Talk:Matthew Whitaker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- CaseKid 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The last two sentences of this article are, to put it mildly, nakedly (left-wing) partisan; the first of the two is simply opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.212.46 (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autosmiths69 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph should be restored to the lede

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Whitaker_(politician)&diff=867902393&oldid=867900817

In September 2018, The New York Times described Whitaker as a Trump loyalist who had frequently visited the Oval Office and has "an easy chemistry" with Trump. With his appointment, Whitaker directly supervises Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation, which had previously been supervised by deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. Democrats demanded Whitaker recuse himself from supervising the investigation, citing potential conflicts of interest. Shortly before joining the Justice Department in 2017, Whitaker wrote an opinion piece arguing that the Mueller investigation was "going too far." He also referred to the Mueller investigation as a "lynch mob" and to calls for appointment of an independent prosecutor as "craven attempts to score cheap political points".

Cheers soibangla (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Soibangla Just saying that something belongs in the lead is not a rationable on why something should belong in the lead. The paragraph is borderline NPOV, it goes into great unnecessary detail, and it discusses topics that are not even close to being to the level to justify inclusion in the lead. Since you gave absolutely no rationale or reasoning on why the paragraph belongs in the lead, I would encourage you to review and make yourself familar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. --CharlesShirley (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

My view is that the expanded content should be in the body, with a summary in the lead. Your characterization of the BBC and New York Times as "biased sources" is thought provoking. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Your thoughts must be easily provoked. I was referring to the comments of the Democratic leader, i.e., the source of the comment. The comments of the Senate Majority Chuck Shumer about "potential conflicts of interest" do not meet the MOS guidelines. Soibagla wants to put in the lead paragraph the claim by the Dems that Whitaker might have conflicts of interests. The Dems can't even say what exactly those conflicts are. No, those comments do not belong in the lead. --CharlesShirley (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The Dems can't even say what exactly those conflicts are. Uh what? [1]:

Democrats quickly demanded on Wednesday that Mr. Whitaker also remove himself from taking charge of the inquiry, citing potential conflicts of interest, including his criticisms of the Mueller investigation, as well as his connections to a witness in that investigation, Sam Clovis, a former Trump campaign aide. In 2014, Mr. Whitaker was the chairman of Mr. Clovis’s unsuccessful campaign to become Iowa state treasurer. “Given his previous comments advocating defunding and imposing limitations on the Mueller investigation, Mr. Whitaker should recuse himself from its oversight for the duration of his time as acting attorney general,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said in a statement.

(and [2]: Federal ethics regulations that apply government-wide state that a government employee should consider stepping aside in a matter when "the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality in the matter.") Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter Thanks of the response. But your quote is from reliable source. I was talking about the specific wording that Soibangla has been trying to put in the lead paragraph. The wording that I removed is not correct, "potential conflicts of interests". That wording, Soibangla's wording, needs to be fixed. And that's all there is to it. The Mueller thing should be mentioned in the lead paragraph but the five sentences that was added by Soibangla is too much. It needed to be cut down. --CharlesShirley (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You said the "The Dems can't even say what exactly those conflicts are."; so I pointed out that the Dems have indeed said what exactly those conflicts are. "potential conflicts of interests" is literally straight from the reliable source. How is it not correct? Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I did say it. Just because one reliable source says something does not mean that the issue is closed. There are many reliable sources that state that the conflicts of interest are not "potential" but real. And there are many reliable sources that state that there are zero conflicts of interest. This topic is way too broad for the opening lead. We need to narrow down the discussion to what we should mention in the opening paragraph. I think we should mention that he now taking over the Mueller investigation from Rosenstein, but all of other stuff can be convered in the body of the article such as the NYTimes stuff about "chemistry" and frequent visitor to WH, his comments about gone to far and lynch mob and all the rest. --CharlesShirley (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is a all that I think belongs in the lead paragraph. Please give me your input.

With his appointment, Whitaker directly supervises Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation, which had previously been supervised by deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. Democrats demanded Whitaker recuse himself from supervising the investigation, claiming conflicts of interest. Republicans have stated that he has no ethical obligation to recuse himself.

--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"Soibangla's wording" is flatly false. And that's all there is to it. soibangla (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly belongs in lead, probably trimmed but definitely something like that, per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT - basically every bit of coverage about him becoming attorney general (which dwarfs any other coverage he has received) is about how he now supervises Mueller investigation and his refusal to recuse from that despite his previous critical comments about the investigation and his close relationship to Trump. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter What part belongs in the lead because some of it clearly doesn't? --CharlesShirley (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Without comment to being in the lead: Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. See WP:BIASED and WP:NPOV. *Editors* are required to edit in an unbiased manner. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Only in death I agree. But that does not go to the topic of the discussion. The bias can be judged to how much weight and where it placed in the article. I never made the argument that only non-biased sources should be used. But how much and where are the real questions. --CharlesShirley (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This edit is 100% factual and reliably sourced. It should be restored rather than another editor engaging in edit warring. soibangla (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. All of the content, as written, is appropriate for the body but too detailed for the lead. A single sentence summarizing this content may be appropriate for the lead. R2 (bleep) 23:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on Section on Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust

I created this section but it no longer exists. Any thoughts welcomed. (sorry if this formatting is wrong)

=== Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust ===

Before Whitaker joined the Justice Department as Sessions’ chief of staff, Whitaker was the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/matt-whitaker-foundation-accountability-civic-trust-hillary-clinton.html|title=The New Acting Attorney General Was Previously a Dark Money–Funded Clinton Antagonist|last=Zeitlin|first=Matthew|work=Slate Magazine|access-date=2018-11-08|language=en}}</ref> FACT begun in 2014 which operated as a conservative nonprofit specialising in legal and ethical issues related to politics.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/person/w/matthew-whitaker|title=Matthew Whitaker|date=2018-11-08|work=Fox News|access-date=2018-11-08|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/conservative-group-calls-for-grayson-ethics-probe-119772|title=Conservative group calls for Grayson ethics probe|work=POLITICO|access-date=2018-11-08|language=en}}</ref> Whitaker tenure at FACT was from October 2014 to September 2017 during which the organisation has a special focus on Hillary Clinton regarding alleged misconduct relating to [[Hillary Clinton email controversy|Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy]] and perceived favouritism in business dealings.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/11/matthew-whitaker-the-new-acting-attorney-general-was-obsessed-with-clintons-emails/|title=Trump's new acting attorney general was obsessed with Clinton's emails|work=Mother Jones|access-date=2018-11-08|language=en-US}}</ref>

Skinnytony1 (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

sorry disregard this its been worked into another section. Sorry. Skinnytony1 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought that this was interesting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Whimat

KConWiki (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. Yes, it's pretty clear that Mr. Whitaker is the one who started the Wikipedia article about, well, about himself. That is (hopefully readers of this page already know) strongly discourage, per WP:YOURSELF and WP:COISELF. But, to give credit where credit is due, it wasn't so self-promotional that it got deleted on sight. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 06:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Previous statements regarding Mueller investigation

Matthew Whitaker has made previous statements regarding the Mueller and the Russia investigation. Considering the newsworthiness of the special counsel and that the previous AG recused himself over the same issue should it be included? "Lynch mob" "There is no case for obstruction of justice", "hyperventilation of what we see here is not sustainable based on these facts""just reduces his budget to so low that his investigations grinds to almost a halt" etc...also thank you for whoever formatted my previous dogs breakfast of a post Skinnytony1 (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Also this goes beyond rhetoric as being reported that previous statements may or may not have the "appearance of bias" therefore disqualify the office bearer. NBC Should acting Attorney General Whitaker recuse himself from Mueller's investigation? Sessions replacement Matthew Whitaker called Mueller's appointment 'ridiculous' and 'a little fishy'"The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 directs the attorney general to create rules requiring disqualification of Justice Department employees in cases of personal, financial or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. This mandate has been accomplished through regulations, one of which Sessions cited in his own recusal upon: "Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship." Skinnytony1 (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Illegally appointed AG

Illegally made AG as per the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:C003:8195:64DC:39ED:716A:491D (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The article says he is currently "acting" U.S. Attorney General. If there are reliable sources about the legality of that, please cite them. Jonathunder (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

He can serve as "acting" attorney general for up to 210 days (7 months) without going through the whole appointments process. --CharlesShirley (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that? Jonathunder (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Jonathunder Yes, of course. (1) The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview, (2) New acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker now overseeing Mueller investigation: 6 things to know, Washington Times, and (3) GSA, The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, P.L. 105-277. --CharlesShirley (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps some brief mention in the article is appropriate. Jonathunder (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

per the FVRA its perfectly legal עם ישראל חי (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

AmYisroelChai You are absolutely correct. --CharlesShirley (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

per the Constitution, it is dubious:

If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice. Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground. Justice Thomas agreed with the judgment, but wrote separately to emphasize that even if the statute had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.

