Talk:Matthew Whitaker

Acting AG’s "successful efforts towards the reduction of drug overdose deaths"
This being the most biased article I have come across on Wikipedia so far (full of puffery and promotional hype to hide meager credentials), I was expecting another wholesale revert like this without any comment on the merits or demerits of the individual edits I made - not what I call collaboration. So, one item at a time. Maybe we’ll get through this by the time Whitaker runs for governor of Iowa or president of the United States. BD2412, this edit of yours added the following unsourced material: and oversaw successful efforts towards the reduction of drug overdose deaths between 2017 and 2018. Do I really need to point out WP:VERIFY to you? On top of that, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), it’s also untrue. Drug overdose deaths rose in 2017, slightly declined—i.e., pretty much plateaued—in 2018 and 2019, and rose again sharply in 2020. The Trump administration "acknowledged the problem", and there was "a decrease in the increase." Also, Whitaker was appointed Acting AG on November 7, 2018; he wasn't Acting AG in 2017 and not for most of 2018. How much overseeing could he have done in seven weeks? Conversely, since he was Acting AG for 6½ weeks in 2019, should we then not also add a sentence to the effect that he oversaw the unsuccessful efforts towards the reduction of drug overdose deaths in 2018 and 2019? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You should certainly expect a wholesale revert when you make a run of edits mixing bad with good (I restored some good changes), and using deceptive edit summaries. For example, you removed text on the basis that the source was a "dead link", which was not true; the link cited is very much a live link, and is a valid source for the quote that it supported. Assuming for the benefit of the doubt that you were somehow unable to reach the website during your hurried editing, did you even check the Internet Archive? BD2412  T 14:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * deceptive edit summaries, plural. The link you mentioned is working now, but I received a "server not found" message yesterday. Which ones of my other edits were also deceptive? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's odd that you would request a second example when the cited instance is so blatant. I assume you are conceding that you did not even try to look for an archival version of the link. BD2412  T 17:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Blatant - compared to your unsourced material, for example? You accused me of deceptive edit summaries, plural, which also implies intent, n'est-ce pas? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"This being the most biased article I have come across on Wikipedia so far" - Subjective to your point of view. Had you been here coming from a WP:NPOV I would consider the statement. At this point, I feel you are entering WP:TE territory. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see where your are coming from particularly if you consider that has been editing since 2016, but please try to assume good faith in the first instance. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Always. And thanks for the reminder. My comments were based on more than just the editing of this page and just a reminder to the editor to come from a NPOV instead of one side looking for confirmation bias. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would just like to ask that editors working on this article (as with articles generally) observe the following modicum of decorum. If you see a statement that needs a source, don't automatically delete it. That is why the citation needed tag exists; removing content altogether makes it impossible for later-coming editors to know that this is a point to be researched and potentially sourced. If you see a statement and think that the source provided for it is subpar, again don't automatically delete it. That is why the better source tag exists. This is particularly important where all the edits being made appear to be in the direction of removing information about a subject's achievements and positive accomplishments. BD2412  T 16:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, but we must remember WP:BLP too. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a concern that this standard can be gamed to remove information that is not really controversial in the sense envisioned by WP:BLP. There is a substantial difference, I think, in citing an actually disreputable source like a National Enquirer for something salacious, and citing a statement from the U.S. Department of Education, rather mundanely quoting an officeholder's intent to provide the support of their department towards a goal of the administration they work for. I can understand contentions that the statement is advertorial, but there is no real concern that it is fabricated. BD2412  T 18:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that the two examples you give are substantially different. If someone is gaming a standard then please call them out. There is nothing stopping you from reverting someone you think is abusing the WP:BLP. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is what happened after I added] a citation needed tag: nothing, nada, zilch, crickets. BD2412, you added the unsourced sentence in August 2019 in this "substantial rewrite" without providing the source. I removed the sentence with the edit summary "unsourced," then this edit rolled back all of my edits, including this one. I added the tag two months ago. Since you provided the content in the first place, how about providing the source, as well? If I sound churlish, that's purely intentional. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Much of your commentary sounds churlish. You seem to be taking things personal. This is Wikipedia, not a battleground. I would encourage you to remain WP:CIVIL in discussions. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * So, after looking into my editing record, have the three of you, with presumably—in your opinion—stellar NPOV records, agreed that I—and other editors of this article!—might possibly be editing in good faith?
