Talk:William Timmons (lobbyist)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Who's going to get this one started?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html

In reply to the above unsigned .. we need more sources. Maybe we can find the actual court documents or something. Although something tells me it is going to get reported in some more news sites later. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes hopefully this story will get covered in the media, but here's where to look if someone wants to look at first hand sources http://www.iic-offp.org/story27oct05.htm 69.86.13.35 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Libelous

The biography of William Timmons has many errors of fact and may be considered libelous. Paragraph 1 truth: He is not now or ever been part of the John McCain presidential campaign, and he is not the lead of the presidential transition team. Paragraph 3 truth: Mr. Timmons never lobbied for Saddam Hussein or Iraq. It is worth noting that he was not called to testify in either trial of Mr. Vincent or Mr. Park and was not even asked for depositions. Even the Huffington Post article states of Timmons, "investigators were unable to uncover any evidence to contradict that claim (unaware of illegal activities)" Regarding Vincent's profits from Iraq oil-for-food contracts the article states, "in which Timmons was not involved." The purpose of the articles cited in the biography are designed to embarrass Senator McCain's campaign, and the fabrications are cited as sources by other publications. Therefore, I recommend you remove the whole biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.74.123 (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but I've reverted the page to the last clean copy. Part of the problem is user Kbhickory, who keeps reverting and blanking the page. I think another editor got confused and reverted to an early version, which had, as you noted, blatant WP:BLP issues. And some later partisan bloggy stuff snuck in.

Since this page has become contentious, please discuss major proposed edits here before posting them, so we can develop a consensus. This article must adhere to the WP policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. Material from partisan blogs is not acceptable for a BLP. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

William Timmons was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac. Bloomberg, Time

William Timmons was a lobbyist for Saddam Hussein. Countdown with Keith Olbermann, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, The Kansas City Star, Metro, The Rachel Maddow Show, Radar 2, Sky News, Talking Points Memo 2 3, Think Progress 2

William Timmons is on McCain's transition team. Bloomberg, CNN, The Los Angeles Times, Minneapolis St. Paul Star Tribune, Time

Do none of these sources meet your standards? JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So 68.100.74.123, you think that all of the sources claiming that he's part of McCain's transition team are lying? JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Libelous

William Timmons was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac among dozens of other corporations and associations. Writers picked Freddie Mac to cite because the organization is currently unpopular (along with Fanny Mae).

William Timmons was not a lobbyist for Saddam Hussein, and listed sources are rewrites from the discredited Huffington Post article. See my comments of 22 October.

William Timmons is not on the transition team, and Senator McCain has made it clear he will not name his transition team until after the election. Nevertheless, the Los Angeles Times article appears to be the only accurate report in stating Timmons "sent material about the mechanics of presidential transitions to the McCain campaign a month ago." This, of course, is different from leading or serving on a transition team which has not been established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.74.123 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

68.100.74.123, if you wish to add other corporations and associations that William Timmons has lobbied for, feel free.

When was The Huffington Post article discredited? Several major news sources and people (e.g. Keith Olbermann and John Kerry) have supported it.

So CNN, Time, etc are all lying that he's on the transition team? What proof do you have of this? JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Factual and Unbiased

There are 3 points I would like to make:

1) Keith Olbermann and Senator Kerry have no way of ascertaining the statements in the Huffington Post article, and aren't exactly neutral sources. The article can immediately be discredited when you read that McCain has named Timmons "to head his presidential transition team" -- former Navy Secretary John Lehman is heading McCain's group ([1]. This misreport shouldn't come as a surprise, however, given Huffington Post's poor credibility rankings and waning reputation.

2) Since reports from major and seemingly esteemed sources have described Timmons role ranging from simply providing transition documentation to McCain and nothing else, to overseeing the transition group altogether, it does not seem prudent to base any WP information according to one or the other (or to try to prove the Time or CNN coverage wrong). I suggest any listed members of the transition team is based on the actual members of the transition team, which has not been announced. Timmons is not currently listed as a member of the campaign staff.

3) I urge all Wikipedia users to build this and other bio's based on facts and keep it unbiased, rather than on inflammatory media coverage. I recommend that the 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph is removed, and that clients other than just Freddie Mac are listed.

Rtally3 (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

I removed the final sentence, as the cite, a TV show, doesn't even mention Timmons, and was repetitious and snarky. Later note: another editor restored the cite. I searched the source, and couldn't find Timmons name in the transcript. Did I miss something? Regardless, a TV opinion-show transcript seems an odd choice for a cite, especially as the fact is cited previously.

The sentence based on the Huffington Post article is very unclear, and doesn't mention Timmons' rebuttal, a WP:BLP violation. I don't think this source qualifies as a WP:reliable source: see [2], [3], [4]. A brief Google search found no support from high-quality news sources. As this item could be considered defamatory, it should be properly sourced, or removed: see WP:BLP --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for Timmons' rebuttal. Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post is a reliable source - it is an edited news source just like Salon or National Review Online or any of dozens of other reliable sources. There is also nothing whatsoever defamatory about stating the fact that this guy was involved in a particular campaign. And this was mentioned by a former presidential candidate on MSNBC. Please stop your disruptive editing. Thanks. csloat (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Huffington Post (the correct title) has never been a reliable source on Wikipedia. Enigma ^message 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You are asserting that but you have no evidence. This is an edited news source that clearly meets WP:RS. Which part of WP:RS do you feel is violated by the news articles in this news source? (Keep in mind the source also contains blog entries and opinion pieces, as does the New York Times and other reliable sources with online outlets, but the article in question here is a piece of news reporting from a very well respected investigative journalist). Thanks for engaging the discussion. csloat (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. This is not my personal opinion; rather it's the consensus view of the community. Enigma ^message 00:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You are making false statements with no evidence whatsoever. Which part of WP:RS is violated by the Huffington Post? csloat (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who continues to edit the article so that only one client is listed, mentions that Timmons is a member of the McCain campaign, and places a link to the campaign members (please note that Timmons is not listed on that page), but please discuss your reasons for doing so in accordance with WP policy. I have given reasons for making edits above, none of which were rebutted. Rtally3 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your version continues to remove the references. Perhaps we can compromise? Include some references. Enigma ^message 00:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post

