Talk:Kellyanne Conway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JonahGae (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 26 May 2022 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2022: Reply and set "answered" to yes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

BLPN discussion

Template:BLP noticeboard

There is a current discussion at the BLP Noticeboards over her daughter's recent accusation.[1] A consensus to include must be reached before the information can be re-added. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Conway topless picture controversy

I guess I'll open the talk about it since several of us are engaged in a low-key edit war which I can't comprehend. The thing has already made national headlines in multiple news sources; there is already a police investigation going on about it; and whether or not Kellyanne was responsible for it, the news is certainly noteworthy and encyclopedic, and will sooner or later end up in this article permanently. So what are we even debating here? The news was posted to this page using neutral and factual language that assumes no blame, and multiple citations were provided, yet someone (on Kellyanne or Trump's publicity team, perhaps?) keeps taking it down. I require an explanation. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, the article is now protected, meaning that no further edits can be made even though it *did* happen regardless of taking sides. Let's not be so brazen with the censorship.61.247.48.60 (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all remember to assume good faith. They're not being taken down by Conway's/Trump's team, and it's not censorship -- this is hyper-controversial material and, given the WP:EASTEREGG links to child pornography and legality of child pornography we need to be very careful about how we word it. The admins have protected this page not to censor the material, but just to make sure we're presenting it in the best way possible. — Czello 11:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this potentially implicates a living person in the commission of a crime, it's probably better to err on the side of caution, at least until/if formal charges are filed. GMGtalk 14:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until more is actually known past accusations. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the censorship comment, caution should be exercised here, but in the interest of being impartial and encyclopaedic, it is important to reflect the fact that such a photo was posted to her account. It's not the job of Wikipedia to say if Conway is at fault until the investigation is conclusive, but it is our job to share that a photo was posted to the account and the daughter claims it is genuine.YallAHallatalk 03:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Does it have a major impact on Kellyanne Conway's life? So far it does not appear that it has. PackMecEng (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even unfounded and developing accusations have seen Wikipedia coverage with the proper context and facts (See Tara Reade). In that case, it's been added as a subsection of President Joe Biden despite the fact the accusation's impact on his life has been minimal. This Conway incident goes beyond an accusation, it's a matter of verifiable fact. Precedent is clear that it deserves mention. I would agree that it should not be said Kellyanne personally posted the photos until after an investigation. I also motion that an edit be proposed and Support/Oppose/Comment style input be taken.YallAHallatalk 03:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 1000%. And we should at least be allowed to vote on this instead of being silenced. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Viva La Revolution! PackMecEng (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait to see the fallout from this snafu before including it, just because of how damaging it is to both parties, and because of the younger Conway's age. She is a minor and while I respect her judgment, we need to be super careful, especially concerning something as serious as having a nude picture posted online without consent. To me, her later statement about reconciliation with her mother signifies that she may regret publicly identifying herself as being depicted. It's one of those cases where I believe our responsibility to avoid harm trumps coverage in RS, unless it becomes overwhelming and a critical part of the older Conway's life. As to the classification as child pornography, my understanding is that U.S. law protects depictions of minors who aren't in overtly sexual poses, hence the whole Virgin Killer controversy on here. Disturbing, but we should defer to RS on that one. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Succubus MacAstaroth: No one's being silenced here dude, chill. This is serious BLP issue so we do need to be careful. But yes a vote/RfC on this sounds reasonable. — Czello 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Edit

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There's consensus for a brief and neutral reference to this controversy to be included in the article, as it has been covered by many reliable media outlets. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the following be included in the article?

On January 25, 2021, Conway's official Twitter account shared a topless photo of a girl later confirmed to be Claudia Conway.[1] New Jersey police launched an investigation into the matter.[2]