soibangla (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That's an op ed with some interesting arguments, but it cites dicta more than law. Jonathunder (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This writeup is the best source I've been able to find on the legal issues. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Just read through that article. Thanks. It outlines the issues, but doesn't answer them. It makes it clear that the answer is unknown. It is also clear from other sources that Trump is going with Whitaker as a temporary (Lawfare article agrees with this) until he makes a permanent appointment (once again, Lawfare article substantiates this). There is no definitive answer and the article should not attempt to provide one. What we could do is outline the issue and provide the two rationales for having, at this point in time, two viewpoints on the topic. But the article should not, under any current reliable source, make the case that Whitaker is "illegally" appointed because there are zero reliable sources that support that. --CharlesShirley (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed there appears to be no well-founded argument that the appointment is illegal (but then IANAL). As an aside, it might be best to avoid characterizing other editors as "partisan". Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Who is calling whom a "partisan", may I ask? -- CharlesShirley (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a well-founded argument that 28 U.S. Code § 508, a statute specifically addressing AG vacancies, supercedes FVRA, a statute dealing with vacancies generally. A 2007 Office of Legal Counsel opinion stated, "The Vacancies Reform Act thus did not extinguish the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 508 by which an Acting Attorney General might serve." The 2007 opinion affirmed Bush's power to appoint a successor to Gonzales, but that was because the offices of Deputy and Associate AGs were also vacant. That is not the case now, which suggests Rosenstein should have taken the vacancy in the normal line of succession of 28 U.S.C. § 508. soibangla (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. (As noted IANAL.) Curious to see how this shakes out. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately we have courts to decide this type of thing, and don't rely on a consensus of Wikipedia editors who have opinions about the Vacancies Act, the Constitution, or Donald Trump's pajamas. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately, we don't have to wait until courts decide an issue before we can - citing reliable sources - cover that issue in a Wikipedia article. And, fortunately, Wikipedia articles don't need to conclude anything about an unresolved issue, so we don't need to arrive at a consensus of editors as to whether (in this case) the appointment was unconstitutional or not.

As to whether the issue is worth covering in this Wikipedia article (albeit briefly), it certainly is getting a lot of coverage, with strong opinions from a number of sources. Here are few of the main ones (apologies for duplicating or missing citations from above):

-- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html

-- http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-our-illegal-ag-20181108-story.html

-- https://www.justsecurity.org/61386/quick-primer-legality-appointing-matthew-whitaker-acting-attorney-general-whitakers-power-influence-russia-investigations/

-- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/matt-whitaker-donald-trump-fox-news-attorney-general_us_5be3b528e4b0dbe871a69269

-- https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/matthew-whitaker-jeff-sessions-replacement-illegal.html

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 06:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Sam Clovis and God

Think this relationship is underrepresented. Wikipietime (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

God barely knows the guy? Jonathunder (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not know that the article was about either Sam Clovis or God, am I right? Or am I right? -- CharlesShirley (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

God is never mentioned in the article, and Clovis, who Whitaker worked for, is named a few times. Jonathunder (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

not acting attorney general

Just because trump appointed whittaker to be acting attorney general does not mean he is. an acting officer must have been confirmed by the senate prior to assuming an acting position, which whittaker, whom was chief of staff of the attorney general, was not confirmed by the senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffy89502 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources say he's the acting AG. That's all there is to it. He may have been appointed illegally, but he's still the acting AG. --R2 (bleep) 05:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see the section above - Illegally appointed AG - for a very full discussion of this issue. (No need to repeat those arguments here.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 06:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

per the FVRA he is legally appointed "The President can select a senior "officer or employee" of the same executive agency, if that employee served in that agency for at least 90 days during the year preceding the vacancy, and is paid at a rate equivalent to at least a GS-15 on the federal pay scale". עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

AmYisroelChai You have hit the nail on the head. He's "acting" until he's not, which is 210 days or until/if Trump pulls him. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

or until/if the SCOTUS rules that that section of the FVRA is unconstitutional. עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That's probably not going to happen in 90 or 210 days, which is the temporary nature of Whitaker's acting capacity. The issue will be mute before it gets to the Supreme Court. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you meant moot. A defendant in a federal case could challenge the acting A.G.'s legal status now, not only on Constitutional grounds, but on conflict between the more general FVRA and the more specific provisions for the Justice Department. Usually a more specific law controls. Jonathunder (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Yes I did. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

And you are right. Even if were to get to the Supreme Court the Court might choose to focus on the conflict of VRA and the DOJ appointments law and not even touch the Constutitional issue. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"controversy"

CharlesShirley sorry, didn't mean to use a weasel word. I just thought that, since this section is likely to grow, it possibly needed it's own section apart from the section about his work as AAG. What other possible word would work better? Reaction, maybe? valereee (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Reaction to Appointment, I meant.valereee (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter Why do you think a section isn't necessary? It seems like it could become unwieldy as reactions mount up, and whatever he does while in office will fill up the space above it. Maybe something to consider once that happens? valereee (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The section is not big enough for a section title. It fits nicely in the acting AG section right now. Also, Whitaker might be out of the position in 90 to 210 days. Also, there is no need to put in article the reaction or opinion of every Dem or Rep in DC about the issue. It is redundant and undue weight. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

okay, not trying to be argumentative here, but one of the reasons the section isn't large enough for its own subsection is that you keep reverting additions to it valereee (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

@CharlesShirley: this is getting to the point of edit warring. Please stop reverting everything anyone adds to this section. You have now reverted many more than three times any attempt to add anything to this. valereee (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Without pointing fingers at anyone, I would note that if edit warring continues, some other administrator who is not involved may put restrictions on this article. Let's avoid that by discussing the issues. Jonathunder (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

expand acting atty gen chief of staff section?

Do we really need an expand template here? The man's been in office for three days. Hasn't really had much chance to do much. valereee (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC) NM! My bad valereee (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

a google search from Sept 2017 to Nov 6 came up bupkus. It was only a year, and he wasn't in a position to get much coverage. Maybe we need to just accept that there's not much sourceable info out there for this period? valereee (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Valereee. This article from Vox has a minimal amount. I will try to add a sentence and remove the flag (when I get back this afternoon). -SusanLesch (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

undue weight

@CharlesShirley: We need to have a discussion of the undue weight -- there is a LOT of stuff being said in reaction to this. We either need to put in something like "there was broad reaction" or we need to allow all more of it to be mentioned. valereee (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Valereee This article is about Matt Whitaker. It is not about reactions to Matt Whitaker's appointment to the acting AG position. We need to keep that in perspective. And undue weight demands that we never put in all of the reactions. I disagree with the all or nothing proposition that you outlined above. If we say "there was broad reaction" then to whom would you attribute that statement to? -- CharlesShirley (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Charles, then why add Stephen Gillers opinion? If you're removing other legal opinions, don't keep the cherry-picked Stephen Gillers opinion - that creates a blatant and obvious bias. From what I've seen of the sources, that Law and Crime source is the only one having a legal expert saying that he shouldn't recuse, with others like Reuters and CNBC quoting legal experts that say he do. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, I am not cherry-picking. We should outline the issues for the readers and let them decide. One group of experts say he should recuse himself and then other group of experts say he should. Gillers is quoted for saying he doesn't need to. The Dems and Goodman are quoted for saying he should recuse himself. That provides both sides and the reader can make their decision. If you fill up a whole long list of people that say he should then we are not writing the article in a neutral manner. I left in Goodman and references for readers who want to track down more info. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You initially removed all legal opinions except Gillers, making it seem like the weight of legal opinion was against recusal, when it is clear that it is the opposite; we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE here and if legal opinion is tilted one way that is what should be presented. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not stating that there should be false balance, but we can't also engage in undue weight. And there is this: the complete removal of the opposite point of view on the constitutionality of the appointment. The removal of the info was given the edit comment "Mr. Bies is not the subject of this article" which absolutely no one said he was. But he did give a valid alternative viewpoint and he is not a Republican, but a Democrat. I'm not asking for false balance, but do not ignore undue weight and the removal of the opinions of other experts. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That section is a farce without some kind of response to the appointment clause complaint. There is another point of view on it and it was removed without discussion and with a swarmy edit comment. There is another POV on it and there is another Wikipedia standard that applies which is Wikipedia is not whitewashed. Why is Bies comments from Lawfare removed and scrubbed from the article?? - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

What would be WP:UNDUE is to include the minority opinion of Goodman without adding the majority opinion of other legal experts; I agree on including other opinions on the legality of the appointment and I have done so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's 'all or nothing' to at minimum mention the reaction was quite profound valereee (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think something like "reaction was strong" or what you've put there is too vague to the point of meaninglessness and is not really supported by the sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Was really just trying to get some sort of start to figuring out a way to commmunicate that there was an awful lot being said without actually inserting ALL of it. I figured others would help word it better valereee (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Valereee I realize that you personally think that the reaction is "profound" and the reaction was "broad" and the responses were "numerous". But you have not provided a reliable source to support any of those comments. They are simply your personal opinion and that doesn't met Wikipedia standards. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