The Huffington Post investigative report on Timmons' previous campaigns is being censored by an anonymous ip who is editing in an abusive manner, falsely claiming that the magazine is not a WP:RS and also falsely claiming that it is "libelous." These arguments are both canards. Huffington Post is a reliable source for news stories, the article by respected investigative journalist Murray Waas is not an opinion piece but a scoop that he uncovered by looking at public records. And Huffington post is not some kind of blog; it is an edited news source with an editorial staff just like Slate or Salon or other online news sources. Finally, the claim is not "libelous" at all; it is a fact that is easily checked with reference to the public record. Are we done here? csloat (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're claiming that the Huffington Post is able to prove that a high profile lobbyist aided Sadaam Hussein, while the FBI didn't find enough evidence to even ask for a deposition, and no mainstream news sources are picking up on it? How can you possibly explain that? Also, the Huffington Post article asserts that McCain is his "current employer", which isn't true -- Timmons is not a member of the campaign [5]. Moreover, take a look at the Huffington Post credibility trend [6]. This is all a blatant attempt to use Timmons as a vehicle to damage the McCain campaign, which should be left to the spineless liberal news sources, not an online encyclopedia. The edits that have been made by the unidentified user have not been any more abusive, and far less arbitrary (these changes have been a compromise by way of consensus on the discussion board) than any others. Jmcgee2 (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Don;t put words in my mouth. All I'm claiming is that Murray Waas wrote an investigative piece in a reliable source based on public records that found that Timmons was involved in a specific campaign. I didn't claim there was anything illegal or FBI-worthy afoot, that was your claim. And this has nothing to do with McCain's campaign - believe me, a freakin sentence in Wikipedia is not going to change one vote. And don't make up nonsense about "consensus" -- nobody has filed an RfC or taken a vote or made any attempt to gauge consensus; all there is is you and an anonymous ip editing disruptively to advance a political agenda. This story is well sourced and if you look above you will see that it has been picked up by numerous sources. You will also see numerous sources documenting Timmons' relation to the McCain team. Your one piece of evidence - a list from Wikipedia? Quit the nonsense, please. csloat (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL - I forgot your other piece of evidence - the "credibility" rank from NewsCred ... it's laughable that this web page (which basically rates credibhility based on website reader's response), but if you want to use this evidence, it actually supports the Huff Post's reliability; it puts the credibility at over 95%, about the same as Fox News, with about the same "trend" over the year (moving from 98% to 95%). If you want to cite shoddy evidence to support your point, at least find shoddy evidence that actually supports your point rather than the other side. csloat (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So you support the Huffington Post article, but not the notion that Timmons did anything illegal? That makes no sense considering the thrust of the article is that Timmons took part in illegal activity. The point of the NewsCred trend was to show the waning credibility of the Huffington Post as the political campaigns have kicked into high gear. It is not the only source that reports unflattering figures. This source shows the Huffington Post credibility compared to other news sources [7]. Also, there are more people than just jmcgee2 and the anonymous user changing your offensive edits. As far as the credibility of the news sources reporting that Timmons is involved in the campaign -- the articles are contradictory. The Bloomberg article, for example, states that Timmons is leading the transition in the heading, but later states that his role has not been confirmed [8]. John Lehman is heading the transition planning, not Timmons [9]. The LA Times captures his role accurately [10]. Material was sent, and that was the extent of his involvement. Also, there are numerous comments about gaining a consensus on this discussion page. Simply peruse the page to see them. Lastly, simply removing inflammatory sources from an online encyclopedia does not advance an political agenda -- it aims to make it factual. The suggestion that the profile supports a political agenda is in direct disagreement with the statement "this has nothing to do with the McCain campaign, this profile is not going to change one vote". Rtally3 (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't "support" articles. I stated that it is a fact that the article was written -- that's what we should document here, not our opinions about them or about whether they mention anything "illegal" or not. There is no "waning credibility" documented anywhere; the methodology of the newscred site -- having random users click a button on a web page if they feel like it -- is hardly scientific; but even if you accept it as valid, it trends the same as Fox news and is well over 90%. Perhaps the "trend" it claims to have measured actually only measured the increased number of people going to that site due to the election. Your arguments are silly. There is nothing "offensive" about the edit. Again, you might as well nitpick about a Gallup poll. This is a respected journalist in a reliable source with a story based on public records. If you want to add comments to the article about the confusion about Timmons' exact position on the transition team, go for it, but stop deleting well sourced information from public sources that is not really even embarrassing or "inflammatory" at all. You're the one censoring for political reasons; I'm the one who said I don't think this will change anyone's vote. Nor do I care - McCain does not need my help to lose this election. This is simply a fact about Mr. Timmons' activities that should be in the article now as well as after Nov 4th. csloat (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the changes I have made are based on my political views. The intent has only been to accurately capture the activities of Bill Timmons. His contributions to the political system and American business have been many and varied, as people from both sides of the aisle will tell you. There are dozens of articles over the years that could have been referenced -- the fact that you chose to pull the most negative article that is blatanly fabricated is offensive. Please refrain from making changes, as it appears that the majority has spoken. Rtally3 (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the bullying -- if you find yourself unable to refute my arguments other than to invoke a phony "majority," consider that perhaps your arguments are weak. Please recognize that BLP rules apply to Murray Waas; when you state an outright lie such as that his article - based on public record, and backed up with a new article today - is "blatantly fabricated," you invite defamation lawsuits against Wikipedia. It is a joke that the anon mentions libel when it's clear he doesn't even understand the meaning of the word. Please do not censor this factual and relevant material again; thank you. csloat (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the most recent modifications since it did not gain a consensus. CSLOAT alone does not constitute a consensus, and there are 4 other users who agreed that the existing article was appropriate. Rtally3 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been no attempt to measure consensus. I have already reported your account as it seems strange to me that a single-purpose account such as yours is operating independently. If you are truly arguing in good faith here, I'd like to know your reasons for deleting this material, which I have shown above is factual, relevant, and well-sourced. I've summarized the issues below based on the RfC I started on the issue. csloat (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There are attempts to gain a consensus throughout the page. The section directly below asks that any changes be discussed before they are made, for example. Rtally3 (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an attempt at bullying, not an attempt to reach consensus. I have discussed my changes; you have not, nor have either of your suspected sockpuppets. csloat (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I touch on my reasons for making changes in the "Factual and Unbiased" section above, as well as other places throughout this page. Rtally3 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps but you do not "touch on" my responses to those reasons, summarized below. At least we now have some confirmation that you are also editing from DC, just like the anon ip, and if my suspicions are correct, I think Jmcgee is going to have a similar ip as well. I don't think sockpuppets are permitted when you are using them to edit war or to forge the appearance of "consensus" by pretending to be three different people. csloat (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not the user from the anonymous IP or JMcGee2, nor am I in Washington, D.C. (although I don't understand why it would be odd that 3 people from D.C. would make contributions to a profile with strong political ties). The bottom line is that there are multiple contributors who disagree with your edits, and claiming that this consensus is not real because we are the same person is ridiculous and completely unfounded. Please refain from making anymore abusive edits -- the majority has spoken. -rtally3

Augmented Client List

I added more information to the client list, as I found it more informational than simply referencing a single former client. Please propose any deviations from the current profile on the discussion board. Jmcgee2 (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The current profile is the one with the most compromise that I have seen. It appears accurate, unbiased, and more thorough than changes made earlier. I propose we leave it as is. If anyone wishes to make any modifications, please provide your reasoning on the discussion board and allow sufficient time for responses before making any change. Rtally3 (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The links provided should be put into standard Wiki reference format. Otherwise the article strikes me as fair and balanced. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC on this page

This edit is the information some people want to delete on this page. The arguments they have given so far are (1) reliable source concerns, (2) "libel" concerns, and (3) notability. My responses to them, which they have ignored:

(1) Huffington Post is a reliable source for investigative journalism pieces like this one. It has an editorial board and is no less reliable than such online sources as Salon or Slate. While it also publishes opinion pieces and blogs, the piece quoted here is by a very well known investigative reporter, Murray Waas, and is based entirely on public records - so any one of us could go see it is accurate. Clearly WP:RS is met.

(2) "libel" - this is a canard. There is nothing libelous about factual reporting based on public records. Some people think it hurts Timmons' reputation among right wingers to have had ties to Saddam but that is silly -- if the ties are there they are there, whether or not someone finds it embarrassing or inconsistent with their biases. If Timmons thought he was being defamed he would have sued Waas by now; certainly there is no risk of him suing Wikipedia for factually stating that Waas wrote an article that claims such and such.

(3) Notability - This piece has been cited in numerous other sources, and received a commendation from Radar, as well as a mention from John Kerry on MSNBC and Keith Olbermann, commented on on websites for the Guardian and the Atlantic, and mentioned on Democracy Now. While this isn't the New York Times yet, it certainly meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability.

Those are the only arguments I can see having been made by the ones edit warring to keep this information off the page; I have made them before and they have not been answered but I rewrote them here clearly for the RfC. Thank you for participating in this RfC. csloat (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rtally3, Tillman, Enigmaman, Jmcgee2, and Kbhickory that that the Huffington Post is not a reliable source. While the current bio isn't exactly accurate, it's not libelous. We should strive for accurate information. Isn't that what Wikipedia should be -- accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.74.123 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus at Wikipedia is that the Huffington Post doesn't a qualify as a WP:reliable source: see [11], [12], [13]. Also see earlier discussion, above. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we need reasons here. There is no so-called "consensus" and nobody has mentioned what part of WP:RS is not met by this source; I think this is particularly problematic when the source in question is a well respected investigative journalist basing everything on public court records -- there is zero chance of this information being inaccurate. And Huffington post is an edited news source just like Salon Slate National Review or any one of the dozens of sources acceptable everywhere else on Wikipedia. (On another note, Jmcgee2, Rtally3, and 68.100.74.123 are most likely the same person, so making a "consensus" out of that is ludicrous). csloat (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on Wikipedia is that The Huffington Post is not a reliable source. There's nothing more that needs to be said about this. You obviously disagree, but I think you'll find that you're rather alone in believing that The Huffington Post is a reliable source. Enigma ^message 06:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think so. There is no evidence of any such consensus, and repeating it does not make it so. It is amazing that in all of this repetition you have not once found yourself able to answer the simple question - what part of WP:RS does this source violate? csloat (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussions I cited above. This question has been discussed at length elsewhere. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked for your answer to that question here and now, not "at length elsewhere." Those other discussions do not represent any kind of Wikipedia policy and it is inappropriate for you to keep citing them as if they had any relevance here. csloat (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The views of the community can be solicited at WP:RSN. They have already been solicited on several occasions regarding The Huffington Post. Please read those discussion and indicate how this case is different from previous cases already discussed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The previous discussions do not apply to an (1) edited (2) investigative reporting scoop by a (3) well-respected investigative journalist (4) based on public records. I have emphasized these four points over and over and nobody has responded. Finally, (5) There is nothing in RSN that indicates it is anything more than a noticeboard; it certainly has no implications in a policy sense, and various discussions there do not have any kind of binding authority on other discussions; they certainly should not be used in lieu of actual objective analysis, as people are trying to push here. csloat (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• It would help the discussion if folks would link directly to the source being discussed. Is this it? McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it; there is more information here as well. csloat (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You say that it was edited. I presume you mean by someone other than the author. Is there evidence of that editing? That would make a big difference. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the info about Huffington Post's editorial board; I don't know which editor edited this article, but that is certainly normal for news sources with editorial boards and I think RS requires that reliable sources be edited, not that we know who the specific editor is. csloat (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the fact that Murray Waas is a professional journalist who covers Washington politics, on the fact that this is an investigative piece rather than an opinion, and on the fact that the Huffington Post appears to have a full editorial board capable of providing oversight for articles like these, and in view of the intended use, which attributes the assertions to Waas rather than simply listing them as facts, this appears to me to be an appopriate use of the source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The first comment [14] on this article is pertinent:

"This is a blatent display of media sensationalism at its best (or worst!). Timmons was never asked to testify and he wasn'r deposed. He never lobbied for Hussein or Iraq. This is libelous! You guys are looking for someone to pick a nasty fight with . . . sorry, but this isn't your guy. And I'm a liberal!"