 * : I can see where your are coming from particularly if you consider that [Space4] has been editing since 2016 but please try to assume ... ->> : My comments were based on more than just the editing of this page and just a reminder to the editor to come from a NPOV instead of one side looking for confirmation bias. Care to point out where I ignored secondary RS in favor of confirmation bias?
 * : I would just like to ask that editors working on this article (as with articles generally) observe the following modicum of decorum. (You mean like this and this?) substantial difference … in citing … National Enquirer … and citing a statement from the U.S. Department of Education, rather mundanely quoting an officeholder's intent. : I can understand contentions that the statement is advertorial, but there is no real concern that it is fabricated. ->> : Yes I agree that the two examples you give are substantially different. If someone is gaming a standard then please call them out. There is nothing stopping you from reverting someone you think is abusing the WP:BLP. Nobody claimed that it was fabricated. My edit summary stated that the secondary sources a search produced didn’t mention Whitaker’s promise, and Neutrality stated that it was wholly promotional content cited solely to Education Dept. and undue weight. That’s a much better summary than mine, but you can hardly call mine deceptive. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is lazy editing to merely delete what you disagree with, without even looking to see if it can be improved. It was very easy to find secondary sources reporting the school safety committee statement (e.g., here, and here), and I have no inkling that any further effort was put in with respect to any other material in the article, contrary to the experience of others who clearly did put in such an effort. BD2412  T 20:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do admit that some editors can be lazy. I am not accusing of this, but I do know some editors claim WP:CONSENSUS when reverting then later admit to not even looking at the diffs. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You found one source, provided by two media outlets. See my edit here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was the one who said please try to assume good faith in the first instance. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"She agreed to the plea bargain and was sentenced to."
Two editors have now successively added the incomplete sentence, "She agreed to the plea bargain and was sentenced to." Sentenced to what? If you insist on shuffling the deck chairs, please fix the sentence and exercise proper basic grammar. BD2412 T 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Which editor is shuffling deck chairs? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Synthesis
I have removed some WP:OR/WP:SYNTH content cited to a 2003 Washington Post article about John Ashcroft; the article makes no mention whatsoever of Whitaker. Neutralitytalk 21:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have likewise removed some WP:OR/WP:SYNTH content cited in part to prnewswire and a primary source FTC report, as none of the sources link Whitaker to any finding of wrongdoing with respect to World Patent Marketing. We should be able to clear out everything that is contested pretty quickly at this rate. BD2412  T 21:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WPM - onus to achieve consensus
How does WP:ONUS work? This edit by —quoting your edit summary here—removed sourced material (I bolded it) that had been in the article since at least October 2019 (I didn’t go back any further). "The company contributed to Whitaker's 2014 U.S. Senate campaign,[56] and over the three-year period from 2014 and 2017 paid Whitaker less than $17,000 for work performed.[57] Customers who suffered losses as a result of working with the company accused the company of using Whitaker's background as a U.S. Attorney to threaten them.[51][58] In one 2015 email mentioning his background as a former federal prosecutor, Whitaker told a customer that filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau or 'smearing' the company online could result in 'serious civil and criminal consequences'.[59][60] The owner of Ripoff Report told The Wall Street Journal that Whitaker had called him in 2015 demanding his website take down negative reports about WPM, alleging, 'He threatened to ruin my business if I didn't remove the reports. He [said he] would have the government shut me down under some homeland security law'.[61][62] Whitaker has stood by his account that he has never spoken to this person and the conversation never occurred.[citation needed] In 2017, FTC investigators examined whether Whitaker had played any role in making threats of legal action to silence the company's critics. Whitaker rebuffed an FTC subpoena for records in October 2017, shortly after he had joined the Department of Justice.[55] After Whitaker's appointment in the Department of Justice in September 2017, White House and senior Justice Department officials were reportedly surprised to learn of Whitaker's connection to the company.[55] Through a DOJ spokesperson, Whitaker denied awareness of the fraud alleged.[51]" Do we need to achieve consensus for inclusion of material that has been included for a long time (at least 18 months, in this case)? The objection for everything seems to be once again that because Whitaker was not charged with fraudulent conduct, what he did do on behalf of WPM cannot be mentioned. