This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mike Pompeo is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Anna Merlan (April 20, 2018). "The CIA Says Mike Pompeo Didn't Fight in the Gulf War". Splinter News. Archived from the original on April 20, 2018. Retrieved April 21, 2018. Pompeo's Wikipedia page suggests that he was deployed. It currently states that Pompeo "served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the 4th Infantry Division in the Gulf War."
"How did a false rumor about Mike Pompeo being a Gulf War veteran make it into major newspapers?". The Week. April 20, 2018. Archived from the original on April 20, 2018. Retrieved April 21, 2018. Pompeo's "participation" in the Gulf War has been reported in numerous reputable publications including The New Yorker, Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and at the time of publication, it has not been corrected on his Wikipedia page.{{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; April 21, 2018 suggested (help)
Heather Timmons & David Yanofsky (April 21, 2018). "A lie about Mike Pompeo's Gulf War service started with an anonymous Wikipedia edit". Quartz. Archived from the original on April 21, 2018. Retrieved April 21, 2018. But from Dec. 1, 2016 until the error was corrected on April 20, 2018, Pompeo's Wikipedia entry also said he served with that division "in the Gulf War." The article was viewed 886,777 times during 2017, Wikipedia says. Pompeo's bogus Gulf War service appears to have been added to his Wikipedia profile by an IP address usually assigned to the Richmond, Virginia area. The changes included the same sentence about his military unit as Pompeo's biography from the CIA and his Congressional years, but added a new sentence: "He served his last tour in the Gulf War."
Benjamin Hart (April 20, 2018). "It Turns Out Mike Pompeo Never Served in the Gulf War". New York Magazine. Archived from the original on April 21, 2018. Retrieved April 21, 2018. [Quoting Ned Price on Twitter] "It seems apparent from reliable sources that Mike Pompeo did NOT serve in the first Gulf War, but nearly half of his public bios--including his Wikipedia page--and contemporary write-ups claim he did."
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
I’m as willing as the next editor to assume good faith but some of your edits stretch that willingness to the limit. Do you really think this addition of yours improves the article and/or makes it less "partisan"? The sentence According to Associated Press, the department’s inspector general merely concluded that the behavior was "inconsistent" with regulations, and thus the IG report "recommended that the State Department clarify its policies to better define" the issues involved misstates what the source says and adds bias with "merely" and "thus", a conclusion the source doesn't draw. You added the reliable source, AP, but did you even read the entire AP article? Quoting AP: The inspector general "found that such requests were inconsistent with Department ethics rules and the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch." the report said. According to AP, both in the headline and in the first paragraph, Pompeo violated federal ethic rules, there being no exception in the ethics rules for minimal personal favors. (As a Harvard educated lawyer, surely he would have been able to understand the ethics rules, this one, for example.) Because Pompeo was no longer a federal employee, and, accordingly, he is not subject to the disciplinary or other corrective actions applicable to Federal employees, the IG report recommended the State Department clarify its policies by better defining inappropriate tasks to make it easier for staffers (i.e., subordinates), most of whom probably are not Harvard educated lawyers, to report violations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit of mine at 08:24 on 26 May that you’ve asked about, it was part of consecutive edits. As I recall, prior to those consecutive edits, the body of this BLP said almost nothing about this IG report, but the lead talked about it. Here is what I inserted into the body of this BLP in those consecutive edits:
“
After Pompeo left office, a State Department Inspector General report found more than 100 instances of misconduct where Pompeo requested that State Department staff perform personal errands for him and his wife.[98] According to Associated Press, the department’s inspector general merely concluded that the behavior was “inconsistent” with regulations, and thus the IG report “recommended that the State Department clarify its policies to better define” the issues involved.[99].
