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)