CharlesShirley Again, not trying to be argumentative, but you seem to be trying to have it both ways. You won't allow additional reaction to be added because you believe it gives undue weight, but you are calling a summarization of the amount of reaction 'opinion.' We either SHOW the amount of reaction, or we TELL. Personally I'd much rather show, but you've repeatedly reverted every attempt to do that by multiple other editors. valereee (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Valereee Not true. You were put in your opinion without R.S. support. - CharlesShirley (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so let's come to a consensus. Can we start with something uncontroversial but clunky and not helpful, and try to work our way to something more elegant? I propose as a starting point: "Multiple legal experts reacted to his appointment," which doesn't need its own support because it's supported by the 1. multiple 2. assertions from 3. legal experts that follow and that do have support. Is that at minimum an uncontroversial statement and not opinion, in your view? valereee (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Valereee "a broad array of lawyers and scholars have argued that"? From the NY Times article:[3] - CharlesShirley (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That works for me! valereee (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It's actually 'broad and growing array' 18:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Valereee Yes, it is "broad and growing array" but can't we compromise with "a broad array"? - CharlesShirley (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry CharlesShirley didn't see this until just now. Personally I think if we're going to use a very short quote, we ought to use it as it was originally intended. But let's discuss. valereee (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, instead of reverting, please respond to my points here and in my edit summaries regarding WP:WEIGHT. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here we go: "backlash" -- not OR:

Whitaker backlash prompts concern at the White House

CharlesShirley sorry for the delayed reply. I felt giving Mr. Bies two long sentences (in a growing paragraph with more and more lawyers chiming in) was excessive. You're welcome to restore any part of this. I think we all know WP:NOTNP. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

SusanLesch I know not a newspaper, but that does not apply to edit. There is no need for it now because there was an edit that added the alternative legal POV concerning U.S. vs. Easton. Yes, there were more and more lawyers chiming in, but they were all repeating the same argument over and over again that they believed the appointment was unconstitutional under the appointments clause. There were way, way, way too many of the same folks repeating the same argument and then you deleted the only lawyer pointing to historical Supreme Court precedent that supports the appointment. It was not a helpful edit and the comment about how the article is not about Bies or that Wikipedia is not a newspaper does not provide any real rationale to delete it. - CharlesShirley (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. We were (and still are) flooding this article with outside legal opinions. In my opinion, all the legal opining was overshadowing Mr. Whitaker's life. (For the same reason I also would like to see the last paragraph removed from the lead.) -SusanLesch (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

John E. Bies, a former Obama Administration as a deputy assistant attorney general, has written that legality and constitutionality of Whitaker's appointment is an open question and it has not been answered. Bies also points out that it is a difficult argument to make that Sessions was fired instead of resigning since a court would probably not "look past an official’s formal statement that they resigned".<ref>Bies, John E. [https://www.lawfareblog.com/matthew-whitakers-appointment-acting-attorney-general-three-lingering-questions Matthew Whitaker's Appointment as Acting Attorney General: Three Lingering Questions], ''Lawfare'', November 8, 2018.</ref>

Hatnote

User:Proxima Centauri it's an unwanted hatnote per WP:HATNOTE / WP:D, specifically WP:NAMB. Widefox; talk 12:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

World Patent Marketing

Belongs as separate section under career. No sources indicate (or even suggest) that World Patent Marketing hired him through his law firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck-sum (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It's currently covered in three sentences. A paragraph that short doesn't usually get its own subheading. Perhaps as the article expands it will. Jonathunder (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The section on World Patent Marketing should clearly state whether Whitaker was still involved with World Patent Marketing when it was fined more than $25 million dollars and at the time the company was shutdown.Scarlet Eagle (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty well sourced now; please see recent edits. -Critical Chris

Let's keep our discussion in the other section valereee (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

World Patent Marketing

This edit added info about WPM and it is redundant and unnecessary. Can someone remove it since I have choosen to stay out of the editing for a while? See: Redundant Addition. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That info does not qualify for the lead paragraph. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph is also written in a non-neutral manner so it violates BLP. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. valereee (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Valereee Thank you for the edit: Remove WPM from lead paragraph. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

NP! I would have removed it as soon as I saw it anyway :) valereee (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

None of those things are true. It's not "redundant" - the lede summarizes the text, so if it's in the body, it should be in the lede. And please explain how it it's "written in a non-neutral manner". An assertion is not an argument. You need to articulate that - especially since the text is based exactly on sources - or it's just a spurious WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT complaint. Volunteer Marek 19:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Not technically true. The lead does not summarize the text. The lead is intended to mention the most important parts of the subject's life/career. If a celebrity, for example, was once pulled over for speeding and that is mentioned in the article, that would not go in the lead. Enigma^msg 21:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree valereee (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, volunteer marek. Here's what you added:

Whitaker also sat on the advisory board of [[World Patent Marketing]],<ref name=guard>[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/07/matthew-whitaker-trump-attorney-general-us-firm]</ref> a patent promotion [[scam]] company that was fined 26 millions of dollars by the [[Federal Trade Commission]].<ref>[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181107/17272041003/new-acting-attorney-general-part-patent-scam-company-recently-shut-down-ftc-fined-millions.shtml]</ref> Whitaker received regular payments from the company and wrote at least one threatening letter on its behalf to one of the victims of its scams.<ref name=guard/>

The lede doesn't need all this -- it's almost as long as the section, and it's just not that important -- so using it in the lede calls into question neutrality. Calling it a scam company also does not sound neutral. Together it felt really just like POV pushing. But let's talk. Why do you think it needs to be in the lede? valereee (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Oops, this might be getting more important FBI Is Investigating Florida Company Where Whitaker Was Advisory-Board Member

Yes, the proper thing to do is to expand the relevant section. For the time being, I'm fine with the present wording. Volunteer Marek 05:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Does this need a subsection? Multiple re-additions of this info into the lede. valereee (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alpha Centauri: Please read this section and let's discuss. This information has been removed from the lede multiple times by multiple editors. valereee (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

lol @Proxima Centauri:

Whitaker's involvement with World Patent Marketing has become a real albatross for him. It's being widely chronicled in the news media and has become a prominent part of his professional backdrop. It should be included both in the article and in the lede. -Critical Chris

I don't think anyone is any longer arguing that it doesn't belong there; we're now arguing over how many details are appropriate there, I think. valereee (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

okay, I've tried for a compromise -- please @Proxima Centauri: let's talk. valereee (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel like this section is starting to get too long. It's actually three times as long as the article on WPM. At what point do we start adding new information to that article instead, and just redirect people to the main article? valereee (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The hatnote calls for sources, but almost every single sentence in that paragraph is well sourced. What do you believe is superfluous? -Critical Chris

Sorry, Critical Chris is that question @me? I don't know which hatnote you mean? ETA: Oh, I see -- it's not the that info is superfluous, it's that this page is supposed to be about Whitaker, not the company he worked for part time for a few years. valereee (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Oh,NM, I see it's probably at two of us. I think

In recognition of concerns about the length of this sections, I trimmed down the section for readability, removing the "the NYT reported" language. -Critical Chris

I believe this section has a decent weight to it, while still being concise, and have kept some of the good sources added by other editors here, while summarizing their substance. Does anyone feel the hat note is still needed? It tends to weaken the creditability of the section. -Critical Chris

Critical Chris I kind of feel like the stuff you added back in is just not relevant to Whitaker as much as it is to WPM, and really feels like it's only being including because: military veterans and life's savings. I feel like it doesn't really provide much other than that, but I'll let another editor weigh in rather than reverting since I removed it the first time valereee (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It's well sourced information that the Guardian finds newsworthy. Do you still believe a hat note is needed t this section?

I would argue there's a world full of well-sourced info the Guardian finds newsworthy out there, but it doesn't all belong in this article. This article is about Whitaker. We need to remove the stuff about people going into debt and losing their life's savings and military veterans. Of COURSE that happens when slimy companies get slimy. It's not important to WHITAKER'S story that this company the exact details of how they were snatching the last scrap of bread from widows and orphans, lol, just that they were a slimy company; people who want the details can go to WPM's page. The only reason to put it in whitaker's is to make him look really REALLY bad instead of just really bad. valereee (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

With Whitaker saying he had no idea and the court receiver says he has no reason to believe he did, I think the sentences about how horrible WPM were really do need to go. He may have showed bad judgement, he almost certainly is slimy, the fact they were bilking veterans just isn't relevant to an article about whitaker. valereee (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I've already amalgamated your concerns about inventors losing life savings into the relavant subsection, which Volunteer Marek has mentioned above should have been expanded. I have shortened prevoous concerns about "going into debt and losing life savings" into "losses." What more on that issue do you believe should be excised and why? As it is, this is a tight and concise paragraph, wioth almost every single sentence well sourced. Regarding the issue of marketing to veterans, that's very well-sourced reserarch from The Guardian and passes the muster of WP:RS -Critical Chris

Do you believe this research here is inconsistent with WP:RS ? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/09/matthew-whitaker-acting-attorney-general-wpm-scam -Critical Chris

