Talk:Mike Pompeo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2021

Under the "Secretary of State" section, "Foreign Policy" subsection, paragraph 1, sentence 5, change "inspector generals" to "inspectors general". Jabaswear (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Good catch, thanks for pointing it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Lie, cheat and steal

As was widely reported Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recounted to an audience at Texas A&M University that when he was head of the Central Intelligence Agency he was responsible for "lying, cheating and stealing" to benefit the United States. "Like we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." The notoriety of the comment stream will most likely stand out as a highlight of an American manager who is in the peak of his career. The comment should be included in the article on Mike Pompeo, he intended the statement to be as controversial as possible for his own benefit. No value judgement on whether this is hurtful or helpful to his autobiographical entry should be used to determime whether it should or should not be included in the article here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.220.236 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Mike Pompeo and sitting on the sidelines.

The author of the WIKIPEDIA post on Mike Pompeo stated that Sec. Pompeo sat on the sidelines while President Trump harassed State Department Personnel. First, All of the people at State work at the pleasure of the President. Second, The alleged harassment of State Department employees is nothing more the Liberal Media talking points and does not meet the criteria of a WIKIPEDIA post. It is a biased statement, not taking into consideration the lack of loyalty of some State Department Personnel. In on case a female embassy person refused to carry out directives of the President. That person was reassigned and not fired, hardly harassment. Another case involved State Department personnel falsely testify against the President, but when ask to produce evidence, they seem to have none. (Ref. Trump's first impeachment).

Second. There has been no WIKI Post of President Clinton firing all Republican Federal Prosecutors (I learned this from my Georgia Air National Guard Commander who was also a Federal Prosecutor until President Clinton fired all of the Republican Prosecutors) or the systematic purge of Conservative Senior Military Officers under Obama and Biden, (This I observed just watching the news as a rash of long time trusted Generals began to be systematically removed on one frivolous charge or another) the latest being Gen Matthew Lohmeier, who was relieved of his command at the newly formed Space Force, not because he was deficient in any way but, because he holds a different view than the current mob view of LGBT, CRT, BLM, Marxism, 1619 Project than the Left Leaning Officers advanced under Obama and Biden. Now that is harassment. By the by, his book, "Irresistible Revolution" is an excellent read, underlining many of the things I have watched creep into American society. <CBS, NBC><Fox News Top General Fired><PBS><NewsMax/Matthew Lohmeier>

"Last night, Fox News' Brit Hume kicked off his show by criticizing the media for "news stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country [that] failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office back in 1993."https://www.cbsnews.com/news/so-is-this-us-attorney-purge-unprecedented-or-not/

https://www.google.com/search?q=US+Generals+fired+since+2008&rlz=1C1ASVC_enUS917US918&oq=US+Generals+fired+since+2008&aqs=chrome..69i57.25086j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Whether it is the military schools and academies teaching Marxist Doctrine or the bleed over from Public Universities that have gone so far left that a Conservative cannot speak on campus, the results are evident in this article on Sec. Pompeo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.126.21 (talk) 11:01, June 21, 2021 (UTC)

I read this, and most of it is a rant (nothing more the Liberal Media talking points, claiming that conservatives are silenced on college campus), some whataboutism, and other such baseless complaints. But the criticism about the phrase "standing on the sidelines" is somewhat merited. I see that the statement was added on New Years Day by Snooganssnoogans and is sourced to an LA Times article that says When Trump dispatched his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, last year in an to attempt to dig up dirt on his anticipated Democratic rival, Joe Biden, in Ukraine, Pompeo stood on the sidelines. The president ultimately tried to pressure the Ukrainian president to launch an investigation of Biden’s son Hunter in exchange for releasing desperately needed military aid. “Letting Rudy Giuliani become secretary of State for Ukraine — to serve political purposes that were clearly illegal — will always be Pompeo’s most shameful moment,” said Stephen Sestanovich, a diplomacy scholar at Columbia University and a Council on Foreign Relations fellow. I think the article would be improved by removing "standing on the sidelines", LA Times' framing, and adding more explicitly that Pompeo stood by and allowed Rudy to conduct foreign policy in his stead, or some other wording like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Early life and education

I am pretty sure that the U.S. Army 4th Infantry Division wasn't in West Germany "From 1986 to 1991"??? Can someone provide some help in this matter; I can't find additional sources. I think it should state that Mr. Pompeo served in Germany AND with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the U.S. Karagory (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of the introduction