You simply can't use stuff like this in a WP:BLP without a lot stronger support than you have! --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm, you're citing a comment from "daveclark5" as evidence of what? For HuffPost as well as with other online news sources, the investigative reports are considered reliable, while comments from random readers are not. csloat (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone mentioned upthread, the problems with the HuffPost article start with the title: Timmins isn't McCain's transition chief, John F. Lehman, Jr. is, per the LA Times. A good clue that this is not a reliable story. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is not whether we agree the story is true; the question is whether the source is reliable. Now that we have established that it is, the material stays in, as long as we attribute the assertions to Waas rather than to Wikipedia. Thanks to everyone for participating in the RfC. csloat (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's generally preferred not to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to spread falsehoods. Enigma ^message 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur. I never proposed anyone do that. The question of whether there was a misstatement in the title of the article (which seems to be Tillman's point) is irrelevant to whether the main claim of the article is sourced to a reliable source. Again, the attribution is clear, and the reliable source issue appears to have been settled. csloat (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"notablility" just because the huffington piece was repeated (with no new or original information) in other on-line sources, doesn't make it accurate. (an analogy might be people can (and did) repeat the world is flat all day long but that doesn't make it true). again, the main stream media realized that waas himself said that despite an exhaustive investigation, investigators could not contradict timmons' claims of innocence. so the main stream media realized THERE IS NO STORY, and didn't go with it. the waas piece was filled with innuendo that could not be substantiated by an EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION. wikipedia should rely on the facts and evidence and not on innuendo and speculation if it desires to maintain its status as an unbiased information source. otherwise, it turns into a gossip sheet. we must not let this happen as wikipedia is too important a source. Printthetruth (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet conversation

Discrediting the consensus on this page under the suspicion that there is a single user operating under multiple accounts is not acceptable. You need proof. Moreover, even if you were able to prove that is the case, there is still a consensus even if you count rtally3, the anonymous ip, and jmcgee2 as one vote. I have not been operating under any other accounts, however, and your complaints, statements, edits and accusations are obnoxious. Your 3 points made above HAVE all received responses elsewhere on the discussion page. -rtally3

Proof was provided by the admin who looked into it (see WP:AN/I). Additionally, the Rtally3 account was blocked; you created yet another sockpuppet to evade the block. Please post only to your talk page until your block expires, or it may be extended. In any case, your comments are redundant. csloat (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That does not prove that the same person was using multiple accounts. Since I haven't broken any rules, I don't have any qualms continuing to post. I am baffled by the fact that you don't acknowledge the majority, whether or not you include the 3 said users as 1 vote -- and you complain that you don't get responses to your reasons for editing, yet make an effort to block users from being able respond. And I'm the bully. Laughable. rtally3

You have broken rules and you continue to break them by posting here; I have informed an admin of your actions. In any case I am still waiting for one editor to actually discuss the reasons for this source not being considered reliable. I have provided five responses above to the bogus "Wikipedia consensus" that keeps getting repeated here, and so far nobody has bothered to answer one of them. csloat (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference of opinion about one article seems ridiculous at this point. There are multiple people who agree the current profile is the best so far, and one fly in the ointment that does not. That's all it really boils down to. -rtally3

No; all it boils down to is the arguments and evidence. Again, we're waiting for the other side to respond to the five points raised above; until that point, presumption favors inclusion. This is my last comment to rtally as I have been more than fair in taking his comments seriously despite his repeated violations of wikipedia rules and phony forging of "consensus" through multiple sockpuppet accounts. I've separated this discussion as there doesn't seem to be anything here relevant to the rfc. csloat (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Murray Waas' piece should be deleted. Waas himself says even after an "exhaustive investigation" Timmons' claim of innocence could not be dispproved. END OF STORY. Why is this still in there? What personal problem does Mr. Waas have with Mr. Timmons? I would suggest that Mr. Waas' efforts to smear Mr Timmons were political and directed at Sen. McCain's Presidential ambitions. That seems to be his motivation for writing the piece in the first place, while getting the added bonus of a little notoriaty himself. I might mention that the MAIN STREAM MEDIA did not pick up this story because they realized they didn't have a leg to stand on. And, I would say that just because Mr. Waas has not been notified (see above) of a slander suit does not mean one is not in the works. Slander is hard to prove and attorneys must prove Mr. Timmons business has been adversely affected by Mr. Waas' innuendo. That will likely take time...Please be responsible here.Printthetruth (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

At least you put your comment in the proper section. I've reported that rtally3 has another sockpuppet. You're welcome to speculate all you want about Murray Waas' motives but unless you have reliable sources backing up these claims they really aren't relevant here. csloat (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Murray Waas is "welcome to speculate" all he wants, but that is all he is doing in reference to William Timmons hand in the Saddam affair. Let me repeat Mr. Waas' own words: after an intensive investigation no one could contradict Timmons claims of innocence (please see original article). so his innuendo is not "relevant" here and innuendo and speculation should not be part of this bio, as you yourself state. you must be consistent and fair. secondly, i have read other bios of Timmons which state his birthdate to be in 1930, not 1931, as this bio indicates. please check and correct, if necessary. Printthetruth (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

i don't understand the sock puppet comment, but as this is my first time doing writing in wikipedia i guess i was supposed to put this comment in another section? i will re-print it there. thank you for catching this. Printthetruth (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Murray Waas investigative report

The RfC on this issue was settled a while ago and it was agreed that the article was appropriately considered a reliable source in this instance. If Amwestover or someone else would like to revisit this issue I would suggest reopening the RfC. csloat (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support reopening it -- the Waas article clearly has factual problems, starting with its title. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do so. But I don't think that minor errors in the title of an article have any implication one way or another for its status as a reliable source. csloat (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a link to this RfC you refer to? Dicklyon (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's higher up on this page. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A better source?

Perhaps this book will be a more reliable source for the connection with Iraq and Samir Vincent (also Tongsun Park on p.9). Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed "material" from smear site

I removed some "material" from a smear site. No biggie, --Tom 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. It should be re-written from the better source above; but if nobody cares enough to do so, it should be out. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I also tweeked the lead. It looks like the sourced hired or "tapped" him to do a study? Not sure if that equals that he was on the team so to speak. --Tom 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP & RS Consensus

FYI the issues in referencing the Huffington Post article were discussed on both the BLP and RS Noticeboards and deemed to be in violation of WP guidelines (see discussions at links below).

[15]

[16]

