Talk:Mike Pompeo

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)

NPOV

"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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.73.94.25 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this IP. Not sure if I will be able to inject NPOV into this article. Currently I’m very busy. But my hope is to get back to it, explain why an NPOV tag is necessary at the top, conduct appropriate RFCs, and get people involved at the NPOV notice board and the BLP notice board. It will be a very time-consuming process, and success is not assured. If someone else want to take the lead on this before I have time to do it, please do! Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish between writing that you disagree with, and writing that violates WP:NPOV. Neutrality doesn't mean a 50/50 mix between coverage that you view as "positive" and that which you view as "negative"—it means honestly conveying the weight and emphases of the best available sources. What specific parts of the article fail to reflect the content and emphases of reliable sources? The lead, in particular, now better conforms to available sources, which describe Pompeo's tenure as Secretary of State as marked by violations of norms and ethical rules. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No time now. Obviously, if the Abraham Accords were his biggest achievement then that ought to be in the lead. I emphatically disagreed with everything SPECIFICO reverted (without giving explanation). In a few days or weeks I’ll hopefully have time to tango here. Just a lot of things on my plate right now. Look at all the comments on this page alleging a hit job. My opinion is not influenced by that, but I happen to agree. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

If you return, please review the edit summaries on the 5 reverts that I made. Four of them give the explanation and the fifth refers to the reason that's clear from this talk page thread.Remember the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate the noteworthiness and due weight of text you feel should be in the article and to achieve consensus for your view. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

More on Khashoggi?

The mention of Pompeo's conduct in the aftermath of the Khashoggi murder seems thin compared to the extensive press coverage of his reaction and inaction. e.g. the abundance of top RS discussions of the matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Very biased bio

Making statements like “used his office to support Trump’s reelection” and “to ask Ukraine for political favors” comes straight out of corrupt mainstream media. We expect more from wikipedia which needs to stick to the facts. Toadboy should not be writing these. 2600:6C54:7500:73D:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Facts that you don't like do not constitute "bias". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

Add Statement Belief that Head of teacher’s union is the ‘most dangerous person in the world’ Pompeo said in an interview with Semafor.com in November 2022 that he believes Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union, is the “most dangerous person in the world.” He went on to say she is more dangerous than Chairman Kim or Xi Jinping. He goes on to say "it’s not a close call. If you ask, “Who’s the most likely to take this republic down?” It would be the teacher’s unions, and the filth that they’re teaching our kids. RahLowe (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

We are not a news site and he clearly said that to rile people up and get attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're gonna lock the page at least fix the photo problem. (Pompeo with Putin at Sochi). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.85.206.206 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Archived this search result to prevent erroneous fake news allegations (probably bad to mention it in article, but still

https://www.google.com.hk/search?q=lie+cheat+and+stole+pompeo+-china ibicdlcod (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Liberty University https://www.liberty.edu/news/2023/10/11/liberty-welcomes-former-secretary-of-state-mike-pompeo-as-distinguished-chair/ Ibex1974 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)