Talk:Paul Whelan (security director)

Daily Mail

I've used the Daily Mail to support some bio details because they currently have the most indepth coverage. They cite public records and I have no reason to doubt the info, but as better sources become available they should be substituted. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Passport collecting?

The subject was born in Canada = Canadian. His parents were UK citizens so he was also born UK. He was raised in the US which suggests the family immigrated when he was a child. No surprise he is an American. For a British person to get an Irish passport is easy. I'm failing to see what the competition is or why we should mention it. Legacypac (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that he has multiple passports has been widely noted. Therefore the fact that there is – at least according to one witness – an innocent explanation, seems worth including. And I put it in a note so as not to distract. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

He has multiple citizenships because of his birth situation and family move to the US. The passports are only a matter of filling out applications. It is not like baseball card collecting. We should definitely include his citizenships. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

All 4 countries have seen Whelan and given embassy consular services and given diplomatic notes to Russia, so they definitely are dealing with him in a manner consistent with him being a real citizen. -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Given his background, the citizenships make perfect sense. Legacypac (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

But it is definitely unusual to collect 4 citizenships with passports. The Irish citizenship should probably be seen in light of Brexit, because it gives him the advantages that EU citizens have, which would have been lost through Brexit. 2001:8003:AD3C:9000:594C:A8C6:5955:6B4A (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Canada citizenship because born in Canada US citizenship likely because the family moved there UK parents gave him UK citizenship at birth Not totally clear where the Irish citizenship came from but it was not via marriage (never married) and nothing suggests he lived there so it most likely is by decent from a parent or grandparent (see Irish nationality law). Therefore he was likely entitled to the Irish passport from birth. No evidence on how he got US citizenship (immigration or because a parent held it) but the other three are either definately or nearly definately gained at birth. Legacypac (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No one, as far as I can tell, disputes the fact that he has citizenship in four countries, but...

Some people have multiple citizenships. And some of them have more than one passport. Yet the fact that he took the trouble / did the paperwork / provided the documentation / paid the fees to acquire four passports seems to be newsworthy. However easy it may be, you still have to make the effort. New York Times: American Detained in Moscow Also Has British, Irish and Canadian Passports And how he acquired his Irish citizenship/passport is still unclear. NYT: "It was not clear how Paul Whelan obtained Irish citizenship, though people with Irish ancestors are frequently eligible." Perhaps a grandparent? The Guardian recently summarized the rules very briefly: "Anybody in the world born to an Irish citizen is entitled to an Irish passport while those with grandparents born in Ireland also qualify. Britons living in Ireland can also qualify under residency rules." in a different context.

The real issue is rationale. Why bother? One can acquire multiple passports just because one can — as the simply rivalry with his sister suggests — or because one anticipates needing consular services or because one enjoys playing identity games. So far the quote from someone who seems familiar with the Whalen family about engaging in a game with his sister provides the only rationale. And it's the innocent explanation of a family rivalry that's the point of the quote, not the single word collecting. The point made by the person who is quoted is that there’s nothing suspicious or nefarious about having four passports, which seems to be the point you are making when you say it’s easy to do. But only the quote addresses the why go to the trouble. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not "trouble" if you travel a lot - it is required. Generally any citizen of any country is expected/required to enter that country using a passport issued by that country. If he shows up at the Canadian border and presents an American passport he is committing an offence or at least could be denied admission. Also visa requirements differ by passport. Gaining visa free access to just one other country with passport B not offered by passport A can pay for the cost and effort to get passport B. In addition there can be safety benefits to presenting a Canadian or Irish passport instead of an American passport in some places that are hostile to Americans. The speculation about his motives from an unnamed person appears way off base and maybe even harmful to the subject who is sitting in a Russian jail. Legacypac (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It wasn’t speculation. It was a straightforward statement by someone given anonymity by the Washington Post and acquainted with the family. Your other assertions aren’t quite serious. If Whalen were eligible for Irish citizenship through a grandparent but never requested the passport, would he be required to use an Irish passport to enter Ireland? And your assertions about passport requirements are, of course, undocumented — they’re not something everyone knows even if obvious to you and news to me — so the reader may reasonably wonder, as the Detroit Free Pres interviewer does, why four. In any case, David Whalen has provided info now. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not so much a requirement as it is that documenting a citizenship in that country avoids lots and lots of questions and paperwork and time. And nobody travels on a US passport if they have a choice in the matter. Canada and UK would also mean better visa possibilities in Commonwealth Countries. Until Brexit, a British passport also meant a better immigration status in Europe, which is, I suspect, the reason for the Irish passport. You do usually need a grandparent but the Irish sometimes approve applications based on more distant ancestors on a case-by-case basis, I have been told. Bottom line, it's not that astonishing, even if it has managed to épater les bourgeois Elinruby (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department