Rtally3 (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice to let folks here know you were forum-shopping this issue. The premise that HP is a "smear site" is based on a factual inaccuracy -- the truth is, HP is edited when it comes to stories from journalists, as I showed you -- again, here is the HP's editorial staff page, which puts to rest the claim that this is no better than a blog. And let's remember that Murray Waas is a very well-respected reporter. On top of that, another editor has added another reliable source above. It's pretty clear that the material should be restored, and its deletion is little better than censorship. csloat (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Has there been a discussion on the Huffington Post that concludes that it's OK? If you can point one out, I can restore the removed material. Otherwise, I'll let you guys deal with it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion is here. csloat (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree that the consensus of uninvolved editors is that this source is reliable, though possibly biased; as long as the info is clearly attributed and not exaggerated in the reporting, should be no problem including it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No. In fact, a Wikipedia admin specifically said that the HP is not a reliable source for facts on the reliable source noticeboard [17]. Claiming that the writer is "well respected" is highly subjective. Anyone who actually reads the evidence can see that there is not enough evidence to support the claim that Timmons was involved, as the FBI and U.N. will tell you. Referencing this highly contentious material is in clear violation of the BLP: Guidelines. Rtally3 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Rtally is wrong; the discussion on the RfC concluded HP was an ok source for this article since the article in question is a piece of investigative journalism, not opinion. The only objection raised to HP is the lack of editing, which has been laid to rest with the link I gave above. The writer is known for his investigative journalism; it may be subjective to call him "highly" respected, but it is objective to say that he is a respected journalist and that he has not been shown to make crap like this up. Besides, we now have another source. I will add that Rtally3 has been on something of a holy war on this passage, even breaking the rules with sockpuppets to remove it, and questions remain about why he is so invested in this particular figure. As for BLP, there is nothing in BLP that suggests we cannot report factual information -- Wikipedia can say that such-and-such was reported, without saying whether it is true or false,. Additionally, BLP does not trump the truth -- would you go to the Charles Manson page and remove all reference to his crimes in order to satisfy BLP? In this case we aren't even talking about anything Timmons would be particularly embarrassed about, so there really isn't any BLP concern at all. csloat (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, "a Wikipedia admin" gets no more weight in such a discussion than any other wikipedia editor in good standing. That's not what adminship is about. Anyway, Rtally3 didn't say whose opinion he was going with, and nobody is going to check and see who all are admins. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I like to keep up on the discussions of this page, as I find it's an invaluable resource to find out what's being written about where. I should say that I am a super-left-winger and a fan of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and the like. However, I'm curious (worried?) about the trend of citing second, third, fourth hand sources as factual. I also am a regular reader of the HP and use it as a compass to direct further reading from which to ascertain facts, although I prefer to get those facts from sources that are completely and accurately documented. After doing some fact checking (I'm a history researcher IRL) it seems to me that the HP article is inaccurate and the Timmons's connection to Hussein it describes actually refers to a UN sanctioned humanitarian program known as Oil-for-Food. Although Timmons wasn't involved, the program was to benefit the people of Iraq under rule of their dictator. Timmons has not been registered with FARA, which is required if one is to lobby for foreign clients. No reliable new sources have posted anything regarding this. It's safe to say that the Department of Justice, FBI and United Nations know about who is registered w/FARA and the UN obviously knows who was involved in their program. Also, legislative records indicate that Timmons was not subpoenaed for depositions or to testify. This seems like a dead issue... Hazeldell97202 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is this isn't a second third or whatever source -- this is an investigative journalism piece on Timmons by a well known reporter. If you have done some "fact checking" that shows this claim is false, why not link to the real facts so we can all see? If your claim is just that Oil for Food wasn't such a bad thing, you're just confirming my point that there really is no BLP concern to worry about here. If your point is that the UN or Justice would have said something if the HP claims were true, all we need is a reliable source that states that to be the case. csloat (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that an official WP admin stated "I wouldn't use HP as a RS for facts" in the RfC, and that the majority of the users agree -- I don't see how I am wrong about the consensus on the noticeboard. The HP's biases affect their reporting, whether it goes to editorial review or not. The HP, holistically, has a special agenda. The fact that my account was alleged to be a sockpuppet (which isn't true) is completely moot, and I haven't been on anymore of a "holy war" about this than CSLOAT has, who mind you, even took the initiative to identify the exact neighborhoods where edits were being made on the bio -- which is just creepy.

Why should a "well known" reporters word be taken as gospel? Before you demand that anyone disprove the claim -- can YOU prove it? The only proof needed to show that this claim is false is that TIMMONS WASN'T CHARGED AFTER AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION OR EVEN ASKED FOR A DEPOSITION. Again, the article itself states that Timmons "lobbied for Sadaam Hussein", but then says "Timmons claims he was not involved, and investigators were unable to find any evidence to contradict this claim". Waas can speculate all he wants, but there's just no proof that Timmons was involved.

CSLOAT's statement "the point isn't whether the article is true, the point is whether it is a reliable source" is perplexing. What exactly is the difference? Are we able to read critically and discern facts on our own? Reliable sources print the truth -- which, mind you, is that Waas used Timmons as a vehicle to try to damage the McCain campaign during the election. Timmons wasn't even the transition lead, as the article states. John Lehman was. Rtally3 (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop distorting my claims. The point is not whether we should take this article as "gospel"; it's about whether it is reliable. We know it is reliable. If Timmons wasn't charged, that's great - it supports my point all along that he didn't really do anything wrong and there is no BLP violation in reporting what reliable sources have said. We can include that Timmons claimed he was not involved of course, as that is in the article too. There is no reason Murray Waas' work should be judged any differently from any other reliable source. Claiming that Waas was trying to hurt McCain is just silly, there is no proof of that at all. csloat (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your point the whole time has been that Timmons didn't do anything wrong??? Are you kidding me!? You've been persistent about referencing an article titled "McCain Transition Chief Aided Sadaam in Lobbying Effort", which shows a picture of Timmons beside a picture of Hussein. Moreover, none of your edits have shed light on the the idea that he might not have aided the effort. If you believe he didn't aid the effort, then there is no reason to draw attention to the article -- the thrust of which is of course that Timmons aided one of the most evil dictators of our time and betrayed our nation during a time of war. Rtally3 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything wrong with trying to help the Iraqi people get food or medical supplies during the boycott, and it doesn't look like Timmons thought so either. My whole point is that none of this raises BLP concerns. This wasn't "a time of war," it was a time of boycott, and Saddam was an evil dictator, to be sure, but most of his evil did not take place during the boycott. I'd suggest you don't use this article to re-fight the Iraq war; this is about Timmons, and this is a significant part of his biography. csloat (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it's pretty clear from the discussion you started here that the consensus is that HuffPost is reliable for the purposes cited here, even though you called it "political and liberal." Cheers, csloat (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting, but errant, claim as to the views expressed there. Collect (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting perhaps but not at all errant, as far as I can tell; there were several views expressed but most seemed to consider the source reliable for this purpose. Again, we have to distinguish between opinion pieces and investigative journalism; the HP has editorial control and Murray Waas is a respected reporter. Most of the comments in that discussion seem to acknowledge this and to rate HP as reliable for this sort of article. Cheers, csloat (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And a large bunch of views that HP was not a RS here ... did you think that one should only cite one side from that long discussion? AFAICT, your cite does not support your claim that HP is an acceptable RS here. And the track record of HP on its own articles is poor. Collect (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What's your source for the assessment that they have a bad track record? Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of rumors during the campaign, for example. HP was one of the prime movers in that. There have now been a large number of discussions about HP, and if you like I will give you links to them ... but they are many indeed now. Also see the RS/N discussion and see how much respect the HP has <g>. Collect (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Which rumors? which campaign? Where's the evidence of HP being a "prime mover"? Where's the evidence of the "bad track record"? It's fine to claim that, but without even a specific example (much less a link to a presumably more reliable source describing this alleged record), you're the one rumor-mongering here. The discussion about HP that is directly relevant to this article is linked above and the consensus there - and clearly the balance of arguments - suggests that HP is fine for this type of article. csloat (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

When I asked for "your source", I kind of expected a link to a source, not more vague opinions. Dicklyon (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Source is OK, but...

The quoted bit about the guys being guilty was not obviously relevant to Timmons. So I quoted instead some stuff specifically about Timmons, which seems much more illuminating and relevant. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work; your version is more accurate and relevant than the version that was there before. csloat (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

""Per HP: [18] Palin is a secessionist. [19] and was part of a "treasonous cabal" or at least a "fellow traveler." [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susie-hoeller/sarah-palin---a-demagogue_b_133114.html] "Palin is a demagogue because she is stirring up emotional fears, hatred, and prejudice in the electorate solely for her own political gain." [20] "The ultimate Palin secessionist pals video" [21] Palin is a Rovian pitbull. [22] Palin "courted" the AIP. (HP has a goodly bunch of articles asserting Palin is a secessionist or connected with AIP) Ergo, it is reasonable to posit that HP is not neutral in presenting articles with any political context. [23] would not pass the "weasel word" standards of WP, much less be considered a straight article in its editorializing. Now consider past work by Waas: [24] article for Salon (an unbiassed site?) [25] and a slew more if you need them. Thus we show HP is not RS in general, and that Waas, in specific, as a person who routinely wrote highly political position articles is not RS on any political issues. [26] [27] Dear me -- how many poloitical editorials do we need from Waas to cast doubt on him being an RS here? Collect (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I see any point here; nothing you link to or write above says anything that casts doubt on Waas being an investigative journalist. He's as much of an RS as any investigative journalist for any other edited magazine (e.g. Salon, New Republic, National Review, etc.) You're grasping at straws. Cheers, csloat (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the arguments of others, the straw grasper is naval. HP is right out. Collect (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I assume that's some kind of oblique reference to John McCain's naval experience? Not sure how it's relevant, but the fact is, HP is reliable for this purpose. If you have something new to add let's see it, but otherwise you're not being helpful here. csloat (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Buyingofthepresident.org" is not RS for any BLP by a mile. Collect (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. It's a quadrennial study put out by the Center for Public Integrity. The paper version is actually used in a lot of seminars on politics in the US. You can read about the project here. It's certainly as much of an RS as any published book. csloat (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations

The citations I restored from an old version are better than nothing, I think. Or did someone challenge their reliability? Anyway, some need to be re-worked as proper cites instead of just linked quotes. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is one from sourcewatch that probably should be deleted; sourcewatch is usually pretty accurate, but it's a Wikipedia-like interface that anyone can edit. Like wikipedia, though, it usually is a good place to find links to additional sources. I'm not aware of discussions about sourcing that material -- I actually don't recall when it was deleted nor why. csloat (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Who's who

Rtally3, if you want to help the article, you could point out what's in the source you mentioned without footnotes: Who's Who in America 1995. Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Connection with election

