Talk:Robert Creamer (political consultant)

Article name

Given the article doesn't currently mention lobbying, I believe the article title should be changed. The question is what descriptor to use in the article name. "Author"? "Community organizer"? "Consultant"? Other suggestions? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Barek: Sources seem to refer to him most often as a strategist or political consultant. How about Robert Creamer (political consultant)? gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The article also doesn't mention the apparent fact that Creamer visited the White House 342 times and met personally with Obama 47 times. Given all the claims and counter-claims of election rigging in 2016, it would be more than sightly germane to learn precisely why Creamer visited the White House that much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a citation for that claim though? JArthur1984 (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Project Veritas and sources

To editor Thewholetruthisbest: I understand where you're coming from but you're mistaken. Yes, the genesis of this information is Project Veritas. Perhaps you're a partisan and you don't think they're a good source. The thing is, the content in the article cites sources like the Wall Street Journal, which meet our reliability criteria. If you don't like what those newspapers and magazines write then you need to visit WP:RSN. I've reverted your changes to status quo ante which is the norm on Wikipedia. I can see you're new here so I don't assume you're here to contribute to the encyclopedia. You would do well to ask questions on the talk page and let established editors work this out. Your righteous indignation at perceived wrongs is actually detrimental to editing. Wikipedia works best when editors don't care about the subjects upon which they write. This may seem counter-intuitive to you but then again, I don't expect to see you here after November 8th, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To:Chris Troutman:

1. The New York Times article cited for evidence that Mr. Creamer was shown on tape discussing a scheme to pay people to incite violence at rallies actually contains this sentence, flatly contradicting the passage I’ve deleted:

Mr. Creamer is not seen on the Project Veritas videos approving or endorsing plans to instigate fights at Trump rallies, but his underling, Mr. Foval, is shown boasting about using unseemly methods, like planting people at the gatherings to agitate the crowd. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/video-dnc-trump-rallies.html?_r=0

The other source cited by the Wikipedia article for both these statements contains this paragraph:

Mr. Creamer isn’t heard on the videos endorsing violence or fraud. At one point, he is heard responding to a plan articulated by an undercover conservative activist, “My fear is that someone would decide that this was a big voter-fraud scheme.” The video then cuts to another clip. [emphasis added]. http://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-national-committee-operatives-step-aside-after-release-of-videos-1476919228

3. The Wikipedia paragraph says “The footage showed Creamer discussing fraudulent voting arrangements and Hillary Clinton.” This seems to imply that there is some evidence that Hillary Clinton agreed to fraudulent voting arrangements. I don’t know whether that was the editor’s intent or oversight, but the articles cited do not back that up. In fact, the only reference the tapes contain to a discussion with Hillary Clinton just indicate that she liked the idea of having people in Donald Duck costumes make the point that Donald Trump was "ducking" requests that he release his tax returns.Thewholetruthisbest (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Thewholetruthisbest: Glad you've decided to discuss this. If we can come to consensus perhaps we can change what the article currently says. I'll address the text you've repeatedly removed one by one:

"Creamer resigned from the Democratic National Committee in October 2016 after a video was released which showed him discussing a scheme to pay people to incite violence at rallies for the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump." That's sourced to The New York Times which says "they and others were captured discussing unseemly tactics like instigating violence at Mr. Trump’s rallies and arranging for fraudulent voting." It's also sourced to The Wall Street Journal which says "On Tuesday, Mr. Creamer told the DNC he too would step down from his work with the group" so I think Wikipedia's sentence is fairly drawn from the sources.

Moving on Wikipedia says: "The footage showed Creamer discussing fraudulent voting arrangements and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate. Creamer and Democratic Party spokespeople subsequently described the conversations as "hypothetical" and denied that the tactics described had been used." which is sourced only to the NYT piece which also says "Both men and others in the videos are seen discussing — or at least nodding along when their undercover interviewers broach the idea — how people could illegally vote." as well as "Mr. Creamer is not seen on the Project Veritas videos approving or endorsing plans".

