jones article from last May which I had not seen before. Taking a good look at all the Cain topic articles, I settled upon this one, the main one, to write about Cain's involvement with Aquila. I have no horse in this race; I don't wish Cain any harm or any good. I'm absolutely neutral on the man. What I saw, though, was that nobody was reporting on the negative aspects of his recent poll numbers, and nobody was reporting on the negative points of his Aquila connection. The whole reason I am here is because I have a deep appreciation of WP:NPOV; the fact that you think I'm violating is very amusing. I have better things to do than argue about a political figure who means nothing to me.

Finally, why is this significant? Let's see: how about a class-action lawsuit naming Cain? How about an investigation by the SEC? How about the fact that Cain made a great deal of money from his involvement with Aquila? Barrett writes on page four of his article that "Cain was never Aquila's CEO or chair, so his culpability in the demise of this company is limited. But he certainly did occupy at various times some of its key positions..." That quote gets at the heart of the matter: Cain held key roles at Aquila, and was seen to be asleep at the switch when the Green brothers moved toward risky financial practices. Cain was in charge when Aquila employees were asked to invest in Enron and Aquila's risky stocks. Cain was in charge when million-dollar executive bonuses were given out while employees were being fired. To me, that is quite significant in Cain's career. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. What it shows its that Cain acted as a Director, with very limited roles in the company. Ask any director of any public company just how powerful they are. The entire section is a BLP violation consisting of overstatement, surmise and synthesis, and should be removed from this talk page as well. Cheers. (Yep -- BLP violations are removable on sight from the talk page). Collect (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. This deserves at best a sentence or two. Anything more is a gross violation of WP:UNDUE. Not receiving anywhere near the coverage of other facets of his career. – Lionel ^(talk) 12:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Collect, your repeating the word "synthesis" does not make it any more true. Barrett makes connections between Cain and Aquila's controversial actions, not me. Nothing here is a violation of BLP, so there's no call for talk page blanking. Our first responsibility to living persons is to "do no harm", but Cain will not be harmed by our summary of the Mother Jones article and the Wayne Barrett article. Whatever damage has been done has already occurred in the previous publication of those articles. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it quite amazing that a class-action suit settled for $10.5 million, one that names Herman Cain as a defendant, is somehow not significant to his life or career. Yeesh. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Binkster, try to summarise the para into a couple of sentences. Make it a précis exercise, and report the results. It could be fun.  Jabbsworth  14:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll get to it in four days after a break if nobody else has done so. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What happened? You basically ignored every problem that was stated about that section and clearly had no support on the BLP Message Board. I will say it again. You cannot link to Cain's blog regarding AIG to support the arguement that he is soft on bonuses relating to Aquila when the Cain blog makes no mention of the subject at hand. It is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Saying that it is not does not change this fact. Arzel (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder that I put in a trimmed down version that Binksternet did not like. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I tried reducing it but some very pointed Cain actions could not be trimmed. I added a bunch of other references to the paragraph. Here's what I had for the second version:

From 1992 to 2008, Cain was on the board of directors of Aquila, Inc., a Kansas City-based power company that failed in the financial market and was bought by its competitor. Investigative reporter Wayne Barrett wrote that Cain's flawed leadership of the Aquila conglomerate contradicts Cain's description of himself as a man with "business savvy and financial acumen". Barrett writes that Cain did nothing to halt the risky financial plans of the company's top leaders: brothers Richard and Robert Green. As chair of the Aquila compensation committee, Cain approved of $30 million in executive bonuses in 2002, the same year that Aquila's retirement fund lost over $200 million. The board of directors, including Cain, was named in a class-action lawsuit for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in encouraging employees to invest their retirements in risky and speculative derivative funds. Aquila settled the case for $10.5 million in April 2007. When the company was sold in July 2008, Cain approved bonuses of $6.5 million to the Green brothers along with $1.3 million in annual pensions for the men. Cain defended executive bonuses in March 2009, writing about the "bonuses melodrama" of the AIG bonus payments controversy.