The claim that the Thuemond memo was sent because of the upcoming presidential election eleven months later makes no sense. The text of the memo stands for itself, the fact it was obtained under FOIA is not germane to a BLP at all, especially with the inference that Timmons was somehow acting on behalf of the Nixon re-election by responding to Thurmond. BLPs are tough enough without trying to insert such stuff. Collect (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the source? It makes perfect sense to me; but in any case, it's what was going on at the time, and is worth reporting, no matter how nonsensical it might seem in retrospect. Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is, at best, Coatrack. The election is not mentioned in any of the memos. The election was eleven months in the future. Timmons was not part of any campaign at the time of the memos. Hence, arguing that his actions (which consisted of responding to a memo from a Senator) could be related to the election is not even up to "guilt by association." I might as well argue that the memo was sent at the full moon, which was when Nixon;s beard grew the most. Collect (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source discussing Nixon, beards, or moons, please share it; it sounds like interesting reading. Collect, you seem to do a lot of second-guessing of reliable sources. That is a great intellectual exercise, and I might agree with some of your doubts, but it really isn't helpful on Wikipedia since it is considered original research. If you don't have a source raising these doubts, we can't use these doubts to exclude reliable sources from the articles. csloat (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you stating that finding Feb 1972 to be eleven months prior to Nov 1972 is "original research" then ... WOW!! Collect (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Lennon deportation and Timmons

Is Nixon campaign relevant to Timmons and Lennon? Is FOIA reference relevant to Timmons and Lennon?

Right now the article makes an implicit claim that Timmons' acts were related to the 1972 Presidential campaign of Richard Nixon. Is this proper material for a BLP? Is it specifically relevant to a biography of William Timmons?

Actually, when added that connection to the 1972 election, it was quite explicit, as that's what the source said the deportation attempt was about. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article also notes that the memos cited were obtained through the FOIA. Is this material relevant to a BLP in general? Is it proper and relevant to the BLP of William Timmons? I trust this is worded neutrally. Collect (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very nicely worded, I agree. If anyone has trouble reading the linked source pages, let me know and I can email a copy. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, there's at least one other "relevance" tag in the article that we could use comments on. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've commented in the preceding section. (Short story: Nixon/FOIA not relevant to this BLP in my view). Jayen466 12:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

John Lennon

I think the sentence "Lennon was a political activist in the United States, despite the fact that he was not an American citizen." is unsourced editorializing and should be removed. csloat (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would remove the whole section as it currently is. Are there more/better/any sources for this? The link doesn't appear to work for me.--Tom 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

His activism is the reason they wanted to deport him, and he was obviously not an American citizen, or he couldn't be deported. The statement also implies that freedom of speech is limited to citizens. So the last part of the sentence be gone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tom that the whole section might need to be removed. Timmons role is unclear, and it seems like a random piece of information to extract from an entire career in Washington. Rtally3 (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I made him "politically vocal" which I would hope no one could cavil about. Collect (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think his political vocalness -- however we word it -- has any relevance to this page without a source stating that specifically. Readers can click on John Lennon if they haven't heard of him before; there's no reason for such editorializing in this article. csloat (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can't state the reason he was to be deported, then the subject shouldn't be brought up at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that the reason he was going to be deported? If so, it should state that. csloat (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the majority opinion here, I have removed this section. Please post any questions/concerns. Rtally3 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed entirely; it seemed relevant and well-sourced. If we're going to keep this page at all, this guy must be notable for something, but it seems people don't think he's notable for the only two events that reliable sources have reported on about him. What's left is basically a resume. csloat (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguably, it could be put back, IF someone could find a valid source for the reason Lennon was to be deported. We all "know" the reason, but that's insufficient. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; this page is about Timmons, not Lennon. If Timmons is notable for trying to deport Lennon, that is an important part of the bio whether or not we can determine whether he had a good reason. csloat (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Without stating the reason, it has an inherent bias implying he shouldn't have been trying to deport Lennon. Maybe he had a good reason for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the article didn't say that was the reason; I suppose it just needed to be clearer -- just stating that Lennon was politically active doesn't state that it was the reason Timmons wanted him deported. (Though calling political activity a "good" reason for deportation is a little silly when you're talking about a democracy, of course, but that's neither here nor there). csloat (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RTally has misrepresented the consensus, which if anything was about the unsourced "activist" sentence. So I'll put it back. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The activities of the subject without mention of Lennon seem extremely notable to me. It seems as if users are grasping for some controversial and exciting event to reference that just doesn't exist. All we know is that Timmons' sent a response to Thurmond, informing him of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's decision -- it isn't even clear if Timmons' role extended beyond that. I see the note as random and uneventful, and suggest the Lennon section be removed. Rtally3 (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a "controversial and exciting event." It just has to be something notable, preferably something discussed in published sources. If those sources are reporting that Timmons' role is "random and uneventful," let's include that. But if those sources aren't publishing anything about Timmons, then why is there a Wikipedia page about him at all? The truth is, this section and the section about the relationship with Iraq that you have been actively suppressing appear to be the major items about Timmons that actually are notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. Cheers, csloat (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This Time piece on the 20th anniversary of Lennon's murder includes a bit of insight as to why they wanted Lennon deported: [28] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And as The Smoking Gun notes, one scheme they came up with was an attempt to have him deported on the grounds that he had pled guilty to cannabis possession - albeit in England - during a time when he had a U.S. Visa, and suggesting continued drug use as a vehicle for getting him deported. [29] However, it doesn't show the Timmons connection, which would pre-date the documents shown. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My PC won't work with Google books, but if yours will, maybe this [30] will have some further insight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a copy of the page you linked to, if it helps. csloat (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is another book that talks about. When I search books for William Timmons, I was doing what I usually do: see what is published about the subject in reliable sources. I wasn't looking for Lennon, or for "some controversial and exciting event to reference"; this article was in desparate need of information from reliable sources, and that's what turned up. You can't very well reject it because it's not as much to your liking as the unsourced stuff. Same with the Iraq connection; I'll put it back without the Hussein mention, since I don't see him on the cited page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this page was created, but just because it was doesn't mean that we should grasp for some kind of minutia to include that seems irrelevant. If there isn't anything to indicate that his role in the Lennon situation wasn't uneventul, then I don't see why anyone would want to include that when they are seeking to include "notable" activity. In other words, I don't understand how something random and uneventful can be considered notable. The political history and the fact that Timmons' was a pioneer in the lobbying business seem notable to me. Referencing a random note doesn't. Rtally3 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Go back to the early entries and you'll see exactly why it was created - to connect John McCain with Saddam Hussein through this guy. The Lennon stuff came later. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider this; Timmons worked as the director of the President's legislative office for 6 years. The director signs letters leaving the office by the dozens. Conservatively, he signed around 10 letters a day, or 62,400 letters over the course of his employment in the White House. To single one letter out is ridiculous.

I agree that this page was created during the election to use Timmons and the HP smear job as a vehicle to damage the McCain campaign. True yellow journalism on WP. If removing the Lennon reference leaves a biography that users feel isn't worthy of WP, then perhaps it should just be archived. Rtally3 (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you take away the Saddam Hussein and John Lennon stuff, you're left with a skimpy profile of some guy who happened to work for both Nixon and McCain. So is an article justified? Maybe, but I don't know. Compare with another of the Nixon minion, Ron Ziegler, who has a fair sized article, presumably better researched, but he's arguably also more notable since he was so visible in the Nixon years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Try closer to 100 letters signed -- and more with "secretarial signatures" for directors with any appreciable correspondence. The POTUS has over a thousand secretarial signatures per day. Collect (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of them probably don't discuss how to deport an ex-Beatle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't discuss "how to deport" Lennon. The note is simply a response to Thurmond which informs him that the Immigration and Naturalization Service took action. There's a big difference. Rtally3 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The letter advocates for his deportation, suggesting that "many headaches would be avoided" if that action was taken. The problem is, the Beatles had already recorded the White album by then, so the headaches would continue with or without him in America ;) csloat (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, either this guy is notable or he's not. If he's not, let's WfD the page and be done with it. If he is, we should see what is written about him in reliable sources. That is what is being done here, and the "main events" uncovered so far are his involvement in the attempted deportation of a musician and his involvement with the Iraqi embargo. Claims that this page was created as some sort of electioneering move are false; claims that it was an attempt to make John McCain into some sort of, erm, Saddamite, are beyond the pale. There is no mention of Saddam in the early versions of this page. This page was created during the election campaign, true - my guess is that is simply because Timmons was in the news during that time thanks to his involvement with McCain. None of this matters however -- what matters is what is reported in reliable sources, and so far we have two major things that have been found. If they aren't notable, let's delete the page. Cheers, csloat (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The very first or second entry for this article consists solely of a link to a Huffington Post article that talks about this guy and his connection to Saddam Hussein and so on. The purpose of the article, then, would be to "smear" McCain in some way, by talking about this possibly shady character that was a prominent member of his team. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's entirely false. Here's the first entry, and here's the second; neither mention Saddam or HuffPost. Eventually the HP stuff was included, not to "smear" mccain, but because it was reported in a reliable source at the time and it seemed notable. In any case, I really don't think any good can come out of speculating about the nefarious intentions of fellow editors from edits long past. csloat (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

