This is an archive of past discussions about Kellyanne Conway. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Re: Edits concerning Todd Akin/David Koresh quote by Kelly Conway
You wrote: Please stop adding material to the Kellyanne Conway article that violates WP:BLP. You also need to learn how to cite properly in Wikipedia, but the biggest problem is that the material is negative and controversial in its impact on Todd Akin. I'm going to revert your edit (again). If you want to reinsert the material, or some variation of it, start a topic on the article talk page to discuss it. Don't put it back in the article unless there's a consensus that it doesn't violate policy and is otherwise appropriate for inclusion in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect,
this page is filled with poor citations.
I have modified my edit to address your concern re: Todd Akin by removing his identity from the page. If you are objecting to the "negative" information about Ms. Conway, I would suggest that, for example, the entire criticism section in the Wikipedia Frank Luntz article be removed.
This information is not only germane, but was voluntarily offered in an interview in a non-hostile venue. When a political consultant compares her client to David Koresh, that is a significant fact by any biographical or professional standard. The material may reflect negatively on Ms. Conway, but it is not controversial, since there is no controversy about the actual fact of the statement.
Furthermore, the entire article has been allowed to stand unedited until now although it was cited as being "written like an advertisement."
Finally, with all due respect, Ms. Conway is a public figure who frequently appears in the media as a political consultant and analyst. Restraining accurate comments about a public figure is, again with respect, a form of Wiki-censorship.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Wikipedia. My disagreement in no way suggests that your work here is not appreciated. Tvcop (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Tvcop, thanks for coming here to discuss the material. Taking Akin out of the article doesn't really solve the problem because he's still mentioned in the source. And paring it down, as you did, leaves it fairly misleading. So, I reconsidered my own views and edited the article to give it a fuller context on the events and to be as faithful to the source as possible. Please also take a look at how these things should be sourced in the future - you have to footnote it, not imbed URLs in the text. I hope what I've done is satisfactory to you. Let me know what you think.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, BB23 - Very nicely done. And you showed me up as a poor journalist for not amending my addition with a reaction when it because available.
It's obvious I'm a relative newbie (actually more like a "newsbie"), and your criticisms are much appreciated. Tvcop (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
EDITING SUPERVISORS plrase review this article - as an promotional blurb vs. being reliable, honest informational data.
This article is clearly a Promo P.R. piece, while containing very carefully selective only ( cherry positive selections
picked ) info that may or not be as described. as Wikipedia is suppose to,offer balanced, honest, valid information and not be a source of self promotions, this article is very suspect... especially as main top line coincides also with her up-status announcement - on same day that mass media is just now announcing her "counselor" post. Also notable, this woman is expert in self promotions and free slanted publicity, as seen in all current valid mass media last few months.
Note : definition of this elevated US govt position as " counselor" needs much better definition and clarity... coes it mean counselling attorney as in common usage or what ?
Note: all her own self serving quotes Only are included.
"Kellyanne gained notoriety for being an attractive, yet conservative female TV commentator....Kellyanne used her intelligence, attractiveness and sexuality to gain attention."
The editor felt this was poorly sourced and wp:synth.
I agree it was synth, but I was trying to summarize this description of Kellyanne in the article.
“And while GOP pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick did not place, she displayed several talents: bending over and exposing, beneath a micro-mini jumper, white undies printed with Mickey and Minnie mice, and warbling the "Pundette Blues" swathed in red feathers.”