All of the references can be seen here in the diff. However, Arzel reverted this version twice, saying in the edit summary, "Undue Weight for section. POV Pushing. BLP Violations per previous". I strenuously object to the arguments about POV pushing and BLP violations, as I have nothing but NPOV and accuracy in mind here. Arzel has not quoted one relevant BLP guideline which would prevent using this text. Again, the only argument Arzel has is WP:UNDUE, which I think is completely answered by the broad media coverage devoted to the issue. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Arzel, you have misunderstood wP:SYNTH every time you've brought it up here. Please go to the guideline and read it. After that, come back here and quote the section you think supports your position! Basically, synthesis is not allowed Wikipedia editors, but it is allowed writers in our reliable sources. Wayne Barrett makes the connection. He's reliable. See? No violation of our guideline. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the UNDUE question can be asked: what is the relative notability of the Aquila episode in relation to the complete biography? No doubt significant ink has been spilled over it as it has become a hot partisan talking point in the shadow of Cain's rise in the polls but what substantial evidence do we have that it's a portion of his biogrpahy worthy of the space you have previously given it? Might this be more appropriately place on the relevant campaign article? TomPointTwo (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This statement. "Cain defended executive bonuses in March 2009, writing about the "bonuses melodrama" of the AIG bonus payments controversy" linked to Cain's blog is a violation of synthesis of material regardless how you try to parse it. Cain's blog has nothing to do with Aqualia. Just because Barrett said that this article implies that Cain defends executive bonuses does not mean that you can make that a factual statement and then link to the Cain source. You are presenting to the reader an opinion not advanced within the source you are referencing. Cain's blog regarding AIG can NEVER be used as a source for the opinion that you are trying to advance, even if it is not your opinion it READS like it is your opinion, and you can't use Cain's words to prove Barrett's opinion correct since it is a clear violation of BLP. Arzel (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Barrett says this about Cain: "Cain's attitude about executive bonuses, in any event, appears unchanged by his Aquila experience. He devoted a blog on his website in March 2009 to the controversy over the $165 million in bonuses AIG was paying out even as it collected billions in bailouts. Cain attacked legislation introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer to tax the bonuses as the 'bully bill', charging that this 'bonuses melodrama' was 'all about deflecting the blame', which he said was entirely due to the very new president and the Democratic Congress." So you see, we can easily make your stated objection disappear by deleting the link to Cain's blog post—a solution that makes no difference to me one way or the other—and by attributing Barrett. The new wording could be something like this:

Barrett wrote that Cain's "attitude about executive bonuses ...appears unchanged" following his Aquila directorship, since Cain blogged about the issue in March 2009, writing about what Cain called the "bonuses melodrama" of the AIG bonus payments controversy.

As I said earlier, the only reason I cited Cain's blog was so readers could more easily go there and see Cain's own words. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So now that we are past the synthesis of material you still have to address the weight of the section relative to the rest of his career. Also, we have to weigh this as purely the opinion of one writer. I had proposed a trimmed down version with a weight relative to the rest of Cain's career. Why do you believe this deserves as much weight as you wish to present? Arzel (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

One writer? No, there are more. Wayne Barrett is the one you are likely referring to, but we also have Andy Kroll of the widely cited Mother Jones article. If you had looked at my above-linked diff you would have seen that it includes articles by Henry Ray of Salon and Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post (she has her own article here: Jennifer Rubin (journalist)). There are more sources than these, but I felt these were enough to establish the proper weight without overwhelming the article. How many sources do you want me to show you before you will accept my later edit as properly weighted? I don't want to bring more sources here just to find the goalposts have moved.

Kroll finishes his article with a question to class-action suit prosecuting attorney Fred Taylor Isquith, who says that Cain should share the blame for Aquila's financial collapse. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel that the material should not be included. A new editor has reinserted the material. I'm not reverting because I've made too many changes to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The content in dispute is obviously WP:UNDUE. The press smells blood. We can't get caught up in this media circus. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If "the press smells blood", the issue is more notable than otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue is a lot more notable than some silly song take off he did in the early 1990's that is on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testthebest (talk • contribs) 23:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