None of the language in Timmons letter to Thurmond comes anywhere close to advocating Lennon's deportation. If you are referring to Thurmond's letter to Timmons -- that is not referenced, and Thurmond's opinion would have no place in a bio about Timmons anyway. Rtally3 (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I quoted the letter above. Cheers, csloat (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is not referenced, and doesn't appear to be anything Timmons wrote. Rtally3 (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. It's from a published book on the subject found through google books that baseball bugs cited earlier. csloat (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is referenced, or yes it is a quote from Timmons? This quote [31]appears to be from Thurmond, not Timmons, and it isn't referenced in the bio. Not that it should be, as Thurmonds opinion is irrelevant in the bio of Timmons. All we know is that Timmons signed the letter back to Thurmond informing him of the notice Lennon was given by the INS. 1 of over 60,000 letters signed by Timmons. Referencing this random letter still doesn't make any sense -- it's not notable. If the consensus is that removing the Lennon section leaves nothing notable in the bio, thus making the page unworthy of WP, then lets get on with deleting the page rather than subverting it. Rtally3 (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's referenced; you're correct that it's from Thurmond to Timmons. I don't agree that it's irrelevant but I didn't mean to put those words in Timmons' mouth/keyboard. Where is your source for the 60,000 figure?? I missed that; I guess he was quite the pen-pal!. Anyway the notability isn't coming from the number of letters he writes; it's coming from coverage in reliable sources. This particular letter was notable enough for this coverage due to the involvement of the ex-Beatle. I'm not sure that's enough for a Wikipedia entry on Timmons either, but it's more notable than much else that's in there. It's odd, though, the one thing this guy is truly substantively notable for keeps getting deleted. csloat (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like Timmons was nothing more than an errand boy in the Lennon situation - it was Nixon, Thurmond, and other heavy hitters that were trying to get Lennon deported. Arguably, that's all he's ever been. Meanwhile, look at the comments at the top of this talk page, from mid-October, in which it's clear why the original editors wanted to produce this article. Their starting point (as I said earlier) was a Huffington article headlining that Timmons was connected with Saddam (there he is being an errand boy again) and that's why this article exists. At this point, of course, Timmons putting together a Presidential transition team for McCain has about as much relevancy as the Vikings preparing for their Super Bowl parade. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Those comments are not from the "original editors" of this page; two edits are from an anon ip and the third from an editor who apparently stopped editing after making that comment. None of them appear to have any nefarious agenda that is apparent in their comments or their edit histories. I gave you the links to the first two actual diffs of this article above, click them and you will see the first versions of the article and you can click on the edit history of the editor who created it. Again, Timmons was in the news around oct 08 because of the campaign, so it was natural that a page would be created about him around that time. And again, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by casting vague aspersions on the intentions of unspecified Wikipedia editors from edits months ago. What's the point? As for the Vikings and the Superbowl, sure, but you're not really suggesting that we should only be concerned with current events, are you? csloat (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I follow. So it again comes back to the question of whether this guy needs an article or not. There's not a whole lot of information. Maybe that's OK, if he's considered notable. I've seen bio pages a lot smaller than this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as Lennon and Saddam are concerned, unless he was anything more than an errand boy for the former, and unless he did something that countered American interests with the latter, then both points are skirting McCarthyism, especially the second point. Like you've probably seen the photo of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand in a warm greeting. Big deal. He was an ally then. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No way is signing a note to a Senator more notable than winning national awards, starting innovative companies, going to war, or heading up the biggest political campaigns in the world. I'm not sure how such accomplished people have devolved to "errand boys" and "minions" -- but referring to them in this type of language seems disrespectful, inaccurate, and in poor taste. I guess if you don't deport a rock star, or aid an evil dictator, you might as well be flipping burgers. Let's either take the Lennon section out, or delete the page altogether. The worst thing we can do is create a gossip column with with senseless innuendos. Rtally3 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Innuendos implies those things didn't happen. It appears they did happen. The question is how important they are compared with other stuff this guy has done. In the case of the deportation, he indeed appears to have been an errand boy (Nixon had plenty of them). In the case of Saddam, which I think is no longer in the article if it ever was, there doesn't seem to be any claim that he was doing something illegal or subversive, but if he was, it could be worth mentioning. Merely having worked with Saddam while he was our ally is no big deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not us who determines notability; it's reliable sources. If his awards or "innovations" are mentioned in reliable sources, why aren't we citing them? If he went to war with some country (he did?), I'm sure FOX News must have done a special on it. If he aided a dictator that you know of, let's hear about it. The only thing reliable sources seem to have recorded is that he was part of the campaign to help the Iraqi people during the embargo and that he had something to do with (not) deporting John Lennon. If this isn't notable, WP:AfD is probably the place to be. But reliable sources seem to think at least one of those things is notable. (And something such as his work with Iraq does not need to be illegal or "counter to American interests" to be notable. For the record, it was during the embargo, not during the US alliance with Saddam, but that's neither here nor there). Cheers, csloat (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please lets not rehash the HP discussions. The aforementioned accolades are both sourced and mentioned on the page. Re: the letter to Thurmond, it sounds like both of you might find it irrelevant now that we haven't found an RS stating that he did anything more than sign the letter. May I remove the section? If the entire page then needs to be deleted, then so be it. Rtally3 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to remove what's sourced and about the subject? If it says anything that's not sourced, or not relevant to the subject, by all means do remove that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not rehashing the HP discussions; those were settled above; the material you deleted from HP and the other source on that topic, however, need to go back in the article. Please follow WP:PRESERVE. Cheers, csloat (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen that argument before -- but note that WP:BLP specifically applies here, not the general editing guidlelines. Find reliable sources which are not tainted by spreading rumors. Collect (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I clearly give my reasons for removing the Lennon section above. The note is uneventful. There's no evidence to suggest Timmons did anything other than sign a letter that was sent in response to Thurmond's note, explaining that he might be interested in knowing that the INS took action. One of tens of thousands of letters Timmons signed to representatives. Rtally3 (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rtally, as I recall you were going to find the citation for your 60,000 (or "tens of thousands") figure on Timmons' letter-writing campaign; are you ready to share that with us? Thanks. csloat (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, there is no BLP violation. The material on Timmons' connection to the Iraqi effort needs to go back in the article. Cheers, csloat (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Director of Legislative Affairs signs thousands of letters leaving the office -- is there really a reference needed for that? This reference might be a fit in the bio of Lennon or Thurmond, but not Timmons. He simply signed a note informing Thurmond of the INS action, and singling this out is too random to include in a biography. It sounds like Baseball Bugs doesn't see this as evidence of anything other than a menial administrative task, and Collect and I have clearly given our opinions. Unless there is someone else who makes a case for inclusion, I suggest the reference is removed based on the opinions above. Rtally3 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

relevance tags

Appropriate relevance tags placed pending any consensus here. This is done rather than removal of what is arguably cited material, but whose relevance to the BLP is at issue. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with the relevance tags. The two tagged sentences belong in John Lennon rather than here.

Neither of the two books cited actually says an awful lot about Timmons. It is proper for his involvement in the Lennon deportation attempt to be mentioned, but that's it; for the rest readers can follow the wikilinks. Jayen466 12:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're saying mention the memos about deporting Lennon, to and from Timmons in his official capacity, but not mention that the The Nixon administration's attempt to deport Lennon before the 1972 United States presidential election failed? And not mention that the memos came to light as part of the FOIA case about this? Odd. Dicklyon (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If Timmons had a major involvement in this, then there should be sources about it, and it would be worthwhile having a section on it in his BLP. Absent such sources, the most I would say we should do is to mention that he had some involvement in the Lennon deportation attempt. I would not make it a section with a headline. And adding details on the Lennon deportation in this article is WP:COATRACK, unless, like I said, there are sources giving substantial detail about Timmons' involvement. The sources cited don't. Jayen466 16:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi lobbying

Clearly the discussion above shows the Iraqi lobbying should go back in the article. There is still some disagreement about the HP source, which can be excluded for now, but the other source at least has no questions raised about it. As for HP, the balance of arguments here and the consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard seems to be that the HP source should go in as well, but for now can we at least agree that the book source is notable and needs to be restored? csloat (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute claim that RSN backs HP as source here, for the record. Collect (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain your dispute? csloat (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Very simple -- a majority of the editors on that page did not find HP to be RS. Collect (talk)

