Talk:Matthew Whitaker/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Suggested merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to merge Checks and Balances (organization) into this article. There has been some discussion about whether Checks and Balances is notable enough to have its own article. Editors concerned with that can start an AFD if desired. Marquardtika (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Checks and Balances (organization) has no notability independent from Whitaker so it makes sense to merge the paragraph of text in that article to the section on the legality and constitutionality of the appointment. Pichpich (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose this material has already been removed from this article as unnecessary under WP:RECENTISM. This spin-off page was almost certainly WP:TOOSOON and will likely fall into complete obscurity within a few weeks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment As I predicted, coverage on this group has completely disappeared following its establishment. There should be no merge IMO because this was already deemed to be too newsy for inclusion here, and I believe that the article itself should be subject to an AfD nom. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support why would his activity in this organization become obscure. It is fine in the article. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

he isn't part of this organization it formed because of his appointment עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Everything in the article could be defined as WP:RECENTISM and the "will likely fall into complete obscurity" is speculation. I'd be happy if it was condensed to one line though to compromise with Wikieditor19920 who originally deleted the material. Skinnytony1 (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge but Support including here in brief Some mention of this belongs in this article. Agree that a single line is sufficient. C&B deserving its own article should be handled separately. Clarifying my vote. valereee (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment. The question here is whether the contents of the C&B article should be moved here and the C&B article be deleted entirely. (That's what a merge is.) If you support mention of C&B in this article but you don't want to see the C&B article deleted, then you should vote Oppose. R2 (bleep) 17:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo That's exactly why I pointed out below that we seem to be voting on two different issues. I'll clarify. valereee (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose not everything anyone does in opposition to his appointment deserves mention עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

AmYisroelChai I agree that not every criticism belongs in the article, but this is a group of conservative people uniting as one voice to criticize other conservatives, and they did it in direct response to this appointment. It would be better to replace another criticism with this one than to omit this one. valereee (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Since Trump was elected it's not really notable that some conservatives are attacking other conservatives it's kind of par for the course but I'll agree with your replace suggestion. עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the statement that Checks and Balances has "no notability independent from Whitaker" is provably false. Look through the cited sources and you'll see very little about Whitaker. R2 (bleep) 07:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

And, I'll add, there are plenty of sources about Checks and Balances that don't even mention Whitaker. Examples: [1][2][3][4][5] R2 (bleep) 20:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I feel like we're voting on two separate issues here. First: is Checks and Balances notable enough to have its own article or not? Second: regardless of whether C&B has its own article, does some mention of it belong in Whitaker or not? valereee (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Good analysis. Legacypac (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The vote is on the merge. Notability of Checks and Balances is a tangential issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If C&B is notable on its own, it deserves an article of its own rather than being merged. valereee (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No, if a subject is notable on its own than it can have an article of its own, but there are "times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic." Beyond that, if the subject isn't notable on its own then that seems like a reasonable basis for a vote to merge. It's not a tangential issue. R2 (bleep) 16:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Checks and Balances (organization) does not currently even mention Whitaker, so merging it here doesn't make sense. If you don't think it's notable on its own, nominate it for deletion. Jonathunder (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support The topic does not meet the basics of notability. At most the topic deserves a one or two sentence mention in the Whitaker article. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I do not support a merger as a means of eliminating Checks and Balances (organization) as it's own article. Even if the group fades out, it has achieved enough notability per media coverage to be retained as an article of historical interest. If it becomes more important, the existing article is a good starting point.−−Saranoon (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support its not worth an own article, but shouldn't be deleted Norschweden (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Whitaker is mainly known for the controversy surrounding his appointment, and not so much for anything he's done since being appointed (that we yet know about). As it stands, he's a lousy primary topic to merge anything into. Unless something changes, ten years from now, his name will mainly be recalled as the answer to some trivia challenge. This doesn't stop C&B from being reduced to a one or two-sentence mention in MW—if that's all it deserves—with no page of its own; but I sure wouldn't call that operation a merge. — MaxEnt 18:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I would completely support a merge into Matthew Whitaker constitutional crisis (choose your own title) if that were the page's primary focus. That would be a topic worth merging into, had the MW incident escalated into deserving such a page. — MaxEnt 18:29, 16 January 2019 (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.

CNN Contributor

I removed the line that Whitaker hoped his media appearances would lead to a judgeship based on weak sourcing, but it was wholesale reverted without any real comment by Smallbones. To make this sort of claim in Wikipedia's voice is inappropriate based on the sourcing, a Daily Beast article quoting a St. John's University Law Professor. This could also be seen as a BLP violation, since we don't really know Whitaker's true motivation. Unless any additional justification of this is found, I'll be removing it again. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The sentences I put back in were:

Whitaker aspired to become a judge in Iowa, and hoped his media appearances would catch the eye of the Trump administration. For four months, from June to September 2017, he was a CNN contributor.

The easiest way to fix the first sentence is simply attribute it as "According to St. John’s University law professor John Q. Barrett, Whitaker aspired to ..." The Daily Beast is not my favorite source (others seem to think it is reliable though), but it includes a tweet of Barrett saying the same thing, so there is no question that Barrett said it. The 2nd sentence "For four months" is easily verifiable, eg. from CNN videos, so really almost any source saying it is enough. There is also the WSJ article of December 25 or 26, that says he applied for a judgeship in Iowa. Note that the WSJ article cited me and my article in the Signpost, so I'll leave that to others to decide whether to include it. So, there is no need to just eliminate the 2 sentence, just attribute the 1st one. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That still doesn't really satisfy DUE. We've essentially got a kind of hearsay in the article, with no verification. I'm removing it, because some random law professor's comment in The Daily Beast doesn't really cut it. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Acting AG period

Now that he's no longer acting as Attorney General, the lead paragraphs devote far too many words to a short period of his life. I propose cutting down all the Acting AG content in the first and third paragraphs to "Whitaker served as acting Attorney General for three months following the resignation of Jeff Sessions in November 2018, despite objections that he could not serve in that role without Senate confirmation." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see anything much in the article that is notable except his time as acting AG. I realize that the article has been here for about 10 years, started by User:Whitmat. But if you look at the article before November 1, 2018 there's very little of interest there. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Surname

If his last name is Whitaker, why spell it "Whittaker" in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Fixed. bd2412 T 02:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Lobbyist

Ok - I self-reverted the addition of lobbyist, and probably shouldn't have because it's obviously UNDUE. From what I've gathered, Whitaker was registered in Iowa to lobby the 85th session of the Iowa Legislature - the legislative branch only, not the governor or executive branch, so I'm hard pressed to consider him a full-fledged lobbyist. The New York Times article (cited in the edit summary to add "lobbyist" to the lead) states that Whitaker "was paid more than $1.2 million in the past few years by a group active in conservative politics that does not reveal its donors." And...?? The article goes on and on with speculation and innuendo, and fizzles out with potential allegations. Whitaker's time as a lobbyist was brief and doesn't warrant inclusion, and neither does speculation and innuendo. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

My thinking is that a Wikipedia article should focus on what the subject is most notable for, and fill in the remaining details enough to provide an accurate picture of their life. Obviously, Whitaker is most notable for being acting attorney general; had he never held that post, he probably would be most notable for being a U.S. Attorney, and a college football star who happened to play a season while attending law school. I would agree that there is really not much biographical substance to him being a lobbyist. BD2412 T 19:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

He is a lobbyist and should be described as such. (1) He was registered as a lobbyist, (2) He co-founded the lobbying firm Whitaker Strategy Group in 2011, (3) He has worked for the lobbying firms Axiom Strategies and Clout Public Affairs since 2019. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's terribly important either way, from an encyclopedic perspective. Then again, some people consider "lobbyist" to be a sort of badge of shame, even though just about every cause along the political spectrum has lobbyists advocating for both sides of the issue. BD2412 T 19:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Involvement in marketing scheme