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:16, April 3, 2021 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is blatantly false. The bolded material is still very much in the article. I combined it into the preceding paragraph, so that everything would be in the correct chronological order. The only content I removed was the amount the company was fined, as this has nothing to do with Whitaker, the prnewswire and the FTC settlement document references (the latter of which which makes no mention of Whitaker), and the unsourced statement that Whitaker has stood by his account, which is redundant to his general denial of wrongdoing. Please be more careful in making accusations of removal of content that has not, in fact, been removed. If you are unable to do this, you should not be editing in this area. BD2412  T 15:12, April 3, 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Was your removal of the "World Patent Marketing" subheader an error? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, April 3, 2021 (UTC) Answering my own question based on combined it into the preceding paragraph, so that everything would be in the correct chronological order. Without the subheader, the section contains five paragraphs, two of which are dealing with the same subject and three that are unrelated to the others. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:57, April 3, 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the subjects in that section deal equally with Whitaker's business activities during that time. There is none that is of more actual significance than any other. BD2412  T 16:36, April 3, 2021 (UTC)

I take my apology back. Finally figured out what happened. You removed the header of the subtitle (because chronology), your own unsourced text (Whitaker has stood by his account that he has never spoken to this person and the conversation never occurred), sourced material that had been unchallenged since at least October 2019: reshuffled some text, wrote a confusing edit summary, and then berated me for being confused. Geez, really? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:51, April 3, 2021 (UTC)
 * the $26 million fine IMO is important context,
 * The company was later determined to have deceived inventors into thinking that it had successfully commercialized other inventions. New "improved" version: The company was later determined to have engaged in deceptive practices,
 * part of a sentence. Before: Customers who suffered losses as a result of working with the company accused the company of using Whitaker's background as a U.S. Attorney to threaten them. After: Some customers accused the company of using Whitaker's background as a U.S. Attorney to threaten them,
 * I didn't suggest that you were mistaken. I said that your assertion was blatantly false, which it was. You claimed that a specific substantial block of text was removed from the article, providing a boldfaced selection of text and asserting that all of that text had been removed, when clearly anyone could see that it was not. This is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, and uncivil behavior. The removals are of material that does not relate to conduct attributed by sources to this article subject. If you can find a source that says that Whitaker was fined $26 million, or even that he was found legally liable for any part of the conduct relating to that fine, you can bring it here for discussion. As it stands, readers can find out everything about that by clicking the link to the article on the company, which is the only article that can fully provide the appropriate context. Likewise, if there is a source that says that Whitaker himself deceived inventors into thinking that the company had specifically successfully commercialized other inventions, bring that here as well. As for your complaint that I removed 'my own' text that was tagged as unsourced, would you prefer that I restore that? It seems like a rather odd thing to bring up, as if you're even objecting to edits that you agree with. BD2412  T 20:53, April 3, 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that we should be reliant on allegations or on media's speculation of what was behind emails purportedly sent by Whitaker without providing all the facts, much less presenting that information in context. How do we know those emails were even sent by him? The case was closed and a settlement was reached by the FTC, so all the speculation and other rhetorical journalistic spin (clickbait) to appease their respective demographics doesn't belong in our global NPOV encyclopedia. Another important fact to consider here is that we're talking about allegations against Whitaker rather than and should not be focusing on the company which is what this the World Patent Marketing article is about.fix 22:40, April 16, 2021 (UTC) Focusing on Whitaker is a violation of WP:GUILT, and it needs to stop but not just because I'm of the mind that it should - no, no, no - it should be because of what has come to light and why we need stricter enforcement of RECENTISM and NOTNEWS. For example, the Miami New Times (who initially broke this story) updated their article with the following information about one of the allegations against Whitaker: One would hope that good journalists are actually doing the research before going public - and most did when it was print media and there was time - but thanks to the internet, it's much too easy to get the story out now and then correct it later, or just bury it. Oh, and here is another update, only this time from Time: Now that all this information is coming to light, I caution editors again about WP:GUILT, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, and strongly suggest avoiding attempts to portray Whitaker as a knowing participant in the WPM scam or even implying as much because doing so is an actionable violation of BLP.  