I am not disputing the claims made on the first few paragraphs, nor am I trying to claim they did or did not happen. However, I do feel like they are worded in a more aggressive way than a wiki page that is neutral should have. I say that we ought to move some of the claims about using the office for campaigning, pressuring state dept officials into resigning, and praising dictators into his Secretary of State subsection, and 1) replacing the introduction with more neutral sentences, and 2) using more than the one Los Angeles times source to describe his tenure as the Secretary of State. Again, this isn't about my personal criticisms against Pompeo or his page, or defending him in some way. I just feel that it is not in following with the neutrality that should be upheld, no matter how controversial or hated the figure. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks a bunch! --Negrong502 (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, this is the section I am talking about: "During his tenure as Secretary of State, Pompeo was described as among the staunchest Trump loyalists in the cabinet. During his tenure, he routinely flouted norms and protocols followed by his predecessors. These included using his office to campaign for Trump's re-election officials, firing and criticizing State Department inspectors general, and standing on the sidelines while Trump and his allies harassed career diplomats. Under Pompeo's tenure, career State Department officials quit, were forced into retirement or fired, and were replaced by inexperienced political appointees. Similarly to Trump, Pompeo praised dictators and criticized traditional democratic allies." --Negrong502 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. The introduction reeks of bias. There is no reason not to include controversy in the main body but these claims aren't significant enough to be considered defining characteristics of his career. 68.14.58.253 (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead section is downright embarrassing, incredibly unprofessional, and a clear violation of NPOV. That said, it's not going to change. The fact that it's been weeks since this matter was brought up and no administrators have bothered to give an even basic dismissive response proves it. The administrators of Wikipedia completely gave up on any pretense of encyclopedic or academic intent around the time the Trump administration first began, and are far more concerned with trying to make sure the general public thinks the way they do. 2603:8090:1E09:D9B3:84E3:D7B8:BA8F:AAED (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

So the lead section cares to mention Pompeo's political views with regards to Trump and dictators which is for some reason more important than his actual work during the tenure. May be take a look at the lead of Hillary Clinton's article and make the lead fact-based and neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.204.3 (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead should clearly summarize Pompeo's tenure as Secretary of State, just as the body does. It's unclear to me what the NPOV violation is supposed to be when the text in question reflects how RS summarized his tenure. All of these items (which were removed) are highly notable and aberrational behaviors which distinguish his SOS tenure and which all RS remarked upon when summarizing his tenure.[1] That content should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

And now,[2] the reliably sourced text has even been deleted from the body. For reasons that have nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines. Just straight-up whitewashing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans the word choice was unabashedly biased, are you serious? Reword the "summary" of the tenure and maybe include some items that don't solely disparage Pompeo. It fails to mention any accomplishments.. or anything positive for that matter. If I lived under a rock, I would think this man were a crook and did nothing during his tenure but harbor controversies. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, the content that was deleted should be included in the article, but when the overarching tone of the summary of his tenure as SOS is essentially character assassination... cmon now. That was not a summary of his tenure. Looking at WP:UNDUE here. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are multiple RS that summarize his tenure as SOS:[3][4][5][6][7][8]. Please identify the parts that emphasize his accomplishments. The text that you removed was a perfect encapsulation of what these and other RS say about his tenure. To remove reliably sourced text and insist that we need to search for positives to balance out the reliably sourced content is a perfect example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans not arguing that the sources are reliable here (citekill much?). I never stated that the content shouldn't be excluded from the article, and it doesn't really seem like you read my comments above. Those sources encapsulate the relevant controversies which have recently become unearthed—not disputing that.

Should the controversies be an entire copy/paste paragraph from the controversies section (edit: into the lead)? No. Should they be included in the tenure section. Yes. Those sources are reliable, not disputing that either, but the diction/word choice there was atrocious. "...among the staunchest of Trump loyalists," "Under Pompeo's tenure, career State Department officials quit, were forced into retirement or fired, and were replaced by inexperienced political appointees," "Trump and his allies harassed career diplomats," "fealty to Trump." Need I go on? There are many more neutral ways at describing these, and there's a much better way at making the content more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Recent controversies are not synonymous with a one's tenure. This literally just comes down to WP:NPOV in the intro. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC) (Added clarifying comment PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC) )

