Talk:Mike Pompeo

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ktack.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Negotiated with terrorist

Pompeo was the first United States Secretary of State to negotiate with terrorist.

Obvious bias here. Poorly written. A hit job

Bias 104.181.39.0 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Left Wing hit job

This is why Wikipedia has lost all credibility. The description is slanted and biased against Secretary Pompeo You have abandoned all pretense of neutrality. 2603:9000:6809:5854:94D5:4CA7:F8F8:62AA (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is Wikipedia at its worst: dominated by zealots who obsessively cite biased sources to create an overall negative picture of somebody whose ideology does not meet with their approval. This is why Wikipedia is only good for dates and basic facts: its analysis is always heavily skewed towards the lazy and cloistered faculty lounge consensus. 104.174.245.161 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you give one single specific thing that is "slanted" or "biased" using reliable sources to back it up? Seriously, just give us one example of what is wrong with this article. Global rants accomplish nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a noticeably biased article. I am shocked!

162.217.120.37 (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Please note the items in CAPITAL LETTERS since the highlight/bold features did not work. This is a direct copy from your article on Mike Pompeo. I don't even have to know of him to see that this is an extremely unprofessional, slighted article. The far majority of this print is not a neutral point of view that you hold valuable. Wow! This verges on opinions such as flouting norms and inexperienced political appointees, to name a couple. This is very obviously suggesting that he is a bad person - one who is still alive and is now being slandered. Please correct this. It is very much not necessary to put in here.

.....Kansas's 4th congressional district. He was a Kansas representative on the Republican National Committee. Pompeo is also a member of the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party.[2]

ONCE A CRITIC OF DONALD TRUMP, WHOM HE CALLED AN "AUTHORITARIAN", POMPEO BECAME ONE OF HIS BIGGEST SUPPORTERS.....after Trump became the Republican nominee in the 2016 presidential election.[3][4] President Donald Trump appointed Pompeo director of the Central Intelligence Agency in January 2017. Trump promoted Pompeo to secretary of state in March 2018, with Pompeo succeeding Rex Tillerson after his dismissal.[5] Pompeo was confirmed by the Senate on April 26, 2018, in a 57–42 vote[6][7][8] and was sworn in the same day, becoming the first Italian American to serve as the United States secretary of state.[9] During his tenure as secretary of state, Pompeo was described as among the staunchest Trump loyalists in the Cabinet.[4] During his tenure, HE REPEATEDLY FLOUTED NORMS AND PROTOCOLS FOLLOWED BY HIS PREDECESSORS. THESE INCLUDED USING HIS OFFICE TO CAMPAIGN FOR TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION OFFICIALS, FIRING AND CRITICIZING STATE DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS GENERAL, AND STANDING ON TH SIDELINES WHILE TRUMP AND HIS ALLIES HARASSED CAREER DIPLOMATS. (4) A STATE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT FOUND MORE THAN 100 INSTANCES OF MISCONDUCT WHERE POMPEO REQUESTED THAT STATE DEPARTMENT STAFF PERFORM PERSONAL ERRANDS FOR HIM AND HIS WIFE (10) UNDER POPEO'S TENUE, CAREER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS QUIT, WERE FORCED INTO RETIREMENT OR FIRED, AND WERE REPLACED BY INEXPERIENCED POLITICAL APPOINTEES. (11)

Recent statements

Someone should add links to his recent statements praising Vladimir Putin 174.16.161.212 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

He has also criticized Biden for his handling of the Ukraine situ but unsurprisingly none of that makes it onto Wikipedia. ENOUGH WITH LIBERAL BIAS. UNLOCK THE PAGE OR EDIT WITH A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW!! SHAME ON YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.228.41 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