Well now this is certainly disturbing. My edit was reversed with the edit summary: "I feel like this wording was something that was already discussed and agreed to as the most accurate representation." Not only am I not aware of any discussion, this is not at all what our source states, which was that he was "approached with the business plan above and willingly joined up." The source also says, "And he didn’t just sit on a board and collect checks — he also waded into the company’s mounting legal trouble, penning threatening letters to the company’s detractors like this one that Ross Guberman highlights: [...]" Now, as for the statement that the board members never met, well that is certainly correct--while they consistently told their customers that they had met and all agreed that their inventions were nothing short of certain to be winners they had, in truth, never met. In fact, they could hardly be meeting since most if not all of the other board members had no idea that the company was actually a scheme to defraud people who held a sincere belief in the worthiness of their ideas. I will revert to my edit. Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

When you get to the end of the paragraph, however, you learn that "the court receiver in the case said he had 'no reason to believe that [Whitaker] knew of any of the wrongdoing'", which makes you wonder why the paragraph starts with such insinuation of some kind of knowing participation in wrongdoing. BD2412 T 18:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Gandy!! One other thought - according to Rueters, Whitaker said his role was minimal, that he forwarded the phone calls & emails to the CEO and that he "never met with anyone else on the advisory board." Evans (FTC investigator) said Whitaker told him that any documents he had would be covered by attorney-client privilege, so that ends it. We don't speculate that it was anything more than the facts support, and that includes implying guilt or wrongdoing based on allegations or WP:GUILT. The material is included in neutral context as it should be which allows our readers to draw their own conclusions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

← I think Gandydancer's edit was a good one; it better reflects the sources than does the language currently in the article. To briefly recap, sources include:

• Grimaldi, James; Maremont, Mark (November 30, 2018). "Matthew Whitaker Knew of Fraud Allegations at Company He Advised". Wall Street Journal.
• Leonnig, Carol; Helderman, Rosalind; Hamburger, Tom (November 30, 2018). "Whitaker fielded early fraud complaints from customers at patent company even as he championed it, records show". Washington Post.
• Savage, Charlie; Goldman, Adam; Benner, Katie (November 30, 2018). "Whitaker's Ascent at Justice Dept. Surprised Investigators of Firm Accused of Fraud". New York Times.
• Crawford, Shannon (December 1, 2018). "Records show Matthew Whitaker continued promoting company accused of a 'scam'". ABC News.
• Shortell, David (November 30, 2018). "Records show Whitaker knew of allegations of fraud at Florida scam company". CNN.
• Swaine, Jon (November 10, 2018). "Trump's acting attorney general involved in firm that scammed veterans out of life savings". The Guardian.

These sources make it crystal-clear that Whitaker's involvement went beyond lending his name to a phantom advisory board. He was aware of the fraud complaints and continued to promote the company despite them. The wording in the article is, frankly, misleading and obscures the content of reliable sources—it implies that Whitaker was unaware of any concerns about the company and that only turned out to be fraudulent at some later time. I'll take a shot at drafting language to better reflect these and other sources. MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is conflating two issues that, frankly, would take up an undue amount of space to properly explain in the article. There is a distinct difference between responding to complaints of fraud (which many companies reaching any stature, eventually receive, often from scammers, kooks, or merely dissatisfied customers), and being aware of any actual fraud being carried out by the company. Wikipedia itself is subject to allegations of all sorts of wrongdoing, yet I wouldn't expect an article on a Wikipedian to say that they "participated in Wikipedia despite knowing of allegations of wrongdoing". Here we have a legal finding, properly reported, that there was no reason to believe that Whitaker knew of actual fraudulent behavior occurring. The sources merely indicate that Whitaker acted as an attorney would when confronting allegations believed to be frivolous. There is no source that says that Whitaker either participated in or was aware of the actual fraudulent behavior of the company, and Wikipedia should not be leading readers to conclude otherwise. BD2412 T 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• We should stick to what RS say. Currently, the Wikipedia article only includes Whitaker's denial ("he was never aware of the company's fraud", "no reason to believe that [Whitaker] knew of any of the wrongdoing", "Whitaker denied awareness of the fraud alleged"), which is a NPOV violation. The sources above show that he was aware of the allegations of wrongdoing while he was promoting the firm, and the Wikipedia article should clearly include that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) (I have been away from my computer for a few days and unable to post) BC2412, no you are not correct when you say "Here we have a legal finding, properly reported, that there was no reason to believe that Whitaker knew of actual fraudulent behavior occurring." Please look again at the WashPo article and note that they said that Whitaker said he had no knowledge that he was involved in a dishonest operation. Also, you might take a look at his conversations with upset customers and his hype of the operation before determining what WP should include in our article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• The article already states that customers "claimed that the company used Whitaker's background as a U.S. Attorney to threaten them" (which obviously could have been done with or without Whitaker's knowledge), and specifically describes Whitaker threatening one complainant that their complaint could result in civil or criminal liability, and allegedly threatening a second complainant with ruining their business. This is as complete a treatment of the matter as is needed, given that it is far removed from the acting Attorney General service for which the subject is notable. Note also, the statement by the receiver that there was no reason to believe Whitaker knew of any wrongdoing was not itself a denial by Whitaker, but a determination by the court officer examining the matter as a whole. BD2412 T 21:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• But that's an attributed "he said, she said" situation where Whitaker is allowed in the Wikipedia article to deny it: "Whitaker has stood by his account that he has never spoken to this person and the conversation never occurred". Per the RS above, he was aware of the allegations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• My point is that every attorney is aware of the allegations against which they are defending their client. We need to avoid conflating in Wikipedia's voice, whether outright or by insinuation, that awareness of an allegation of wrongdoing is the same as awareness of (or participation in) the wrongdoing itself. Any criminal defense attorney or corporate attorney for a company in a disfavored industry is eventually asked by someone, "how can you defend people accused of such horrible things", as if the accusation itself is the same as proof of guilt, and defense against the accusation is complicity in that guilt. I have been an attorney for 15 years, and have defended clients in civil matters against claims of wrongdoing both mundane and outlandish, and of course I am aware of the allegations being made against my client, but that doesn't automatically make me knowledgeable as to the truth of those allegations. As I noted above, even Wikipedia has been accused of horrible things, including violations of the law. I would assume that all seriously active Wikipedians are at some level aware that such allegations have been made against Wikipedia, and yet when someone comes along and says "Wikipedia deleted the article on my company because it is some kind of corrupt racket", we defend the project, and continue to do so even knowing that bad allegations have been made, and that bad actors occasionally do crop up within it. BD2412 T 22:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think you've misunderstood the role of a court-appointed receiver, and are treating it as something it's not. A receiver is a person responsible for distributing assets from a bankrupt company to its creditors. They are not required to be licensed or to have any legal background or training whatsoever. A receiver is not in any sort of position to determine someone's civil or criminal liability. The receiver's statement is not a "legal finding" of Whitaker's innocence, and to portray it as such is pretty misleading; it's simply a comment to a reporter, made in the context that Whitaker had ignored a subpoena and never turned over the documents needed to asses his role more definitively. We can, and should, convey the receiver's opinion, but we should not misrepresent it as a legally weighty determination.

  Separately, you're drawing an obvious false equivalence between a Wikipedia editor's role and that of a board member. In any case, it is not my role, or yours, to push readers to a conclusion about Whitaker's culpability. We do have to be honest with them, though, and in this case it looks like we're trying so hard to lead readers to the "correct" conclusion that we're suppressing an awful lot of reliably sourced material because we're worried they might come away with a different conclusion that we'd like. That's not a comfortable place to be, as an editor.

  I'm pretty confident that we can cover this accurately and with appropriate nuance. The current coverage violates WP:WEIGHT and reads like it was written by Whitaker's spokesperson or defense attorney, rather than by an enyclopedist trying to proportionately represent reliable sources. I'll take a crack at it once I have a few minutes to devote. MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Irrespective of who may be permitted to be a receiver, the receiver in this case is an attorney, Jonathan Perlman, who specializes in receivership of companies accused by the FTC or SEC of fraudulent or deceptive practices. Their expertise is significant and likely relevant to the Washington Post choosing to print their opinion on the matter. BD2412 T 00:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think we agree that his opinion is significant, and that it should be mentioned in the article. However, his comments to a journalist are not a "legal finding" and should not be portrayed as one, nor should they be used as the final word to foreclose any additional sourced material or coverage. MastCell ^Talk 01:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Wording is misleading

The article currently begins stating: In 2014, Whitaker was added to the non-fiduciary board of advisors of World Patent Marketing (WPM), a Florida-based company billed as an invention promotion firm. The board of advisors never met during Whitaker's service.