This is what I feel should be excised: "Many customers suffered significant losses as a result of working with the company, which billed itself as a champion of military veterans, offered them military discounts, and made special efforts to outreach to them in its marketing." Why: because I believe it's there only to make Whitaker look as bad as possible. I do not believe it is relevant in this article. valereee (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's try coming at it from the other end: why do you feel it's important to mention veterans? Is it because bilking veterans is worse than bilking anyone else? valereee (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This wikipedia thing isn't about what anyone feels, nor anyone's point of view, it's an encyclopedia with reliable sources that cover issues deemed newsworthy by mainstream fact-checked news publications of record such as The Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/09/matthew-whitaker-acting-attorney-general-wpm-scam. -Critical Chris

I believe it's reliable. I just am questioning whether it's appropriate for THIS article, which is about Whitaker, not about WPM. I believe these statements would be absolutely fine for that article. Just trying to get some consensus as we have multiple editors concerned about this section valereee (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Considering that Whitaker's background played a role in people's decisions to use WPM, and that his name was used in the 2014 veteran promotion, which I assume he was aware of, it does not seem unreasonable to me at all. Per the Guardian info re the vet promotion: “Not only do we honor the veterans and soldiers of our armed forces but we are also celebrating what they are protecting - the American dream,” it said in a statement timed for Veterans Day 2014, which highlighted Whitaker’s role at the firm." Gandydancer (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Gandydancer don't you think that's synthesis? Just trying to come to consensus here. We have multiple editors concerned about this section valereee (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Val, I wondered if it would get any support...it didn't. I'm happy with the way it now reads: (Many customers suffered significant losses as a result of working with the company.) Gandydancer (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try removing the tag again, lol...valereee (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

VoteVets.org quote would be fine, as long as we called out that they're a progressive PAC, but lawandcrime.com not a reliable source valereee (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

good to know. it's the first time I've come across it. Skinnytony1 (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not that they're necessarily UNreliable, lol -- they may very well be reporting accurately. It's just that this is controversial info. I tried to find this quote somewhere else, but I can't find it reported anywhere. valereee (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know

Help with wording

Can anybody here say this better? "CNN reported that Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society recommended Whitaker to McGahn as chief of staff for Sessions, who did not realize for a year that Whitaker wanted to replace him." It seems implausible that Sessions would not "realize" this for a year, especially given the circumstances of Trump criticizing him. But CNN said it was so, twice. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

References

"who, it is reported, did not realise" or "who claims to not have realised"?? Skinnytony1 (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Acting US Attorney General vs. US Attorney General acting -- what's the beef?

Why does this keep getting played with? Multiple reversions. Please let's talk valereee (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Another reversion. Care to comment Samuel JJ? valereee (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi valereee, thank you for your comment. Just to clarify, I only edited once on the page. The second edit was to remove a redundant full stop. Like all biographies, if the person is acting officer, you should place the subtitle "Acting" below the title of the office he/she is holding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel JJ (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Samuel JJ just wanted to know why it kept going back and forth. Is that in policy, so we can point others toward it next time someone wants to change it? valereee (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it was done that way ("acting" on a separate line) on Stuart M. Gerson, Peter Keisler, and Dana Boente, but not for Sally Yates. Between having it on a separate line and the same, the former appears to be used more frequently than the latter, but I don't know if this indicates a firm consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The "disputed" note should immediately be removed; it is a complete mischaracterization. Functionally, there is no dispute that he is the holder of that position. There are theoretical disputes over the propriety of the appointment, but those have not been manifested in any official action or legal challenges yet. If/when there is, then that can be added, but as of now it is entirely out of place. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Does Trump know Whitaker?

According to this Slate article, Trump is now saying "I don’t know Matt Whitaker" though last month he said "I know Matt Whitaker." The article links sources. I'm not sure how we deal with this. Jonathunder (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times said in September Trump called him. But then today the same paper quotes Trump with video saying, "I don't know Matt Whitaker." I suggest we follow their lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Also curious is his LinkedIn profile that Trump seems to cite (“is a very respected man”), "Matt is a well respected attorney and entrepreneur." -SusanLesch (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that was written by the same guy who originally started this article. But I agree with you about taking the NYT approach: report both sets of statements and let readers draw their own conclusions. Jonathunder (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you think the article can hold a section titled "Relationship to Donald Trump"? We have two stray comments about Trump in the DOJ section that could also move there. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it can hold a section. I don't love 'Relationship to Donald Trump' as a heading, but maybe if we start it we can come up with something better? valereee (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here goes. Maybe you can improve it. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

A section is fine, but this revert by Soibangla does not belong in the lead per WP:MOSLEAD. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The section should provide the details and the lead should give a concise summary, not the other way around. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It is a concise summary of details that appear in different sections of the body, as I explained to you when I restored your reverts that were made on false premises. soibangla (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Those "false premises" were actually the relevant Wikipedia policies, like WP:ONUS and WP:MOSLEAD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, Trump has "clarified" this: Matthew G. Whitaker is a highly respected former U.S. Attorney from Iowa. He was chosen by Jeff Sessions to be his Chief of Staff. I did not know Mr. Whitaker. Likewise, as Chief, I did not know Mr. Whitaker except primarily as he traveled with A.G. Sessions. No social contact... [4]. I believe Trump is claiming he didn't know Whitaker before Sessions hired him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It really doesn't require that much detective work if we stick to the sources. I'm not really sure what this "know him, don't know him" thing is about either, but it doesn't seem to belong at the top. I have no objection to the inclusion of other significant controversies in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Trump is on the record stating that he knows him and doesn't know him. Isn't Schrödinger's cat worth stating the lede? Skinnytony1 (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

No. This might be news now, but tomorrow it will be something else. This is a BLP so the article should adhere to WP:MOSLEAD and discuss only prominent/relevant issues & controversies in the opening four paragraphs. Constitutional issues/involvement with scam companies seem much more likely to stick. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This is probably just the news of the day. Tomorrow it will be something else. Doesn't belong in lede until/unless this particular bit of life-as-we-know-it-these-days has stood the test of time. valereee (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The White House was reportedly unaware before Trump appointed Whitaker of his prior employment as an apparent "enforcer" by a scam operation that is currently under criminal investigation by the FBI, which Whitaker now oversees, and that Whitaker ignored an FTC subpoena while working at DOJ. Does that help you to understand why Trump might want to "ghost" Whitaker now, as Trump has a prior record of doing with people who become...inconvenient? soibangla (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Your analysis/speculation is immaterial to the discussion here (WP:OR). This is not a WP:FORUM to discuss views on the subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

soibangla warned on UserTalk page for disruptive behavior. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• This stuff should be excluded because: (a) Trump was obviously not telling the truth; (b) Trump says a lot of crazy shit; (c) what Trump says about people generally says more about Trump than it does about the people he's talking about; and (d) whether celebrity X or politician Y knows a person generally doesn't belong in that person's biography. Now, if there were reliable sources saying that the White House didn't vet Whitaker for acting AG then that would be worthy of note. But this is just stupid stuff. R2 (bleep) 22:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Why was this removed as "editorializing?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Whitaker_(attorney)&diff=868872566&oldid=868872091

soibangla (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

this is an event timeline of his DOJ career none of that belongs in that section the time before he became chief of staff is not relevant to the section questioning the legality of the appointment already has its own section the theories about why he was hired is editorializing if any of this should be on this page somewhere it should probably go in the Relationship with Donald Trump section עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

All the material you removed is referenced by reliable sources. If your objection is that the material is misplaced, why didn't you move it rather than remove it? soibangla (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

just because something is sourced doesn't mean it belongs here i don't think it belongs here at all but i wouldn't be opposed for if there was consensus to put it elsewhere עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Not only is the material well sourced, it is also fully pertinent. I recommend it be restored. soibangla (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

like i said before just because something is well sourced doesn't mean it belongs it's not pertinent to this section. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is notable and well-sourced from the NYT. This belongs in this article, perhaps chronologically in the appropriate section. Critical Chris

• The content is most definitely not editorializing. It could use some wordsmithing and should perhaps be moved, but it's verifiable and seems noteworthy. Removing it was a step back, not a step forward. R2 (bleep) 20:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Chief of Staff

To עם ישראל חי (User:AmYisroelChai),could you please explain why you have deleted the well-sourced material bleow from the "Chief of Staff"section?

Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society recommended Whitaker to McGahn as chief of staff for Sessions, and Whitaker was installed into that role at the direction of the White House. Sessions, it is reported, did not realize for a year that Whitaker wanted to replace him. On September 22, 2017, a Justice Department official announced that Sessions had appointed Whitaker to replace Jody Hunt as his chief of staff. George Terwilliger, a former U.S. attorney and deputy attorney general, said in his role as chief of staff, Whitaker would have dealt daily with making "substantive choices about what is important to bring to the AG...." In 2017 Whitaker provided private advice to Trump on how the White House might pressure the Justice Department to investigate the president's adversaries, including appointing a special counsel to investigate the FBI and Hillary Clinton. -- Thanks, -Critical Chris

I put it where it beongs in "Relationship with Donald Trump" section עם ישראל חי (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Handy Resource

Esquire just published an "An Exhaustive Timeline" of Whitaker's career

Might be handy for future reference.