That language reflects what the sources say. If you check the sources, they make clear what an aberrational tenure it was, and they spell out why scholars of international relations consider him as one of the worst SOSs. I don't fully understand your reference to "recent controversies" not equating someone's tenure. The sources in question all summarize his tenure as SOS, which is by far the most prominent position he has been in. It's not recentism to summarize a tenure. In fact, it's hard to think of something that is less-recentist than reflecting how RS summarize a career in hindsight. If you disagree with the language, then I suggest you re-word it rather than scrub the content in its entirety from the article. You say it's a NPOV violation to characterize Pompeo as a staunch Trump loyalist, but that's what all the RS describe him as, and it's key to understand why his tenure as SOS was noteworthy and controversial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is a problem with "diction/word choice" then we should talk about that. What is not an acceptable outcome is to wholly remove a bunch of well-sourced material. Several episodes in the deleted content are highly noteworthy points in Pompeo's career: the IG investigations and IG firing, for one, and the attacks against the U.S. diplomats in Ukraine. Neutrality^talk 22:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This introduction is so absurdly biased and is really just everything wrong with Wikipedia right now. A complete partisan embarrassment. Saying "oh well look at these MSM links that back this up" doesn't actually excuse that at all.73.202.55.223 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Left Wing hit job

This is why Wikipedia has lost all credibility. The description is slanted and biased against Secretary Pompeo You have abandoned all pretense of neutrality. 2603:9000:6809:5854:94D5:4CA7:F8F8:62AA (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is Wikipedia at its worst: dominated by zealots who obsessively cite biased sources to create an overall negative picture of somebody whose ideology does not meet with their approval. This is why Wikipedia is only good for dates and basic facts: its analysis is always heavily skewed towards the lazy and cloistered faculty lounge consensus. 104.174.245.161 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you give one single specific thing that is "slanted" or "biased" using reliable sources to back it up? Seriously, just give us one example of what is wrong with this article. Global rants accomplish nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ktack.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a noticeably biased article. I am shocked!

162.217.120.37 (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Please note the items in CAPITAL LETTERS since the highlight/bold features did not work. This is a direct copy from your article on Mike Pompeo. I don't even have to know of him to see that this is an extremely unprofessional, slighted article. The far majority of this print is not a neutral point of view that you hold valuable. Wow! This verges on opinions such as flouting norms and inexperienced political appointees, to name a couple. This is very obviously suggesting that he is a bad person - one who is still alive and is now being slandered. Please correct this. It is very much not necessary to put in here.

.....Kansas's 4th congressional district. He was a Kansas representative on the Republican National Committee. Pompeo is also a member of the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party.[2]

ONCE A CRITIC OF DONALD TRUMP, WHOM HE CALLED AN "AUTHORITARIAN", POMPEO BECAME ONE OF HIS BIGGEST SUPPORTERS.....after Trump became the Republican nominee in the 2016 presidential election.[3][4] President Donald Trump appointed Pompeo director of the Central Intelligence Agency in January 2017. Trump promoted Pompeo to secretary of state in March 2018, with Pompeo succeeding Rex Tillerson after his dismissal.[5] Pompeo was confirmed by the Senate on April 26, 2018, in a 57–42 vote[6][7][8] and was sworn in the same day, becoming the first Italian American to serve as the United States secretary of state.[9] During his tenure as secretary of state, Pompeo was described as among the staunchest Trump loyalists in the Cabinet.[4] During his tenure, HE REPEATEDLY FLOUTED NORMS AND PROTOCOLS FOLLOWED BY HIS PREDECESSORS. THESE INCLUDED USING HIS OFFICE TO CAMPAIGN FOR TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION OFFICIALS, FIRING AND CRITICIZING STATE DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS GENERAL, AND STANDING ON TH SIDELINES WHILE TRUMP AND HIS ALLIES HARASSED CAREER DIPLOMATS. (4) A STATE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT FOUND MORE THAN 100 INSTANCES OF MISCONDUCT WHERE POMPEO REQUESTED THAT STATE DEPARTMENT STAFF PERFORM PERSONAL ERRANDS FOR HIM AND HIS WIFE (10) UNDER POPEO'S TENUE, CAREER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS QUIT, WERE FORCED INTO RETIREMENT OR FIRED, AND WERE REPLACED BY INEXPERIENCED POLITICAL APPOINTEES. (11)

Negotiated with terrorist

Pompeo was the first United States Secretary of State to negotiate with terrorist.

Obvious bias here. Poorly written. A hit job

Bias 104.181.39.0 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Came here to say this. Even in the section about China. I even wonder if Chinese propagandists are behind this. Gnznroses (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent statements

Someone should add links to his recent statements praising Vladimir Putin 174.16.161.212 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

He has also criticized Biden for his handling of the Ukraine situ but unsurprisingly none of that makes it onto Wikipedia. ENOUGH WITH LIBERAL BIAS. UNLOCK THE PAGE OR EDIT WITH A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW!! SHAME ON YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.228.41 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