This page reflects political bias which is not befitting a factual website. Regardless of the editor's opinions about the politician, the facts must be presented with an unbiased language. For example, in the introduction summary of Mike Pompeo, he is described as a "staunchest Trump loyalist" in the cabinet, which is not a factual statement, but an opinion in a language which reflects the editor's negative opinion. Additionally, it describes the subject as one who "routinely flouted norms and protocols", which adds opinion to a factual piece. If the editor wishes to express their opinion, they are free to use Facebook or start a blog. 165.91.13.255 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

US Loyalty

Pompeo, his slave owner trump a a few equal scum in congress are traitors and enter history as betrayers of this country, with their joining Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Shame! You will pay. 2601:185:8200:2130:4C75:8F05:D98A:C0DA (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a neutral introduction

The way this “intro” is worded is biased and inflammatory. Wiki asks foe “donations” all the time and it is clear to be leftist and in appropriate in content. 2600:1700:2C80:4A00:4529:A0B2:B9E3:C658 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

send forces in Afghanistan

he send forces in Afghanistan and killed innocent people there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.240.66 (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Errands & ethics

The lead says, “A State Department Inspector General report found more than 100 instances of misconduct where Pompeo requested that State Department staff perform personal errands for him and his wife.” This is not supported by the body of the article, so I’m thinking of simply moving it down to the body of the article. According to an NBC News report, the department’s inspector general merely concluded that the behavior was “inconsistent” with regulations rather than a clear violation, and thus the IG report “recommended that the State Department clarify its policies to better define” what’s not allowed and what the penalties will be. It’s unclear if Pompeo would have been penalized if the IG report had been issued while Pompeo was still in office, but it seems improbable given that people aren’t normally penalized for mere inconsistencies, and given that the IG acknowledged that the rules needed to be beefed up. So I support putting this matter into the body of the article, but I think there are plenty of much more good and bad things for the lead to discuss. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The NBC News source that you cite clearly says, in its lead paragraph, that Pompeo "violated federal ethics rules", and that he was not penalized because he had already left office by the time that the investigation was completed. Your description of what the source says doesn't match what it actually says, which is a bit concerning. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The NBC report is ambiguous. On the one hand it says Pompeo violated regulations. On the other hand, it says (1) what Pompeo did was “inconsistent” with the regulations, (2) the regulations need to be improved to deal with this type of situation, and (3) Pompeo will face no consequences. So it’s concerning you don’t see any nuance there. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous at all. If someone violates federal ethics rules, then their actions are by definition "inconsistent" with those rules. The report suggested improving regulations because that's all they could do - they had no power to sanction Pompeo because he'd already left office. The article makes all of those things clear. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t have the time right now to join you in a journey to other reliable secondary sources and to the primary source itself. Suffice it to say that if Pompeo had done something horrible enough to be lead-worthy then there would have been some slight penalty for it even after he left office. Moreover, if I call someone “hideous” and then backtrack by saying the person is merely “not very attractive” then that’s then ambiguous. And you’re welcome for putting a neutral summary of his official acts into what was previously an extremely propagandistic and one-sided hit job. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, there was no penalty because the State Department Inspector General had no power to impose any penalty on someone who had already left federal service. It's dishonest to suggest that the absence of a penalty mitigates the severity of Pompeo's conduct, when you should know otherwise from the source that you yourself cited.

Separately, Pompeo's violation of federal ethics rules is consistently called out as such in reliable sources, for example:

• CNN: "The State Department's independent watchdog found that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife Susan Pompeo violated federal ethics rules by making over 100 personal, non-work related requests to department employees"
• Reuters: "Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo violated federal ethics rules governing the use of taxpayer-funded resources when he, and his wife, asked State Department employees to carry out personal tasks more than 100 times"
• Wall Street Journal: "Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife violated ethics rules by asking department employees to carry out tasks of a personal nature"
• PBS: "The State Department’s internal watchdog has concluded that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife violated federal ethics rules by asking staffers to run personal errands and perform non-official work"
• Washington Post: "Former secretary of state Mike Pompeo broke federal ethics rules when he and his wife asked staffers to book restaurant reservations, take care of his dog, go on shopping trips and perform a wide array of other personal errands"