Skinnytony1 (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Hatnote

Why the NPOV hatnote, User:Wikieditor19920? What do you find lacking in neutrality? What do you suggest changing to edit this article to more neutral bias, from your point of view? Critical Chris

I discussed it in my other thread. For one, there is an overrepresentation of a single POV in the sections concerning legal arguments on what appears to be an issue with more nuance and opposing viewpoints. Second, neutral, biographical information that one editor deemed too "flattering" but was reported on by the NYT (details on background in football and role in his political career) were removed with little to no explanation. Third, I've already identified at least one example of WP:SYNTH after reading a source and recognizing that it had been misrepresented, and I suspect there may be more. The edit history indicates that a number of other editors share my concerns, and I think it's clear that this article would benefit from several more editors with different perspectives, which is why these templates exist.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I think a problem in part is an artefact of someone who was relatively obscure who was thrust into political relevance overnight. Hence this wiki evolved quickly. More viewpoints would strengthen it and should be welcomed. Skinnytony1 (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Correct. This man was suddenly thrust from obscurity to the top echelon of the American government, making him one of the most powerful men in the world, potentially with the power to determine the fate of a sitting American president. Naturally, the press shifted into overdrive upon his appointment, because the American people had never heard of the man and consequently there was a surge in reporting about him, which naturally was quickly reflected here. And it just so happens that the preponderance of the reportage does not portray him or his appointment in a flattering light, and that is not a matter of media bias or bias here. It's just how the facts have shaken out to this point. As always, I heartily encourage others to contribute well-sourced exculpatory material. The failure of others to do so suggests that such exculpatory material may not exist at this point. soibangla (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I see a decent article that's come together here with a variety of input from several editors, and with good prose and sources, and a civil discussion here on the talk page. The hat note tends to weaken the article, and I suggest it be removed. Critical Chris

I concur. soibangla (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I’ve been impressed watching this page evolve and watching the dynamics of consensus play out (I’m usually not that involved). As imperfect as this article is I don’t see the need for a disputed NPOV template. Skinnytony1 (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I support the consensus that the POV tag should be removed. Article-level tags are for article-wide problems, not for problems with a couple of sentences. There's an inline-pov tag for that... and synth isn't a neutrality issue, it's an original research issue. R2 (bleep) 16:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

College football; recusal

R2 and soibangla I find it concerning that you are both removing sourced biographical information from this article while ramping up the amount of content that is critical of the subject, including, in my opinion, improper synth. Please remember WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Soibangia and I are different people who have different concerns. My removal of trivial content about Whitaker's college football career has nothing to do with neutrality. Just because something is supported by a reliable source doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. I meant that removal as a routine trimming of the fat that I'd do for any article regardless of the politics. R2 (bleep) 16:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

To follow up on that: neutrality doesn't mean that we seek out flattering content about the subject to "balance out" unrelated content that reflects poorly on the subject. R2 (bleep) 16:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your synth concern: I do not understand it. That sentence about recusal could use some cleaning up, but unless I'm missing something it appears to be fully supported by the cited NBC News source. R2 (bleep) 16:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I was addressing the two of you because you were both editing at the same time in rapid succession. This diff is WP:SYNTH (and it was removed for that reason by another editor) because it introduces a point that the article does not. The article states that the code could arguably apply, and Soibangla misrepresented that by writing to imply that it had been affirmatively invoked as a strong reason for recusal by "some," and compounded that problem by adding a WP:PRIMARY and citing the actual law.

Second, I disagree with your characterization of the info about his football background, which was reported by the NYT as noteworthy, as I do with your poorly explained removal of said info. What you call "trivia" was thought of by the NYT, as about a reliable source as it gets, to be an important element of his backstory, as being a "Hawkeye" was a feather in his cap politically, at least in Iowa. You also appear to be applying a double standard. One the one hand, you're calling sourced information about his background not worth including, but your argument for adding additional criticisms/arguments against his appointment is that they are sourced. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking to me now? I'm not watching this page, only popping in from time to time. Can you please split this out into a separate discussion, and at least identify who you're directing your comment at? R2 (bleep) 16:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was. It may have been confusing because Soibangla disrupted my response thread by inserting his comments between mine. This has been fixed now. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You assert "it introduces a point that the article does not." The edit was wholly consistent with what the referenced reliable source reported, and suggested nothing more. Note the edit stated "has also been cited [by NBC News] as potential grounds" and I in no way implied "that it had been affirmatively invoked as a strong reason" by anyone, nor did I make any reference to any "some." "Potential grounds" is essentially synonymous with "arguably apply." The primary source merely supplemented the referenced secondary reliable source. "Primary" does not mean "bad" soibangla (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require primary sources to supplement reliable secondary ones, and the article was much more neutral than your edit implied. In fact, the full quote from the source was In the case of Whitaker, parts of Section 45.2 could arguably apply. Critics might argue that Whitaker cannot oversee Mueller's investigation of President Donald Trump because of a prior political or personal relationship with Trump. It went on to say Even if a court could review the application of the recusal regulations to Whitaker in this situation, it might conclude that this personal or political relationship does not warrant disqualification. You did not accurately represent this very nuanced and hypothetical analysis in your paraphrase. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Does "doesn't require" mean "cannot supplement?" Some readers might ask "OK, that's what the source says, but show me the code." My edit did not refer to any "Critics might argue" because it doesn't say who or quantify how many, hence the reason I didn't use the word "some," as you assert. It simply noted that the source cited the potential. I did not imply anything further. If you or others felt that I did not accurately capture your perceived nuance, which appears in the next-to-last sentence of the source, I suggest the good faith solution would be to modify the edit rather than summarily revert it wholesale, particularly if they very recently had a conflict with the editor. soibangla (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The average reader would not ask that; citing the text of a law is definitely WP:TMI, especially in the lead. It would have been more appropriate for you to quote the rest of the analysis. And I was not the one who removed it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the "average" reader might not ask that, but serious researchers like me would, and the reference is not intrusive, it was provided as a convenience and there is nothing wrong with it. The "average" reader can choose to ignore it. And in fact, you did remove it, then quickly self-reverted it, making a specious claim that the edit was making "legal arguments" and saying "Stick to sources" when the edit was referenced with a reliable source, which the edit accurately summarized. soibangla (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Your perspective as a "serious researcher" is not what matters here. There's no reason to cite the text of a law in the lead, unless you're trying to obfuscate the fact that you've misrepresented the other, secondary source. And the diffs you linked confirm that I was not the one who ultimately removed the content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to add that I don't think it's worth continuing to beat a dead horse here. The disputed content was, in my opinion, justifiably removed (not by me), and I've made my opinion clear above. If you really believe it should be included as you wrote it, you should seek consensus among other editors. I still have concerns about POV generally on this page, specifically in the sections concerning legal arguments and recusal and whether all WP:DUE sides on this issue are proportionately represented. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I misrepresented nothing. The edit stated "The Code of Federal Regulations has also been cited as potential grounds for recusal," meaning that someone could initiate a court challenge on that basis, but the outcome of any such challenge could not be assured. It could fail, which is what the "nuance" you identified in the next-to-last sentence referenced. You are quibbling over nothing and repeatedly misrepresenting what I've actually written. The edit did not contain any "legal arguments" made by me, "potential grounds" is effectively synonymous with "arguably apply," you falsely asserted "it introduces a point that the article does not," you falsely asserted I used the term "some," and you falsely asserted I implied "that it had been affirmatively invoked as a strong reason." You have repeatedly accused me of misconduct and I have repeatedly debunked your accusations. I strongly encourage you to file a formal complaint against me so we can settle this matter, for once and for all. soibangla (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is not an accusation of misconduct, and I have no interest in a protracted squabble with you over removed content or your shows of bravado. The distortion of the source, in my opinion, was primarily a result of what you omitted, as I have already stated. If you disagree, then you are free to seek consensus to the contrary. Best of luck. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You have attempted to throw everything you can think of against the wall to see if anything sticks. None of it has. You lob an accusation, I shoot it down, you ignore it and pivot to another accusation, I shoot that one down, you ignore that and pivot to yet another accusation. A reasonable person might conclude that constitutes trolling and wonder if you have an unexpressed motive. You have repeatedly lied about me. I don't like when people lie about me, and I don't forget. Cheers! soibangla (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Can you both please try to tone it down and avoid personalizing the dispute? I personally think there's no benefit to citing the CFR and favor its removal, but it's a very minor issue and shouldn't interfere with article development. Pick your battles. R2 (bleep) 16:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll agree to this and will grant that Soibangla has made a number of other positive contributions to this article. It's for the best to move on from this specific issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I strenuously object to this massive purge

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Whitaker_(attorney)&diff=869520462&oldid=869490584

soibangla (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

smells a bit vandally Skinnytony1 (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

whitewashy soibangla (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Please try to assume good faith. I think the purge was pretty decent. We shouldn't (and can't) catalog every published legal argument regarding the legality of the appointment. R2 (bleep) 00:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

editing down is an art form...how about different pages for the legal cases etc? I personally would want to consult a wiki to find a baseline for what is occurring. Skinnytony1 (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI I've migrated stuff that was deleted regarding Checks and Balances to make a new page for the organisation Checks and Balances (organization) its already been suggested to be merged with this article lol Skinnytony1 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

added the deleted section on the letter signed by lawyers asking Whittaker's recusal to American_Constitution_Society. Skinnytony1 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Refactor proposal

The guy has had a unique and convoluted career, leading to a "Career" section that's kind of a hodgepodge and difficult to follow. I propose we depart from chronological order and restructure as follows:

• Career

(general stuff)

• Public office and political activities

(US attorney, runs for office, CNN commentary)

• Trump Administration

(DOJ chief of staff, acting AG, legality of appointment)

• Private activities

(private practice, MEM, WPM, FACT)

Do I have support for this? R2 (bleep) 17:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

no the way it is fine chronological order עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a bad idea and isn't unprecedented. Something similar was done on Eric Holder. As long as it isn't too disruptive layout-wise (I'll leave that to your discretion) I would be open to supporting this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

New Section on Policy Positions?