Some sources say that the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department says that he never worked for them. What is the upshot on this? Abductive (reasoning) 18:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Can’t you at least share a source here? I’ve only found some I wouldn’t normally use. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I put it in sourced to the Daily Mail when that was one of the only detailed sources. It may not be true, as often happens in cases like this where someome shoots from obscurity to the news worldwide. Do you a have a source saying the Department denied he worked there? Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It appears from the source now cited https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan-company-releases-statement-regarding-employee-detained-in-russia_ to be something Whalen said in "court documents", which is where his erroneous education info came from. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Here’s a poor source: https://whatsnew2day.com/american-charged-by-russia-with-being-a-spy-cultivated-contacts-in-moscow-for-years/ that says:

Whelan claimed in a 2013 statement that he was a former sheriff's deputy in Washtenaw County and a policeman for the city of Chelsea. Washtenaw County told the Post that they had no record of Whelan's job, and Chelsea police records showed that he was working as a "part-time police officer," as a dispatcher, a border guard and a caretaker.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

AHA. It’s been here for days, several paragraphs about different police departments: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/american-paul-whelan-charged-with-espionage-in-russia-news-agency-reports/2019/01/03/51dab55a-0f6a-11e9-8f0c-6f878a26288a_story.html Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

My own rule is to avoid tabloids and TV news as much as possible, especially for breaking coverage. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't access the WaPo source. What was the jist?

The news sources pulled his education and work history from a Jan 2013 court disposition - a primary source for what he claimed. Daily Mail says "He has a bachelor's degree in criminal justice and a master's in business administration, he said in a 2013 deposition for an age discrimination suit that other parties had filed against one of his former employers. From 1988 to 2000 Whelan served as a police officer on the Chelsea, Michigan, force, and as a deputy in the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office."

The 2013 deposition top of page 7, contains the part about working in Chelsa and for the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office exactly as the Daily Mail reported it and how I put it in the article. His marine service reported in the deposition is different from how we state it now. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Corrections, Clarifications

I'm Paul Whelan's twin brother. It is not my intent to suggest you adopt any edits, merely to point out things that might help your efforts or call attention to things that I don't think are properly sourced.

• We were born in March 1970, and so Paul is 48. This has been widely reported - search the internet for '"paul whelan" 48'.
  • Change made. The 48/49 was partly driven by WP code, which I’ve removed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• The information about Kingsmead Arsenal is unverified and, I believe, impossible to verify by anyone except Paul, who may have meant any online mentions of it as a joke. That is the family's perception. "Kingsmead" is the nickname my parents gave their farm house. Some news articles appear to be relying on data sites like this one at Buzzfile which use unsubstantiated measures on revenue and employee count. References should be removed unless they can be verified by actual public documents or something more concrete than aggregators. In this case, there aren't any.

• This Wikipedia entry suggests there is a Kingsmead Arsenal retail location but there isn't one to the extent "retail location" means "storefront". The addresses listed for Paul's purported business are an apartment complex. I realize you may still refer to his apartment, to the extent there are any citations that confirm that he bought or sold weapons there. It would probably be most accurate if you took the Firearms Dealer License number found here and confirmed it through the ATF's online license verification. That would at least confirm that he has a firearms dealer license.
  • The Kingsmead Arsenal name is widely reported and displays on the ATF record, so I’ve included it. One problem a Wikipedia editor faces is the need to be defensive and assume other editors will see the KA info missing and want to add it. Including KA as I have may prevent the return of the Buzzfile info. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I looked at the Michigan business records to see if that would clarify, since one would think a business in Michigan (and, subject to taxes or licensing) would be in there, but the absence of a filing is still just pitted against the broader reporting. I suppose Paul can clear it up when he's home. Thanks for the explanation. Davidpwhelan (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• It is incorrect to state that Paul was dishonorably discharged or to quote me as saying that he was. The article you cite [1] does not use the words "dishonorable discharge" because that is inaccurate. A bad conduct discharge is different; see Military_discharge and [2].
  • Modified. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• He is not in solitary confinement. I'm not sure it's accurate to say that he was ever in solitary confinement, based on this description of every prisoner's first 10 days at Lefortova.
  • Modified. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• If you need a photo of Paul, or photos showing him in his Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department uniform, among others, the family has provided an online album of photos. I would consider use of any of them to be fair use, as the family is providing these for free to any media who wish to use them.
  • I’ll leave this to someone more expert than I with respect to WP image and copyright rules. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful editing. Davidpwhelan (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The "dishonorable" was entirely my fault. I apologize – I should know better. And I knew the Buzzfile source was inadequate but expected it would be improved upon, but unfortunately it was so off target that it remained the one and only source. As for "solitary", those who want details now can follow the sources. It's rather complicated. Thank you for helping us. Your clarifications and corrections are much appreciated. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Steganography in Paul's Message?