... and so on. So reliable sources consistently summarize Pompeo's behavior in their leads as a "violation of federal ethics rules". I am not clear why you find it objectionable to use that wording. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t find it objectionable to use that wording in the body of the article along with it being “inconsistent” with the rules. What I object to is what I’ve already repeatedly said I object to: putting this significant but middling stuff into the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Political appointees

The lead says, "Under Pompeo's tenure, career State Department officials quit, were forced into retirement or fired, and were replaced by inexperienced political appointees." This is supported by an LA Times article that says, "Numerous career foreign service officers have quit, been forced into retirement or fired. They were often replaced by inexperienced political appointees. And the number of applicants for the service has plummeted, meaning the pool for future diplomats is shrinking." I wonder (1) what other sources have to say about this stuff, (2) whether the "shrinking number of applicants" is one of the reasons for relying more on political appointees, (3) how different Pompeo's tenure was from his predecessors in terms of job turnover. I will look into these matters, and whether this stuff stays in the lead will depend on the answers. Certainly, Pompeo's tenure has been praised by some people for some things, such as the Abraham Accords, and I'd think some of that could be mentioned in the lead, instead of only negative stuff. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve tried to make the lead more NPOV, mainly by adding a fifth paragraph, and shortening the fourth. The stuff about hiring lots of inexperienced political appointees remains in the article body, and I will seek answers to the three questions I posed above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources describing plummeting morale and high turnover in the State Department under Pompeo's leadership. For example:

• New Yorker 6/17/2021: "In interviews, dozens of other department employees alleged that Pompeo’s chaotic tenure, and that of his predecessor, Rex Tillerson, left deep institutional and cultural scars that continue to impede American diplomatic efforts around the world... By the end of the Trump Administration, morale in the department had collapsed. Pompeo had lost the confidence of his staff, some of whom believed that he was preoccupied with a potential Presidential run and was playing to his conservative political base."
• PBS 7/30/202: "...congressional Democrats, former senior officials and even some mid-level current State Department officials describe to me a State Department in which Pompeo and his allies are protected and career officials can sometimes be sidelined."
• The Atlantic, 10/23/2020

... and so on. To be clear, many of these sources make the point that the tenure of Pompeo's predecessor, Rex Tillerson, was even more catastrophic for the State Department, and many of the vacancies were created by people leaving to escape his leadership. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Besmirching

On a related issue of text not comporting with the sources, Anythingyouwant, your recent edit says Pompeo "besmirched" Yovanovich. The cited source does not say this. Multiple RS accounts say that in the face of GIuliani and others besmirching her and great distress within the State Department over such actions, Pompeo did nothing to stifle the attacks or to restore ordinary course functioning of the diplomatic corps. Quite a different matter. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The article currently says, Pompeo “stood by as Rudy Giuliani besmirched career diplomat Marie Yovanovitch.” It does not say Pompeo besmirched anyone. I feel besmirched though. I never wrote in this BLP that Pompeo besmirched anyone, I wrote about Pompeo being passive while Giuliani besmirched.[1] Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but the point is the same. It is minimized beyond any substantive reflection of the weight of RS reporting on the matter, which was described as shocking and destructive of the global apparatus of the State Department. Perhaps you will consider beefing it up to give our readers a better sense of how bold and unexpected a response this was for a US Sec'y of State. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes moved from lead

Per WP:WHENNOTCITE, footnotes are often omitted from the lead. Since everything in the lead has to be supported by the article body, and that stuff in the article body has to be footnoted, it’s often superfluous and duplicative to have footnotes in the lead. In this instance, I think the lead also looks a lot cleaner and simpler without the footnotes. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Transition to Democratic Administration

User:SPECIFICO recently made this edit to the lead: “Pompeo also echoed Trump's false claims about the election from the Secretary of State podium on November 10, 2020 but was actively transitioning to Democratic control a month later.”