Ala Jeff Sessions should there be a section on policy positions? For example:

Social Issues Whitaker has ties to the evangelical Christian community and has stated “life begins at conception”.  [5] [6]

Whitaker argued that expressing homophobic comments is legitmate expression of religious beliefs that should be protected speech:

“I just really think this case is a prime example of where religious freedom in our country is under assault and we need to send a strong message,” [7]

Immigration: "What do I think the solution is? We need to secure the border first and then look at ways to reform the system, whether that’s getting rid of chain immigration,”  [8]

Skinnytony1 (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Could this be part of the section on constitutional views? Maybe a section called 'Legal and policy views' or something? valereee (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

this diff is introducing some improper synthesis into the lead. It's fine to cite legal arguments that have been posted by WP:RS, but we shouldn't actually be citing the laws themselves and offering independent analysis. That's textbook WP:OR. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The quote about the "ties to the Evangelical community" was drawn directly from an opinion column in the Des Moines register, and I can't find any WP:RS to back it up. The sources that have quoted that line only attribute it to the original column. I've removed this line per WP:RSOPINION and WP:BLPSOURCE until we can find another source to substantiate it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Would be good to get a better source, for the record the following was cited and others not cited mentioned his ties to Evangelical community or his own faith. Not sure if it passes the threshold, tell me if it does Wikieditor19920 otherwise will wait for something more substantial:

• “Mr. Whitaker also has a connection to the evangelical voters …he would ask judicial nominees whether they were “people of faith” who had “a biblical view of justice.” New York Times

• “Whitaker has ties to the evangelical Christian community.” advocate

• “has ties to the evangelical Christian” Wapo quoting Desmoines Register Wapo

• “2011-13, Beautiful Savior Church, president of congregation, 2007-11…Religious affiliation: Lutheran” Desmoines Register

• “Whitaker has ties to the evangelical Christian community.” Desmoines Register

• "And if they have a secular worldview, where this is all we have here on earth, then I’m going to be very concerned about how they judge you," he said. According to the Des Moines Register, Whitaker is an evangelical Lutheran.” CNS news? blog quoting Desmoines Register

Skinnytony1 (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• The Des Moines piece is an opinion column and per WP:RSOPINION we cannot state anything it asserts as fact. That also goes for other independent, secondary sources that are directly citing the Des Moines Register without additional corroboration.
• “2011-13, Beautiful Savior Church, president of congregation, 2007-11…Religious affiliation: Lutheran” says nothing about evangelism.
• The line from the NYT piece is too vague to establish anything; it's unclear whether by "connections" they mean appealing because of his views or that he is an evangelist himself.
• advocate is also citing the Des Moines Register opinion column and is not itself a WP:RS.

If we can find an independent source clearly establishing "ties to the evangelical community," which I'm sure he has, then we can and should include the line. However, per WP:BLP, we should not make claims about the religion or affiliations of the subject of a BLP without such a source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The Church that he states he goes to *is* Evangelical, the website describes itself this way "At Beautiful Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church in West Des Moines". That is *not* an opinion piece it is WP:RS that's a candidate's own description, also from the Des Moines Register. For the Op-ed in the Des Moines Register (ignoring the fact based report) the WP:RS doesn't say you can't use opinions it says to attribute them "When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." The New York Times, Washington Post were both comfortable in repeating the phrasing "with ties" which is actually more conservative that stating that he is an Evangelical Lutheran, which is in accord with WP:BLP of being written conservatively. Matt's own website "Matt and Marci are active in their church". There is no original research WP:OR it's just understanding the subject matter...I'm happy to wait until there is more sources to pass the threshold of what you believe is appropriate though because you are more experienced Skinnytony1 (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Full name in opening sentence of first section of article body

@Nightscream: Hi. Can you please point to the guideline in the Manual of Style or elsewhere that says a person's full name must be repeated in the body? I find your edit redundant but am always willing to learn something new. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@SusanLesch:. Hi, Susan. Thanks for communicating with me. I base the practice not on a specifically codified policy/guideline, but what I believe is a fundamental good practice in writing/composition, especially formal writing. I don't think starting off a new paragraph with a pronoun conveys the tone of formality Wikipedia requires, and I think this is doubly so when beginning a new section. I think this is especially case with the first section of the article body, which in a sense, is the second "opening" of the article, as the Lead section is considered a summary of the article as a whole. For this reason, I think it's a good practice to begin paragraphs with the subject's surname, per WP:SURNAME, but to introduce the subject in the first section with their full name. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If I understand this all correctly, this is what I strive for as well and from time to time make corrections in old articles to reflect this practice. It just make sense and is better reading, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation. I prefer to use the person's surname after their full name is given in the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree that a paragraph in a Wikipedia bio shouldn't normally begin by referring ot the subject with a pronoun, and this is especially so when it is at the head of a section. MOS:LASTNAME says quite clearly that "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only". Personally, I find it at best unneccessary to repeat a full moniker, and it causes me annoyance that increases pretty much with the length of said moniker. So, to take some example FAs, "Abraham Lincoln" I can take in my stride, but the repetition of "James Earl Carter Jr." makes me queasy. I am perfectly happy with "Obama". If you change a plain surname to the full name, and it is reverted with the justification of MOS:LASTNAME, the onus seems to be be on you to explain why more than the surname is required in the given case, since the MOS says it generally isn't. William Avery (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, I see a little egg on my face... I did not read the post as carefully as I should have. IMO it is only the opening paragraph (following the lead) that should use the person's full name. After that just the surname should be used. Gandydancer (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If it were me, I wouldn't start the first section of the body with the full formal name EXCEPT in cases like this one where it's an early life section that starts with his birth: 'Matthew George Whitaker was born (date) to (parents).' I wouldn't start the first body section with "Matthew George Whitaker joined the Iowa Daily News at age 18 as a pressman.' I would just use Whitaker. Births are different. valereee (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yesbut, don't most of our political (and other) articles open with an early life section (and if they don't, shouldn't they?)? Gandydancer (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Gandydancer absolutely, we're in agreement here. Only when we can't find that info does the article on someone important not open with it valereee (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC) ETA: and actually I try to find this info on lesss-mportant people if I can, and would do the same thing valereee (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with SusanLesch, William Avery, and Gandydancer that in general only the first mention in the lead section should be the full name. That's the standard practice here. R2 (bleep) 22:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• I support the linked diff so the early life section begins Matthew George Whitaker was born in Des Moines, Iowa, on October 29, 1969.; it's fairly common stylistically though I don't think there's a rule requiring it. A discussion of the place and time of his birth should also give his full birth name. Also, on a biography of this size, the article should read normally without the lead; the first mention in the body shouldn't just be "Whitaker". power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Most bios of important people -- wiki or not -- do have an often-first-after-lead section that begins with birth, and the full name is always mentioned in such places. Newspaper obits do the same thing. valereee (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this is something like use citation templates/don't use citation templates where agreeing on legislation (and an MOS rule) would be hopeless. APA style (the only one out of The Chicago Manual of Style, The Gregg Reference Manual, MLA Style, APA style, Fowler's Modern English Usage, and The Oxford Guide to English Usage to offer an opinion on obituaries) says to ask the editor. I looked at The New York Times and was ready to concede because the NYT repeats the entire full name when they get around to the subject's birth and bio. This would be helpful in the case of a person who changed their name, like a number of married women have. However then I looked at Encyclopædia Britannica and the Cambridge Biographical Dictionary and neither one does. I am therefore digging in to my own preference for brevity. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Encyclopædia Britannica is a better comparator than The New York Times since we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. For what it's worth, Encyclopedia.com (Columbia Encyclopedia) appears not to have a consistent practice. I found multiple biographies there going each way on this issue. R2 (bleep) 19:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Parking links here for possible future use

• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/us/politics/matthew-whitaker-ftc-world-patent-marketing.html

• 'More than 400 former DOJ officials call on Trump to replace Matthew Whitaker' https://www.vox.com/2018/12/4/18126178/matthew-whitaker-doj-acting-attorney-general Skinnytony1 (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Comey

Regarding these 3 sentences, which were recently added:

former FBI chief James Comey dismissed such concerns. He ventured that Whitaker lacked sufficient influence in Washington to accomplish such a goal. "He may not be the sharpest knife in our drawer, but he can see his future and knows that if he acted in an extralegal way, he would go down in history for the wrong reasons and I’m sure he doesn’t want that," Comey remarked.