Atsme 💬 📧 19:19, April 15, 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is very clear: ""if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." So the only WP:BLP violation I've seen so far at this article is the concerted effort to suppress mention of Whitaker's noteworthy, relevant and well-documented relationship with WPM. Fundamentally, you seem to be asserting that we cannot mention any fact that might conceivably reflect negatively on Whitaker, and that such facts must be hidden from readers. That is a perversion of site policy. We handle allegations here the same way we do everywhere else&mdash;by carefully following reliable sources, not by tendentiously trying to undermine and suppress them. MastCell Talk 00:25, April 16, 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the point here is that where a source reports something negative, and then issues a retraction of an element of that reporting, the fact that the retracted element was initially reported doesn't mean that we can present it as if it were never retracted. What we have here is a business involvement on Whitaker's part that was ignored by the media for years after the fact, including during the entire time that he was Chief of Staff for the Department of Justice. When Whitaker was named acting Attorney General, and people were concerned that Whitaker was going to interfere with the Russia investigation, this business involvement suddenly became newsworthy for a couple of days, and inferences were made which later turned out to be untrue, and were quietly retracted in the fine print. This parallels the discussion of the Russia investigation itself – there was a great deal of handwringing over the belief that Whitaker would interfere in some way with the investigation, including calls for his recusal. In the end, it turns out he conducted did not interfere in the investigation at all. I would utterly disagree with the contention that there is attempt here to suppress "any fact that might conceivably reflect negatively on Whitaker". There is much in the article that reflects negatively, and particularly much in the discussion of WPM that does, including Whitaker's erroneous assertions about the ethics of the company, and his threatening defenses of the company against complaining parties. I am fairly satisfied with the presentation of the facts as is. The subjects of our articles are not cartoon heroes and villains; they are complex human beings with foibles. We do our readers no favors by trying to reduce people to caricatures. BD2412  T 00:55, April 16, 2021 (UTC)
 * For one thing, WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:GUILT are both very clear, and there are simply too few news sources that even come close to the kind of "high quality" the writers of our core content policy were considering at the time. It's still a good policy but it needs some updating. EXCEPTIONAL does caution against claims that are Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; That statement needs to be updated to account for today's clickbait environment, and the fact that mainstream media comprises an echo chamber owned by huge conglomerates; therefore, using "multiple mainstream sources" as it was originally intended falls short of the "high quality" standard. The NYTimes came closest to being accurate with this story, less the POV spin, but then they cited The Miami New Times, and while MNT ethically updated and corrected one of their mistakes (that we know of), as did Time, it never should have happened in the first place. NEWSORG states: News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors) which I see as somewhat of a contradiction, although it does say "generally". That same guideline also states Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. NOTNEWS does a better job of getting the point across. We don't want to be in a position of making false claims about a BLP because we ignored RECENTISM and/or BREAKING, and other PAGs. It is always better to leave it out and err on the side of caution. WP is NOTNEWS so arguing to include political rhetoric disguised as news published by sources that have since had to retract what they published (one of them being the source that broke the whole story) is a dead argument. When choosing RS, context matters, and in the context of publishing misinformation, it simply doesn't align with high quality.  Atsme 💬 📧 02:10, April 16, 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to claims that are so far-fetched as to be implausible on their faces&mdash;for example, claims that would contravene commonly understood scientific laws. If one were to actually read WP:EXCEPTIONAL, one would see that a) the criteria don't apply here, and b) that even so-called "exceptional" claims should be reported on Wikipedia if they are supported by "multiple high-quality sources", as this material is. Again, this material is supported by more than a half-dozen high-quality third-party reliable sources. If you find that to be "too few" to warrant inclusion, then we're going to have to remove about 95% of the content on Wikipedia, which lacks such strong sourcing. WP:GUILT is neither a policy nor a guideline; it's a 15-year-old ArbCom finding that pre-dates modern WP:BLP policy. I understand that you believe that mainstream news sources are somehow biased, or unreliable, and of course you're welcome to believe what you like. But for Wikipedia's purposes, sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, etc are considered reliable. If you disagree, you can try to change the community consensus. But you're not doing that&mdash;you're just coming to this talkpage&mdash;ironically, an echo chamber&mdash;to try to undermine their use. That is tendentious editing in its purest form. You are trying to "correct" the content and emphases of reliable sources because you don't like them. MastCell Talk 04:19, April 16, 2021 (UTC)