SPECIFICO’s edit summary is as follows: “This is not supported by article text. It only says he met Blinken after the failed insurrection, but even then does not address the degree of coopereation in the transition.” Here is what the cited source (dated December 15. 2020) says:

The transition process at the department -- which is being carried out by Biden's State Department landing team and career officials at the department -- is described as jam-packed and moving along rapidly, but there is still a feeling that everything is a little bit behind where it should be due to the delayed start, two sources familiar with the transition explain to CNN.

So I’m mystified why this does not support the deleted material. Our article’s body says this: “As of December 15, 2020, the transition at the State Department to the new Democratic administration was described as jam-packed and moving along rapidly following the delayed start.” So I am perplexed about SPECIFICO’s edit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't help the readers to follow the narrative by burying key detail in a footnote, so I don't think your fix really addresses the problem. Pompeo, like other Trump cabinet officers, stonewalled the incoming administration for nearly two months -- until after Jan 6 -- at which time it was impossible to complete a full and orderly process as has been the norm for previous transitions. Instead of a footnote, which itself is incomplete and misleading, we need article text that reflects the weight of mainstream descriptions of the events. "Bustling along" or whatever does not address the fact that it was too late to complete the full transition process. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The cited source makes crystal clear that the transition was full speed ahead by mid-December, more than a month before the inauguration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

"In jest" - Transition to the second Trump Administration remark

There have been countless discussions on many pages in which editors have advocated to ignore or not take seriously various statements by Trump and his coterie with the rationale that they were "sarcasm" or said in jest, or otherwise trivial. Unless Reliable Sources tell us that, we as editors do not make such judgments. In the case of Pompeo, he was asked about the urgent matter of his having blocked the transition to the Blinken state department. It was a serious matter of widespread concern, and RS do not laugh it off. It was a curt dismissal of a serious and appropriate inquiry. As to whether the article text needs to be adjusted or even whether the remark needs to be in the article at all, that's a separate question. But let's not as editors make excuses for the statements of experienced public figures when RS make no such excuses. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Per MSNBC, “the cabinet secretary was trying to be coy, delivering the line with a smirk -- as if the incumbent president's efforts to delegitimize a national election he lost should somehow be the basis for comedy….” Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I would be more worried about material in the lead that doesn't square with the body. Whether Pompeo's Nov. 10, 2021 remark was "half in jest or not, he didn't "echo" Trump's I-was-robbed routine. Goodtablemanners (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We know very well that Pompeo only met with Blinken after the failure of the insurrection. Use of the dated December reference for a meeting that never happened at that time is inappropriate. Further, RS extensively document the delay of nearly 2 months in the transition. The "jam packed" is in part referring to the hectic and incomplete cooperation due to Pompeo's having stymied the normal transition. Please adjust your recent edit to reflect NPOV narratives in the weight of RS reports. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, it’s totally normal for State Department transitions to happen mainly among lower officials. Here’s a news report from 10 Jan. 2017: “Speaking at the U.S. Institute of Peace’s Passing the Baton conference, Kerry said he hasn’t met former ExxonMobil chief Rex Tillerson, who as Trump’s secretary of state nominee will testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning.”[2] Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You are posting a lot of Original Research both on talk pages and in article text. Please stop. I am not going to respond to Original Research and out of context cherrypicked articles, which are the same kind of nonsense that I recall editors rejected before your hiatus. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

If you’re going to edit an article about a former Secretary of State, then it helps to have some background knowledge about how the State Department works. And if someone’s nice enough to give you a helpful link in that regard, there’s no need to cover your eyes. I’m not suggesting to put the Kerry-Tillerson info into this BLP, obviously. WP:OR says, “ Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves” (emphasis added). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

