Talk:Mike Pompeo

Mike Pompeo

Please do not keep removing the sourced information about Pompeo's recent blog controversy. This controversy has gained national attention: [1], probably more so than any other news story involving Pompeo. It's certainly not undue weight, nor is it POV (as you claimed repeatedly) to simply mention that there has been a controversy. POV would be saying something like "Pompeo linked to a racist blog post; therefore he's a racist and so is anyone who votes for him". That's not what the paragraph in question said, it merely mentioned that there has been a national controversy about Pompeo's Twitter/Facebook posting. It would be irresponsible of us not to mention the controversy when, as I said, this controversy is the reason Pompeo has gotten national attention. I understand that you created Pompeo's article and so might feel "protective" of it, but you should also read WP: OWN; just because you created an article doesn't mean that you "own" it or have the right to decide what should and shouldn't go in it. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion belongs right here. Not on my talk page. Also, the Pompeo article is short and the info that you are attempting to place in the article violates both NPOV and undue weight.--InaMaka (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not violate either NPOV or undue weight, as I already explained, due to the fact that Pompeo has received more national attention from this controversy than from anything else. Please stop claiming that my information violates NPOV and undue weight, when it clearly does not. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No. He received more national attention the night he won the primary. However, the amount of national attention does not negate the rules of "undue weight" and "write in NPOV manner". The article is very short and the information MIGHT be appropriate if the article was longer, but it isn't. It is a short article. The information is added at the end and gives the impression that he is racist. It is not appropriate. This situation is similar to recent proposed changes to an article about one JournoList contributor, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, who stated "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them – Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares –- and call them racists". It was determined that the full quote was appropriate for the long article on JournoList, but it was NOT appropriate to be placed in the article about Spencer Ackerman. The concensus being was the article was short, shorter than Mike Pompeo, and the quote would give undue weight on one incident in Ackerman's career. Once again, the information is not appropriate for the Pompeo's article. As I stated, it might be appropriate somewhere else, but not here. Its inclusion violates undue weight and in turn violates NPOV. Also, just saying over and over again that something is NPOV does make it so. You have not given reasons for your claim--just a conclusionary statement which is not instructive.--InaMaka (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did give a reason for my claim. It would be POV to say something like "Pompeo linked to a racist blog, which proves that he is a racist and so is anyone who votes for him". It would also be POV not to mention the controversy at all, since, as I said, he has received national attention because of it. Not mentioning the controversy would be POV, just like it would be POV to remove all mentions of the Mel Gibson DUI incident from the Mel Gibson article. The NPOV thing to do would be to mention the blog posting, and Pompeo's apology, factually and without making any judgments, and let the reader come to their own conclusions. That's what Gobonobo and I have tried to do, but you keep scrubbing it out of the article. You are the one who is behaving in a POV manner. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how this violates WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. The incident is described fairly, is reliably sourced and is written from a neutral point of view. Since it's just one sentence, it hardly amounts to undue weight. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Club for Growth

I am removing once again the single sentence about Club for Growth:

• Pompeo was endorsed in the primary campaign by the PAC Club for Growth.Freddoso, David (2010-08-03). "Tonight's primary elections". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2010-08-04.

This short sentence gives no context, tells no story. It fails to describe what, if any, influence the club had on Pompeo's victory at the primary. This short sentence is not encyclopedic—it tells the reader nothing worth knowing. There are two options: delete it (which I did) or expand it to explain the connection. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems

There are so many POV problems in this article it's hard to count. They're mostly recent additions but rather than reverting I'm going to try to clean it up and leave in some of the cites. Arbor8 (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK I dealt with as much as I could and commented out the rest of the problematic content. Hoping to come back to it later. Arbor8 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been re-added again. It definitely violates WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACKING, it should be removed again. King of Nothing (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a specific citation or the wording of a sentence, please fix it, but deleting the entire sentence and any sentences following and preceding is intellectually lazy and dishonest. The fact is that Mike Pompeo is an extremely controversial public figure who would not be a public figure were he not controversial. To pretend otherwise, or to demand that we as citizens describe him in the most milquetoast of terms, creates the false impression that his repeated attacks against those with whom he disagrees are accurate, honest, or non-extreme. Replacing a well-documented paragraph on Pompeo's opposition to universal background checks (or any firearm legislation at all), using mostly his own words in the Congressional Record, with a completely irrelevant single statement (that he is a lifelong NRA member) is a disservice to those who wish to know who Mike Pompeo is, his legislative record, and what he believes. If readers find this controversial or a "point of view" violation, then they should address the Congressman, since these are his words. Furthermore, if he makes claims about climate change or healthcare reform that are inaccurate and wildly violate the consensus of experts in the field, it would be irresponsible not to highlight these discrepancies. Politicians are free to make statements, even incorrect ones, but an encyclopedic entry would be remiss if it pretended that these statements were made in a vacuum.