”
I probably shouldn’t have used the word “merely” but otherwise think it was a good edit (the word “merely” was to convey that no fines or punishment was imposed which is true but maybe that point deserves elaboration and explanation in our BLP body). I am not arguing now to restore it exactly like that, but several days ago when I made the edit there had been nothing on this subject in the body of the BLP, and I put it in even though it’s certainly not flattering to Pompeo. MastCell subsequently proposed alternative language in the article body, and I agreed to it above at this talk page where I wrote that I “don’t find it objectionable to use that wording in the body of the article along with it being ‘inconsistent’ with the rules.” That said, I want to read the full IG Report before discussing this matter further (I put a link to it in the external links but SPECIFICO removed it). The word “inconsistent” struck me as peculiar a few days ago when I first read it, and it still strikes me as peculiar because people often do things that seem inconsistent with a law but do not actually violate it. That’s why I want to read the IG Report. As you can see from the full quote above of what I inserted, I did say that Pompeo had already left office when the report came out. You link to the IG report and argue that the IG suggested rule changes for tangential reasons unrelated to whether Pompeo coulda/shoulda/woulda been punished, and you may be right, but I don’t recall the AP article saying or implying that, and I hadn’t read the IG Report when I made the edits a few days ago (I still haven’t). Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, I’ve now had time to read the IG Report. Of course, it’s a primary source and therefore would need to be used by us with caution. According to this secondary source (Forbes magazine article), “the report recommends the State Department amend its ethics rules to clarify ambiguities Pompeo may have taken advantage of and draft new guidance for how employees report misconduct.” So the report wasn’t merely recommending mere guidance for staff (as you suggested), but was trying to remove ambiguities that could be apparent to someone like Pompeo. The report also acknowledged that “Secretary Pompeo is no longer an official in the Federal government; accordingly, he is not subject to the disciplinary or other corrective actions applicable to Federal employees….” To me, this does not sound like an assertion that Pompeo would have received corrective action, only that we’ll never know because he was no longer subject to it. I have no idea what hearing procedures would have been used if he had still been in office, nor whether the IG would have been in the role of prosecutor, much less what the result would have been. Incidentally, both the IG Report and the Forbes article include denials by Pompeo, so we might be obliged to include those. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it would seem you were (1) incorrect to omit part of the material that I was putting into the BLP body on this subject, (2) incorrect to fault me for not using a primary source that I hadn’t even looked at, and (3) incorrect to interpret the primary source as saying the IG did not propose to clear up ambiguities in the rules that would have been apparent to someone like Pompeo. But I do appreciate your detailed explanation of why you thought I was editing in bad faith. That’s a helluva lot more explanation than User:SPECIFICO gave, or could give, in the immediately preceding talk page section. I’m not sure that I’ll be involved at this BLP anymore. Too much trouble. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This may be at the root of your misunderstanding of the sources, including Forbes: people often do things that seem inconsistent with a law. The requests did not seem to be inconsistent, the IG determined that they were inconsistent, i.e., violations, as the RS say. We shouldn't speculate whether the IG would have recommended "disciplinary or other corrective actions", it's a moot point. (If he were still in office he could have been impeached, or the president could have dismissed him.) The last sentence of Forbes isn’t the excuse you seem to think it is. "Taking advantage of ambiguities" by a superior, who happens to be a Harvard Law graduate, to make subordinates run personal errands, etc., is worse than not understanding the rules. It’s intent, not just misunderstanding. Politico has more details, among them one staff member saying she believed the personal requests to be part of her official duties, such as having "spent time over three months preparing for a June 2019 visit to Washington, D.C., by the Kansas Chapter of the YPO (formerly the Young Presidents’ Organization), an organization of which the secretary was a member." Sending flowers to a sick friend, buying a t-shirt for a friend, coming in on weekends to "to envelope, address, and mail personal Christmas cards for the Pompeos," according to the IG report, per the reliable secondary sources—there’s no wiggle room there, no ambiguity on the part of the superior making the request, whether himself or through his wife ("the Secretary would like you to"). Pompeo denials: well, he would, wouldn’t he? Are we obliged to mention them? If we were, then not without the fact that the IG report picked apart every one of those denials, e.g., "Mike Pompeo, in an interview with investigators, insisted that the requests were often small and the types of things friends do for friends." “The inspector general’s office, however, defended the investigation, noting that many of the rules governing such interactions are clear, do not make exceptions for small tasks, and that the Pompeos’ requests ultimately added up to use a significant amount of the time of employees paid by taxpayers." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to continue and interested in this conversation as a way of improving BLP content in both the BLP body and the lead, as distinguished from a further discussion about whether I’ve edited in bad faith, which I’ve already addressed at considerable length above. So maybe I’ll have a response later to your most recent comment (17:34, 31 May 2022), but it will not be about your good faith or my good faith. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
This violates Wikipedia's stated principle in almost every paragraph. You want my donation? Abide by your own tenets of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.73.94.25 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this IP. Not sure if I will be able to inject NPOV into this article. Currently I’m very busy. But my hope is to get back to it, explain why an NPOV tag is necessary at the top, conduct appropriate RFCs, and get people involved at the NPOV notice board and the BLP notice board. It will be a very time-consuming process, and success is not assured. If someone else want to take the lead on this before I have time to do it, please do! Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to distinguish between writing that you disagree with, and writing that violates WP:NPOV. Neutrality doesn't mean a 50/50 mix between coverage that you view as "positive" and that which you view as "negative"—it means honestly conveying the weight and emphases of the best available sources. What specific parts of the article fail to reflect the content and emphases of reliable sources? The lead, in particular, now better conforms to available sources, which describe Pompeo's tenure as Secretary of State as marked by violations of norms and ethical rules. MastCellTalk17:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No time now. Obviously, if the Abraham Accords were his biggest achievement then that ought to be in the lead. I emphatically disagreed with everything SPECIFICO reverted (without giving explanation). In a few days or weeks I’ll hopefully have time to tango here. Just a lot of things on my plate right now. Look at all the comments on this page alleging a hit job. My opinion is not influenced by that, but I happen to agree. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Making statements like “used his office to support Trump’s reelection” and “to ask Ukraine for political favors” comes straight out of corrupt mainstream media. We expect more from wikipedia which needs to stick to the facts. Toadboy should not be writing these. 2600:6C54:7500:73D:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add Statement Belief that Head of teacher’s union is the ‘most dangerous person in the world’
Pompeo said in an interview with Semafor.com in November 2022 that he believes Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union, is the “most dangerous person in the world.” He went on to say she is more dangerous than Chairman Kim or Xi Jinping. He goes on to say "it’s not a close call. If you ask, “Who’s the most likely to take this republic down?” It would be the teacher’s unions, and the filth that they’re teaching our kids. RahLowe (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 