Talk:Mike Pompeo/Archive 1

Mike Pompeo
Please do not keep removing the sourced information about Pompeo's recent blog controversy. This controversy has gained national attention:, 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.

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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvakkur (talk • contribs) 11:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits
I choose to initially delete the paragraphs that did not have additional information or context. The three deleted paragraphs were one-liners and did not seem all that relevent to his tenure as congressman.

I also rephrased the last paragraph to be more neutral. CopperPhoenix (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hearings on approval as CIA director
A link to transcript would seem to be of value. Wikipietime (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree. As hearing is currently ongoing, a full transcript with a permanent link won't be available for awhile yet. Marquardtika (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation
It's true, Pompeo has been confirmed as CIA Director. However, Pompeo hasn't been sworn in yet. Until he is, he's CIA Director-designate. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Who did he succeed?
It seems like Pompeo succeeded Meroe Park, who was acting after Brennan resigned. Why isn't she listed as his predecessor while acting officials are listed on other government official pages? For example, look at Edward C. Hugler. Snakeskinsam 01:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeskinsam (talk • contribs)

Missing Citation
Citation #6 ain't workin' as of 1/24/17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfryer99 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Pompeo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021200011/http://www.ausa.org/legislation/congressionalinfo/Documents/OAS%20112th%20Congress.pdf to http://www.ausa.org/legislation/congressionalinfo/Documents/OAS%20112th%20Congress.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Undue negativity in section titles
The TOC now looks like this:
 * Contents
 * 1 Education, and early career
 * 2 Business career
 * 3 U.S. House of Representatives
 * 3.1 Elections
 * 3.2 Committee assignments
 * 4 CIA Director
 * 5 Political positions
 * 5.1 Energy and environment
 * 5.1.1 Expedited review of gas pipelines
 * 5.1.2 Denial of climate change
 * 5.1.3 Opposition to environmental regulation
 * 5.2 Firearms
 * 5.3 Healthcare
 * 5.4 Opposition to abortion
 * 5.5 Opposition to same-sex marriage
 * 5.6 Opposition to required labeling of genetically modified food
 * 5.7 Support of government shutdown of 2013
 * 5.8 Airplane regulations
 * 5.9 Military and national security
 * 5.9.1 Surveillance
 * 5.9.2 Criticism of Edward Snowden
 * 5.9.3 Iran
 * 5.9.4 Accusations of complacence among Muslims
 * 5.9.5 Opposition to closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp
 * 5.9.6 Opposition to anti-torture laws and closure of secret prisons
 * 5.9.7 Wikileaks

I understand the desire to make Mike Pompeo look as bad as possible, but this is over the top. KalHolmann (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the section headers should be as short and simple as possible. The standard titling at the pages of other politicians are more along the lines of "Same-sex marriage" or "LGBT policy", for example. I'll fix in a second. Marquardtika (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Pompeo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.kansas.com/2010/08/03/1431486/hard-fought-battle-nears-end-in.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413142033/http://www.kansas.com/2013/11/04/3097204/nsa-is-doing-important-work-pompeo.html to http://www.kansas.com/2013/11/04/3097204/nsa-is-doing-important-work-pompeo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

A nominee is not an officeholder
I know the likelihood of his being confirmed as Sec State is high, but maybe he won't be confirmed. The Infobox officeholder should be reserved for offices held, no? He's not Sec State yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The likelihood of him being confirmed is near certain, and prior to Trump's inauguration, his nominees held the office as either "Designate" or "Nominee". I'm going to edit the article so it says "Nominee".  CatcherStorm    talk   20:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with CatcherStorm. Aside from that, this is how the article have been edited for a while now. BTW, Pompeo's nomination has been referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations... Corky  23:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize that I did not see these replies. "The likelihood of him being confirmed is near certain" fails WP:CRYSTAL. You don't know that for any fact. There's a whole page for Unsuccessful nominations to the Cabinet of the United States.  Just because something is done incorrectly over time is not an argument to keep doing it. We should break that cycle. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I should add, per WP:MOS, we should not use small in an infobox, as the font is already by default smaller than 100%, and references do not belong in an infobox either. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think it harms anything putting that he is the nominee in the infobox. Worst case in scenario is that we have to remove it because he didn't get enough votes (though I doubt that will happen). As for the small font size, I agree that it shouldn't be used. "Nominee for the Secretary of State" looks much cleaner. Corky  17:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I vehemently disagree with you. Small font size should be used not only because it is cleaner, but because it follows precedent. See 1 and 2 for examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatcherStorm (talk • contribs) 00:41, March 25, 2018 (UTC)
 * The precedent is wrong. I've pointed out that MOS:ACCESS and MOS:FONTSIZE describe why it's wrong. There are no exceptions for this. If we discover something is being done wrong, we need to change it rather than continue doing it because "that's how it's been done before". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * First off, I don't believe consensus has been established here. There have been a total of 3 editors who have expressed their opinion, and I'm sitting here dissenting.