This is very misleading. The company, as a matter of fact, told customers that the advisors had met, which was a lie. They never met. It's been some time since I worked on the article but if I remember correctly, every other, or almost every other, board member truly was in the dark on what they had joined into. In one case they gave out a phony "award" to one group to obtain their name for their advisor group, something I found especially despicable. And then, when the FTC finding came out they returned any money they had received--except for Whitaker, who returned nothing.

According to the Federal Trade Commission's report: WPM’s website, marketing materials, and sales agents tell consumers that the Invention Team Advisory Board participates in an advisory role at WPM. At least five Advisory Board members did not advise the company and were not asked to review consumers’ inventions, and the Advisory Board did not meet as a group. [6] I'd advise anyone to read that report, it is gruesome. Gandydancer (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like your intent is to insinuate wrongdoing on Whitaker's part beyond what can be supported by the evidence, based on wrongdoing by others. There is an article, World Patent Marketing, which is the proper place to include general criticism against the company for acts not directly involving this BLP subject. BD2412 T 23:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that speculating about intent is going to be productive, so maybe let's stick to sources and their content. Recall that our fundamental content policies—including WP:BLP—require us to include relevant and appropriately sourced material even if it might reflect negatively on an article subject. The current text doesn't do a great job of reflecting the content or emphases of reliable sources. Certainly Whitaker's involvement seems to be the most notable thing about WPM, which was otherwise a pretty typical scam, so it is reasonable to spend a little more time and effort figuring out how to describe that, rather than just shooting it down by insinuating that anyone raising the issue is doing so for ignoble reasons. MastCell ^Talk 23:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I will admit to occasionally discussing too broadly which may be seen as inappropriate to some editors. I apologize for that and will try to keep it at a minimum. My hope and desire is like the rest of us here in that we want a fair and unbiased article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I just took a look at Hunter Biden to see how that BLP was handled since politics and company wrongdoings are at play for both. Reuter's said, World Patent Marketing, accused by the government of bilking millions of dollars from consumers, admitted no fault but settled with the FTC for more than $25 million earlier this year. Whitaker was not named in that complaint. It says Whitaker earned $9,375 for being on WPM’s advisory board. Whitaker denied what media has implied - but then, quite a few in media have a track record of bias toward the Trump administration. For over 3 years they published speculation and innuendo about Russian collusion which was debunked so I'm of the mind that we need high quality sources we can trust since this is a BLP, the crime was alleged to have been committed by the company, not Whitaker, and the company already has its own article that needs cleanup. In the US, people are innocent until proven guilty so why would we want to include media speculation and innuendo in this BLP? He was not charged with anything, so what about WP:GUILT? Maybe he was also setup by the company? Have you looked for RS that publish something from that angle? We know the Democrats didn't want him anywhere near DC, so do we also have a political conspiracy theory like what was mentioned in Hunter Biden's article? Let's look at the sources that will be cited for the material being proposed, and go from there. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the Hunter Biden article. The claims of media bias and "debunked Russian collusion" are unsupported off-topic partisan flamebait and are inappropriate here. I agree we need high-quality sources, which is why I cited the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ABC News, etc. As far as the company vs. Whitaker, reliable sources clearly connect the two, so there is no issue of original synthesis. We do not say or imply that he was charged with any crime, so I'm not sure why you suggest that this is an issue. As for your proposal that Whitaker was set up in a political hit job by the Democrats, I am not aware of any reliable sources that suggest any such thing, nor why you would feel it is appropriate to make such an unfounded and inflammatory claim on an article talk page. I'm not sure what else needs a response here; that was a lot to unpack. MastCell ^Talk 01:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

There is undoubtedly a tendency in Wikipedia for more negativity to be directed towards figures in the political arena. If Whitaker was a politically agnostic singing star or in some other line of work (and if Hunter Biden wasn't a political scion), there would be much less concern over their involvement in businesses that proved to have shady aspects outside the corners of their own participation in those businesses. BD2412 T 02:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

WPM didn't just have "shady aspects"—it was a complete scam—but yes, we have to be careful with political figures. The best solutions are a) to insist on high-quality sources (like those listed in the thread above) and follow where they lead without putting our thumbs on the scale to embellish or suppress, and b) to keep talk-page discussions coherent and tightly focused, and avoid irrelevant partisan talking points and invented QAnon-style conspiracy theories. Maybe it's best to continue this discussion a couple of threads up, where I've listed sources for discussion. MastCell ^Talk 21:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean to say that sometimes celebrities and well-connected other figures have been duped into lending their face or resume to the support of an entity that appears to be as legitimate to that celebrity as it does to the customers, so basically both are being deceived by the bad actors actually running the scam. BD2412 T 22:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure. It's possible Whitaker was an innocent dupe who lent his credentials to (and intimidated complainants on behalf of) what he thought was an above-board enterpris; or that he knew (or should have known) that the whole thing was a scam; or something in between. Our job is to present the facts as they appear in reliable sources, and to avoid arranging those facts to lead readers to our preferred personal interpretation. I'm worried that the current text strays into the latter territory. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Per my comment below, I am not inclined to dispute the the sentence that was added, which I would agree achieves the goal of demonstrating Whitaker's laudatory description of the company. I also agree that it is possible that Whitaker was an innocent dupe, or that the speculation in this discussion as to what he "knew" could at some point be proved valid. Of course, if this subject did have a deeper involvement, that would mean that he engaged in tortious and/or criminal conduct. It is very straightforward to determine whether that has been alleged. The company was investigated by the FTC. The investigators took action against those for whom there was evidence that they had engaged in wrongdoing. Specifically, company founder Scott Cooper was named in the action and ordered to pay millions of dollars in fines and barred from working in the invention-promotion field. No record or report asserts any of the activity investigated on the part of Whitaker. BD2412 T 19:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

For over 3 years they published speculation and innuendo about Russian collusion which was debunked is an incorrect narrative. The vast bulk of what was reported was correct, it simply did not rise to the level of probable cause to prosecute a case beyond a reasonable doubt in a federal court. The Special Counsel's report, made public on April 18, 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that — though the Trump campaign knew of the Russian activities and expected to benefit from them — there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates. And see: Mueller Report#Press coverage of the investigation soibangla (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I certainly think it would be preferable for changes to be discussed and gain consensus here before being made in the article. I have no particular inclination to dispute the sentence that was added, but lets talk first, act second. BD2412 T 02:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

WPM WP:FORK in this article

There has been no consensus from what I see in past discussions to overstate the significance of World Patent Marketing or allegations about it in this individual biography. Whitaker is not known for having sat on advisory boards. This should take up no more than a paragraph of this article and doesnt need its own section here replicating content of the company company article that is irrelevant to this biography. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree (and Atsme and I have also had this discussion before). I do think, however, that to the extent that it is discussed, it is important to reflect that the investigators found no wrongdoing on the subject's part. It is very easy to draw out a rather lazy innuendo by association. BD2412 T 04:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Please explain what you mean by WP:FORK. What content did I replicate? As for the discussion, I see three editors disagreeing with BD2412's editing and one agreeing with them. I agree with MastCell: Our job is to present the facts as they appear in reliable sources, and to avoid arranging those facts to lead readers to our preferred personal interpretation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The facts as they appear in reliable sources are that there was ""no reason to believe that [Whitaker] knew of any of the wrongdoing"; therefore, an extensive discussion of wrongdoing not involving the subject is WP:UNDUE. BD2412 T 19:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • No, that is not a "fact"—that is an opinion from a court-appointed receiver with no legal weight whatsoever, which continues to be misrepresented as if it were the final word on the matter. As I mentioned here, reliable sources make clear that Whitaker was aware of the fraud complaints and continued to promote the company despite them. (In that link, I provided a half-dozen high-quality sources backing this up). Mentioning the receiver's opinion is fine, but cherry-picking it and misrepresenting its weight in the context of available reliable sources is not. In general, this article isn't being written in accordance with high-quality sources or good practice, and as Space4Time3Continuum2x notes, a number of editors shared my concerns in that regard. MastCell ^Talk 00:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Whether the receiver's evaluation is of "legal weight" is not the issue. There is no question that the person being quoted here is an expert in the relevant field, and has access to the information needed to make such an evaluation. Furthermore, this statement aside, there is no indication that Whitaker engaged in any activity incurring either criminal or civil liability. To the extent that such liability has been assessed in this case, it only involved other people. Those aspects are appropriately addressed in the company's article, and need not be repeated here in a way that appears to conflate the wrongdoing of others with the actions of this article subject. BD2412 T 01:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not all the receiver said. Perlman also characterized the advisory board to be a sham designed to “impress customers and foster sales.” And he asked Whitaker to return the money he received because the Receiver has concluded that you did not provide any value to customers and performed no services as a member of the Advisory Board. Whitaker didn't respond, and he didn't return the money. As for the neutrality of the article, how is this wording not biased editorializing: The company contributed to Whitaker's 2014 U.S. Senate campaign, and over the three-year period from 2014 and 2017 paid Whitaker less than $17,000 for work performed. Why not mention that per the sources the contribution was $2,600 and the payment exactly $9,375, and do mention something the sources don't (over a three-year period it was less than ... The payments were actually made in a 16-month period between October 2014 and February 2016).