I think the discussion here is going a little bit sideways. Let's assume for a moment that there are no issues with the sources. Being that this is a BLP, we need to include information relevant to Whitaker and his time at the company, not the overall information about the company. The current information in the article summarizes his involvement and everything else about the company is already covered in the article on WPM. Unless there is a valid policy based reason, I do not see how we can include more information about the company which is already in the company article (outside of what reliable sources say about his time with the company).--CNMall41 (talk) 05:55, April 16, 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your description of "sideways", CNMall41. MastCell's PAs are disruptive - especially this comment and his edit summary (→‎WPM - onus to achieve consensus: a blanket refusal to accept consensus-reliable sources because you don't like them is classic tendentious editing). It appears he is unaware of or perhaps has forgotten WP:RSBREAKING which contradicts his argument as follows: Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched ones as soon as they are published, especially if those original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking-news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. When editing a current-event article, keep in mind recentism bias. As I've already demonstrated by citing retractions and updates to those breaking news stories, everything cited to them, starting with Miami New Times and Bloomberg per Time's retraction, should be removed. It's pretty obvious that I'm not the disruptive one with a RS problem.  Atsme  💬 📧 11:40, April 16, 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSBREAKING applies to breaking news. In other words, we should replace breaking-news alerts (e.g. "Eight people shot in Fed Ex warehouse this morning") with fully reported coverage as soon as the latter is available. The sources in question at this article are not "breaking news" pieces&mdash;they are fully-reported works, so the guideline doesn't apply to them. More generally, this is a classic Gish gallop. Snippets of irrelevant policy are dumped here and then abandoned as soon as they're engaged or debunked. First it was WP:BLP (which supports inclusion of the material), then WP:EXCEPTIONAL (which doesn't apply to this material), WP:GUILT (which is not a policy or guideline and is subsumed under WP:BLP), now WP:RSBREAKING... there is no deeper engagement with these policies or how they might or might not apply, beyond just throwing them out here on the talkpage as a bludgeon. CNMa1141, I think there is agreement that Whitaker's involvement with WPM deserves mention in the article. The question, at least as best I can tell, is whether it deserves (brief) mention in the lead. My view is that a) Whitaker's relationship with WPM is a key focus in available reliable sources; b) our coverage needs to reflect the emphases/foci of reliable sources; c) the lead needs to cover all relevant aspects of the subject as determined by reliable sources (not by random Wikipedians), and this is clearly one such aspect. If you disagree with a), b), and/or c), then let me know and maybe we can start there. MastCell Talk 18:54, April 16, 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe we are where we should be as far as content related to WPM. It deserves as much mention in the lede as his founding of Whitaker Consulting Group which is none. The most significant focus is as his time as AG. Even if we did mention it, which I am saying we should NOT, it wouldn't be more that the fact that he was an advisory board member so there really is no significance. On a side note, it is likely he knows more than what was printed in reliable sources. However, it seems like this page was being used as an attempt to show that instead of just stating his role and letting readers make their own assumptions.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, April 16, 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel that there are three different conversations going on here at once. I would disagree that WPM is a "key focus" of anything. There are many more sources on Whitaker that make no mention of it than there are sources that do. As I have noted before, almost all reporting on the matter occurred within a one week span of Whitaker being named acting AG, which was long after the company was gone. Some allegations reported in that short span were later walked back. The amount of media attention that was given to this is somewhat less to that given to Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. For the record, I would oppose mentioning either report in the lede of either article. I would also disagree with the presumption that "it is likely he knows more than what was printed in reliable sources". A fairly large number of people with experience in business and government served on that same advisory board, and all appear to have been blindsided by the actions of the company.  BD2412  T 22:23, April 16, 2021 (UTC)
 * , To be clear, "it is likely he knows more than what was printed in reliable sources," is a personal opinion which we don't allow in Wikipedia. That was my point. Too much of this discussion has relied on what editors believe happened instead of keeping it with what the sources say and let readers draw their own conclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:18, April 17, 2021 (UTC)


 * He is the only board member who did any work for the company. He made at least one promotional video. He is the only board member that was contacted by the FTC He did not respond to the FTC request that he supply his records of the work he did saying that he had provided legal advise and it was privileged information.  The Trump administration FTC did not follow through, which which was never explained.  He was with the company for three years.  