Second - it makes zero sense to bloat the infobox with "nominee" rather than centering and minimizing the text so it looks clean. See John R. Bolton. Do you think it would make any sort of sense to change it to "Designate for United States National Security Advisor"? No - it covers the entire officeholder space. WP:MoS states that although it is a guideline, "common sense" must be used and "occasional exceptions may apply".  CatcherStorm    talk   16:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out another page that was out of compliance. I fixed it. The proper term would be "designee".
 * Why would this be a "common sense" "exception"? MOS:ACCESS is there for the visually impaired. Why would we go against that? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't make any sense to say "Designate for United States National Security Advisor". I noticed you changed the term, but you kept the format that I was proposing, which is to insert a linebreak and place it under the office name. So why does this only apply to this article? It makes no sense, and it is inconsistent.  CatcherStorm    talk  01:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Designee for US NSA" is proper grammar. I'm compromising by not insisting the nomination be removed from the infobox entirely. I do agree that this format, removing small text from infoboxes, needs to be used in all cases. That means all of us watching for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Riding a horse next to a big fence
The article currently says "He served as a United States Cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall." This creates the image of a soldier riding his horse next to a Commie fence. This odd phrase comes from a news article at NPR quoting a bio sourced apparently to him, pompeo.house.gov, which is a deadlink. Unless there is a reliable secondary source, I suggest that this fails verifiability and should be removed., or at least be revised to avoid silly imagery. Did he sit at a desk in an office building, as opposed to "patrolling the iron curtain" on a US Cavary horse or Jeep every day? Perhaps the article should say he served in some unit based at some place. Edison (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Until someone submits a FOIA request on him, the source material out there isn't clear and a lot of it just re-states what his official bios have said. To be clear, it is possible he rode a horse along the Berlin Wall. It's more likely that he rode a CUCV from the barracks in West Germany into town to get some schnitzel. If you don't like the primary source then remove it, but I have no reason to doubt the subject about his "patrolling" claims. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't question that he "served" in a unit in Europe during the Cold War, but I want "patrolled the Iron Curtain" removed as hyperbole absent reliable source that he drove or rode along it keeping an eye on it as a significant portion of his duties. Edison (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall" – I also think that the phrasing is unencyclopedic. I checked the cited source and the others I found, and it looks like it was copied pretty much word-for-word from Pompeo's house biography: his archived House and current White House biographies. "He graduated first in his class from West Point in 1986 and then served as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall. He also served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the Fourth Infantry Division." According to 4th Infantry Division History: "Resuming training and Cold War missions, the 4th Infantry Division remained stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado from 1970 through 1995. During this period, the division was converted to a Mechanized organization and frequently sent units to Europe to continue the Cold War mission of standing against the Communist threat." If he served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry, 4th Infantry Division, as he says in his House bio – which appears to be the oldest source – that could include a TOD somewhere in West Germany, though nowhere near Berlin (which had three 6th Infantry battalions  and Co F, 40th Armor while Pompeo was in the Army). What unit did he serve with when patrolling the iron curtain if not the 2nd Squadron? I propose rephrasing to neutral language: "... and then served as a cavalry officer with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the Fourth Infantry Division." IMO, it doesn't really matter whether he rode a desk, a jeep, or an armored vehicle in Colorado or in Germany. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

