![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Please do not keep removing the sourced information about Pompeo's recent blog controversy. This controversy has gained national attention: [1], probably more so than any other news story involving Pompeo. It's certainly not undue weight, nor is it POV (as you claimed repeatedly) to simply mention that there has been a controversy. POV would be saying something like "Pompeo linked to a racist blog post; therefore he's a racist and so is anyone who votes for him". That's not what the paragraph in question said, it merely mentioned that there has been a national controversy about Pompeo's Twitter/Facebook posting. It would be irresponsible of us not to mention the controversy when, as I said, this controversy is the reason Pompeo has gotten national attention. I understand that you created Pompeo's article and so might feel "protective" of it, but you should also read WP: OWN; just because you created an article doesn't mean that you "own" it or have the right to decide what should and shouldn't go in it. Stonemason89 ( talk) 16:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I am removing once again the single sentence about Club for Growth:
This short sentence gives no context, tells no story. It fails to describe what, if any, influence the club had on Pompeo's victory at the primary. This short sentence is not encyclopedic—it tells the reader nothing worth knowing. There are two options: delete it (which I did) or expand it to explain the connection. Binksternet ( talk) 01:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
There are so many POV problems in this article it's hard to count. They're mostly recent additions but rather than reverting I'm going to try to clean it up and leave in some of the cites. Arbor8 ( talk) 13:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I choose to initially delete the paragraphs that did not have additional information or context. The three deleted paragraphs were one-liners and did not seem all that relevent to his tenure as congressman.
I also rephrased the last paragraph to be more neutral. CopperPhoenix ( talk) 22:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
A link to transcript would seem to be of value. Wikipietime ( talk) 17:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It's true, Pompeo has been confirmed as CIA Director. However, Pompeo hasn't been sworn in yet. Until he is, he's CIA Director-designate. GoodDay ( talk) 01:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems like Pompeo succeeded Meroe Park, who was acting after Brennan resigned. Why isn't she listed as his predecessor while acting officials are listed on other government official pages? For example, look at Edward C. Hugler. Snakeskinsam 01:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeskinsam ( talk • contribs)
Citation #6 ain't workin' as of 1/24/17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfryer99 ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Pompeo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The TOC now looks like this:
I understand the desire to make Mike Pompeo look as bad as possible, but this is over the top. KalHolmann ( talk) 21:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Pompeo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.kansas.com/2010/08/03/1431486/hard-fought-battle-nears-end-in.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I know the likelihood of his being confirmed as Sec State is high, but maybe he won't be confirmed. The {{ Infobox officeholder}} should be reserved for offices held, no? He's not Sec State yet. – Muboshgu ( talk) 14:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Second - it makes zero sense to bloat the infobox with "nominee" rather than centering and minimizing the text so it looks clean. See John R. Bolton. Do you think it would make any sort of sense to change it to "Designate for United States National Security Advisor"? No - it covers the entire officeholder space. WP:MoS states that although it is a guideline, "common sense" must be used and "occasional exceptions may apply". CatcherStorm talk 16:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The article currently says "He served as a United States Cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall." This creates the image of a soldier riding his horse next to a Commie fence. This odd phrase comes from a news article at NPR quoting a bio sourced apparently to him, pompeo.house.gov, which is a deadlink. Unless there is a reliable secondary source, I suggest that this fails verifiability and should be removed., or at least be revised to avoid silly imagery. Did he sit at a desk in an office building, as opposed to "patrolling the iron curtain" on a US Cavary horse or Jeep every day? Perhaps the article should say he served in some unit based at some place. Edison ( talk) 01:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
"cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall" – I also think that the phrasing is unencyclopedic. I checked the cited source and the others I found, and it looks like it was copied pretty much word-for-word from Pompeo's house biography: his archived House and current White House biographies. "He graduated first in his class from West Point in 1986 and then served as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall. He also served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the Fourth Infantry Division." According to 4th Infantry Division History: "Resuming training and Cold War missions, the 4th Infantry Division remained stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado from 1970 through 1995. During this period, the division was converted to a Mechanized organization and frequently sent units to Europe to continue the Cold War mission of standing against the Communist threat." If he served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry, 4th Infantry Division, as he says in his House bio – which appears to be the oldest source – that could include a TOD somewhere in West Germany, though nowhere near Berlin (which had three 6th Infantry battalions and Co F, 40th Armor while Pompeo was in the Army). What unit did he serve with when patrolling the iron curtain if not the 2nd Squadron? I propose rephrasing to neutral language: "... and then served as a cavalry officer with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the Fourth Infantry Division." IMO, it doesn't really matter whether he rode a desk, a jeep, or an armored vehicle in Colorado or in Germany. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
From another source, Quartz media: Pompeo has been known to tell colleagues he was a "Cold War guy" sent to Europe to "work on tanks," one current US official told Quartz. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
"... and then served as a cavalry officer with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the Fourth Infantry Division."only because the actual chronology of units in which he served is unclear. He says he served in 2-7 and that's probably true. He may have been assigned to another unit in Germany. Without performing original research, I think we have to leave the sentence that he was there and we could perhaps preface that it's based on his own claims. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
To editor Corkythehornetfan: perhaps you forgot WP:BRD. I reverted and you should have discussed. You misunderstood if you thought I was reverting an IP just because of formatting errors. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
"You don't have consensus. Discuss on talk page."but I guess you didn't read that. Finally, as you can see I am not edit warring as I've only reverted twice. You think I'm stupid enough to get dragged to WP:ANEW? You're welcome to explain why we need that table about Congress's meetings as well as the sentence. I'm pointing to WP:NOTNEWS. We have far too many editors that use Wikipedia as a journaling tool to jot down whatever happens everyday, forgetting that this is supposed to be a responsible encyclopedia. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we should update the profile picture to the one used here https://twitter.com/SecPompeo until an official portrait is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.82.253 ( talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I found some conflicting accounts about his sworn in date. Most says May 2, and accompanied with the video of him being sworn in by VP Pence, like in C-SPAN, USA Today, Washington Post, CBS News, and State Dept.'s Official Blog. At the other hand, only two I can found that say he was sworn in on about Thursday, April 26. They are on VOA News and CNN. Both do not provide any proof about the sworn in, unlike the first 5. Does the two consider Pompeo become State Sec. right after his confirmation? Shouldn't May 2 be the right date? Thank you. – Flix11 ( talk) 17:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Pompeo received $80,000 in donations from Koch Industries and its employees, one of the world's largest privately held companies, and based in his district,[7] making him the top recipient of Koch-related money in the 2010 elections.[7]
So what? Why does it matter that Pompeo was the "top recipient of Koch-related money?" Do you routinely put in similar wording for Democrats that "Rep. So-and-so was the top recipient of Soros-related money"? This is a POV problem. Tpkatsa ( talk) 00:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe information about campaign donors should be put in every article on a political figure. However, singling out Pompeo is far from NPOV. For that matter, singling out Koch Industries is also weird. On top of that, this isn't just mentioned once, it's peppered throughout the article. It feels like a political attack ad, not an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.186.182.181 ( talk) 05:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC) I think it is not pertinent that he received donations from the Koch’s... many politions receive donations. I will wait a few days to hear out other opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.180.237 ( talk) 21:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed that nonsense. From what I can see, somebody published the lie about Gulf War service and it got republished by the same lazy stupid journalists upon which rely for source material. I know that since this is a political thing, some outlets are out there making noise as if the subject started the rumor himself. I see no evidence the subject had anything to do with it. The tempest in a teapot drummed up by partisan hacks shouldn't be repeated here. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The section on Thayer Aerospace says that Pompeo remained involved until 2006 when he sold his interest, but goes on to say that in 2017 he named his partner Bulatao as CEO. How could he name the CEO if had sold his interest in the company? Something is messed up here. Bill ( talk) 03:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