The other board members returned any money they had received but he kept around  $10,000 that he had been paid for his services. This sounds like involvement to me. Gandydancer (talk) 01:53, April 17, 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did do some amount of work for the company, promote the company, and he did keep the money that he was paid for doing these things. All of that is noted in the article, which is appropriate. This does not somehow become a missing source stating that he was aware of or liable for the company's illegal activities. In fact, how is it surprising that he would keep what he was paid, if he was the only one who, as you say, did any work for the company? Moreover, is there a source for the rather extraordinary proposition that he was "the only board member that was contacted by the FTC"? That certainly does not sound like a characteristic FTC investigation, which would involve questioning everyone involved. It is also odd to say that "the Trump administration FTC did not follow through" with an investigation carried out by the Trump administration FTC in the first place. The FTC, like other agencies, respects attorney-client privilege, so there is no need to resort to a conspiracy theory to explain why a well-supported invocation of that privilege ended the inquiry. Now, is there a source somewhere that actually says Whitaker was found legally liable for or guilty of any wrongdoing attributed to WPM? BD2412  T 02:32, April 17, 2021 (UTC)


 * How is it possible that the FTC would have needed to question all the others and ask them to furnish any written material but when it came to Whitaker a phone call in which he said most of his work (not all of his work) was covered by attorney-client privilege and let it go at that, and also to not follow up on the fact that he did not submit any records related to the work he did. As for resorting to a conspiracy theory, remember that the Trump administration managed to get the CDC to falsify numbers and managed similar and much worse to the EPA information.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:55, April 17, 2021 (UTC)
 * So, a conspiracy theory it is, then. You have a fertile imagination, I will grant you that. I suppose you can come up with some further conspiracy to explain the absence of action on this by the Biden Administration FTC. BD2412  T 18:00, April 17, 2021 (UTC)
 * Please try to remain civil and keep your edits on the article rather than on trying to make me sound like a dope. Look, I am not the one that first wandered off topic; you speak above about Tara Reade, and Russia, and I don't remember what all.  And now for some reason you want to discuss Biden as well...  Gandydancer (talk) 21:28, April 17, 2021 (UTC)
 * I am stating that the same standards apply to all articles, and the "Team Red/Team Blue" thing for which Wikipedia has been criticized should not be exercised here or there. I would oppose (and have opposed) applying conspiratorial thinking to make negative inferences about Biden or Clinton or the like to exactly the same degree that I oppose such thinking here. It is not uncivil to observe that an unsourced conspiracy theory, along the lines of "the FTC found Whitaker liable for no wrongdoing, so he must be liable for wrongdoing and a high-level coverup", is in fact an unsourced conspiracy theory. BD2412  T 22:21, April 17, 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that it's fair to say that we both used incomplete information to draw a personal opinion as to Whitaker's guilt. I was especially concerned that the FTC asked all of the board members to return the fees that they had received, not just the others.  And I felt that  a decent sort of person once they learned of the absolutely horrendous experiences that the scam put perfectly innocent and trusting people through would have felt guilt that they had supported the company so robustly without first investigating what the company was actually delivering for the thousands of dollars that they  were paying--especially since it is so well known that patent-promising scams are not uncommon.  You make good arguments as well and I think that we should end our discussion and accept good faith on the other's part.  OK?  Gandydancer (talk) 14:46, April 18, 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very reasonable statement, and I appreciate it. To a degree, we will always be operating off of incomplete information, until more complete information comes to light. If there was intentional wrongdoing on Whitaker's part, I suspect that the investigative agencies will pursue it, as they are not now reticent to pursue high-profile figures like Roger Stone and Mike Pompeo, and we will find that out when we find that out. It's also hard to know how legitimate the founders of a startup intend to be before they begin delivering their product. By the way, for what it's worth, I think you are a good editor and an asset to the project. BD2412  T 18:55, April 18, 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 - in my experiences, she is an "excellent" editor.  Atsme 💬 📧 19:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the nice complements. As for any further investigation on this matter I'd bet my bottom dollar that we have heard the last of it.  That's pretty much how these things work.  Also, in this case the owner of the scam was figured to owe the government somewhat like 30 million, he paid a few million, and that was it.  No jail time at all.  I'm recalling this from memory, but it seems that I remember that shortly after this scam was busted a Florida paper reported that he was off on a new one with with his then secretary--it had something to do with the fashion industry...I think.    Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

1. No source is completely reliable. I think neither  characterization given above of the NYT is exact, and neither is our primary/secondary distinction. Some newspapers are a intermediate between primary and secondary sources, to the extent that tertiary sources and the public in general has confidence in basing their understanding on them. I think we  do  distinguish the relative degrees--and without much argument, unless there is some partisan issue involved..The really dangerous things in our use of primary sources are  selective quotation or reliance on the headline. Of course they occasionally make errors--there's this odd supposition that there are sources that are completely error-free.