From another source, Quartz media: Pompeo has been known to tell colleagues he was a "Cold War guy" sent to Europe to "work on tanks," one current US official told Quartz. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't like the verbiage "... and then served as a cavalry officer with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the Fourth Infantry Division." only because the actual chronology of units in which he served is unclear. He says he served in 2-7 and that's probably true. He may have been assigned to another unit in Germany. Without performing original research, I think we have to leave the sentence that he was there and we could perhaps preface that it's based on his own claims. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If he was stationed in Germany and/or assigned to another unit for any length of time, wouldn't he have mentioned that in his official bio? Right now all the info we have is that he says he was in Germany sometime before November 1989 and that he served with the 2-7 sometime between 1986 and 1991, but he didn't say where. The "patrolling" sentence sounds like it was supposed to add a little pizzazz to his five possibly boring years of active duty (the minimum West Point graduates have to serve), possibly with 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry, in Colorado and somewhere in rural Bavaria (Hohenfels?), while the Cold War was winding down. The only other info I've found so far is the last paragraph in the Quartz article: Pompeo has been known to tell colleagues he was a "Cold War guy" sent to Europe to "work on tanks," one current US official told Quartz. That's really vague. How do you propose to word that part? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Congress holds meetings and this is relevant why?
perhaps you forgot WP:BRD. I reverted and you should have discussed. You misunderstood if you thought I was reverting an IP just because of formatting errors. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Still a mess" is not "be[ing] specific about your reasons" for removal. You provided no other reason for the removal. Seems to me you've forgotten about BRD. Not to mention you are edit warring... perhaps you forgot about that?  Corky  01:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First, your ping didn't work. Please read up on how pings work and change your preferences so it warns you when pings don't work. Second, you are correct that my edit summary wasn't very descriptive. The explicated that "You don't have consensus. Discuss on talk page." but I guess you didn't read that. Finally, as you can see I am not edit warring as I've only reverted twice. You think I'm stupid enough to get dragged to WP:ANEW? You're welcome to explain why we need that table about Congress's meetings as well as the sentence. I'm pointing to WP:NOTNEWS. We have far too many editors that use Wikipedia as a journaling tool to jot down whatever happens everyday, forgetting that this is supposed to be a responsible encyclopedia.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, I know how pings work. I added it in my editing, knowing that it wouldn't work. Secondly, if you knew anything about edit warring, you would know that is just about WP:3RR... maybe you should read up on that? You can quit lecturing me on guidelines when you know nothing about me or my editing. I'm done playing your childish games, as it is editors like you that make me want to leave Wikipedia more and more. I'm done on this matter.  Corky  01:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Picture
Perhaps we should update the profile picture to the one used here https://twitter.com/SecPompeo until an official portrait is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.82.253 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Dubious
I found some conflicting accounts about his sworn in date. Most says May 2, and accompanied with the video of him being sworn in by VP Pence, like in C-SPAN, USA Today, Washington Post, CBS News, and State Dept.'s Official Blog. At the other hand, only two I can found that say he was sworn in on about Thursday, April 26. They are on VOA News and CNN. Both do not provide any proof about the sworn in, unlike the first 5. Does the two consider Pompeo become State Sec. right after his confirmation? Shouldn't May 2 be the right date? Thank you. – Flix11 (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at your CBS News link, which says: "President Trump said he has "no doubt" Mike Pompeo will be making America "proud" as the nation's chief diplomat during a swearing-in ceremony as secretary of state on Wednesday. It was a ceremonial swearing-in, since Pompeo had already formally been sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito after a 57-42 confirmation vote Thursday afternoon." We should remove the "dubious" tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Contributions
Pompeo received $80,000 in donations from Koch Industries and its employees, one of the world's largest privately held companies, and based in his district,[7] making him the top recipient of Koch-related money in the 2010 elections.[7]

So what? Why does it matter that Pompeo was the "top recipient of Koch-related money?" Do you routinely put in similar wording for Democrats that "Rep. So-and-so was the top recipient of Soros-related money"? This is a POV problem.Tpkatsa (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * All of the Koch references in this article seem trivial at best. 69.114.243.102 (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems like every potential possibility to mention them has been taken. Are there reliable sources that suggests a special relationship between Pompeo and Koch Industries? Are they giving remarkably much money, compared to other donors? If so, it should be included. Otherwise, I don't see why it should be singled out – a 2% investment, for example, isn't really that important. /Julle (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so a quick search later there seems to be plenty of arguments that Pompeo and the Koch brothers have a relationship beyond most donors and politicians. But then the mentions must be specifically contextualized (and sourced in that context), otherwise it just seems weird. /Julle (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe information about campaign donors should be put in every article on a political figure. However, singling out Pompeo is far from NPOV. For that matter, singling out Koch Industries is also weird. On top of that, this isn't just mentioned once, it's peppered throughout the article. It feels like a political attack ad, not an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.186.182.181 (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC) I think it is not pertinent that he received donations from the Koch’s... many politions receive donations. I will wait a few days to hear out other opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.180.237 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

the Gulf War
I removed that nonsense. From what I can see, somebody published the lie about Gulf War service and it got republished by the same lazy stupid journalists upon which rely for source material. I know that since this is a political thing, some outlets are out there making noise as if the subject started the rumor himself. I see no evidence the subject had anything to do with it. The tempest in a teapot drummed up by partisan hacks shouldn't be repeated here. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added this to the infamous list of citogenesis incidents. FallingGravity 06:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Whats the big deal, it was a minor error, he was serving his country at the time  and  the unit mentioned that he served with, 7th Cavalry did participate in Gulf War 1, just not the  2nd Squadron or maybe  he was with some other stateside unit at that time. Major  media outlets like Wall Street Journal repeated it and was even mentioned by members of Congress. Just indicates the need to have proper references that themselves are original  sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okerefalls (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Aerospace business
The section on Thayer Aerospace says that Pompeo remained involved until 2006 when he sold his interest, but goes on to say that in 2017 he named his partner Bulatao as CEO. How could he name the CEO if had sold his interest in the company? Something is messed up here.Bill (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Speculated run for U.S. Senate
A while back, I started this section about a potentially major story involving Pompeo's speculated run for the Senate. Now that the topic no longer covers an interesting current event (he ruled the choice out almost a month ago), should this section be removed? It doesn't seem relevant anymore. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  00:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd leave it in but shorten it to the basics. If a subject was notable a month ago, it doesn't stop being notable. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that subjects never lose notability, but I'm unsure if it was even notable to begin with. It covered a current event at the time so I figured it would escalate quickly but the story was dead in under 2 months. Is there a larger section that it could be a subsection of? ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  00:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should have been added in the first place. Speculation is just speculation. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, consensus rules here. I would have thought the speculation notable enough for a brief mention (though not a separate section), but Muboshgu makes a good point also. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)