For some odd reason I think most editors consider the song parody as not being "contentious" and the charge that he was guilty of misfeasance as a member of a board of directors as being contentious - and that is where WP:BLP takes a strong position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the matter is contentious. Cain's self-image as a careful businessman is challenged. That's why BLP requires reliable sourcing and wide notice. Our sourcing is reliable and wide with Mother Jones, The Washington Post, and Salon publishing pieces on the issue. More pieces, too, but I decline to list them until I find out how many will satisfy Arzel. The three shown here are enough for contentious BLP concerns. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I already included a short version previously, you have to explain why you think this deserves so much more weight than the rest of his career. You have yet to do that. As for your sources, MJ and Salon are both pretty liberal, and the rest of his career has recieved vastly more attention than this opinion pieces. Arzel (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We both know that a left-leaning or right-leaning tone in our reliable sources does not in any way disqualify them.

I think this deserves the weight I gave it because of its importance to Cain's self-image, the conflict with Cain's self-portrayal. Rather than reducing the Aquila paragraph, other text in the article can be expanded as required to meet your idea of proper weight. A brief glance at the article will show you such expansion really should be initiated. There are trivialities reproduced in the article by previous editors, things such as Win Wallin saying Cain "seemed to have his act together" and Cain giving a pep talk on April Fool's Day 1986. This is pop stuff—fluff—no meat. The article needs some meat including hard facts about how Cain improved this or that aspect of the businesses under his control. Instead of simply listing the roles he has served in, the ramification of Cain's presence should be described. This is a history of Cain's life, and the most important part of history is story. Readers should be able to learn about the results of Cain's involvement here and there, not simply whether he attended. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You have now entered into disruptive editing teritory. You seem completely unwilling to present a netural suggestion. What you think is most important about Cain's life has no bearing on what is presented here. I suggest if you want to present your personal view of Cain that you start a blog and right whatever the hell you want about him. Arzel (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that I am disruptive then you should start an RfC on me. Otherwise, my understanding of your definition of disruptive is confused by this reversion of yours three minutes before posting here, the reversion where you removed not only the paragraph I wrote but two others as well, as if Cain serving on the boards of several corporations is not at all significan to his career, even though being a board member was his primary source of income from 1999 to 2008. In removing the paragraphs, you did not even insert your earlier, shorter version. I wonder how this level of disruption by you can somehow be acceptable while my writing a paragraph based on three reliable sources is not acceptable, and in your opinion disruptive. It's all very curious—makes my head spin. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I presented a short version which you did not like and continue, against any sort of concensus here or the BLP messageboard continue to insert this undue weight version. I feel no need to work towards a furthermore compromise with you, since you have done absolutely nothing to suggest that you are willing to do so. One would hope, now that Cain is out of the race, you will move onto the next conservative figure you wish to attack. Arzel (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Such an accusatory and reactionary response will not help your argument. You are wrong about my doing nothing in regard to the development of the paragraph: I rewrote it with more references, all quite good ones! In repeated complaints about the negative material, you have never been able to show that it is not reliably sourced. I have to assume that your central argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is no way to build the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You are still using basically the same left-biased sources, so I don't see how you can make that arguement. Regardless, one of the main issues has been of weight. You have never addressed how this event is more weighty than the rest of his career. And you continue to link Cain's blog which has absolutely nothing to do with the Aquila. If my central argument was that I didn't like it I would never have made my compromise edit earlier. Several editors have weighed in both here and at the BLP message board. You have no concensus to add the material in the manner you seem determined to do. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give a damn whether the sources are left- or right-leaning if they are reliable. In the case of Mother Jones, The Daily Beast, and Salon, we have widely recognized reliable sources. Please stop flogging that deceased equine!

I have addressed the weight issue by describing how Cain's primary source of income for about nine years was serving as director on the boards of some corporations. In other words, being a director was his main job. Why would we not describe his main job for nine years in this biography? It's important to his life and especially to his career. Binksternet (talk)

WP:NPOV's call for a neutral tone goes against the specific reference to Barrett's perspective of "flawed leadership" and that Cain "did nothing". Regarding weight, this policy includes, "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." This is not satisfied by adding a new aspect then taking a stance that "other text in the article can be expanded as required", as you wrote on 1 December. —ADavidB 17:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This weight is totally UNDUE. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)