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That is an exercise in attempting to pull in details too trivial to mention in an article. Of course people with some degree of celebrity or some distinction on their resumé are sought out as faces to use in connection with marketing a product. Jennifer Aniston sits there in Aveeno commercials talking about the concentration of prebiotic oat, as if she was in the lab running the tests. Someone who doesn't like the product might suggest that she return the millions they pay her for appearing in the commercial, but so what? The normal thing is for people to not return money paid to them which they are not legally required to return. We don't put several paragraphs on Johnson & Johnson scandals in her article merely because she has been paid to represent a product from that company. The assertions here are at odds with themselves. If Whitaker was so uninvolved with the company that he should not have been paid, then the company's scandals are really irrelevant to this article. BD2412 T 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not even trivia, it's speculation with a splash of moral high ground which has no place in Wikipedia. Show me one source out of that list of sources that reported Whitaker was either found guilty or plead guilty in a court of law for doing something illegal or in violation of US Civil Code. Just look at CNN's headline, House Democrats claim Whitaker owes money to 'scam' company so its victims can be repaid - that pretty much tells the story as far as I'm concerned. An advisory board has no fiduciary responsibility to a company, nor is a company obligated to follow their advice - it is not binding - and WP does not exist to RGW. Atsme 💬 📧 21:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with BD2412, and now that we have some retrospective in our favor, there is material in this article that is noncompliant with WP:GUILT and WP:NPOV. In blatantly obvious situations, our policies prevail. Re:NPOV states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. WP:GUILT states: 10) Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties. I don't think we've satisfied the latter because the end result tells us something totally different. What we now know about the case is that "Under the agreement with the FTC, Cooper and his company neither admit nor deny wrongdoing. But he agreed to never again enter the patent promotion business." As least Cooper has been defused and is off the streets', so to speak. None of the other advisors on that company's advisory board were targeted by the media for wrong doing, and there were some high profile people serving as advisors, such as Eric Creizman, a Columbia grad, cum laude with honors in political science. See his Twitter feed. What I've seen published in some of the higher quality news media (including The NYTimes) is opinion-style journalism with political bias, and lots of speculation, inuendos of wrong-doing (the scam) juxtaposed or interspersed with political material, and a bit of sensationalism to make Whitaker's advisory position appear nefarious (political?) even though he was not with the Trump administration at that time. An advisory board has no fiduciary responsibility, and their suggestions are not binding on the company. We actually have too much material about Whitaker's association with Trump, especially considering his very brief term (November 7, 2018, to February 14, 2019) as acting AG. I also noticed that he is mentioned in the first part of the lead for World Patent Marketing which is obviously noncompliant, and should be corrected. Atsme 💬 📧 17:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say some proposed wording in order to shorten that section up to the basics would be appropriate. I agree with what you say above and the information is basically being used to make it seem like he committed some type of fraud just because he sat on the board. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm pretty concerned by the disregard for policy here, in particular by the assertion that we can ignore clearly-reliable sources such as the New York Times based on an editor's dislike of their contents. To be clear, Whitaker has not been charged with any criminal or civil wrongdoing, and the article should state as much. But I'm concerned that editors here are starting from the POV that Whitaker must be protected from any adverse inference, that the content of reliable sources must be molded to that end, and that we are undermining or cherry-picking reliable sources to advance that viewpoint.

  It is not our job to "protect" readers from reaching conclusions we disagree with; it is our job to accurately reflect the content of reliable sources, and to trust that readers are smart enough to draw their own conclusions if we do so. In order to move forward more productively, I will draft some proposed language based on the content and emphases of reliable sources. I would ask that other editors stop positing vague left-wing conspiracies and respect reliable sources as well. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No reason to be concerned as there isn't a disregard for policy. I for one and looking at WP:BLP first and foremost. Then, taking WP:CRIME into consideration, having so much information leads towards WP:SYNTH. Those are three clearly documented Wikipedia standards which in no way are part of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which you stated above. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• • No reliable sources says that Whitaker was even aware of wrongdoing by the company, or had any role in that wrongdoing. It is problematic, per WP:UNDUE, to discuss in this article wrongdoing entirely by others which are already sufficiently addressed in another article. If people want to know what WPM's internal people did wrong, that article is a click away. The specific acts of the company and penalties against it are of no more significance to this article than a given lawsuit ending badly against Johnson & Johnson would be to the article on Jennifer Aniston. BD2412 T 20:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

To protect Whitaker saying, "No reliable sources says that Whitaker was even aware of wrongdoing by the company, or had any role in that wrongdoing." is not correct. This source, like many others, states "Whitaker seems to have been more than a figurehead. He spoke about inventions of the company’s clients in online videos — including a special hot-tub seat for people with mobility issues. He also penned a response to at least one complaint - writing a threatening email in which he cited his role as a former U.S. attorney, according to court filings."[7] We are not here to expose wrongdoing and we are not here to protect wrongdoers. We write what we find in reliable sources. Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Gandydancer. BD2412, your statement about awareness is clearly incorrect and suggests a lack of familiarity with the sources that have been discussed on this talkpage. Please start by reviewing "Matthew Whitaker Knew of Fraud Allegations at Company He Advised" (Wall Street Journal), and then take a look at "Whitaker fielded early fraud complaints from customers at patent company even as he championed it, records show" (Washington Post) and "Records show Whitaker knew of allegations of fraud at Florida scam company" (CNN). Again, this discussion needs to be grounded in what reliable sources actually say, not what we wish readers to conclude.

The Jennifer Aniston analogy is just really silly. If numerous reliable sources prominently discussed Jennifer Aniston's role in a J&J settlement, to the point that it was arguably one of the most highly-covered aspects of her biography, then of course it would be appropriate to include it on Wikipedia. The situations aren't comparable, at least not if we're following reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Every company of any significant size gets accused of wrongdoing and receives complaints from dissatisfied customers, even if the company's conduct is highly conservative and deferential. The issue is not whether Whitaker was aware of the routine business fact of allegations, but whether he was aware of actual acts of fraud. In this case, we have a unique window into that question because allegations were investigated and determinations of liability were made by the investigators. Perhaps it would seem better for Whitaker as a narrative optic if he was charged with a crime and then acquitted, but in fact he was never even the subject of an indictment. The fact that other people were is irrelevant to his biography. The dollar amount that the guilty parties was assessed is irrelevant to this biography. The fact that Whitaker was paid $17,000 to sit on a board which didn't meet may be wasteful spending on the company's part, but is not wrongdoing on Whitaker's part (although the sources appear somewhat schizophrenic over whether they think Whitaker did nothing and should not have taken the sum, or did something along the lines of aggressive representation of a client). It would take too much space in the article to properly explain that the amount under discussion, while large to the actual wage worker, is actually a paltry sum relative to the field. BD2412 T 00:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This ↑ is the problem; you seem to be approaching this article as if you were Whitaker's lawyer—with a focus on highlighting facts that exculpate him and spinning or omitting facts that might reflect poorly on him. I'm asking that we approach it as Wikipedia editors. Our job is to accurately and honestly convey the facts reported in reliable sources, in accordance with their emphases. You seem intent on leading the reader to the conclusion that Whitaker was blameless, rather than allowing them to draw their own conclusions from the facts. I mean, you're seriously arguing that we can't even inform the readers of the amount that Whitaker was paid by the scam company, unless we also instruct our readers that $17,000 is a "paltry sum". This is pretty much how not to edit a Wikipedia article.