References

What is the purpose of this addition beyond disparaging Whitaker? Comey isn't an independent expert, as far as we know he's never met Whitaker, and he wasn't at the DOJ when Whitaker was appointed, so... why are we including this? And if we're going to include anything about Comey's thoughts, isn't 3 sentences undue? R2 (bleep) 03:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Comey is the former Deputy Attorney General, a lifelong Republican until 2016 when he registered as an Independent. He also was the acting Attorney General during John Ashcroft's health crisis in March 2004, when the White House tried to prolong illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens and Comey went with Mueller to Ashcroft's hospital room to successfully stop the extension. That's when Whitaker's appointment as USAG for the Southern District of Iowa was being processed. Comey was pressed by Trump to end the DOJ's investigation of Michael Flynn in February 2017, in what has been described as an attempt at obstruction of justice. Comey's subsequent firing as Director of the FBI on May 9, 2017 by Trump is a focal point into the obstruction investigation. Comey has expressed a minority, but important view, that Whitaker will not likely be able to remove Mueller from the case. Any more questions that can't be answered by a little more independent reading on your part? Recognizing your angst over three sentences referring to Comey and his response to the question, I've edited out a word which dropped it to two sentences. Activist (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Not the most constructive response. I already knew everything that Activist states here. I doubt many editors need a primer on Comey's importance. That still doesn't make his prediction reliable or noteworthy as an opinion. As Activist points out, Comey is representing a minority view here. So why does he get more real estate than Goodman, Shaub, or Gillers--all actual experts who each only get a single sentence? Does anyone else have an opinion? R2 (bleep) 05:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree the space given to Comey's opinion is disproportionate. --Saranoon (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• I took a stab at a trimmed version. Also, the Washington Times was a less than ideal source. R2 (bleep) 19:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop stabbing. You can and have done better than this. The Washington Times is not my favorite source, but you've deleted a precise quote. WGBH is an excellent source, but referencing almost any TV channel results in citing sources that have frequently become dead links. The WT keep their archives alive for over a decade and is not paywalled. Activist (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You're now reverting me against consensus. Saranoon, what do you think about WGBH versus the Washington Times? I don't see a problem with WGBH as I'm unaware that they take content down, and even if they did we can use an archive service like the Wayback Machine; however if there's really an issue here there are plenty of other reliable sources with the same content, such as USA Today, CNN, The Hill, Politico, etc. Consensus aside, I honestly do not see a reasonable basis for reversion. R2 (bleep) 16:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

...and I don't see any reason to keep out the quote you seem determined to put down the rabbit hole. Activist (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Because it's undue weight, as I explained and Saranoon agreed. However you are entitled to your position that it's appropriate weight. What I don't think is reasonable is reverting my whole edit, including the change of the source, when you say the Washington Times isn't your favorite source and there are plenty of other reliable sources out there. R2 (bleep) 17:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Off topic. R2 (bleep) 22:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

So your response is a.) to canvass, and b.) to stalk me and level a groundless Cn complaint in another article I've created, to which no one else had contributed. Please check reference 33 and the preceding text in that article, content that seemed to somehow escape your scrutiny. "Cecil McCrory sentenced to 8.5 years", Clarion Ledger, Jimmie E. Gates, February 3, 2017. Stop ordering me how to edit. McCrory wore a wire for three months, and then Epps started wearing one a few months later when he was arrested, and finally, months later down the road the indictments were made public, with the info that they were informing/cooperating (the terms were used interchangeably by the media) on those giving the bribes, Retrieved December 4, 2018.Activist (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not undue weight. In fact the Wikipedia editor's guide at NPOV undue weight reads: ":Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"

So the Comey quote should be included precisely because he is a prominent adherent of the minority viewpoint. Activist (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this relevant - "$20,000 and $30,000 in credit card debt"

"The top Justice official also reported having between $20,000 and $30,000 in credit card debt when he became Sessions’ chief of staff in late 2017." https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/20/whitaker-12-million-conservative-nonprofit-1009353 Skinnytony1 (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

why would it be relevant? עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This was reported not only by Politico but also independently by the Chicago Sun-Times and the Des Moines Register. I'm still not inclined to include it. It just doesn't seem noteworthy. R2 (bleep) 21:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

even if it was reported by every news source on the planet doesn't make it actually noteworthy עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That might be a month or two of family income, not important. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Successor in infobox

GoodDay, please stop edit warring and explain here why you think Bill Bar should be included in the infobox as Whitaker's successor. R2 (bleep) 20:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

If you check the edit history of the most recent former cabinet member bios, you'll see that it's standard practice to add nominees into their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you point to a couple of examples? R2 (bleep) 20:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

See the Loretta Lynch article. From the time of Sessions nomination to his confirmation by the US Senate, he was in the Lynch infobox as nominee. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Matthew Whitaker per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Matthew Whitaker (attorney) → Matthew G. Whitaker – the version with G. is used by several newspapers like the washington post, and is much better then the bracket solution. also he is more then just an attorney. Norschweden (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Matthew Whitaker" (no middle initial) is used by far more reliable sources. The parentheses are our standard method of disambiguation, and are more effective since most people don't know the middle initials of either this Matthew Whitaker or the other one. Therefore, distinguishing them by their middle initials wouldn't be helpful. R2 (bleep) 01:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support the original title was "Matthew G. Whitaker" for about 7 years and then it was just "Matthew Whitaker" for a couple of years, then "Matthew Whitaker (politician)" and finally "Matthew Whitaker (attorney)". "Matthew G. Whitaker" is concise, neutral, and used quiet often. Attorney vs. politician could be argued over at length. How about "Matthew Whitaker (football)" or just "Matt Whitaker"? We should choose a name that will last. Matthew G. Whitaker does that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd support the proposal of עם ישראל חי below to just change it to "Matthew Whitaker". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose but Support a move to Matthew Whitaker no () he is the primary. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Not to take anything away from your position, but that is not the proposal, so you probably shouldn't label your vote as "Support." R2 (bleep) 22:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

on other pages that's how it is done but I'll change it anyway. see below עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Jonathunder (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Matthew Whitaker; this is the primary topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose requested name. I would support Matt Whitaker or Matthew Whitaker though since he is the primary topic. Corky 17:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment remove the dab and make this the primary topic. Hat note the other guy. Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (WP:COMMONNAME) – Whittaker is, by and large, called "Matthew Whitaker" (no middle initial) in reliable sources. Drdpw (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose including middle initial but support change of the article's name to "Matthew Whitaker." Activist (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'll stay out of this

Voicemail from Matthew Whitaker to Federal Trade Commission staff, October 2017

But you might want to include the recording of his voice and also look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-12-24/Op-ed Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hard won award

User:AmYisroelChai, Whitaker claimed to have won the title Academic All-American in 1992. Our treatment of this topic should offer justice to the real winner. I find your "obviously" comment less than respectful of the amount of work it took that person to win. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

this is a page about Whitaker it says he was incorrect in his claim so obviously someone else won no need to mention that someone else won. I don't see what respect has to do with anything or that I have to give it to some unknown winner of some award in 1992. עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right you personally do not owe anybody anything, AmYisroelChai. According to Wikipedia, any person who wins this award has to have at least a 3.30 GPA plus be a starting player. Either one of those is a very difficult accomplishment. To accomplish both at the same time is amazing. Without giving his name, I believe, we are wrong to avoid acknowledging the winning player who Whitaker in effect bullied out for years. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

To get the GTE District VII Academic All-District selection you have to have the same accomplishment the winner of the all american is voted from one of those. He didn't bully anyone saying so it is idiotic, the guy who did win probably also said he was all american so how was he bullied? By saying he didn't win we are already acknowledging that someone else did. עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from this discussion. It's not fair to say a district winner is the same. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

the accomplishments are the same the actual winner is voted on from the pool of district winners, but not really sure what fairness has to do with your obvious redundant edit. עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• In my view inclusion of the actual winner’s name would be off-topic and undue. R2 (bleep) 00:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Jim Comey's comments about Matthew Whitaker

There is a clear consensus to use the changed text.

Cunard (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the the bolded content below be trimmed and the sourcing changed from The Washington Times to WGBH (Boston NPR/PBS affiliate) as follows (diff):

• From:

Soon after Whitaker's appointment as Acting Attorney General, a "broad and growing array" of legal experts expressed concern. New York University law professor Ryan Goodman and Walter Shaub, former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, argued for Whitaker to recuse himself from supervising the investigation, citing potential conflicts of interest such as his previous criticism of the Special Counsel investigation and his ties to Sam Clovis who is a witness in the investigation. NYU law professor Stephen Gillers said Whitaker "has no such legal or ethical obligation to step aside" but agrees that "Whitaker should be recused. His repeated expression of hostility to the Mueller investigation makes it impossible for the public to have confidence in his ability to exercise the necessary prosecutorial judgment in supervising Mueller". According to people close to Whitaker, he does not have any plans to recuse. Asked if Whitaker might be able to derail the investigation into alleged collusion between Donald Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign, and the Russian government, former FBI chief James Comey dismissed such concerns, venturing that Whitaker lacked sufficient influence in Washington to accomplish such a goal. "He may not be the sharpest knife in our drawer, but he can see his future and knows that if he acted in an extralegal way, he would go down in history for the wrong reasons and I’m sure he doesn’t want that," Comey remarked.

