Talk:Matthew Whitaker: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:13, 8 November 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matthew Whitaker article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Conservatism Start‑class Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Iowa Start‑class

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as Low-importance).

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- CaseKid 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sentences of this article are, to put it mildly, nakedly (left-wing) partisan; the first of the two is simply opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.212.46 (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matthew Whitaker. 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section discussing his relation to Muller's investigation?

I'm a relatively new Wikipedian. I feel a section discussing the effects of Whitaker's promotion on Muller's investigation would be useful (example: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer be in charge, Democrats have already called for his recusal, etc.). Whitaker's pre-promotion comments regarding Muller would then be moved into that section.

However, I'd like a... "bias check", for lack of a better term. I'm concerned my thought process may have spawned from my interest in this investigation. Can I get someone else to weigh in on whether this would be a relevant, neutral section? Thanks! Lohki (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how there can be a whole section on what Whitaker's appointment to Acting AG will have on the Mueller probe if Whitaker hasn't even started the job yet. What is there to write? I can see nothing to write. Anything we write right now will merely be speculation and nothing more. We don't do speculation. --CharlesShirley (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This section is filled with rhetoric from one side. At least give a balanced perspective, or better yet, avoid rhetoric altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autosmiths69 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Clovis and God

Think this relationship is underrepresented. Wikipietime (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph should be restored to the lede

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Whitaker_(politician)&diff=867902393&oldid=867900817

In September 2018, The New York Times described Whitaker as a Trump loyalist who had frequently visited the Oval Office and has "an easy chemistry" with Trump. With his appointment, Whitaker directly supervises Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation, which had previously been supervised by deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. Democrats demanded Whitaker recuse himself from supervising the investigation, citing potential conflicts of interest. Shortly before joining the Justice Department in 2017, Whitaker wrote an opinion piece arguing that the Mueller investigation was "going too far." He also referred to the Mueller investigation as a "lynch mob" and to calls for appointment of an independent prosecutor as "craven attempts to score cheap political points".

Cheers soibangla (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla Just saying that something belongs in the lead is not a rationable on why something should belong in the lead. The paragraph is borderline NPOV, it goes into great unnecessary detail, and it discusses topics that are not even close to being to the level to justify inclusion in the lead. Since you gave absolutely no rationale or reasoning on why the paragraph belongs in the lead, I would encourage you to review and make yourself familar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. --CharlesShirley (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the expanded content should be in the body, with a summary in the lead. Your characterization of the BBC and New York Times as "biased sources" is thought provoking. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 Cheers [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 18:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 :{{u|Soibangla}} Just saying that something belongs in the lead is not a rationable on why something should belong in the lead.  The paragraph is borderline NPOV, it goes into great unnecessary detail, and it discusses topics that are not even close to being to the level to justify inclusion in the lead.  Since you gave absolutely no rationale or reasoning on why the paragraph belongs in the lead, I would encourage you to review and make yourself familar with [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section]].  --[[User:CharlesShirley|CharlesShirley]] ([[User talk:CharlesShirley|talk]]) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
+::My view is that the expanded content should be in the body, with a summary in the lead. Your characterization of the BBC and New York Times as "biased sources" is thought provoking. [[User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris|Shock Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 19:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)