It might be more constructive to work with actual proposed text, so I will develop some for discussion. The text should absolutely note that following an investigation, Whitaker was not charged with any civil or criminal wrongdoing, but that is hardly the entire story and we can't just suppress the extensive reliably sourced coverage of other aspects. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"You seem intent on leading the reader to the conclusion that Whitaker was blameless, rather than allowing them to draw their own conclusions from the facts" - That is exactly how it is now. By putting in a play by play of something that he wasn't involved in, it is leading people to believe that he was the mastermind behind some kind of scam. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

My concern is that the amount of space it would take to provide the context for readers to understand what a non-issue this is would make the discussion of the matter increasingly disproportionate to the article. The article doesn't say how much he was paid to be Acting Attorney General or a U.S. Attorney or corporate counsel for Supervalu, which lends to the impression that there is something of outsized significance to this $17,000. Consider this article through the dispassionate lens of the 100-year test. What will this article subject be of interest for in that span? For being acting U.S. Attorney General, and having been a U.S. Attorney; possibly for being a television commentator; maybe, for diehard football fans, for his brief collegiate football career. The non-event of being on a board that sources say didn't meet, for a company that did bad things that sources say he didn't know about, is vastly overblown in comparison. So, how can we summarize this in the few lines merited by such a non-event? BD2412 T 17:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

BD2412, I agree with your response. It makes perfect sense. Perhaps WP:GUILT more closely addresses the pending question. All anyone can do at this point is make wild guesses that Whitaker knew - not what I consider encyclopedic. He denied knowing, the results of the allegations support that he didn't know, and even if he did know, he was merely a 3rd party advisor among several, and we don't know what he advised. Atsme 💬 📧 17:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Replying to BD2421: "So, how can we summarize this in the few lines merited by such a non-event?" This is similar to the Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" issue. For some time I argued that it should be presented with just a few short lines, but gradually I realized that to present both side of the issue it was going to take a lot of article space. We have a similar situation here and it will take more than just a small mention. I agree with MastCell in that we should work on something along the lines of what he suggested. Gandydancer (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That's the problem in a nutshell. Taking up a lot of article space inflates the relative importance of the subject compared to everything else in the article. Elizabeth Warren's Native American ancestry issue is a useful comparison, because it has been a lifelong part of Warren's story, with coverage of events relating to it going from the mid-1980s to last year. However, the specific "Pocahontas" issue (i.e., the political effort to make a point of derision of it, and the direct response to that) really only takes up one paragraph of the five paragraphs in that section. It would be a much different thing if the section in that article tried to coatrack complaints against other people and imply misconduct on Warren's part based on findings of wrongdoing by others. BD2412 T 21:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You have completely distorted the Pocahontas issue at Warren's article. It was an issue that needed a great deal of copy to be fair to both Warren and the facts. That is the story here as well. To be fair to the facts as reported by RS and Whitaker takes more than just a few sentences. Gandydancer (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The section isn't titled "the Pocahontas issue", is it? It's about the broader topic of Warren's ancestry, and claims Warren made about her ancestry over a period of decades. The actual issue of someone trying to make a scandal of it and calling her Pocahontas takes up precisely one paragraph of that section. Of importance, however, is the fact that in Warren's case, there is no separate article on Warren's ancestry. Thus, there is no WP:FORK concern as raised by the original post in this discussion. There is no need to repeat here information about the company that is not relevant to the individual precisely because there is an article on the company. We could say something here along the lines of "World Patent Marketing was later found to have engaged in misconduct, but no evidence was found that Whitaker knew of this misconduct", and trust the readers who are interested in the company to click through to that article. A comparable example in this article is that it mentions that Whitaker succeeded Jeff Sessions, and was previously chief of staff to Sessions, but doesn't go into detail about the various controversies involving Jeff Sessions, which are well-covered in the latter's article. BD2412 T 03:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And, Elizabeth Warren was making the claims herself and then apologized later for doing so. I don't see any relation to the Whitaker page. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your reply. You said, "The section isn't titled "the Pocahontas issue", is it? It's about the broader topic of Warren's ancestry, and claims Warren made about her ancestry over a period of decades." That is correct. When the dust had settled following the first controversy when she ran for the senate Donald Trump brought it all up again when she apposed him in his run for the presidency and he began to call her Pocahontas. But the facts remain: She still believes her family lore that she has some Native American heritage. That fact never appears to show that it helped her gain any Native American advantage in her placements and she has apologized for listing her heritage as Native American when it became clear that it is expected that Cherokee members should be able to show that their ancestors are entered in the Dawes Rolls, and other expectations. Again, it is fair to fully explain these circumstances as it is fair to fully explain the circumstances surrounding the Whitaker employment controversy. Gandydancer (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No argument from me relative to Warren's beliefs Gandy, but her fallout wasn't even close to what happened to Whitaker. I don't see it as a viable WHATABOUTISM. His fallout is the result of WP:GUILT because of the start-up company's questionable business practices, not his own - he had no way to know that early on - they were barely in business for 3 years when the FTC shut them down. There is no evidence that Whitaker or any of the other high profile people serving on WPM's advisory board knew they were being used in that manner. Perhaps they all should have been more cautious about lending their credibility to a start-up, but scammers are expert at scamming, and hind sight is always 20-20 vision. The FTC determined that WPM should not be in business and now they are not. See my comment below about Omar Rivero who also served on the WPM advisory board (2015), and what he stated in a news release. Atsme 💬 📧 23:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It is true that Warren's article was not even close to the amount of coverage that this one got. I've spent more time on the controversy in that article than any article I have ever worked on. As for the others on the advisory board, other than their glowing announcements sponsored by WMC you didn't hear anything from them. Emails from the company referred to them saying stuff like "would these experts really have signed on if we were not honest, etc." That's what he was using them for, not any real advise. But that was not true of Whitaker who took an active part in promoting the firm. It's really not possible to say that he was not aware that the company was scamming people when you read his involvement. Gandydancer (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a very good source that says that there is "no reason to believe that he knew of any of the wrongdoing", and there is no source that says he actually was aware of any (as opposed to being aware of complaints, of the sort every company receives, whether engaged in wrongdoing or not). BD2412 T 01:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethics

This is part of the text that was removed with the edit summary that This has been discussed before and there is no consensus to overstate the signifigance of the company or allegations about it in this BLP.

From 2014 to 2017, Whitaker served on the board of advisors of World Patent Marketing (WPM), a Florida-based invention promotion firm. The company was fined $26 million and closed down in March 2017 by the Federal Trade Commission for swindling customers, deceiving them into thinking that it had successfully commercialized inventions. WPM paid Whitaker nearly $10,000 until Feb 2016, and its owner contributed $2,600 to Whitaker's 2014 U.S. Senate campaign.. In 2014 WPM press releases, Whitaker vouched for WPM, stating that "as a former US Attorney [he] would only align [himself] with a first class organization" that was "doing business 'ethically'." He promoted products for the company and allegedly wrote threatening letters on its behalf.

Customers who suffered losses as a result of working with the company claimed that the company used Whitaker's background as a U.S. Attorney to threaten them. In one 2015 email mentioning his background as a former federal prosecutor, Whitaker told a customer that filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau or "smearing" the company online could result in "serious civil and criminal consequences". The owner of Ripoff Report told journalists that Whitaker had called him in 2015 demanding his website take down negative reports about WPM, alleging, "He threatened to ruin my business if I didn't remove the reports. He [said he] would have the government shut me down under some homeland security law". In 2017, FTC investigators examined whether Whitaker had played any role in making threats of legal action to silence the company's critics. Whitaker failed to provide the records subpoenaed by the FTC in October 2017, and the FTC did not pursue the matter once WPM started to negotiate a settlement with them.

