Talk:Red Hen restaurant controversy

Discussion about moving/renaming

• Per the now-closed AfD discussion (here), I support the suggestion of E.M. Gregory and others to move/rename the article, specifically to Red Hen restaurant controversy. Content can be adjusted accordingly through ordinary edits. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, move it. Clearly the WP:NOTABILITY is about the one-time event (so far) and not about the restaurant itself. XavierItzm (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, move to Red Hen restaurant controversy and rewrite lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support move to Red Hen restaurant controversy.DynaGirl (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• OK count me in, either is fine, but let's go with the flow and rename. Based on this discussion so far, and the discussion at the AfD, I think it's very likely this move is going to happen, so I am going to go ahead and refactor the article to reflect this now, hope this is OK. Herostratus (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold (Captain Picard voice:) "Make it so!" —RCraig09 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

OK done. The first sentence has "...Red Hen controversy was a controversy..." but I can't think of another word for "controversy" that is not overly informal (such as ruckus, kerfluffle, or brouhaha). The second sentence now has too many clauses IMO. Anybody want to fix these, fine. I removed basically all the info about the restaurant. Herostratus (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information On Table Size and Geography

I am starting this topic to discuss whether information on the number of tables in the restaurant and geographic distance to Washington D.C. should be included in the entry. The number of seats in the restaurant, distance to another city, or the population of the town where the restaurant is located are not relevant to informing the reader that a controversy occurred or to what the topic of the controversy was related. The positions of the subjects of the controversy are already addressed in the article. The edit explanation provided for including the information implies that it is important to provide mitigating information to distinguish the restaurant from a major chain of restaurants. This entry is to inform about the occurrence of a controversy and not to support/defend or advocate for either side of the controversy. The focus of this article is on the subject of the controversy and not the restaurant where the controversy occurred. This extraneous information is appropriate for a separate article on the restaurant and its history but not here. PennyForYourThoughts231 (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine to leave the minor details regarding location and that it's a small farm to table restaurant in. Also, technically, the result for the AfD, for Red Hen restaurant was "keep" and it's this article [1]. Following the AfD it was renamed Red Hen restaurant controversy per local talk page consensus, so it seems any details regarding the Red Hen restaurant should be here in this article. DynaGirl (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

What if we create a new section to address that in the article or include it elsewhere? My concern is that including multiple descriptive items is confusing to the reader and detracts from the informative purpose of the article. It also creates somewhat of a run on sentence that is not worded well. I am not opposed to including the information, but it should not be integrated into the description of the facts of the controversy. Even moving the information to a separate sentence like, "It is of note that the restaurant where this controversy occurred is a small 26 seat restaurant more than 200 miles from Washington D.C.", would improve the article compared to including all of the information in one long and convoluted sentence. I still think it is irrelevant to the controversy, but that might be a good compromise. PennyForYourThoughts231 (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Per my 08:14, 9 July 2018‎ edit comment, I strongly assert that the information is highly relevant for context of the incident—as a tiny, privately held business is less of a quasi-public space than, say, a McDonalds. The fact that multiple reliable sources specifically mention these facts supports the facts' relevance to the controversy. Editor PennyFYT's objection at this point appears to more formal than substantive. I propose amending the "Precipitating incident" section:

"The Red Hen restaurant is a 26-seat farm-to-table restaurant almost 200 miles from Washington, D.C. in Lexington, Virginia (population 7,000).[1] At about 8:00pm on Friday, June 22, 2018, The Red Hen's chef telephoned restaurant co-owner Stephanie Wilkinson to report that White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders had entered the restaurant to dine with a group of about eight people.[1]"

If there is no objection for, say, 36 hours, I will make this or equivalent change.

By the way, PennyFYT, see WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss) re avoiding WP:edit wars. Your initial deletion was "B" bold and my re-insertion was "R" reverting, and I think you should first have come to this Talk Page to "D" discuss before trying to delete again. —RCraig09 (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 20180623 PressSec tweet Sarah Sanders.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Tweet is from official U.S. Government Twitter account, not subject to copyright. See reporter's question at https://web.archive.org/web/20180626001029/https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/06/25/here-how-sarah-sanders-addressed-being-kicked-out-restaurant-during-her-press-briefing-today/JONbbvNUXY4XGg2wi64xoN/story.html —RCraig09 (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 20180623 PressSec tweet Sarah Sanders.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Specific reason

Sanders wasn't asked to leave just because she's a conservative or works in the Trump White House, but rather because she "publicly defended the president's cruelest policies" (probably mainly referring to separation of children from parents at the border), so the summary in the lead section could be over-simplified... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are limited by what is stated in reliable sources. Also, lead sections should present summaries, not detail quoted in the body of the article. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That's nice -- the cruel policy that was constantly in the headlines at the time was separation of children from parents at the border, but I won't insist on it.

However, the short summary in the lead section gives the false impression that the motivation for the incident was merely that Sanders works for the Trump administration... AnonMoos (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Allegations of illegal conduct

Don’t you think that it’s a bit too much WP:WEIGHT to give a political figure’s tweets alleging that Sanders broke the law without any rebuttal? Honestly I though we were supposed to avoid citing twitter drama for information pertaining to living people. And, shouldn’t it be clear that there ain’t nothing about this that’s proven in a court of law? 2600:100C:B214:BA82:DD31:D047:C055:E83 (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

First, it wasn't tweets that alleged Sanders broke the law (it was alleged that Sanders' tweet broke the law). Second, Sanders side is presented, achieving balance and WP:NPOV. Third, something doesn't have to be proven in a court of law to be notable. The content should stay. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)