I don't see any discussion that shows the article should be restored. The HP article should remain excluded for the plethora of reasons given on this discussion page by a wide variety of users. In short, the article suggests that Timmons took part in illegal activity, although he was fully investigated and wasn't even asked for a deposition in either of the 2 trials, much less charged for anything. This story also wasn't verifiable enough to be picked up by any mainstream news sources. The assertion is controversial, and including it would therefore not comport with the biography of living persons guidelines. Rtally3 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no plethora of reasons; most of the reasons boil down to, HP lacks editorial control, which is true for the blog part but not for the investigative journalism. The other reasons (it's inaccurate or it's biased) are not sufficient reasons for exclusion and make it no different from FOX News. And the consensus of folks who specifically looked into those questions rather than just accepting "IDONTLIKEIT" clearly was that this particular material was reliable enough to put in the article. Also there is no specific "controversy" surrounding this material; you say it's controversial but there are no sources denying this report at all. You bring up BLP but you haven't shown what BLP issue is actually raised -- "controversy" does not violate BLP. csloat (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting that someone took part in illegal activity even though the FBI and U.N. didn't find enough evidence to even ask for a deposition in either trial is absolutely controversial, and including it would not be editing in a conservative manner -- which is required when writing the biography of a living person. An overwhelming majority of users have clearly agreed that the article should not be included, and incessantly pushing for it is turning into a waste of time for everyone involved. Rtally3 (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Jan. 7 version said:

According to United Nations investigations, in the 1990s Timmons was involved with entrepreneur Samir Vincent and public relations consultant John Venners in attempts to get an oil deal with Iraq and to put an end to the sanctions that prevented Iraq from selling oil. Jeffrey A. Meyer and Mark G. Califano (2006). Good Intentions Corrupted: The Oil-for-Food Program and the Threat to the U.N. PublicAffairs. ISBN 9781586484729.

According to freelance investigative journalist Murray Waas, "During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. ... Timmons previously told investigators that he did not know that either Vincent or Park were acting as unregistered agents of Iraq." Murray Waas, "McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort," Huffington Post (14 October 2008).

I don't see how you can read any of that as a suggestion that Timmons took part in illegal activity. Sure, it was perhaps "shady", as lobbying tends to be, and he hung with some perhaps "unsavory" characters who subsequently became felons, but that's the business he was in. Why try to hide it? If it was worth writing up in book, why not mention it here? Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is, last I checked, subject to WP:BLP. Use of rumors and innuendo does not belong in any biography on WP. Collect (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more clear about what aspects of these statements you feel to be rumor or innuendo? Or suggest a way to rewrite them other than to pretend the source does not exist? Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How would you term "involved with" if not as innuendo? Collect (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the first quote in the reference provided, but books don't have the same standards as WP. Call it suggesting that Timmons took part in illegal activity, call it "shady", but either way it is controversial as Timmons denies this allegation and investigators were unable to find any evidence to contradict that claim. We must have a conservative approach and edit with respect to the subjects life. "Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely-viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies". Rtally3 (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The first italic paragraph above is from our article, not a quote of the source; feel free to rephrase it if you have a better way to capture the words of the source. Are you saying that the book is perhaps not a WP:RS now? Are you saying that it's questionable whether Timmons was actually "involved with" Vincent in his dealings with Iraq and attempts to reduce sanctions and set up oil deals? I don't think Timmons has indicated otherwise, has he? Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They worked closely together on a prospective deal. That is not rumor or innuendo. There's nothing illegal or anti-American about this. You guys are blowing this ridiculously out of proportion. csloat (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The "deal" would have been a crime under then US law. Collect (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll play Dr. Obvious as well by agreeing that acting as an unregistered agent is highly illegal, which of course is why criminal convictions were made, and that lobbying for Saddam during a time in which the U.S. considered his country an enemy is extremely anti-american. Rtally3 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then you guys should write a letter to the Attorney General if you believe Mr. Timmons has done something illegal - it's really not relevant to the discussion here, which is about adding material that is well sourced and on point to this page. If you have no more arguments to make can we move on, or are you going to keep repeating yourselves until you tire everyone else out? csloat (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of a crime require more than your say-so that this is RS. Would you like cites for this? Collect (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we all agree on that. But has anyone alleged that Timmons committed a crime? Not that I know of. See discussion immmediately above. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleging that he was involved with any sort of deal when it was illegal for Americans to be making deals with Hussein is basically alleging a crime. Sort of like saying "John Doe cut Hugo's head off" and then saying that you did not allege a "crime" because you did not call it a crime. If the alleged act is clearly a crime without requiring "specialist knowledge" then it is obvious a BLP concern. Collect (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Your interpretation of the law is really not relevant - if you think Timmons committed a crime, call the FBI or something. All we're suggesting adding to the article is what reliable sources have reported. And, in fact, what we're suggesting adding is the claim that reliable sources have reported these things. csloat (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact: dealing with Hussein was against US law. Correct? Or is that OR to you? Collect (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact: I am not a lawyer. I'm also not interested in playing games. We're not talking about "dealing with hussein" or about our interpretations of US law. If you've withdrawn your other objections to this piece, can we restore it to the article? csloat (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not familiar with the law here, but the sources said that the guys were convicted of being "unregistered" agents of Iraq, so presume that the law had to do with registration. I don't see any allegation that Timmons did the same or otherwise contravened any law; did any of the sources suggest that he violated a law? If so, maybe we could say so in the article, too. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the Iraq bit into the lobbying section, since the book source refers to him as a lobbyist in that context. I included the Waas investigative stuff. If anyone sees an allegation of illegality, or otherwise any reason to think that this information is not reliable enough to satisfy WP:BLP (but without rehashing the Huffington Post, I hope, which has been generally regarded as reliable in many discussions), please do bring it up here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you asking if anyone sees any allegation of illegality or if this is in violation of BLP when it's crystal clear that the majority of users do? Why did you feel okay restoring the material? Also, why are we singling out Freddie Mac again? Long before you began editing the article someone had singled out Freddie Mac as a client without listing other past clients. The problems with doing this were discussed, settled, and the bio was edited to include a more comprehensive list of past clients. You edited it to single out Freddie Mac again, and I removed it and explained why. Now you've added it back without explaining why or making an attempt to discuss -- why?.

To answer your questions re: law as it applies to lobbyists working on behalf of foreign clients -- any U.S. lobbyist working on behalf of a foreign client must adhere to a disclosure statute, per the Foreign Clients Registrations Act (FARA), which requires them to register as an agent of a foreign principal and provide documents revealing great detail about their interactions with the client. Failure to register or provide all of the documents is punishable by law (e.g. Vincent and Park did not register or provide any documents and were convicted). Timmons is not registered with FARA, so lobbying on behalf of Hussein would have been a crime. Vincent, the convicted felon who plea bargained and went to jail for a variety of crimes, including perjury, is the only one who claimed Timmons was involved, and the FBI repudiated that claim.

I don't see how adding this information back is justified and will ask that 1) We continue to try to resolve disputes before making edits & 2) I will kindly ask that the most recent changes be removed until this is resolved on the discussion page, or perhaps on another BLPN posting. Rtally3 (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First, nothing is crystal clear here, and there is certainly no "majority" -- I count 2 vs. 2 at this point. Second, it doesn't matter what you or I think is illegal; what matters is what reliable sources have published. If those sources "single out" Iraq or Freddie Mac, then perhaps those clients are more newsworthy than others -- it doesn't matter; it is not for Wikipedia editors to decide which items are notable - that is the job of the reliable sources. The material should stay in the article per WP:PRESERVE until a compelling reason to remove it appears; so far none has come up. Theories about whether lobbying "on behalf of Hussein" is illegal -- certainly not what the entry is about -- are irrelevant to this issue. csloat (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, are you saying that you (and Collect, presumably you mean, too) think that Timmons's actions described in the book or the Waas article were illegal if as described? Do you mean what the the book says? or what Waas says? Because I didn't get the impression that either author was intending to accuse him of a crime. I don't see that either of them said that Timmons was working on behalf of Iraq in lobbying to set up these deals, and I see no reason to doubt his company's statement that they've never had a foreign client. Are you afraid that others may read it that way? If so, can we work on re-wording it to be more clear?

As to client list and Freddie Mac, I reviewed the talk page and didn't find anything "settled"; just one anon and you wondered why this one was mentioned, and your recommendation to list them all. Clearly, this one was mentioned because it shows up in a news article and is relevant to his McCain connection; as to the rest of the list that's linked, I see no reason not to go ahead and list them all if you like. I don't know what Republicans said that McCain picked Timmons for a transition job, but it's been reported in both Bloomberg and HP, so likely not just made up. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can show your sources for "Vincent is the only one who claimed Timmons was involved, and the FBI repudiated that claim," and we can thereby verify that Timmons was NOT involved, then I'd certainly reconsider. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Several Questions/Responses

Why did the preserve policy not apply to the previous version, and only the version that is to your liking?

When I refer to the majority, I'm including those outside of this section, who clearly suggested the Hussein/Timmons allegations should be excluded.

There HAVE been compelling reasons to exclude the Hussein/Timmons article. You might not consider them compelling, but the majority of users have.

Lobbying for Hussein WAS illegal -- that is not a theory, it's a fact (see FARA explanation above). Why is that irrelevant to the issue?Including this highly controversial information has BLP concerns.

dicklyon: You don't see where Waas suggests that Timmons was involved? The very title says that Timmons "aided Saddam". This would have been illegal.