References

I don't know which discussion—resulting in "no consensus"—the summary is referring to; according to the editor, the agreed version is this:

In 2014, Whitaker was added to the non-fiduciary board of advisors of World Patent Marketing (WPM), a Florida-based company billed as an invention promotion firm. The board of advisors never met during Whitaker's service. In a 2014 statement Whitaker publicly vouched for WPM, claiming they went "beyond making statements about doing business 'ethically' and translate[d] those words into action". However, the company was later determined to have deceived inventors into thinking that it had successfully commercialized other inventions. In 2017, World Patent Marketing was fined $26 million and shut down by the Federal Trade Commission for deceiving consumers. A spokesperson for Whitaker said that he was never aware of the company's fraud, The court receiver in the case, attorney Jonathan Perlman, said he had "no reason to believe that [Whitaker] knew of any of the wrongdoing".

The company contributed to Whitaker's 2014 U.S. Senate campaign, but over the three-year period from 2014 and 2017 paid Whitaker less than $17,000 for work performed. Customers who suffered losses as a result of working with the company claimed that the company used Whitaker's background as a U.S. Attorney to threaten them. In one 2015 email mentioning his background as a former federal prosecutor, Whitaker told a customer that filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau or "smearing" the company online could result in "serious civil and criminal consequences". In an unverified report, the owner of Ripoff Report told The Wall Street Journal that Whitaker had called him in 2015 demanding his website take down negative reports about WPM, alleging, "He threatened to ruin my business if I didn't remove the reports. He [said he] would have the government shut me down under some homeland security law". Whitaker has stood by his account that he has never spoken to this person and the conversation never occurred. In 2017, FTC investigators examined whether Whitaker had played any role in making threats of legal action to silence the company's critics. Whitaker rebuffed an FTC subpoena for records in October 2017, shortly after he had joined the Department of Justice. After Whitaker's appointment in the Department of Justice in September 2017, White House and senior Justice Department officials were reportedly surprised to learn of Whitaker's connection to the company. Through a DOJ spokesperson, Whitaker denied awareness of the fraud alleged.

References

I think that my version is the neutral one. I could add a sentence that Whitaker said that he had not been aware of the company's scam—is that better for a J.D and former US attorney than having been aware? The "agreed" version has two sentences saying that Whitaker was not aware of the fraud, one too many. The stricken words are unsourced, as is the sentence I tagged with "citation needed." The board of advisors never met during Whitaker's service. OK, that's what Whitaker said, according to the NYT (also that they flew him to Miami for "dinner and a tour which he described as a waste of time") but what is the importance for his biography? In a 2014 statement Whitaker publicly vouched ... It was a statement he made for use in several press releases, and he expressly vouched as a former US attorney who would not align himself with a company that was not a first class organization (mentioned by Guardian and Mother Jones, with links to the PR). Using (only) the second part of the quote removes Whitaker's connection to WPM. As for WH and Justice Dept officials professing surprise at his WPM connection, why is that important for Whitaker's biography? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we are on the same page in that this coverage should be improved, and your suggestions make sense to me. I would add that reliable sources emphasize that Whitaker was aware of the fraud allegations during his time with the company—a fact which we are apparently forbidden to mention here for some reason. I am not really up for the effort necessary to overcome entrenched resistance to following reliable sources here, but support you if you'd like to work on it. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It is problematic to suggest that there is something sinister and non-routine about counsel being aware of accusations made against a client. We don't have a line at Robert Kardashian stating in ominous terms that Kardashian represented O.J. Simpson "despite being aware of the fact that O.J. was alleged to have committed a murder". If we were to go down that path, we would be justifying adding content for every attorney with an article on the fact that the attorney was aware of whatever allegations were made against whatever clients the attorney had. This doesn't stop at attorneys, either. Wikipedia is publicly accused of wrongdoing by various parties on a fairly regular basis; any Wikipedia editor could be said to be contributing to Wikipedia despite awareness of these allegations. Allegations against the company are exactly the sort of thing that the World Patent Marketing article exists to present. BD2412 T 20:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Where does it say that Whitaker was WPM's attorney? It wasn't an attorney/client relationship. He was on their advisory board and vouching for the company being trustworthy. From the NYT article I cited above: But the newly disclosed documents shed light on the origins and nature of Mr. Whitaker’s involvement with the company — including how little time he took to evaluate proposals by its president, Scott Cooper, for work he wanted Mr. Whitaker to do. The files, for example, indicate Mr. Cooper initially suggested to Mr. Whitaker that he wanted his “counsel on any regulatory issues.” On Oct. 15, 2014, Mr. Cooper offered Mr. Whitaker a role on World Patent Marketing’s advisory board in exchange for $1,875 per quarter, plus the promise of one free trip to Miami Beach a year for an annual meeting. Mr. Whitaker did not take long to weigh the offer: “Yes, I am interested,” he replied hours later, and he signed and returned the agreement the next day. Soon, Mr. Cooper expressed interest in using Mr. Whitaker’s previous role as a United States attorney in Iowa to lend credibility to the firm. Mr. Whitaker again went along. On Nov. 17, 2014, about a month after he signed the paperwork to join the advisory board, Mr. Cooper wrote: “Hey Matt Any interest in appearing in a national television commercial for us on CNN? We can work out compensation later...” Ninety-one minutes later, Mr. Whitaker wrote back: “Sure.” How did Whitaker arrive at his opinion that WPM was a first class organization running an ethical business, from a glossy company brochure? When he threatened the complainer with "serious civil and criminal consequences", he didn't do so as the company's attorney, he did so as a member of the firm's advisory board, touting his legal credentials as a former US attorney. You can read it here, in one of the Miami New Times articles deleted in the revert. This is what the NYT wrote: On the afternoon of Aug. 21, 2015, Mr. Cooper sent a proposed draft of a letter he had ghostwritten for Mr. Whitaker to send to the complainer, invoking his status as a former federal prosecutor and member of the firm’s advisory board and threatening the man with “serious civil and criminal consequences” for what he suggested was tantamount to blackmail or extortion. Mr. Whitaker made a few minor changes to the draft and hit send. In all, he had spent about six minutes from receiving the proposed draft to inserting himself directly in the dispute, as Mr. Cooper had hoped he would do.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Corrected Miami New Times link. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll take another look at all of the sources. The reason appears to be editors mistakenly believing that Whitaker and WPM had an attorney/client relationship. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue is not different with advisory board members, who, again, may be "aware" that allegations are made against the companies whose boards they serve on. We could absolutely swamp the articles on any person serving on a corporate board with negative information about that corporation (since all companies of any substantial size become the target of allegations or litigation sooner or later).

For example, Hillary Clinton was on the Board of Directors of Walmart for several years, during which the company faced numerous accusations of improper conduct, as well as various investigations and lawsuits. There is nothing at all in Clinton's article about these issues.

My greater concern at this point is that the intense focus on the least significant aspects of the subject's biography suggests an interest in making it more salacious, and an absence of interest in actually making the article useful to the typical reader, who will be here to find out about the subject's service as acting Attorney General of the United States, or perhaps about their career as a U.S. Attorney, or a college football player, or a media commentator. BD2412 T 21:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the company was founded in 2014. They assembled a group of advisors, one of whom was Whitaker who began with the company in 2014. The others were Republican Congressman Brian Mast, scientist Ronald Mallett, Omar Rivero, and other high profile people. How could any of them possibly have known WPM was scamming people in 2014 - they just opened their doors, and it typically takes 2 to 5 years from submission to marketing. There are no guarantees that after a product goes to market that it will sell. Following is a quote in our WPM article: In an April 2016 email Scott Cooper replied to an angry customer, "Do you think all these powerful and influential people would join forces with me if what you said were true? We have former US Attorneys, members of President Obama's advisory council, military generals, famous doctors. Think about it." He was clearly using those people - all of them - Mast, Mallett, Rivero - there was no political discrimination in his choices. Within 3 years, March 2017, the FTC shut down the company but keep in mind, Reuters published that WPM "admitted no fault" and that "Whitaker was not named in that complaint." To present the proposed material in a way to imply Whitaker was guilty is clearly noncompliant with WP:GUILT & WP:NOT and I oppose the suggested text. I also can't help but wonder if there even is a way to include this material and still comply with NPOV. If we include it, there definitely should be equal mention of the other notable advisors who had similar roles as I mentioned above, and it should also be included in their BLPs. I object to it per WP:NOT, WP:GUILT & WP:NPOV, but consistency with NPOV is important in this encyclopedia; therefore, if consensus determines that we accept the material for Whitaker, then we already have our argument to include it across the board. Atsme 💬 📧 22:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(Are you seriously comparing Walmart, the nation’s largest company at the time, with WPM?) If you think that Clinton's years on the Walmart board need to be mentioned in her article, that's where you need to take up that matter.