Does it seem to anyone else that the paper message Paul wrote from captivity in Russia may have contained hidden meaning(s)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowmessage (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul Whelan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Former Marine

Despite the popular saying, "Once a Marine, always a Marine", "former Marine" is the appropriate way to refer to someone who is no longer a member of the Marine Corps and is not legally retired from the Marine Corps. The USMC Museum itself refers to "former Marines". Reliable sources refer to Whelan as a "former Marine".[3][4][5] It is not accurate to say Whelan is currently a Marine. Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm befuddled that you even had to start this thread. I've restored "former", again. – ².O.^Boxing 01:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You won't be aware, then, of right-wing Twitter, which is outraged that the US would prisoner trade for a Black queer athlete imprisoned by a racist, homophobic state on obviously trumped-up charges, rather than someone they call "a Marine who served our country", even though he was a grifter and has multiple nationalities. Which is kind of ironic since they just voted down citizenship for honourably discharged veterans. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It is an affront to the Marine Corps and every honorably discharged Marine to show the photo of someone who was thrown out of the Corps with a Big Chicken Dinner (bad conduct discharge) in his Marine Corps uniform. He’s not a “former” Marine, he’s an “ex” Marine. I was married to a Marine for 15 years and she said she learned at Parris Island that the only “ex Marines” are the ones that were thrown out. He’s an ex Marine! I’m changing that photo as soon as I can! Modern Ha Sofer (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter what they sat at Parris Island. He's a former Marine. Don't bother removing or changing the photo, you'll be reverted. – ².O.^Boxing 10:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

So you’re in favor of glorifying the former military status of someone who was thrown out of the service for dereliction of duty? What branch did you say you were you in? Modern Ha Sofer (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm in favour of using encyclopaedic language in an encyclopaedia. "Former" and "ex" mean the same thing: was, but no longer is. "Former" is more formal than "ex". Your argument for removing the picture is nonsensical. – ².O.^Boxing 15:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

According to THIS OFFICIAL MARINE PUBLICATION -- ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS CHART those who have had a BCD are INELIGIABLE to wear their uniform. Therefore it is NOT appropriate to display a photo of him in uniform.

Mikelieman (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not follow US Marine Corps rules. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

How about common decency rules? Modern Ha Sofer (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Common decency says use the photo. It was provided by his family. 25stargeneral (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Provided directly to Wikipedia? If so then the provider does seem to be biased to show him in the best light possible and with a good reason to play the military card. 185.233.255.237 (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Disambiguation

Since there is a Paul Whelen page already in existence. This page needs a disambiguation between the other established page or this page should be deleted. Brawling (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead suggestions

I'd like to propose a revision to the lead to more clearly summarize the article:

Paul Nicholas Whelan (born March 5, 1970) is a Canadian-born director of global security for BorgWarner who was arrested in Russia on December 28, 2018, and accused of spying. Whelan, who has U.S., British, Irish, and Canadian citizenship, served in the United States Marine Corps Reserve from 1994 until 2008 when he received a bad conduct discharge as a result of a special court-martial.

Whelan was sentenced to 16 years in a Russian prison on June 15, 2020. International diplomacy efforts to secure his release to the United States are ongoing.

Thoughts? Schazjmd (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of "CIA wouldn't recruit" claim? Doesn't disprove anything..

The fact that the CIA wouldn't recruit such a person doesn't bear much relevance to the charge - spying. Doesn't matter who for. Might not be government at all. It's plausible he might have been spying for purely corporate purposes - a computer security corporation could benefit greatly from having a list of FSB contacts as well. 174.76.42.133 (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It is very relevant; unless things have changed since I was last there, Russia doesn't charge corporate espionage cases as seriously. He got 16 years, do you really think he was charged with stealing secrets from their auto industry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:950E:8F00:355D:C963:415A:1CD9 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Defamatory Russian Source Must Be Removed or Clarified as to its Unreliability

A single Russian-language source MBK claims Whelan had 80,000 dollars on him, as opposed to 80,000 roubles ($1,147). Obviously if Paul Whelan had that much money on him, it would look suspicious. Paul says it was roubles. So does his brother David, who insists this single Russian publication is defaming Paul with a lie. David told the Ann Arbor Observer that he has repeatedly tried to take this libel out of Wikipedia but unscrupulous editors keep putting it back.

Per BLP, I think the likely defamation must be removed. But if some editor wants to keep it, I think you must let readers know that Whelan's family insists this claim of 80,000 dollars (as opposed to roubles) is libelous, as I've done in my current version. You cannot put in a vicious claim about someone and not allow them the chance to argue it is false. Wikipedia always insists on both sides of a conflict. So if you include the defamatory Russian-language source, you must also include Whelan's brother not only calling it a grotesque lie but mentioning that he personally tried to edit Wikipedia to remove it.

In addition to being a violation of wikipedia policy, I believe it is also a violation of law and would subject the editor to a libel lawsuit. Per the NYT v. Sullivan standard, it is libelous to publish untrue defamatory information with "actual malice", which is defined as publishing "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"

I think after an editor is aware of the vociferous claims of David Whelan, anyone who continues to publish this single obscure Russian-language source -- which could very well have gotten its facts wrong -- without allowing for the strenuous rebuttal by Paul's family -- is acting with actual malice. GreekParadise (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)