I welcome other more appropriate summaries, but I do not agree that we should ignore this aspect of her early career.--Nowa (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand that you were paraphrasing, but I think that source is meant to be tongue-in-cheek as opposed to serious biographical coverage of the subject. It seems to be an opinion piece, and as such, cannot be used for a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Also, WP:BLP requires that we take a conservative approach, staying very close to what the source actually says. In this case, that's not possible because the source author is obviously being humorous.- MrX14:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I would agree that the source is giving light hearted coverage, but I wouldn't go so far as tongue-and-cheek. I think the events really happened as described and the quotes are accurate. (e.g. "A pundette is a lightweight lightweight . . . someone who goes on TV and tells you the same thing over and over and over and over but never wears the same outfit twice.") Do you have a larger concern with stating in the article that Kellyanne used her attractiveness and sexuality to build her early career as a TV commentator?Nowa (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
"Do you have a larger concern with stating in the article that Kellyanne used her attractiveness and sexuality to build her early career as a TV commentator?" Yes, because that is an unsourced claim. - MrX15:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you would have to attribute that opinion to the author, or find other sources to show that it is a widely-held viewpoint. Even then, I would be reluctant to endorse such content. I suggest posing the question at WP:BLPN to get input from other experienced editors.- MrX20:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Why would you be reluctant to endorse such content? I'm not being accusatory. I'm just trying to understand the objection better.Nowa (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Eww! This does not belong in the article. And where is Rachel Maddow, or for that matter where are Anderson Cooper and Willie Geist, what about them? SPECIFICOtalk23:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Nowa, it doesn't matter that it's not accusatory. It's also not verifiable. Please carefully read the first section of WP:BLP, a very strict policy. We can't make things up, especially when it concerns living or recently deceased people.- MrX23:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
"Kellyanne used her attractiveness and sexuality to build her early career as a TV commentator" and "Kellyanne used her intelligence, attractiveness and sexuality to gain attention."- MrX14:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your specific statement. Would it be better to say “Stephen Klien, Asistant Teaching Professor at the Univeristy of Missouri, feels that Kellyanne, along with other notable conservative women commentators at the time, 'seemed to capitalize on a combination of conservative identity, confrontational rhetorical style and sexual attractiveness in order to gain media attention'”Nowa (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump has tapped her to be a counselor in the White House but this is not added to the article.
Apparently the place of birth should be Atco, according to her imdb, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2015310/ , though maybe this is a sort of alternative fact, it seems to have some additional information that should be included. The name sounded dynastic as well, does she have any links to other rich, famous, and powerful people in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.173.164.7 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Kellyanne Conway - Alternative Facts
Under section "White House advisor" what is this relevancy of the sub-section ""Alternative facts". As far as I can tell, this is merely a randomly selected news item and doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trendmeister (talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC) ~
It's not randomly selected. It was selected because It's a very major news story that is being covered in the media around the world. The applicable policy is WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX12:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The Transition section states: "... that he [Trump] had sanctioned her critical comments on Romney." Unless she or Trump used that word, "sanction" is not a good choice, because it can mean either to punish or to endorse, to approve. Can we change this to something else?
This article gives the impression that kellyanne conway is credible. That's false. She is a propaganda minister according to journalist Carl Bernstein. It deserves attention because she played a very prominent role in the controversial 2016 American presidential election and the role of fake news/propaganda. Anyone have thoughts??? Tamadrum313 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
As she put it, however, her "broad mind and small waist have not switched places"[20] would be clearer if it were: However, as she put it, her "broad mind and small waist have not switched places"[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.102.27 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself says "The incumbent is the current holder of a political office." She is not the holder of a political office. In fact, use of the "officeholder" template is incorrect. It's not an office. It's a position.
Avocats (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Avocats (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that the office holder template is being used here, inappropriately. She does not hold an office. She holds a position.
Avocats (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It was removed by Politico16 here:[1]. I don´t see it as unencyclopedic, SNL is to some extent a part of US politics and on this level it´s not undue to include it, it´s a part of the whole. It can be improved, I´m currently thinking something like "Saturday Night Live began parodying her in October 2016, based on her work for Trump. She is played by Kate McKinnon.", giving it a little context. Some other sources include [2],[3] and [4].
