Talk:Rick Davis (political consultant)

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.

Neutral sources, anyone

"The Buying of the President?" Really? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 19:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You needn't post a neutrality contested tag. Just go ahead, be bold, and delete the link for such things. I overlooked it on my first-pass cleanup of the article. RayAYang (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal of quote

I recently removed a quote by Rick Davis that had no explanatory context for the quotation, serving only to set him up for a attack by the Obama campaign. Wikipedia is not the place to engage in political propaganda; there are severe WP:POV issues with selectively quoting people only to give the other side's explanation of their quotation. RayAYang (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Mac Paid McCain Campaign Manager's Firm Through last Month

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/freddie-mac-paid-mccain-c_n_128770.html Macshill (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) macshill[reply]

The primary--and more objective--source for this story is the New York Times article to which Huffington Post links. It is

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/24davis.html?scp=1&sq=rick%20davis&st=cse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.213.202 (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree. How does one put that source in the source area? Macshill (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) macshill[reply]

Slow it down a bit, please. Wikipedia is not about news, and this is a very recent story, with accusations still flying. For one thing, McCain's campaign has accused the New York Times of "wilful disregard for the truth." Wait a while for the facts to come out, Wikipedia will still be here, and we'll be more capable of writing something evenhanded and coherent then. RayAYang (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering of controversies

We can do most recent to least recent, or straight chronological, but I think it's a very bad idea to do them in order of what a particular editor thinks is "important" -- lends itself strongly to POV. Right now, the effective ordering (chronology) is 2-1-3. Given my choice, I'd prefer straight chronological, to avoid recentism. RayAYang (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion on this; I did the rearrangement primarily because another editor had done so (I reverted that change because most of it was wrong, but thought that the basic concept of putting a very recent controversy first was in fact better for readers). I agree that chronologically is typically the most neutral way to do things (and oldest first), though not always (sometimes importance should be taken into account). Again, not a big deal; I'll defer to others who feel more strongly on this than I do. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, reverse chronological makes sense, I suppose. There is something to be said for putting the more recent things first ... but "importance" is hard to gauge on political accusation back-and-forths, like this one. It would require, among other things, going into the possible truth of the accusations while the debate is still ongoing. RayAYang (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Career listings risk indiscriminacy

What would people feel about a breakout "affiliations" section? It seems that Mr. Davis' primary job from 2000-2006 or so remained lobbyist, with particular clients and jobs coming in. The current setup, where people randomly add connections and companies he's connected to a growing laundry list, does not seem ideal for reader comprehension. RayAYang (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]