False timeline in the lead

Anythingyouwant, Pompeo did not go to Harvard Law after West Point, as your edit claimed, he served the obligatory minimum of 5 years in the Army (while getting well-paid) to repay Uncle Sam for financing his college education, including room and board. It's clearly stated and reliably sourced in the Early life and education section. I happen to know because I researched it and cleaned up the "patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall" hyperbole back in 2018. I also don't see how graduating first in his class is noteworthy in terms of his or anyone's biography, compared to four terms in Congress, CIA director, and secretary of state. General Westmoreland graduated first, too, and the lead of his bio doesn't mention it either. (And West Point would probably prefer not to mention that he went on to a stellar career, sort of.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think saying he graduated first in his class is okay in the lead. The Westmoreland lead is pretty short and skimpy. Longer lead often mention this kind of thing, see William Rehnquist and Byron White, for example. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind leaving HLR editor out of the lead, although it's an achievement that has gotten into other BLPs, e.g. see Ketanji Brown Jackson. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

West Point is an undergraduate program. Rehnquist and White were first in their class at law school, and they went on to become Supreme Court justices. Harvard Law Review: Pompeo was one of a whole bunch of editors, and, again, he didn't stick with the law, he went into business and then into politics. If he had been selected President of the Law Review, like Obama, or Article Editor, like Merrick Garland, that might be worth mentioning. But Garland's lead doesn't, and Obama's lead says that he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, so that's mostly because it's a first of something. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of leads that include first in class as an undergraduate, see, e.g. Henry A. du Pont. It's a big accomplishment whether its undergrad or graduate school. But I won't quibble, thanks again for catching the chronology mistake I made. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I also have no objection to your removal of the Senate confirmation votes from the lead. I put in one of them because the other one was there, but removing them both is okay too. I think some trimming can also be done in the last paragraph of the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to read up on that. One big problem is missing completely, that the state department was hollowed out and often sidelined during the tenures of both Tillerson and Pompeo. Career personnel were driven out and either not replaced at all or replaced by unqualified Trump sycophants. The section in the body needs an overhaul first, though, it's kind of buried under an avalanche of seemingly unrelated details, "diary of Mike Pompeo's tenure as Secretary of State". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that that was one of your NPOV improvements to the lead. Yeah, no, that won't do but body first. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Best to carry on that discussion up there. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You removed the administration's signature foreign policy achievement from the lead. It was discussed at length in the article body, but somehow without using the words "Abraham Accords". I have fixed that:

“ Pompeo praised the peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), called the Abraham Accords, as an "enormous" step forward on the "right path".[101] On August 27, 2020, Pompeo, after visiting Omani Sultan Haitham bin Tarik Al-Said, concluded a Middle East trip aimed at encouraging Arab countries to follow the UAE's move. According to Hugh Lovatt of the European Council on Foreign Relations, "... the lack of any additional public commitments during Secretary Pompeo's regional tour looks like an anti-climax [and] it is possible that a lack of clarity on the U.S. commitment to deliver F-35s to the UAE could have also played a part in slowing a second wave of normalisation."[102] Pompeo's shuttle diplomacy warmed relations between Israel and other neighboring nations, and soon Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco joined the UAE in signing the Abraham Accords, which became the Trump administration's signature achievement in foreign relations, with both Pompeo and Jared Kushner as architects of the deal.[103][104] ”

It needs to go back into the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Just briefly about your last four edits, don't have the time right now to continue with this: Pompeo praising s.th. isn't even noteworthy enough for the body, and the seeming conclusion Pompeo's shuttle diplomacy warmed relations between Israel and other neighboring nations, and soon Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco joined ... isn't from any of the three sources, i.e., it appears to be yours. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought you might say something like that, so I put full supporiting quotations into the footnotes. I didn't put in the stuff about Pompeo "praising", you will see that if you look at the diffs. I will remove that since we agree. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Huge revert by SPECIFICO