• To:

Soon after Whitaker's appointment as Acting Attorney General, a "broad and growing array" of legal experts expressed concern. New York University law professor Ryan Goodman and Walter Shaub, former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, argued for Whitaker to recuse himself from supervising the investigation, citing potential conflicts of interest such as his previous criticism of the Special Counsel investigation and his ties to Sam Clovis who is a witness in the investigation. NYU law professor Stephen Gillers said Whitaker "has no such legal or ethical obligation to step aside" but agrees that "Whitaker should be recused. His repeated expression of hostility to the Mueller investigation makes it impossible for the public to have confidence in his ability to exercise the necessary prosecutorial judgment in supervising Mueller". According to people close to Whitaker, he does not have any plans to recuse. Former FBI director James Comey said he thought it was unlikely Whitaker would be able to derail the Mueller investigation and that if Whitaker did so, "he would go down in history for the wrong reasons and I’m sure he doesn’t want that."

References
References

R2 (bleep) 16:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. "He may not be the sharpest knife in our drawer" is an unnecessary barb of little lasting value (sourced to the Washington Times). Should we include this slight, we would have to include counter-slights towards Comey (if they are available). We're not a gossip column. Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose @Icewhiz: With all due respect, I've laid out the case for its inclusion. Comey has been familiar with Whitaker since the latter had been nominated for the appointment US Attorney for Iowa, despite a stupefying lack of credentials. During the Bush 43 administration, Comey was Deputy A.G. between 2003 and August 2005. In early 2004, during Ashcroft's illness, he was the acting U.S. Attorney General when Grassley insisted on installing the party hack in his state. This article is about Whitaker, hence no need to find any "balance" of "slights" with respect to Comey. Activist (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  A BLP response is typically WP:DUE. And if we are to include disparaging comments about sharpness should we also search for random attributed evaluations of "he's a smart cookie"? Neither type of opinion is necessary here. Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support 'Not the sharpest knife in our drawer,' while funny, adds nothing. It's a snarky remark intended to get its maker into the papers, not a serious opinion. I have no objection to including the remainder of the remark. valereee (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Regardless of his resume, Comey is an outsider, and as far as anyone knows he's never even met Whitaker. I see no reason why his speculation about Whitaker's mindset and future behavior should receive any more space/weight than Goodman or Shaub (who, unlike Comey, is a government ethics expert), or any other former government official. R2 (bleep) 18:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I would even trim the last quoted part and provide it in the reference next to the sentence. Bilseric (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The 'sharpest knife'-comment adds nothing, and Comey's remark is one of several reactions, and should not have more weight than the other. ― Heb the best (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes and Meh - Yes on support changing the wording as the prose is cleaner and Comey's outsider view has less WEIGHT in coverage, though the "sharpest knife" was a prominently mentioned wording to be removing. Meh on changing the cite from Washington Times to the less prominent WGBH and that also changes apparent balance of coverage - I'd prefer either both be cited or that a more prominent source like USAToday be used. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support and lean support - The snark is not DUE. Between the two cites, I'd prefer WGBH, and better yet a yet better source. O3000 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support removing unhelpful snark about knives and drawers: I can testify they are perfectly innocent of any alleged wrongdoing. — JFG ^talk 10:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Changed text is more concise. Comey's comment re: "Not the sharpest knife in our drawer" is unnecessary. No opinion on sources. CBS527^Talk 16:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per my previous comments.––Saranoon (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• I have withdrawn the RfC as the consensus is now clear. Thanks everyone for participating. R2 (bleep) 22:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Constitutional views"

This is a highly problematic section. He made those statements four years ago, well before he was being considered for this position. Additionally, Laurence Tribe's position is one opinion. I do not see how his opinion is so important that it needs to be mentioned here. Enigma^msg

well, let's fix it. Tribe's opinion is mentioned because the NYT mentions it. Whether or not you think it's important is irrelevant. But there are others quoted in the article. valereee (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, whether you think it's important or not is also irrelevant. Enigma^msg 20:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

lol, I agree valereee (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a wiki. Everyone's opinion is relevant. Enigma^msg 20:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

But our opinions are not being reported on. Tribe's are, in a reliable source valereee (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quoting myself in the article. You said whether I think it's important or not is irrelevant. It's actually highly relevant as this is a collaborative encyclopaedia. Enigma^msg 20:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course. So let's find where we can agree on what is a fair representation of what the current AAG said during a Senatorial campaign 4 years ago about constitutional law. valereee (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

So, can we agree that the AAG's constitutional views are fair game in a wikipedia article about him? valereee (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure those are his views. Someone dug up old comments on him once he was named AG. Enigma^msg 20:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Those views are from only four years ago, and he's 49...valereee (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Are we really so deep into the post-truth world that someone's own comments - made publicly - can't be taken as evidence for their own views? He didn't make this comments when he was 15; he made these comments after serving as District Attorney; the age of 45 is well old enough to have well-formed opinions on the constitution that don't dramatically change in four years time. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The constitutional views of the AAG, are important, which is why they have been reported by the NYT (it was on today's front page), and so is Tribe's response to those views, which is why they have been reported. It would only be POV-pushing to not include these matters.

He said them before he was considered for the position? What is that even suppose to mean? When public people, publicly say things, they are considered as part of their public record. As for four years ago, that is not only recent, any claim that it is not can only be nonsense, contrary to sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This section is highly relevant and with time can be expanded/superseded as he changes his position on issues or clarifies his position. I'd go to an encyclopaedia to see his constitutional views/jurisprudence. Skinnytony1 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

" any claim that it is not can only be nonsense, contrary to sources." This sounds like nonsense to me. What are you even saying? What is contrary to sources? Enigma^msg 15:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Your nonsense claim that the statement does not matter because the statement was only four years ago, is belied by the sources. It was on the front page of the New York Times yesterday (and discussed in other sources yesterday) because it matters to a top constitutional legal office and office holder. Moreover, simple common sense should tell you that if someone is a notable lawyer their statements and ideas on law would matter. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it didn't matter. My claim was not "nonsense". You need to work on your reading comprehension. Enigma^msg 02:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: seriously, you add a neutrality template with an edit summary of "You spelled his name wrong"? That's not cool. valereee (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You did spell his name wrong. I had to fix it. Enigma^msg 15:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The fact you corrected a spelling error and dropped a neutrality tag in the same edit and then only called out the spelling error in the edit summary was disingenuous. valereee (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's really not. The only reason I had to edit was to fix the spelling error, which was one of five or six errors when I originally removed the paragraph in the first place. The tag was just an aside, per the talk page. Enigma^msg 15:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

So you're arguing that a disputed neutrality tag is less worth calling out than a spelling error? (Which FTR I don't think was mine, not that I'm incapable of making spelling errors, but I didn't add that information to the section.) C'mon, man. We're colleagues, here. Don't shine me on. It was a misleading edit summary, and the fact you're playing innocent is making me think it might have been intentionally misleading. That's not cool. valereee (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to say there was anything wrong with it just to make you feel better. I've been editing here for over 11 years and have made over 30,000 edits and this is the first time anyone has complained about one of my edit summaries. It's difficult to make everyone happy, and all I can do here is offer not to use edit summaries anymore. I wouldn't have made any edit at all if something didn't have to be corrected. Enigma^msg 15:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. Good to know, I guess. Are you still disputing the neutrality of the section? If so, let's discuss that. valereee (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving the tag up one more day. If there's no other feedback, then it makes sense to remove it. Enigma^msg 15:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Not thrilled with the clunkiness of that final sentence, can someone else give it a go? valereee (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any POV issues. Disputing inclusion because Whitaker's statements are over 4 years old has no basis in any policy or guideline whatsoever. What matters - and this is the only thing that matters, because one's own opinion of the importance or lack of importance does not matter one whit - is that there is considerable RS coverage about it and so it is WP:DUE. Lawrence Tribe's opinion is mentioned in WP:RS in context of Whitaker's statements and is thus relevant; it provides analysis by an expert giving context and consequences of the position. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Galobtter, but something about the ordering of the section seems off. It just doesn't sound right to indicate one of his views, then list multiple criticisms of it, and then provide another of his views, and then more criticisms. Perhaps the section should first list out his views/public statements in one paragraph, then the commentary in the next? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Given that Whitaker's views on the courts are a college student's B or B-plus take on Federalist 78, it implausible that when stated correctly (that the judiciary was designed to be the "least dangerous" or least powerful of the branches) his views have no scholarly support. Tribe means he and most of his school of thought disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CD:4001:53B9:9416:B592:B57C:BC91 (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)