It's not encyclopedic to her personally. Maybe more appropriate for SNL page. That was my view. It's also more consistent with other pages that don't typically mention SNL characterizations. Politico16 (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I've restored. This text gives a noteworthy fact (SNL is a prominent show and her being parodied shows her influence on popular culture, place in the public imagination, etc.). It is unquestionably well-sourced, and a single sentence is proper weight. Neutralitytalk21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The SNL mention brought me here. It really seems out of place and I don't see how it adds anything to this article. SNL parodies a lot of people, that's a given. There's nothing noteworthy about Conway being parodied. 107.15.36.163 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
SNL parodies a lot of people, true. Few of those are parodied as much in such a short while, and have it noted in media as much, so it's not unreasonable to include it. Personally, I think it´s less motivated in the Sean Spicer article, but it´s undeniably well sourced. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Lead
The lead is hopelessly out of date - Trump has been in power for three weeks now, and none of the events directly relating to Conway are covered at present. I'm not a US politics editor, and respect most of those wikipedians working in this subject area, so wont be bold here. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2017
This edit request to Kellyanne Conway has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The "Alternative Facts" section sets out an account of the media debate over whether "alternative facts" is an established legal concept and concludes with the suggestion by the Guardian newspaper that it was unable to find any corroboration of the existence of this concept in any legal databases. This section should at the very least provide a link to the wikipedia page which clearly sets out the legal concept of Alternative Facts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts_(law) - and includes links to numerous legal sources confirming the existence of the concept in a number of jurisdictions, including the US. Meisje2014 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Potential typo in section 2.3.5 Michael Flynn's resignation and suspension from television appearances
It says, "It was then reported the Conway had afterwards leaked negative stories about Spicer to the press." I assume that the first "the" should read "that."50.235.102.246 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I presume it means contacting the news show and asking to be featured, as opposed to the show contacting her and asking if she would appear. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe this also denotes that the President or his Chief of Staff or Communications director was not involved in the booking. Self-booked. SPECIFICOtalk20:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This edit request to Kellyanne Conway has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the first sentence of the third paragraph, I would suggest changing "untruths" to a less euphemistic, clearer phrase such as "false statements". Isaac Grosof (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
As I write this Donald Trump has been President for less than four months but almost half the article is on Conway's glitches during the first few weeks of his presidency. Too much emphasis on gossipy, political junkie information that in the long run will likely not seem very important. Wikipedia is not a running political newspaper. Motsebboh (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The section could probably be condensed, but can we agree that everything in that section (with the possible exception of the 'Morning Joe' content), is far more important that her overweight cousin and her blueberry farm career? She is primarily notable for her role in the Trump campaign and administration.- MrX18:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@ MrX: I won't dispute you on heavy cousin and blueberries. However, she did have a substantial career in the political realm before she became a Trump adviser. Motsebboh (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Lede
While the lede did include repetitive material and some of the text relating to reactions to her inappropriate comments was probably excessive for the lede, the material describing those statements was accurate, well-sourced, and represents key elements of her notability. That longstanding part of the lede should not have been removed without discussion, and certainly should not have been removed under an edit summary which inaccurately characterized the material removed. I have reinstated the key parts of the removed text, and substituted a summary statement about an official Congressional response to her statements for the less consequential media commentary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
"sitting inappropriately on the Oval Office couch" in the Lead
Seriously? The fact that she had her feet on the couch is in the Lead? Clearly Undue, as is the sentence about Patti Wood calling the seating position "sexual". Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Disagree with removing the rest of it. Conways political WTF:s are a big part of this article/her media coverage, and now that´s not in the lead at all, that´s not WP:LEAD-y.