This page reflects political bias which is not befitting a factual website. Regardless of the editor's opinions about the politician, the facts must be presented with an unbiased language. For example, in the introduction summary of Mike Pompeo, he is described as a "staunchest Trump loyalist" in the cabinet, which is not a factual statement, but an opinion in a language which reflects the editor's negative opinion. Additionally, it describes the subject as one who "routinely flouted norms and protocols", which adds opinion to a factual piece. If the editor wishes to express their opinion, they are free to use Facebook or start a blog. 165.91.13.255 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

US Loyalty

Pompeo, his slave owner trump a a few equal scum in congress are traitors and enter history as betrayers of this country, with their joining Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Shame! You will pay. 2601:185:8200:2130:4C75:8F05:D98A:C0DA (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a neutral introduction

The way this “intro” is worded is biased and inflammatory. Wiki asks foe “donations” all the time and it is clear to be leftist and in appropriate in content. 2600:1700:2C80:4A00:4529:A0B2:B9E3:C658 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

send forces in Afghanistan

he send forces in Afghanistan and killed innocent people there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.240.66 (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Errands & ethics

The lead says, “A State Department Inspector General report found more than 100 instances of misconduct where Pompeo requested that State Department staff perform personal errands for him and his wife.” This is not supported by the body of the article, so I’m thinking of simply moving it down to the body of the article. According to an NBC News report, the department’s inspector general merely concluded that the behavior was “inconsistent” with regulations rather than a clear violation, and thus the IG report “recommended that the State Department clarify its policies to better define” what’s not allowed and what the penalties will be. It’s unclear if Pompeo would have been penalized if the IG report had been issued while Pompeo was still in office, but it seems improbable given that people aren’t normally penalized for mere inconsistencies, and given that the IG acknowledged that the rules needed to be beefed up. So I support putting this matter into the body of the article, but I think there are plenty of much more good and bad things for the lead to discuss. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The NBC News source that you cite clearly says, in its lead paragraph, that Pompeo "violated federal ethics rules", and that he was not penalized because he had already left office by the time that the investigation was completed. Your description of what the source says doesn't match what it actually says, which is a bit concerning. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The NBC report is ambiguous. On the one hand it says Pompeo violated regulations. On the other hand, it says (1) what Pompeo did was “inconsistent” with the regulations, (2) the regulations need to be improved to deal with this type of situation, and (3) Pompeo will face no consequences. So it’s concerning you don’t see any nuance there. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous at all. If someone violates federal ethics rules, then their actions are by definition "inconsistent" with those rules. The report suggested improving regulations because that's all they could do - they had no power to sanction Pompeo because he'd already left office. The article makes all of those things clear. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t have the time right now to join you in a journey to other reliable secondary sources and to the primary source itself. Suffice it to say that if Pompeo had done something horrible enough to be lead-worthy then there would have been some slight penalty for it even after he left office. Moreover, if I call someone “hideous” and then backtrack by saying the person is merely “not very attractive” then that’s then ambiguous. And you’re welcome for putting a neutral summary of his official acts into what was previously an extremely propagandistic and one-sided hit job. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, there was no penalty because the State Department Inspector General had no power to impose any penalty on someone who had already left federal service. It's dishonest to suggest that the absence of a penalty mitigates the severity of Pompeo's conduct, when you should know otherwise from the source that you yourself cited.

Separately, Pompeo's violation of federal ethics rules is consistently called out as such in reliable sources, for example:

• CNN: "The State Department's independent watchdog found that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife Susan Pompeo violated federal ethics rules by making over 100 personal, non-work related requests to department employees"
• Reuters: "Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo violated federal ethics rules governing the use of taxpayer-funded resources when he, and his wife, asked State Department employees to carry out personal tasks more than 100 times"
• Wall Street Journal: "Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife violated ethics rules by asking department employees to carry out tasks of a personal nature"
• PBS: "The State Department’s internal watchdog has concluded that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife violated federal ethics rules by asking staffers to run personal errands and perform non-official work"
• Washington Post: "Former secretary of state Mike Pompeo broke federal ethics rules when he and his wife asked staffers to book restaurant reservations, take care of his dog, go on shopping trips and perform a wide array of other personal errands"

... and so on. So reliable sources consistently summarize Pompeo's behavior in their leads as a "violation of federal ethics rules". I am not clear why you find it objectionable to use that wording. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t find it objectionable to use that wording in the body of the article along with it being “inconsistent” with the rules. What I object to is what I’ve already repeatedly said I object to: putting this significant but middling stuff into the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Political appointees