BD2412, are you seriously comparing Walmart, the nation’s largest company at the time, with WPM? If you think that Clinton's years on the Walmart board of directors need to be mentioned in her article, that's where you need to take up that matter. Here's a good source. As for least significant aspects, that's not our decision. We go where the reliable sources take us. It's also not our job to guess who the typical reader is and what they might be interested in. Again, we go where the reliable sources take us. Whitaker's stint on WPM's advisory board became big news when he hit the big time, being named Acting Attorney General. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not miss the point. The question is not whether Walmart should be mentioned in Hillary Clinton, but whether allegations against Walmart or investigations of Walmart that took place while she was on the board merit inclusion. They do not, and the reason is that they would be WP:UNDUE. It is unnecessary to say that "World Patent Marketing was fined $26 million and shut down by the Federal Trade Commission" where Whitaker himself was neither convicted of any wrongdoing nor found civilly liable for any, and not found to have even been aware of the fraudulent acts. Nor could he have been, since, as Atsme notes, the time that it typically takes for an invention to proceed to patenting is longer than the time that this company existed. Certainly any statements that he made in 2014 about the operations of the company should not be presented as if they referred to developments occurring at a later time. The World Patent Marketing article notes (without implication to the contrary) that there were other members of the advisory board whose names were used in promotional materials for the company without their knowledge or approval. If Whitaker is treated consistently with these, then he is a victim of WPM's misrepresentations, not someone to be painted by innuendo as a participant in them. If this article is going to go into detail about the ways that WPM used Whitaker's name, then it should be balanced with the information that WPM misused the names of advisory board members generally. BD2412 T 19:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree because (1) it's common sense, and (2) WP:CIR to understand why speculation is unacceptable after we've been made aware of the actual facts of the matter. We truly need more compliance with WP:RECENTISM. As editors, we are responsible for presenting a NPOV and that includes good judgement which, hopefully, separates us from clickbait, sensationalism, speculation and bias, along with everything else that falls under WP:NOT. We can certainly cite biased sources, but we should not mirror that bias in our articles, especially in our BLPs. Atsme 💬 📧 20:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Good points Atsme. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I favor inclusion of the text that was removed. I fail to understand why we should not cover this controversy and reflect the content of the multiple high-quality RS that are cited above. The criticisms against the text appear to be driven by editors' inaccurate original research, personal opinions about what reliable sources should and should not be covering, and baseless claims that the multitude of cited source are all biased against the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source indicating that Whitaker was convicted of any violation of law, or found civilly liable for any wrongdoing, or deemed to have engaged in wrongdoing by any of the government departments or agencies investigating the matter? Was Whitaker fined any amount? Was any sort of court or tribunal decision issued holding him responsible for anything? What we do have, however, is a company that has been accused in several instances of exploiting its advisory board members without their knowledge. Should the presentation of this relatively insignificant episode in the life of the subject ignore the fact that it is as likely or more that the subject was just another victim of the company's exploitation? BD2412 T 01:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you please point out where in the proposed Wikipedia text it says that Whitaker was convicted of any violation of law etc? So much what-aboutism (sigh). Mast’s case looks quite different from Whitaker’s. He neither agreed to any compensation nor did he receive compensation from WPM (Whitaker did both), he returned the campaign donations he had received from Cooper/WPM (Whitaker did not, AFAIK), he did not make any promotional videos for WPM (Whitaker did; WPM used Mast's campaign video without Mast's knowledge, according to Mast). As for the WPM press releases, it’s Mast’s word against WPM’s (Whitaker did not deny that he made the statements WPM put in their press releases).

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The text as written implies that subjct was some kind of prognosticator, as if he was aware in advance (in 2014) that the company would do things that it was accused of only years after that statement. It's as if you found someone in 2020 saying "look how good Joe Biden is at climbing stairs", and then implied that they were dishonest because Biden stumbled on some stairs in 2021. BD2412 T 16:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I would be against the inclusion as proposed. Without rehashing everything put forth by Atsme, I will say that the points made are valid. In fact, we are going in the wrong direction. It is not for us to figure out what we "want" to put on the page. It is up to us to use reliable sources to summarize. We need to do that keeping in mind guidelines and policies such as WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. It received a lot of press, but receiving a lot of press doesnt mean that it should automatically be included. Based on WEIGHT, I would propose shortening the information altogether. It is already covered in the company article and giving the play by play in a BLP is simply a way to attempt to discredit someone. Even the current version on the page smells of WP:SYNTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Federal Commission on School Safety

The Federal Commission on School Safety was an important body (I wrote that article as well), and I can't see the rationale for removing a description of what Whitaker did with respect to that body as Acting AG. BD2412 T 21:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll bite: what did Whitaker do on the commission? The sources don’t mention it; his name only crops up as one of the signatories. important body: Your "Federal Commission on School Safety" article had daily average of maybe 2½ readers during the past 90 days. It had 8 sources before you added the two I provided to this article yesterday, and three of those eight were communications put out by the commission, hardly extensive for an important body. Also, you distorted the content of one of the other five, WaPo, by using cherry-picked quotations and stating that it was Democrats, civil rights advocates and gun control activists, who expressed a preference for more stringent gun control laws. Per WaPo: The National Association of Secondary School Principals said it was “puzzling” that the commission would spend seven months “rediscovering well-known school safety strategies,” while avoiding important questions about the availability of guns. “Guns in the wrong hands is a common element in school shootings,” the group said. “The commission’s failure to address that element — with even the most sensible and noncontroversial recommendations — is nothing short of willful ignorance.” Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm removing the content cited only to a Department of Education press release. It's promotional and I don't think it satisfied the due weight test. This content ought not to be restored per WP:ONUS. Neutrality^talk 17:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you agree, then, that WP:ONUS applies to the contested World Patent Marketing details discussed above? I am thinking particularly about details of wrongdoing by the company not involving this article subject. BD2412 T 17:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed compromise language

A release from the United States Department of Education quoting an official from another department of the same administration is not realistically the sort of content that WP:BLP is meant to prohibit as contentious. Since concern has been expressed that the source is promotional, I propose to identify this information in the context of the quote, and let the reader make up their mind whether they think it is promotional or significant. Specifically, I propose the following language, cited to the contested source:

The Trump Administration's Department of Education thereafter released a statement quoting Whitaker as saying, with respect to the recommendations of the commission, that he would commit the Department of Justice "to support first responders and provide training for law enforcement officers and school personnel".

Cheers! BD2412 T 05:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable approach. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's still content cited solely to the Education Dept. press release citing a Whitaker statement. It's purely promotional, announcing intent to do something, and wasn't reported by any secondary RS. Undue weight. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This is self-promotional nonsense that offers no substantive information, is of zero interest to readers, and does not belong on this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Here is a secondary source reporting the statement; therefore, it can be reported from that source, rather than the primary source (though still with the language indicating that this was from a DoE-released statement). Additionally, here is a CNN article also reporting the statement. BD2412 T 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Why would we report that self-serving meaningless statement rather than the actual contextual coverage provided by the secondary sources: Whitaker played a role in aiding the Department of Education in rescinding an Obama-era policy that prevented schools from targeting minority students with discipline. Why shouldn't the Wikipedia article just say that? This is precisely why we use secondary RS: for substantive coverage and appropriate context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Where does the article say that Whitaker played a role in the work of the Department of Education, of which he was not part? The article very specifically limits mention of Whitaker to his role in offering the quoted support. BD2412 T 20:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Didn’t you notice that those two cites are one and the same source? 7KBZK in Bozeman, Montana, reprinted the CNN article. They gave CNN credit for it, too, both underneath the headline and in the URL. It’s an article which is based in part on a New York Times article (which doesn't mention Whitaker) on the Commission’s efforts to roll back Obama-administration policies for ending discriminatory disciplinary practices in schools. Exactly what is the encyclopedic relevance of the Whitaker quote from a statement that was widely ignored?