Either get rid of all of the so-called "controversies" from the lede or get rid of none. Can't have it both ways. You don't get to unilaterally decide/pick&choose what to include and what to ignore. The Oval Office couch photograph and inauguration fight generate just as much press (if not more) than the "Morning Joe" stuff (which seems like a pathetic attempt at self-promotion by "Morning Joe" btw) and Michael Flynn stuff. Make a decision! Btw adding so-called "WTF" to the lede is undue weight and violation of NPOV. She's been involved in politics since the early '90s and notable since the Bill Clinton impeachment era. I'm removing all the controversies from the lede for the time being, but if there is consensus to restore them, the inauguration fight and oval office photograph need to be included.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we can have it both ways, that´s what´s the lead is for. That "Career" and "Controversies" need to be summarized in the lead doesn´t mean everything in them needs to be mentioned. The remaining ones seem reasonable to me, but that´s what consensus is for. Personally, I´m mostly against removing alternative facts and Bowling Green.
That said, perhaps some of the events in the controversies section could be merged under one heading? As it is, the section takes up an unreasonably large space in the TOC. IMO, alternative facts and Bowling Green are the big 2, possibly Flynn as well, but that feels more meh in the long run. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Kellyanne Conway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. If you have a better idea then suggest it please. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Um I know it's just an essay but, as far as I know, these are encouraged pracitices on this site. In any case, I can't come up with an alternative section name, hence why I started this discussion. Slightlymad13:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually I have noticed something. She had no career section for presidential administration, which is where all the controversies are from. Perhaps rename and lower levels? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
(editconflictx2)There are possible alternatives/things that can be done. Rename to "Tenure as..." or somesuch like for example Sean Spicer. It´s a little strange that the body of the article has nothing about things-during-tenure except controversies. Keep but trim and/or get rid of some/all of the subsections (not their content), since they take up a somewhat ridiculous amount of space in the TOC. Split to separate article, it´s not like there´s a lack of sources. Hm, perhaps merge AF and BG into that?
The argument for controversy however is that it's pretty much all she's known for outside of America. Nobody cares when she talks about a press briefing - but as soon as she laments the Bowling Green massacre, the global press is all over it. You know what the Hells Angels say: "When we do right, nobody remembers. When we do wrong, nobody forgets"Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Besides WP:PROPORTION, there's also WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:VNOTSUFF. Issues that get a lot of coverage for 24 hours don't necessarily need to be included in an encyclopedia. Pretty much every BLP with a "controversy" section unfortunately becomes a shit magnet, as Gråbergs Gråa Sång said above, and there is (or should be) the over-riding goal of writing a good article that isn't clogged full of verifiable but irrelevant detritus. It's also possible to address NPOV by writing with less detail, not more: rather than throw in every fact and noteorthy opinion, articles should occasionally be pruned such that only the most salient issues (10-year test) are covered, fairly and proportionally and professionally. For this reason I removed the "Oval Office couch photograph". --Animalparty! (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
With regard to the "Oval Office couch photograph" - I've put it back until consensus deems that it's to be removed. It's been discussed and referenced in the past, and nobody has seen fit to remove it as of yet. I for one feel that inclusion is warranted because it shows a lack of decorum and formality in one of the most formal locations in the world. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I see the couch incident as carrying the same weight (or less) of Barack Obama's tan suit controversy. For the unfamiliar, Obama wore a tan suit at a press conference, haters hated, bloggers blogged, pundits pontificated. Some thought it indicated a lack of decorum and formality. It was a stupid news item that generated tweets and page views. Yet I can find no reference to this anywhere on Wikipedia (and rightly so). Not at Barack Obama, not at Presidency of Barack Obama, not even Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2014). I'm glad. It means the drivel has been separated from the substantial. Now, for people who don't like Conway, the couch incident probably seems a lot more relevant in that it confirms their opinions. Daily newspapers by their nature report the news of the day. An encyclopedia should take a step back from the fray and summarize the major elements, giving each no more or less emphasis than is warranted. It is poor balance that the Controversy section in this article already rivals or exceeds the career section in length and detail (approx 1500 words in Controversies vs 1,000 in Career). Even if all of the current controversies must be mentioned, most can probably be succinctly summarized in one or a few sentences, and/or be relocated to other articles such as timelines or spinoff articles. (and FWIW, I'm fairly progressive myself and no fan of Conway's, but Wikipedians and many American media sources are liberal biased to varying degrees, and journalism in general tends to cover negative more than positive. My only interest is in seeing quality articles that are neither bloated with criticism nor depauperate and