This series of reverts has no rational basis. Instead of going on and on about all the policies it violates, I’ll just say this: it will be interesting to see how other editors respond. If this kind of edit sticks, then it’s pointless for me to try and use the five pillars to try and improve this BLP. I had hoped the editing of Wikipedia’s political articles had improved over the past four years. It strikes me as more partisan than ever. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Once your edits have been challenged by reversion, please establish consensus for them on talk prior to reinsertion of any part of them. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think you are at all persuadable, so I’ll wait and see if any other editors comment. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you've made >100 edits to this article and talkpage in the past 5 days or so. Most of your edits to the article have been controversial, disputed, or otherwise questionable. This is immediately after coming off your years-long topic ban from political articles. At a minimum, I would strongly suggest you slow down the pace of editing and make more of an effort to engage with the substance of the concerns about your edits. MastCell ^Talk 17:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

My talk page edits have been precisely for that purpose. My last article edit was at 13:40, 30 May 2022‎ and no more are imminent. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

IG report on misuse of department resources

I’m as willing as the next editor to assume good faith but some of your edits stretch that willingness to the limit. Do you really think this addition of yours improves the article and/or makes it less "partisan"? The sentence According to Associated Press, the department’s inspector general merely concluded that the behavior was "inconsistent" with regulations, and thus the IG report "recommended that the State Department clarify its policies to better define" the issues involved misstates what the source says and adds bias with "merely" and "thus", a conclusion the source doesn't draw. You added the reliable source, AP, but did you even read the entire AP article? Quoting AP: The inspector general "found that such requests were inconsistent with Department ethics rules and the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch." the report said. According to AP, both in the headline and in the first paragraph, Pompeo violated federal ethic rules, there being no exception in the ethics rules for minimal personal favors. (As a Harvard educated lawyer, surely he would have been able to understand the ethics rules, this one, for example.) Because Pompeo was no longer a federal employee, and, accordingly, he is not subject to the disciplinary or other corrective actions applicable to Federal employees, the IG report recommended the State Department clarify its policies by better defining inappropriate tasks to make it easier for staffers (i.e., subordinates), most of whom probably are not Harvard educated lawyers, to report violations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve inserted a header above your comment because it seems entirely unrelated to SPECIFICO’s massive and unjustified revert. I’ll respond briefly regarding the IG report in a minute. You are continuing a talk page discussion that has been happening a few sections up, which is fine but I just want to cross-reference it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this edit of mine at 08:24 on 26 May that you’ve asked about, it was part of consecutive edits. As I recall, prior to those consecutive edits, the body of this BLP said almost nothing about this IG report, but the lead talked about it. Here is what I inserted into the body of this BLP in those consecutive edits:

“ After Pompeo left office, a State Department Inspector General report found more than 100 instances of misconduct where Pompeo requested that State Department staff perform personal errands for him and his wife.[98] According to Associated Press, the department’s inspector general merely concluded that the behavior was “inconsistent” with regulations, and thus the IG report “recommended that the State Department clarify its policies to better define” the issues involved.[99]. ”

