Talk:Herman Cain

message: Please discuss before changing again, this is silly. —valereee (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn silly. The lead and infobox blame COVID directly, no citations. This is somehow supposed to reflect the body, which blames complications, citing a Rolling Stone article which blames nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

text: If the sources say CV-19 then we say that, but if they just says complications we should not add our own guesses. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing, though, there are no "the sources". Some say neither, some choose either, some say "coronavirus" which can imply both end results. Our only currently-selected guy (Peter Wade) leaves it up to our imagination, can't guess why we chose him. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

text: While we decide who we want to echo, I've removed any cause from the part citing a story without one, and am thinking about removing the unsourced bits blaming COVID (but one's in the lead, which I swore to not touch). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

text: undid this, claiming "COVID-19 complications" is in the title. Even if headlines counted, I see "coronavirus". Discuss? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your suggestion that Cain died of some other coronavirus? The title is clear that "Herman Cain, Former Presidential Candidate, Dies From Coronavirus at 74", and COVID-19 is specified in the article body. I'm not sure what is even being argued here—there are plenty of other reliable sources explaining that Cain died of COVID-19 if for some reason Rolling Stone is not clear enough. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The coronavirus leads to COVID-19, but that can lead to other things, like drugs, ventilators or secondary infections (among other "complications"). The headline does nothing in deciding how it ended for him. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see why removing the cause of death entirely was the best solution here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And I still don't see if you believe the source says he died of COVID-19 or of its complications. You're saying the former and restoring the latter. We need to use a clear source, first step. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong opinion one way or another on whether we say he died of "complications from COVID-19" or just "COVID-19"—my objection was to removing any mention of COVID-19 in the cause of death when that is a) supported by the source inline, and b) supported by countless other sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Which cause of death is plain textually supported by the source inline? Neither. Find one that claims whichever cause of death we do. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you're saying the Rolling Stone source doesn't support this, when the title is quite clear, but rather than go back and forth on it I've just added one of tens of sources out there that also supports this fact. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: First, headlines are meant to attract, not report. Whole other department. Even if trusted on "dies from coronavirus", the coronavirus can result in death from either COVID or complications. Wade didn't specify, so both were assumptions. This NBC guy (Adam Edelman) does give a cause, which does confirm ours, so that's 100% better, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

text: He died of coronavirus... FactCheck.org 2607:FEA8:BE1:5180:B095:DB9E:320:E0E5 (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is saying we should say he died of cancer. The pedantic argument that's going on here is "died from COVID-19" versus "died after COVID-19 complications". The two mean exactly the same thing, the latter being more clinical and accurate, the former being a shorter (hence why it's seen in a lot of headlines) but slightly less medically accurate way of saying the exact same thing. The latter formulation is definitely more appropriate for an article like this, but for some absurd reason some people hallucinate some sort of political difference between the two formulations, despite them meaning the exact same thing, and are insisting that "complications" be left out, as if it's some sort of Republican conspiracy theory to use medically accurate terminology. The way COVID-19 kills is by causing further pathophysiological complications: acute respiratory disorder syndrome (ARDS), a cytokine storm which can further result for example in blood clots, which can result in thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolisms, ischaemic events, multiple organ failure in particular heart and kidneys, septic shock etc. Anyone interested in being medically accurate would write "COVID-19 complications" (as long as they have the space to do so), at least if they understand anything at all about the pathophysiology of COVID-19 and how it kills people. But editors are instead of focusing on what formulation of the sentence sounds most politically useful to "their side". MarcelB612 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, there are people (incorrectly) claiming he died of a colon cancer that he'd been in remission for 14 years and hadn't returned. Check the edit history of the article, you'll see COVID19 being replaced with "colon cancer" fairly regularly. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware, but nobody is proposing that here in Talk. MarcelB612 (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

text: He had cancer, he would not have made it through the year anyway. 47.188.140.129 (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  COVID-19 vs complications of 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Currently, the subreddit r/HermanCainAward has over 400,000 subscribers. I think that's worth a mention... 71.212.126.227 (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? r/science has over 26 million subscribers, yet it is not mentioned at Science. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike science, Herman Cain's recent mentions in notable media are primarily about the award. 14.203.183.15 (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herman Cain award 

message: I reverted the tweet that was recent added as a quote to the "Health and death" section and wanted to start a discussion about that. The tweet was placed there because it was supposedly ironic that he tweet it, but that tweet, with no elaboration or explanation does not belong in "Health and death" at all. For one, even though it says "Herman Cain's account" it still makes it sound like he tweeted it, which he obviously did not. The fact that his Twitter account manager still tweeted after his death may warrant some small mention in the article (though I doubt it), but the edit that was introduced is absolutely not the way to do that. - Aoidh (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  COVID tweet