A while back, I started this section about a potentially major story involving Pompeo's speculated run for the Senate. Now that the topic no longer covers an interesting current event (he ruled the choice out almost a month ago), should this section be removed? It doesn't seem relevant anymore. –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Please do not keep removing the sourced information about Pompeo's recent blog controversy. This controversy has gained national attention: [1], probably more so than any other news story involving Pompeo. It's certainly not undue weight, nor is it POV (as you claimed repeatedly) to simply mention that there has been a controversy. POV would be saying something like "Pompeo linked to a racist blog post; therefore he's a racist and so is anyone who votes for him". That's not what the paragraph in question said, it merely mentioned that there has been a national controversy about Pompeo's Twitter/Facebook posting. It would be irresponsible of us not to mention the controversy when, as I said, this controversy is the reason Pompeo has gotten national attention. I understand that you created Pompeo's article and so might feel "protective" of it, but you should also read WP: OWN; just because you created an article doesn't mean that you "own" it or have the right to decide what should and shouldn't go in it. Stonemason89 ( talk) 16:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I am removing once again the single sentence about Club for Growth:
This short sentence gives no context, tells no story. It fails to describe what, if any, influence the club had on Pompeo's victory at the primary. This short sentence is not encyclopedic—it tells the reader nothing worth knowing. There are two options: delete it (which I did) or expand it to explain the connection. Binksternet ( talk) 01:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
There are so many POV problems in this article it's hard to count. They're mostly recent additions but rather than reverting I'm going to try to clean it up and leave in some of the cites. Arbor8 ( talk) 13:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I choose to initially delete the paragraphs that did not have additional information or context. The three deleted paragraphs were one-liners and did not seem all that relevent to his tenure as congressman.
I also rephrased the last paragraph to be more neutral. CopperPhoenix ( talk) 22:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
A link to transcript would seem to be of value. Wikipietime ( talk) 17:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It's true, Pompeo has been confirmed as CIA Director. However, Pompeo hasn't been sworn in yet. Until he is, he's CIA Director-designate. GoodDay ( talk) 01:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems like Pompeo succeeded Meroe Park, who was acting after Brennan resigned. Why isn't she listed as his predecessor while acting officials are listed on other government official pages? For example, look at Edward C. Hugler. Snakeskinsam 01:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeskinsam ( talk • contribs)
Citation #6 ain't workin' as of 1/24/17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfryer99 ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Pompeo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The TOC now looks like this:
I understand the desire to make Mike Pompeo look as bad as possible, but this is over the top. KalHolmann ( talk) 21:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Pompeo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.kansas.com/2010/08/03/1431486/hard-fought-battle-nears-end-in.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I know the likelihood of his being confirmed as Sec State is high, but maybe he won't be confirmed. The {{ Infobox officeholder}} should be reserved for offices held, no? He's not Sec State yet. – Muboshgu ( talk) 14:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Second - it makes zero sense to bloat the infobox with "nominee" rather than centering and minimizing the text so it looks clean. See John R. Bolton. Do you think it would make any sort of sense to change it to "Designate for United States National Security Advisor"? No - it covers the entire officeholder space. WP:MoS states that although it is a guideline, "common sense" must be used and "occasional exceptions may apply". CatcherStorm talk 16:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The article currently says "He served as a United States Cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall." This creates the image of a soldier riding his horse next to a Commie fence. This odd phrase comes from a news article at NPR quoting a bio sourced apparently to him, pompeo.house.gov, which is a deadlink. Unless there is a reliable secondary source, I suggest that this fails verifiability and should be removed., or at least be revised to avoid silly imagery. Did he sit at a desk in an office building, as opposed to "patrolling the iron curtain" on a US Cavary horse or Jeep every day? Perhaps the article should say he served in some unit based at some place. Edison ( talk) 01:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
"cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall" – I also think that the phrasing is unencyclopedic. I checked the cited source and the others I found, and it looks like it was copied pretty much word-for-word from Pompeo's house biography: his archived House and current White House biographies. "He graduated first in his class from West Point in 1986 and then served as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall. He also served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the Fourth Infantry Division." According to 4th Infantry Division History: "Resuming training and Cold War missions, the 4th Infantry Division remained stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado from 1970 through 1995. During this period, the division was converted to a Mechanized organization and frequently sent units to Europe to continue the Cold War mission of standing against the Communist threat." If he served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry, 4th Infantry Division, as he says in his House bio – which appears to be the oldest source – that could include a TOD somewhere in West Germany, though nowhere near Berlin (which had three 6th Infantry battalions and Co F, 40th Armor while Pompeo was in the Army). What unit did he serve with when patrolling the iron curtain if not the 2nd Squadron? I propose rephrasing to neutral language: "... and then served as a cavalry officer with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the Fourth Infantry Division." IMO, it doesn't really matter whether he rode a desk, a jeep, or an armored vehicle in Colorado or in Germany. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
From another source, Quartz media: Pompeo has been known to tell colleagues he was a "Cold War guy" sent to Europe to "work on tanks," one current US official told Quartz. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
"... and then served as a cavalry officer with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the Fourth Infantry Division."only because the actual chronology of units in which he served is unclear. He says he served in 2-7 and that's probably true. He may have been assigned to another unit in Germany. Without performing original research, I think we have to leave the sentence that he was there and we could perhaps preface that it's based on his own claims. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
To editor Corkythehornetfan: perhaps you forgot WP:BRD. I reverted and you should have discussed. You misunderstood if you thought I was reverting an IP just because of formatting errors. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
"You don't have consensus. Discuss on talk page."but I guess you didn't read that. Finally, as you can see I am not edit warring as I've only reverted twice. You think I'm stupid enough to get dragged to WP:ANEW? You're welcome to explain why we need that table about Congress's meetings as well as the sentence. I'm pointing to WP:NOTNEWS. We have far too many editors that use Wikipedia as a journaling tool to jot down whatever happens everyday, forgetting that this is supposed to be a responsible encyclopedia. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we should update the profile picture to the one used here https://twitter.com/SecPompeo until an official portrait is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.82.253 ( talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I found some conflicting accounts about his sworn in date. Most says May 2, and accompanied with the video of him being sworn in by VP Pence, like in C-SPAN, USA Today, Washington Post, CBS News, and State Dept.'s Official Blog. At the other hand, only two I can found that say he was sworn in on about Thursday, April 26. They are on VOA News and CNN. Both do not provide any proof about the sworn in, unlike the first 5. Does the two consider Pompeo become State Sec. right after his confirmation? Shouldn't May 2 be the right date? Thank you. – Flix11 ( talk) 17:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Pompeo received $80,000 in donations from Koch Industries and its employees, one of the world's largest privately held companies, and based in his district,[7] making him the top recipient of Koch-related money in the 2010 elections.[7]
So what? Why does it matter that Pompeo was the "top recipient of Koch-related money?" Do you routinely put in similar wording for Democrats that "Rep. So-and-so was the top recipient of Soros-related money"? This is a POV problem. Tpkatsa ( talk) 00:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe information about campaign donors should be put in every article on a political figure. However, singling out Pompeo is far from NPOV. For that matter, singling out Koch Industries is also weird. On top of that, this isn't just mentioned once, it's peppered throughout the article. It feels like a political attack ad, not an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.186.182.181 ( talk) 05:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC) I think it is not pertinent that he received donations from the Koch’s... many politions receive donations. I will wait a few days to hear out other opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.180.237 ( talk) 21:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed that nonsense. From what I can see, somebody published the lie about Gulf War service and it got republished by the same lazy stupid journalists upon which rely for source material. I know that since this is a political thing, some outlets are out there making noise as if the subject started the rumor himself. I see no evidence the subject had anything to do with it. The tempest in a teapot drummed up by partisan hacks shouldn't be repeated here. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The section on Thayer Aerospace says that Pompeo remained involved until 2006 when he sold his interest, but goes on to say that in 2017 he named his partner Bulatao as CEO. How could he name the CEO if had sold his interest in the company? Something is messed up here. Bill ( talk) 03:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
A while back, I started this section about a potentially major story involving Pompeo's speculated run for the Senate. Now that the topic no longer covers an interesting current event (he ruled the choice out almost a month ago), should this section be removed? It doesn't seem relevant anymore. –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)