Talk:Matthew Whitaker/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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."[1] 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)