I probably shouldn’t have used the word “merely” but otherwise think it was a good edit (the word “merely” was to convey that no fines or punishment was imposed which is true but maybe that point deserves elaboration and explanation in our BLP body). I am not arguing now to restore it exactly like that, but several days ago when I made the edit there had been nothing on this subject in the body of the BLP, and I put it in even though it’s certainly not flattering to Pompeo. MastCell subsequently proposed alternative language in the article body, and I agreed to it above at this talk page where I wrote that I “don’t find it objectionable to use that wording in the body of the article along with it being ‘inconsistent’ with the rules.” That said, I want to read the full IG Report before discussing this matter further (I put a link to it in the external links but SPECIFICO removed it). The word “inconsistent” struck me as peculiar a few days ago when I first read it, and it still strikes me as peculiar because people often do things that seem inconsistent with a law but do not actually violate it. That’s why I want to read the IG Report. As you can see from the full quote above of what I inserted, I did say that Pompeo had already left office when the report came out. You link to the IG report and argue that the IG suggested rule changes for tangential reasons unrelated to whether Pompeo coulda/shoulda/woulda been punished, and you may be right, but I don’t recall the AP article saying or implying that, and I hadn’t read the IG Report when I made the edits a few days ago (I still haven’t). Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, I’ve now had time to read the IG Report. Of course, it’s a primary source and therefore would need to be used by us with caution. According to this secondary source (Forbes magazine article), “the report recommends the State Department amend its ethics rules to clarify ambiguities Pompeo may have taken advantage of and draft new guidance for how employees report misconduct.” So the report wasn’t merely recommending mere guidance for staff (as you suggested), but was trying to remove ambiguities that could be apparent to someone like Pompeo. The report also acknowledged that “Secretary Pompeo is no longer an official in the Federal government; accordingly, he is not subject to the disciplinary or other corrective actions applicable to Federal employees….” To me, this does not sound like an assertion that Pompeo would have received corrective action, only that we’ll never know because he was no longer subject to it. I have no idea what hearing procedures would have been used if he had still been in office, nor whether the IG would have been in the role of prosecutor, much less what the result would have been. Incidentally, both the IG Report and the Forbes article include denials by Pompeo, so we might be obliged to include those. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

So it would seem you were (1) incorrect to omit part of the material that I was putting into the BLP body on this subject, (2) incorrect to fault me for not using a primary source that I hadn’t even looked at, and (3) incorrect to interpret the primary source as saying the IG did not propose to clear up ambiguities in the rules that would have been apparent to someone like Pompeo. But I do appreciate your detailed explanation of why you thought I was editing in bad faith. That’s a helluva lot more explanation than User:SPECIFICO gave, or could give, in the immediately preceding talk page section. I’m not sure that I’ll be involved at this BLP anymore. Too much trouble. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This may be at the root of your misunderstanding of the sources, including Forbes: people often do things that seem inconsistent with a law. The requests did not seem to be inconsistent, the IG determined that they were inconsistent, i.e., violations, as the RS say. We shouldn't speculate whether the IG would have recommended "disciplinary or other corrective actions", it's a moot point. (If he were still in office he could have been impeached, or the president could have dismissed him.) The last sentence of Forbes isn’t the excuse you seem to think it is. "Taking advantage of ambiguities" by a superior, who happens to be a Harvard Law graduate, to make subordinates run personal errands, etc., is worse than not understanding the rules. It’s intent, not just misunderstanding. Politico has more details, among them one staff member saying she believed the personal requests to be part of her official duties, such as having "spent time over three months preparing for a June 2019 visit to Washington, D.C., by the Kansas Chapter of the YPO (formerly the Young Presidents’ Organization), an organization of which the secretary was a member." Sending flowers to a sick friend, buying a t-shirt for a friend, coming in on weekends to "to envelope, address, and mail personal Christmas cards for the Pompeos," according to the IG report, per the reliable secondary sources—there’s no wiggle room there, no ambiguity on the part of the superior making the request, whether himself or through his wife ("the Secretary would like you to"). Pompeo denials: well, he would, wouldn’t he? Are we obliged to mention them? If we were, then not without the fact that the IG report picked apart every one of those denials, e.g., "Mike Pompeo, in an interview with investigators, insisted that the requests were often small and the types of things friends do for friends." “The inspector general’s office, however, defended the investigation, noting that many of the rules governing such interactions are clear, do not make exceptions for small tasks, and that the Pompeos’ requests ultimately added up to use a significant amount of the time of employees paid by taxpayers." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I am willing to continue and interested in this conversation as a way of improving BLP content in both the BLP body and the lead, as distinguished from a further discussion about whether I’ve edited in bad faith, which I’ve already addressed at considerable length above. So maybe I’ll have a response later to your most recent comment (17:34, 31 May 2022), but it will not be about your good faith or my good faith. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This violates Wikipedia's stated principle in almost every paragraph. You want my donation? Abide by your own tenets of neutrality.