2. We do normally do a certain amount of limited OR, and compare primary sources--there is no other way we could write a coherent article out of discordant accounts. But I think that on this page we ae engaging in an excessive amount of it. We are trying to establish the truth. We should do better. This is one of the areas where we can not expect any source to have a non-partisan perspective for many years. The only thing we can do is what we are supposed to be doing--include all reasonably reliable sources, and, in a topic like this, even to some degree the rather less reliable ones to show the different viewpoints that exist, and let the reader judge. We're not writing a definitive encyclopedia in the sense that an Encyclopedia of Theology can be expected to be definitive -- we're writer a rough guide to help the reader on their first steps.

3. I think WP:GUILT, however, old, is one of WP's enduring policies. Had it arisen when I was on arb com, i know we would have explicitly endorsed it--and I assume the current arbcom, will do likewise. . There is indeed a change in "modern" BLP policy--but it is not the change suggested above--BLP has gotten stricter,  sometimes I think unrealistically strict. Some of the people involved in AP may wish otherwise, in order to attack those they think deserve it, but that's not the purpose of WP. Even for those who might personally desire to insert negative material (and I will admit, I personally am among them),  the events of the past 4 1/2 years in AP are so clear and dramatic that bending our policies is hardly necessary. Any Verifiability-based approach will make things clear to the uncommitted, whom we conventionally assume to be a Martian.. Nothing we write here will convince a dedicated partisan. People beyond the reach of reason are not our audience.

4. The way to straighten out what belongs in each article is UNDUE. In areas I usually work in, it appears in attempts to write an article on a company and its executive, where the article on the person takes credit for all the accomplishments of the company, and the company article boasts about the ceo's general merits. If they are both notable enough to have articles, which is usually because the firm has been notable under other ceos also and the person has had other noteworthy accomplishments, we do not describe the firm in the bio, nor the bio in the firm, but use links. WP does not make full use of the possibiltles of hypertext, but it can do that much. As applied here, in relation to the question just above, it is not our role to decide whether MW is a principal figure in the company's fraud, nor is it necessary to talk about the fraud in discussing the person, except for a sentence of context and a link. I don't want to rely on EXTRORDINARY for topics like this, for the last year or two has been in fact extraordinary, and many things we would previously have thought almost impossible have turned out be in danger of becoming ordinary reality. .  DGG ( talk ) 10:38, April 17, 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a lot to unpack here, but briefly:
 * News reporting in the New York Times constitutes a reliable secondary source for Wikipedia's purposes. That is well-established by consensus. If you truly believe otherwise then you (and Atsme) need to stop, not pass Go, not collect $200, and go straight to WP:RS/N to try to overturn the existing consensus.
 * There is no "OR" happening here that I can see, much less an "excessive amount" of it. Reliable sources clearly connect Whitaker and WPM. I don't see anyone citing primary sources, except for Atsme in this BLP violation (since removed). If you see a problem with OR, please identify it more clearly&mdash;ideally with, like, a diff.
 * We do not lower the bar for reliability in order to show that "different viewpoints exist". We present viewpoints in relation to their prominence in reliable sources. You're trying to make the tail wag the dog&mdash;you believe that some viewpoints should be in the article and are suggesting we lower our sourcing bar to get them in.
 * WP:GUILT is not a policy. ArbCom does not make policy. Please stop calling it a policy. You're an admin and Arb; I shouldn't have to tell you this. We have a policy that controls our coverage of contentious material about living people&mdash;it's WP:BLP.
 * Fundamentally, we have an element of Whitaker's biography that is the subject of massive and sustained coverage in reliable sources, but mention of which is being blocked from the article lead for reasons that continue to become more incoherent. Site guidelines are clear: the lead needs to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies... the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." You, Atsme, and BD2412 are clearly arguing against that guideline.
 * May have more to say once I'm able to parse some of these arguments. MastCell Talk 17:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)