The lead says, "Under Pompeo's tenure, career State Department officials quit, were forced into retirement or fired, and were replaced by inexperienced political appointees." This is supported by an LA Times article that says, "Numerous career foreign service officers have quit, been forced into retirement or fired. They were often replaced by inexperienced political appointees. And the number of applicants for the service has plummeted, meaning the pool for future diplomats is shrinking." I wonder (1) what other sources have to say about this stuff, (2) whether the "shrinking number of applicants" is one of the reasons for relying more on political appointees, (3) how different Pompeo's tenure was from his predecessors in terms of job turnover. I will look into these matters, and whether this stuff stays in the lead will depend on the answers. Certainly, Pompeo's tenure has been praised by some people for some things, such as the Abraham Accords, and I'd think some of that could be mentioned in the lead, instead of only negative stuff. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve tried to make the lead more NPOV, mainly by adding a fifth paragraph, and shortening the fourth. The stuff about hiring lots of inexperienced political appointees remains in the article body, and I will seek answers to the three questions I posed above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources describing plummeting morale and high turnover in the State Department under Pompeo's leadership. For example:

• New Yorker 6/17/2021: "In interviews, dozens of other department employees alleged that Pompeo’s chaotic tenure, and that of his predecessor, Rex Tillerson, left deep institutional and cultural scars that continue to impede American diplomatic efforts around the world... By the end of the Trump Administration, morale in the department had collapsed. Pompeo had lost the confidence of his staff, some of whom believed that he was preoccupied with a potential Presidential run and was playing to his conservative political base."
• PBS 7/30/202: "...congressional Democrats, former senior officials and even some mid-level current State Department officials describe to me a State Department in which Pompeo and his allies are protected and career officials can sometimes be sidelined."
• The Atlantic, 10/23/2020

... and so on. To be clear, many of these sources make the point that the tenure of Pompeo's predecessor, Rex Tillerson, was even more catastrophic for the State Department, and many of the vacancies were created by people leaving to escape his leadership. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Besmirching

On a related issue of text not comporting with the sources, Anythingyouwant, your recent edit says Pompeo "besmirched" Yovanovich. The cited source does not say this. Multiple RS accounts say that in the face of GIuliani and others besmirching her and great distress within the State Department over such actions, Pompeo did nothing to stifle the attacks or to restore ordinary course functioning of the diplomatic corps. Quite a different matter. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The article currently says, Pompeo “stood by as Rudy Giuliani besmirched career diplomat Marie Yovanovitch.” It does not say Pompeo besmirched anyone. I feel besmirched though. I never wrote in this BLP that Pompeo besmirched anyone, I wrote about Pompeo being passive while Giuliani besmirched.[9] Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but the point is the same. It is minimized beyond any substantive reflection of the weight of RS reporting on the matter, which was described as shocking and destructive of the global apparatus of the State Department. Perhaps you will consider beefing it up to give our readers a better sense of how bold and unexpected a response this was for a US Sec'y of State. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes moved from lead

Per WP:WHENNOTCITE, footnotes are often omitted from the lead. Since everything in the lead has to be supported by the article body, and that stuff in the article body has to be footnoted, it’s often superfluous and duplicative to have footnotes in the lead. In this instance, I think the lead also looks a lot cleaner and simpler without the footnotes. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Transition to Democratic Administration

User:SPECIFICO recently made this edit to the lead: “Pompeo also echoed Trump's false claims about the election from the Secretary of State podium on November 10, 2020 but was actively transitioning to Democratic control a month later.”

SPECIFICO’s edit summary is as follows: “This is not supported by article text. It only says he met Blinken after the failed insurrection, but even then does not address the degree of coopereation in the transition.” Here is what the cited source (dated December 15. 2020) says:

The transition process at the department -- which is being carried out by Biden's State Department landing team and career officials at the department -- is described as jam-packed and moving along rapidly, but there is still a feeling that everything is a little bit behind where it should be due to the delayed start, two sources familiar with the transition explain to CNN.

So I’m mystified why this does not support the deleted material. Our article’s body says this: “As of December 15, 2020, the transition at the State Department to the new Democratic administration was described as jam-packed and moving along rapidly following the delayed start.” So I am perplexed about SPECIFICO’s edit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't help the readers to follow the narrative by burying key detail in a footnote, so I don't think your fix really addresses the problem. Pompeo, like other Trump cabinet officers, stonewalled the incoming administration for nearly two months -- until after Jan 6 -- at which time it was impossible to complete a full and orderly process as has been the norm for previous transitions. Instead of a footnote, which itself is incomplete and misleading, we need article text that reflects the weight of mainstream descriptions of the events. "Bustling along" or whatever does not address the fact that it was too late to complete the full transition process. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The cited source makes crystal clear that the transition was full speed ahead by mid-December, more than a month before the inauguration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)