sugar-coated, such that readers of any political background are likely to agree is a fair and balanced article.) --Animalparty! (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Chaheel Riens, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Slightlymad, and Emir of Wikipedia: lest neglect be mistaken for consensus, can we figure out how many "controversies" to inlcude and how many paragraphs to dedicate to each of them? (please re-read my last comment above) Again, no biography should be a laundry list of grievances, no matter how well documented. The "Ethics violation allegations and investigation" could be defluffed by removing all/most of the quotes, and I think the "Ban from Morning Joe", and the 'couch scandal' could each be reduced by a third at least, if we absolutely must include them. The least notable conflicts could be lumped into a single sentence or two (giving minor elements their own subheading increases the prominence of them). Again, An encyclopedia isn't everything. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2018
This edit request to Kellyanne Conway has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
From the article: "and was the first woman to successfully run an American presidential campaign,[1] and the first woman to run a Republican general election presidential campaign.[45]" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019
This edit request to Kellyanne Conway has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
WP:DATED vio in lead. We can't say "currently" — everything in Wikipedia is current unless otherwise noted (i.e., "former adviser"). The passage "an American pollster, political consultant, and pundit who is currently serving as Counselor to" should read "an American pollster, political consultant, and pundit who serves as Counselor to" --2604:2000:1382:C5DD:DCAA:29CC:577A:BB89 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Kellyanne Conway has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Requested Edit: Conway is married to George T. Conway III,[118] who is of counsel [instead of "a litigation partner"] at the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, [...]
George Conway's position with Wachtell is noted on his attorney profile page on the firm website, accessible here.
Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2018 : Kellyanne Conway allegedly punched a man in the face
This edit request to Kellyanne Conway has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
ADD to Inauguration fight
An anonymous, stunned attendee told the New York Daily News,[1] and Fox Business correspondent Charlie Gasparino gave an account of the brawl.[2][3][4]
Not done: These references either fail to resolve, fall short of being reliable, or in the case of Snopes, confirm the unverifiability of the claim. In the case of a BLP article, far more reliable sources would need to be found confirming this, rather than propagating what is currently just a rumour.
This edit request to Kellyanne Conway has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Succession box in "External Links" section is outdated. It says she is "Incumbent" as Counsellor to the President but actually she stepped down from that role in August 2020. Propose amending it from:
{{s-start}}
{{s-off}}
|-
{{s-vac|last=[[John Podesta]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[Counselor to the President]]|years=2017–present|alongside=[[Steve Bannon]], [[Dina Powell]]}}
{{s-inc}}
{{s-end}}
to:
{{s-start}}
{{s-off}}
|-
{{s-vac|last=[[John Podesta]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[Counselor to the President]]|years=2017–2020|alongside=[[Steve Bannon]], [[Dina Powell]], [[Hope Hicks]], [[Derek Lyons]]}}
{{s-aft|after=[[Hope Hicks]]|after2=[[Derek Lyons]]}}
{{s-end}}
There is a current discussion at the BLP Noticeboards over her daughter's recent accusation.[5] A consensus to include must be reached before the information can be re-added. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. — Czello11:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
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. GMGtalk14:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
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.YallAHallatalk03:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
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.YallAHallatalk03:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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) buidhe20:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
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]
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]
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)
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)
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)
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. YallAHallatalk05:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
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. — Czello09:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
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 YallAHallatalk09:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Comment I'm going to skip changing the section name because the links that go here will break. There are already links to this. YallAHallatalk22:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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. SPECIFICOtalk23:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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. — Czello22:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
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. YallAHallatalk05:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
This edit request to Kellyanne Conway has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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 DealCrinklish (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Done - 
Done – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)