So, I think we can strike the text about Clinton. Neither source mentions that they discussed her. (I saw the video and recall the part about the Donald Duck outfits, but we're not using the video as a source.) The sentence about discussing fraudulent voting could be changed to add language to the effect "although Creamer is never shown endorsing such tactics". The sentence about the conversations being hypothetical is sourced to the NYT piece and I don't think anyone doubts there was a subsequent denial. How about that? To be clear, I only want to hear either your counteroffer or assent. I'll make whatever changes we agree upon unless other editors chime in. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I think adding something like "although Creamer is never shown endorsing such tactics" sounds like a good idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

To: Chris Troutman: Thanks for your response. We should be able to agree that the passage in question should be removed while we are working this out, since it is contradicted by the soures you cite, and you agree it is inaccurate. My understanding is that Wikipedia practice is to take down potentially libelous statements while disputes are being resolved. Even if Mr. Creamer were a public figure (which he is not, according to relevant legal definitions) leaving statements up which are damanging to his reputation and which you know to be inaccurate would me the "reckless disregard of its truth or accuracy standard applicable to public figures. To be clear, I'm not in any way threatening that Mr. Creamer would bring a libel suit. I don't represent him, and have no info whatever on his view of the matter. Just saying it's not only unfair but also imprudent to put this back up if further discussion is required. I'll respond to your points seriatim in all caps below.

"Creamer resigned from the Democratic National Committee in October 2016 after a video was released which showed him discussing a scheme to pay people to incite violence at rallies for the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump." That's sourced to The New York Times which says "they and others were captured discussing unseemly tactics like instigating violence at Mr. Trump’s rallies and arranging for fraudulent voting."

Mr. Creamer is not seen on the Project Veritas videos approving or endorsing plans to instigate fights at Trump rallies.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/video-dnc-trump-rallies.html?_r=0

ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE SHOULD LEAVE IN YOUR SENTENCE AND THEN ADD THE CLARIFICATION TO IT, SAYING THEY ARE SEEN . .. BUT MR CREAMER IS NOT SEEN ENDORSING SUCH TACTICS, AND IS IN FACT SEEN DECLINING TO ASSIST WITH A FRAUDULENT VOTING SCHEME THAT SOMEONE POSING AS A POTENTIAL DONOR SUGGESTS TO HIM." THIS WOULD BE ACCURATE.

NOTE THAT, WHILE THE NYT ARTICLE YOU CITED ONLY SAYS HE IS NOT SEEN ENDORSING SUCH TACTICS, THE WALL ST JOURNAL ARTICLE YOU CITED QUOTES HIM AS SAYING "MY FEAR IS THAT SOMEONE WOULD DECIDE THAT THIS WAS A BIG VOTER FRAUD SCHEME.(SINCE YOU'VE SEEN THE TAPE, YOU ALSO KNOW THAT EVEN THE PROVACATEUR WHO SET UP THE UNDERCOVER OPERATION SAYS IN HIS NARRATION OF THE TAPE THAT CREAMER DELINED TO HELP).

It's also sourced to The Wall Street Journal which says "On Tuesday, Mr. Creamer told the DNC he too would step down from his work with the group" so I think Wikipedia's sentence is fairly drawn from the sources.

YES IT WOULD BE ACCURATE TO STAY THAT MR CREAMER STEPPED DOWN FROM HIS CONSULTING ROLE WITH THE DNC, THOUGH IT IS NOT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT HE STEPPED DOWN "FROM THE DNC" BECAUSE HE WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL OR STAFFPERSON OR MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. 1

Moving on Wikipedia says: "The footage showed Creamer discussing fraudulent voting arrangements and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate. Creamer and Democratic Party spokespeople subsequently described the conversations as "hypothetical" and denied that the tactics described had been used." which is sourced only to the NYT piece which also says "Both men and others in the videos are seen discussing — or at least nodding along when their undercover interviewers broach the idea — how people could illegally vote." as well as "Mr. Creamer is not seen on the Project Veritas videos approving or endorsing plans". PEOPLE NOD TO SHOW THEY ARE LISTENING. MENTIONING NODDING, THOUGH THE PAPER MAY HAVE INCLUDED IT, IS ONLY MISLEADING WHEN WE KNOW THAT HE DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE IN IT. DOES MENTIONING IT HAVE ANOTHER PURPOSE THAT I AM MISSING.

So, I think we can strike the text about Clinton. Neither source mentions that they discussed her.

AGREED. (I saw the video and recall the part about the Donald Duck outfits, but we're not using the video as a source.) THE VIDEO, DESPITE ITS NARRATORS COMMENTS, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SHOW ANYONE SAYING THAT THE DONALD DUCKS, OR HER INTEREST IN THEM, WAS FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DRAW PUBLIC ATTENTION. OF COURSE, THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL IMPROPER ABOUT SUCH ATTENTION-GETTING TACTICS.