YallAHallatalk 03:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dan, Mangan; Nunley, Christian (January 26, 2021). "Police visit home of ex-Trump aide Kellyanne Conway after nude photo of daughter appears on Twitter". CNBC. Retrieved January 27, 2021.
  2. ^ Turner-Cohen, Alex (January 26, 2021). "Kellyanne Conway posts nude pic of daughter, in possible revenge move for child abuse allegations". 7NEWS.com.au. Retrieved January 27, 2021.
These comments pertain to an earlier version of the proposed edit and were stricken by their respective authors
These comments pertain to an earlier version of the proposed edit reading:
On January 26, 2021 Conway's official Twitter account shared a nude photo of a woman. [1] Claudia Conway later confirmed she was the subject of the photo. [2]
  • Support This edit is responsible and doesn't make assumptions of Conway's responsibility. YallAHallatalk 03:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit beating around the bush and sugarcoating, isn't it, and Claudia isn't even an adult. Also she wasn't fully nude. I propose this instead: "On January 25, 2021, Conway's official Twitter account shared a topless photo of a person later confirmed to be Claudia Conway. New Jersey police launched an investigation into the matter." Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "girl" would probably be more appropriate, or at least some language to make crystal clear that Claudia is a minor. Ovinus (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both points. I will update the edit suggestion to reflect that. YallAHallatalk 04:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, with my rationale above. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as long as the language is amended to reflect Claudia's underage status and changes "nude" to "topless" for the sake of accuracy and lessening of any potential slut-shaming. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The new edit is a truthful and accurate summary of an ongoing event thus far. This event is relevant to the life of the article's subject and is consistent with how other events are reflected in other articles. Secondly, I apologise if my way of archiving the comments on the previous revision isn't Wikipedia standard, so please make changes if there is standard convention for this. YallAHallatalk 05:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, with my rationale above. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the proposed text is minimal, neutral, and factual. I don't think I'd want anything additional added to this -- keeping it as brief and to-the-point as possible is what's essential here. The only (minor) change I'd make is moving the periods to the left of the references per the MOS. — Czello 09:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Good catch on the periods, I missed it in my haste to retrofit the suggested edits from the "deleted" comments. I'll fix them and keep this RFC open without change as it's only a minor fix to the proposal YallAHallatalk 09:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not currently in the system as an RFC right now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'll do what I can to make it a real RFC per above, but I'm still learning a lot of the templates. YallAHallatalk 21:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All you have to do is put a {{rfc|bio}} before your question, add your signature to the question, and rename the "proposed edit" header to RFC on daughter's photo or something similar. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm going to skip changing the section name because the links that go here will break. There are already links to this. YallAHallatalk 22:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is it linked from? The reason for the RFC header is so that people will know it was a RFC question when the RFC is closed and the template is removed. You can place an RFC subheader below the proposed edit header. Also you should add a question, "Should the following be added?" before the proposed edit so it doesn't look funny without context on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This has barely been discussed in the media. The details are unclear, and it is not related to the work that's the basis of her notability. It's purely personal. If it becomes a significant matter of public concern in the future, we can reevaluate. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, per WP:RECENTISM. Some1 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It needs to be included for the sake of public knowledge, and my view is it's no longer recent news once the police become involved and many mainstream news outlets publish about it. This is a very reasonable phrasing of it all. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but meh I think we will probably have to include this eventually as it's likely something that is going to stay in the spotlight whatever outcome of any investigations, but that's WP:Crystal. Given this affects the subject's living underage child in a fairly extreme way, I'm strongly opposed to including this at the time per WP:BLP until the crystal is proven correct. Meh because it illustrates why this RfC is silly. If editors would just have waited a month or two, it would probably be clear it belongs and we wouldn't need to waste time with an RfC. This sort of itchy-finger editing, where editors are desperate to include something right now can waste a lot of editor time. We don't include BLP violations just because they are needed "for the sake of public knowledge". Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Could see the oppose arguments until I clicked on Gråbergs Gråa Sång's link. Every media organization is talking about this. The idea that it has been "barely been discussed in the media" is obviously false. Loki (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: The innuendo being presented here, namely that Kellyanne Conway somehow abuses her child, is not borne out by reliable sources. We should wait until more information is forthcoming regarding the origins of the picture before we use the project to depict her in such a horrific way. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The innuendo . . . that Kellyanne Conway somehow abuses her child, is not borne out by reliable sources." That's actually not the case. Claudia published video recently of Kellyanne screaming at her, verbally and emotionally abusing her, threatening to lock her away in an asylum, and hitting her. The video is not disputed. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08: I'm sorry but, where is the innuendo? The sentence OP provided doesn't appear coded in any way; it's the most straight-forward and neutral way I can imagine you can present this information. — Czello 22:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I propose this RFC be closed and reopened/re-created in ten days time to address concerns of not enough coverage (although that's disputed, there is plenty of coverage now.) After such time, the picture will be clearer. I agree this will eventually have to be added, and while my original suggestion was to add it now, I understand the concern and now suggest we re-evaluate at another time. YallAHallatalk 05:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Plenty of reliable source are reporting on this and the police have opened an investigation. The reasons against this I've seen are that the media coverage is insufficient (which is not true), that the proposed text somehow implies further allegations of abuse against Conway's daughter (it doesn't) or that the incident is too recent (it is recent, but it is also supported by many, many sources). So, definitely include. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribution needed I don't see reliable sources confirming the photos. Therefore, if anything is posted, it should contain an WP:INTEXT attribution that it is an accusation from her daughter.—Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A one-sentence mention is certainly sensible given the amount of media coverage this event has received. Eliteplus (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion of at least the first sentence/clause, and probably both; it is given significant coverage in RS. -sche (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This incident has received significant global media coverage. A brief factual sentence or two with citation to reliable sources seems appropriate. Mr248 (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claudia on American Idol

Is the recently-added text about Claudia competing on American Idol relevant to this article? It seems like, as some people have mentioned in previous discussions, we are approaching—if not already at—the point of Claudia being notable enough for her own article, where that information could be relevant; it seems irrelevant (off-topic and technically "undue") in this article on Kellyanne Conway. -sche (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely UNDUE and I removed it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it got re-added without comment two days later. JöG (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...and now it's been re-removed. I will say, regarding this edit summary, that section of this article is where Claudia Conway currently redirects to, which might be some people assume content about her was supposed to go here. (Perhaps someone should make a draft article about her, which all this could go in.) -sche (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, @Morbidthoughts: If you don't even know her name your probably don't have the knowledge to be editing this page. See User talk:Morbidthoughts#Kellyanne Conway. Michael-Moates (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

Add Kellyanne Conway's new book under the book's section. HERE'S THE DEAL, by Kellyanne Conway, ISBN . Published by Threshold Editions on May 24, 2022. Here's the Deal Crinklish (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Done and dusted. Thank you for the edit request. JonahGae (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kellyanne_Conway&oldid=1090027002"