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If Whitaker is of any interest to people in the future, it will be for his stint as acting Attorney General, in which case people will want to know what, exactly, he did in that office. Committing departmental resources to goals of the administration pretty much encapsulates the real function of the job. The New York Times article not mentioning Whitaker goes to the point; the aspect with which Whitaker was involved was the commitment of those resources, not in the rolling back of policies, which is in DeVos' portfolio. BD2412 T 14:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

So he stated that the department would be doing its job, and that statement has encyclopedic value because? People in the future: WP:CRYSTALBALL. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Priorities in terms of notability

Based on the focus of past discussions, I am curious as to what people think this article subject is notable for. It would seem to follow that breadth of coverage in the article should reflect the significance of those areas, and can be measured in part by the degree of notability if that was the only thing they had done in their career. I would propose that the areas are the following, in order of importance:

1. Acting Attorney General of the United States
2. Political commentator after leaving the Trump Administration
3. Department of Justice Chief of Staff
4. United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa
5. University of Iowa Hawkeyes football player
6. Unsuccessful political candidacies
7. All other legal and business activities

Thoughts? BD2412 T 02:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, the breadth of coverage in the article should reflect the breadth of coverage in RS, not any editor's presumed significance of those areas. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You do realize, I hope, that there is vastly more coverage available of Whitaker's tenure as Acting Attorney General, and that the coverage of WPM is overrepresented here. If there are 1,000 sources covering point A in some depth and ten covering point B in some depth, you can't pick 1% of the sources covering point A and 100% of those covering point B and roll out a false equivalence saying that we are reflecting the breadth of coverage. Furthermore, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a gossip column or a trivia book. Whitaker's other legal and business and political activities combined would not amount to encyclopedic notability if not for the items above that on this list. BD2412 T 16:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a gossip column or a trivia book. This is trivia: George J. Terwilliger III, 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". Terwilliger’s claim to fame is U.S. AG for 14 months under the elder Bush—big whoop. Announcing and signing stuff (Trump had promised the bump stock ban in March 2018 ) - that’s not much to show for, not that can you expect much, for a 13-week term in office. There’s only one mention of something he actually accomplished, implementing the First Step Act, and it fails to mention that it was a law passed by Congress. 12:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)

"The breadth of coverage in the article should reflect the breadth of coverage in RS." You are correct. But you fail to take other policies and guidelines into consideration such as WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. Your arguments in these discussions have been about putting in the page what is in reliable sources, but have not yet provided a reason why we should ignore all other policies and guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

What we should be most cautious of in this article, more so than anything else, is RECENTISM and NOTNEWS. I think the topics laid out by BD2412 are on point, but I have some reservations about his length of time (what, 3 mos?) as acting AG. The amount of coverage means nothing unless we are talking about GNG, and that isn't the case here at all. The breadth of coverage applies to how the material for inclusion is presented in the article we are citing - and that only applies to DUE. As editors, we avoid SYNTH, but we do provide information from multiple articles in order to provide an acceptable summary of the claim or factual statement. It is not about how many sources covered it if it is a verifiable fact, unless we are talking about material that may be challenged as noncompliant with any of our 3 core content policies, particularly BLP. By challenged I'm referring to unsubstantiated allegations, criticism and anything that reflects potential defamation of a BLP, and in those cases WP:REDFLAG and WP:EXCEPTIONAL apply. Otherwise, facts simply need verifiability. We don't need an entire article about the topic for inclusion or anything more than a paragraph, and we certainly don't need the echo chamber's republishing of material to give it verifiability or even notability when it involves verifiable facts, and we can use primary sources even if the facts are not published in secondary RS. Atsme 💬 📧 13:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. First, if it was so notable, it would have been covered in-depth prior to his appointment. Second, it only spanned a short portion of his career compared to other things that he has done. Finally, the wording as it is seems like a play-by-play in an attempt to associate him with wrongdoing as opposed to just summarizing he was there, the company did something wrong, and he stated he wasn't aware of it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

First, if it was so notable, it would have been covered in-depth prior to his appointment Nationally, Whitaker wasn’t notable prior to his appointment: one of 94 district U.S. Attorneys at any given time, one of how many chiefs of staff of federal departments, a few years working in the private sector, two election losses in Iowa, a not particularly noteworthy College football player (the NFL didn’t take note), an undistinguished MBA and JD. Second, it only spanned a short portion of his career compared to other things that he has done. Two years and a few months, compared to 3 months 1 week as Acting AG, 13 months 2 weeks as Sessions’s chief of staff. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how length of time would apply to WP:DUE. Make a list of what all the sources say he did while at WPM. Then make a list of what the sources say he has done elsewhere. I don't see how WPM qualifies for a huge section on this page as it relates to WEIGHT. It seems to me like your WP:POVPUSH on this page seems more like confirmation bias than WP:NEUTRALily.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• BD2412, notability and relative weight should be based on a proportional representation of the emphases of reliable sources. Are you seriously asserting that Whitaker's stint as a political commentator, or his college-football career, have been the subject of more reliably-sourced coverage than his involvement with World Patent Marketing? You seem to be saying as much with the rankings in your original post to this thread, but I want to be sure I understand your position before deciding how to further address this. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What I'm saying is that the investigation indicated that Whitaker's involvement amounted to nothing of historic consequence, and is comparable to something like the brief flash of widespread media coverage of "Major Biden" nipping someone at the White House. Note that I am not suggesting that all mention of WPM should be excised from this article, but in terms of actual importance, nothing more really need be said then that Whitaker was one of several notable figures invited to join their advisory board, that the board never met, and that the company was later determined to have engaged in misconduct, though the official investigation found no wrongdoing by Whitaker. It is significant, I think, that if Whitaker had never done the things above that on the list, he would be in the same boat as several other WPM advisory board members in not meriting coverage in Wikipedia at all. As for his other activities, given the intensity of partisanship towards college football, if someone dug deeply enough into print sources (given the pre-internet days in which he played), there is probably substantially more coverage to be uncovered. With respect to his post-AG political commentating, there are actually plenty of coverage mentioning his weighing in on issues, but that has not translated to coverage in this article. See, for example, this substantial (if scathing) Washington Post book review of Whitaker's book, Above the Law, apparently a bestseller in its topic category, which is only even mentioned in one-sentence "Writings" section and a footnote in this article. BD2412 T 19:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    • That is a lawyerly non-answer to my question. We don't decide due weight based on your perception of "historic consequence", or on counterfactuals from a hypothetical alternate universe. We decide it based on relative coverage by reliable sources. So I'll ask again—do you believe that Whitaker's football career, or his punditry, have been the focus of more reliably-sourced coverage than his role with WPM? MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The question omits the encyclopedic concern that coverage be sustained (the same reason that WP:BLP1E exists). Of course coverage of Whitaker's post-AG commentating career is more sustained than that of the brief period in which his WPM role was being examined (which was itself reported years after the fact, and not contemporaneously to the alleged events). Furthermore, there does appear to be more coverage of his punditry, it just hasn't translated into coverage in the article. Bias can effected just as much by ignoring and omitting coverage that does not fit a preferred narrative as by giving excessive space to coverage that fits such a narrative. This is irrespective of political affiliation. BD2412 T 20:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

there does appear to be more coverage of his punditry: Aside from this? Please, provide the links. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think they are asserting that we should weigh what has sustained coverage and not just report the news. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well, exactly; since Whitaker's involvement with World Patent Marketing was the subject of sustained coverage, I don't understand the strenuous effort to suppress it. Nor is this principle applied evenly throughout the article—there's plenty of barely-notable fluff in here, so the sudden insistence on an extreme bar for inclusion with this particular subject matter is difficult to understand. MastCell ^Talk 03:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  I would disagree that this was the subject of sustained coverage. Almost all coverage arose and then dissipated within a week after Whitaker was named acting Attorney General in November 2018. A cluster of articles were published (almost entirely within the few days after that announcement) raising this as a concern, but, not a single article suggesting any wrongdoing was published prior to that. The May 2018 FTC source cited in the article for the proposition that the company engaged in wrongdoing makes no mention of Whitaker at all. There was zero media coverage of Whitaker's advisory board role during the entirety of his tenure as Department of Justice Chief of Staff. Furthermore, unlike real and enduring scandals that we have seen unfold in politics, coverage dissipated as quickly as it arose, and nothing further came of it. On a final note, to be clear, I am not arguing that WPM should be removed from this article entirely, just that the material not be exaggerated to create innuendo beyond what any actual investigation found. BD2412 T 03:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)