The sentence about discussing fraudulent voting could be changed to add language to the effect "although Creamer is never shown endorsing such tactics". The sentence about the conversations being hypothetical is sourced to the NYT piece and I don't think anyone doubts there was a subsequent denial. How about that? To be clear, I only want to hear either your counteroffer or assent. I'll make whatever changes we agree upon unless other editors chime in. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I think adding something like "although Creamer is never shown endorsing such tactics" sounds like a good idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thewholetruthisbest (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Thewholetruthisbest: I would oppose removing the content even temporarily because per WP:BLPSOURCES "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced" and this information is well-sourced. All we're doing is ironing-out a better version based on those sources. We'll have this fixed today and honestly, I think Creamer is up to his eyeballs. This article doesn't make any libelous claims in my opinion.

How about the new section read: Creamer resigned from his consulting position with the Democratic National Committee in October 2016 after a video was released which showed him discussing a scheme to pay people to incite violence at rallies for the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The footage also showed Creamer discussing fraudulent voting arrangements although he did not endorse the methods discussed and voiced concern to the potential donor that those efforts would be tantamount to voter fraud. Creamer and Democratic Party spokespeople subsequently described the conversations as "hypothetical" and denied that the tactics described had been used. Both the NYT piece and the WSJ piece would be the sources. Does that work for you? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

More than a day has gone by with no new comments, so I've gone ahead and made the changes you suggested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Felony in the lead?

A single conviction in 2006 for cheque fraud does not belong in the lead of this article. It's not a defining characteristic or a particularly notable event in my opinion. Roger Stone is not a good comparison, as Stone's conviction, jail term, and pardon made headline news around the world. Not so with Mr Creamer.— Diannaa (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Per rest of article and cited sources, it was a felony conviction for bank fraud. The felony conviction is important to have in the introduction, otherwise it doesn't fairly introduce the overall subject matter and creates an NPOV issue. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition. As User:Diannaa said, this is not a defining characteristic or part of what makes Creamer notable. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you believe makes the subject notable?

There is no basis for that deletion. This is a biographical entry. Its removal creates an NPOV problem, as it causes this article to begin as though it were the subject's CV.

This information is supported by the policy for public figures: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Here is a list of sources covering the conviction. This is a much more significant part of the subject's biography, than many other parts of this article.

1. Chicago Tribune: Democrat Consultant Sentenced to Prison
2. The Daily Northwestern: U.S. Rep's Husband Sentenced for Fraud
3. East Bay Times: Congresswoman's Husband Pleads Guilty
4. And from the LA Times
5. Fox News

Also, there is no consensus for your deletion of the fact that Creamer is controversial. It seems a bare minimum inclusion if you argue felony conviction should be removed form the introduction, as that also encompasses the other controversies discussed. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No one is saying the article shouldn't mention the conviction. But it's not part of what makes the subject notable, so it doesn't belong in the lead sentence. More broadly, introducing the subject as "X, Y, Z, and convicted felon" is poor writing and gives the impression of bias (something I have said before about other articles).

As for the word "controversial", it doesn't add much here. Most people known for political work are controversial; that's the nature of the field. Adding it to the lead sentence this way doesn't accomplish much beyond giving the lead a more negative tone. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That helps me understand your view a bit - I didn't realize your deletion was because you didn't think the felony conviction belonged in the first sentence, I thought you were more generally disagreeing with it being in the introduction.

What I still don't understand why you think it's not part of what makes the subject notable, you've said that a couple times without elaborating -- I've shown five major sources, plus the article says that major political figures like Dick Durbin wrote letters on his behalf to judge for him. Seems obviously part of what makes him notable to me.

I can appreciate your point of view on "controversial," I do think it's better to be more precise by mentioning the felony so it's a more unweighted, factual term.

Overall, I think this article suffers from a bias in favor of the subject. It reads like the subject's curriculum vitae, and has self-citations. So I see the problem running in the opposite direction.

But, now that I understand your view better, I'm going to address it by -- (1) deleting controversial, (2) leaving convicted felon out of the first sentence, and (3) adding the subject's specific felony convictions at the end of the introduction. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh - I also think you used that roll back tool and reverted edits you didn't intend. I had put the career section in chronological order. That's ok though, I think I have a better better way to organize it so it's not one long section anymore. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an improvement, though I still think the lead now gives too much prominence to the conviction. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)