From my reading of the HP article and other articles, I haven't seen anyone claim that Timmons was involved other than Vincent(who was convicted of perjury while trying to plea bargain). Timmons claimed he wasn't involved, and the FBI wasn't able to find any evidence to suggest otherwise. I believe all of this can be found in the HP article. Rtally3 (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) WP:PRESERVE applies to all articles. I'm not applying it selectively; you are the one arguing for deletion of sourced content. (2) You haven't cited any compelling reasons to exclude this article. (3) It doesn't matter whether lobbying was legal or illegal; he wasn't accused of a crime and nobody is trying to do that with this edit. (4) You haven't shown any BLP problems. (5) You've already acknowledged that the title is inaccurate; why use that to try to claim the article says something it doesn't? (6) If all this info can be found in the HP article, we can cite it and be done with it. Nobody is trying to claim anything that isn't in the articles. csloat (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've re-read the Waas article. As far as I can tell, nobody in that article, nor here, nor in real life ever accused Timmons of wrongdoing in connection with Vincent and Park; if Vincent did, OK, but I don't see where it says that; in any case, he was investigated, gave testimony, and the feds accepted his explanations. But that testimony was about his lobbying effort with Vincent and Park; sounds like Vincent was Timmons's client, but I'm not clear on that point. Anyway, we don't want to report or imply that he has been accused of any wrongdoing; just reporting what the story says he was involved in. Dicklyon (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for pointing out that the old version I found was not the latest best version; I've now recovered a better version that doesn't mention Hussein, and I hope that's seen as an improvement. Dicklyon (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE does not apply to disputed content in a BLP - its misues has caused consternation in several places. Collect (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

False; it doesn't apply to undisputed violations of BLP. But simply saying you think there's a BLP violation doesn't mean you can delete what you want. You haven't shown any evidence of a violation, and as two users have shown here, your arguments lack credibility. When something is published in reliable sources, the presumption is that it goes in, even if a random Wikipedia editor finds it potentially embarrassing. csloat (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, the Waas article alleges that Timmons lobbied on behalf of Hussein, which would have been illegal. This has BLP concerns, and I haven't seen any good explanation as to why it might not. If you peruse the discussion page, you will see that the majority of the users think the Hussein connection should be removed. An RfC on the BLP noticeboard resulted in the removal of the Hussein connection. For these reasons, I have removed the Hussein allegations from the bio -- if you feel that including it is not in violation of BLP guidelines, then perhaps a 2nd posting on the BLP Noticeboard is necessary. Rtally3 (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't see that. Can you quote the bit that alleges that he lobbied on behalf of Hussein, because I can't find it, and I've looked several times. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. The title says Timmons "Aided Saddam in Lobbying Effort". 7th parapgraph: "virtually everything Timmons did while working on the lobbying campaign..." 15th paragraph: "Perhaps unsurprisingly, not long after Timmons suggested that Vincent hire Park to assist their influence, lobbying, and back-channel diplomatic efforts on behalf of Saddam Hussein's government, much of that effort became increasingly bizarre, corrupt, and - on occasion - illegal." 24th paragraph: "Timmons clearly should have or did understand that he was the possible recipient of oil contracts from the Iraqi government because of his lobbying and back channel diplomatic efforts on behalf of Saddam". Rtally3 (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'd prefer we can certainly change the paragraph in the article to reflect that these efforts may have been illegal, bizarre, and corrupt. But that doesn't change the fact that there is no BLP violation in pointing out what reliable sources have published about this subject. Let's just be very clear where it is Murray Waas (or whoever else) making allegations rather than Wikipedia making the allegations. But let's avoid censoring legitimate and published information, shall we? csloat (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If Timmon's lobbying for Vincent aided Hussein, is that a problem? The alleged illegality is clearly about what Vincent and Park were doing, not Timmons. By quoting fragments instead of sentences you seek to make it look like something it's not. They're saying there was questionable and illegal stuff going on, which is hard to deny; but I still see no allegation that Timmons broke any law. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't exclude portions of any paragraph in an attempt to manipulate the thrust of the statement -- I was simply seeking to only include the relevant parts of the rhetoric. Did you come to this conclusion by assumption, or did you actually read these paragraphs? If something was taken out of context, please provide specific examples. Rtally3 (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

More properly we can follow BLP guidlelines and not charge people with crimes in the article. And calling the following of BLP guidelines "censorship" is not only non-helpful, it violates WP:AGF. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Whining about the term "censorship" is a red herring -- let's stick to the issue, which is the deletion of well-sourced content. The only person seemingly suggesting we charge Timmons with a crime in the article is Rtally3. csloat (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How is the claim that Timmons took part in illegal activity legitimate? Considering that Timmons denies these allegations, and investigators couldn't find any evidence of his involvement, wouldn't you consider the allegation controversial? Also, why do you think no mainstream news sources picked up this story? If you don't think it's in violation of the BLP guidelines, then please conduct another rfc on the BLP noticeboard. The first post resulted in immediate removal of the Hussein connection. Rtally3 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As Dicklyon points out, you're quoting the article out of context. Besides neither he nor I are proposing to claim that Timmons did something illegal. This doesn't belong on the BLP noticeboard; the issue is sourced content for the article. An RfC here might be a good idea however. csloat (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the quotes were taken out of context, or all of them? Which ones? Can you please provide specific examples? I didn't exclude any portions of a paragraph in an attempt to manipulate the thrust of the statement -- I was simply seeking to only include the relevant parts of the rhetoric. One of the issues absolutely is BLP guidelines -- as was evidenced by the reaction on the first noticeboard posting, and all of the complaints on the discussion page. You alone don't decide what the issues are. And saying that you are not suggesting that Timmons did anything illegal is not the point -- the source in question claims that crimes were committed, which is highly controversial and should therefore remain out of the biography. Rtally3 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rtally, I believe you are trying to convince us that we can't mention anything from the Waas source, because the source accuses Timmons of a crime that he has been exonerated of. There are several parts to this, and I disagree with all of them. First, if Waas does accuse Timmons of a crime, does that mean we can't use the source? I don't think so. If the government found him completely innocent, does that mean the source is so wrong that we can't use it? Debatable at best. Does Waas actually accuse Timmons of a crime? Not that I can see; we can examine any of your quote in detail in content to help clarify. Did the FBI exonerate or clear Timmons? I don't think so; they asked him some questions and were satisfied with his answers but as far as we know they didn't either suspect him or clear him of any crime. That's what I get from the source.

Now about your quotes:

• The title says Timmons "Aided Saddam in Lobbying Effort". Yes, it does; his lobbying for client Vincent to drop some sanctions may have aided Saddam; is there a law against that? Does he alleege that it was wrong to do so? I don't think so.
• 7th parapgraph: "virtually everything Timmons did while working on the lobbying campaign..." this only suggests that he worked on a lobbying campaign; that was his business
• 15th paragraph: "Perhaps unsurprisingly, not long after Timmons suggested that Vincent hire Park to assist their influence, lobbying, and back-channel diplomatic efforts on behalf of Saddam Hussein's government, much of that effort became increasingly bizarre, corrupt, and - on occasion - illegal." If Timmons was working for and advising Vincent, and advised him to get Park to help him, does that mean he's responsible for the subsequent illegal activities that Vincent and Park went to jail for? I don't see how you could think so.
• 24th paragraph: "Timmons clearly should have or did understand that he was the possible recipient of oil contracts from the Iraqi government because of his lobbying and back channel diplomatic efforts on behalf of Saddam". This starts to sound like some kind of an accusation; turns out it was reported as the opinion of "An investigator who worked on the U.N. investigation of the oil-for-food program." He's basically saying that Timmons might have been expected to get contracts like Vincent did, and that what Vincent did was illegal, and that therefore probably Timmons did something illegal, too. I don't think we need to object to him having that opinion.

I just noticed "a small but influential lobbying firm he founded in 1975 shortly after leaving the White House." Maybe that's why I had that "shortly" in there; no matter, it's out now, and wasn't from the source that was cited at that point.

As to the "FBI repudiated that claim," it says "Timmons told federal investigators that he was unaware of these particular activities, and investigators were unable to uncover any evidence to contradict that claim." Waas doesn't contradict that, nor should we. There's neither an accusation nor an exoneration here, just a discussion of a situation that was investigated. Dicklyon (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In the US, there is a most peculiar belief in innocence if a person is not found guilty. The material represents an accusation of specific acts which are a crime, and, after investigation, he was not charged with any crime. Seems to me that the FBI did not consider there was enough evidence behind the allegations. What we are left with is "John Doe beat his wife every night. He denied the claim, and investigators were unable to find enough evidence to contradict his denial." Would you let that stand in a BLP? I trust not. It remains an accuasation with a backhanded statement that there was "not enough evidence." Collect (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your example is extreme, but even in such cases we would still mention it if reliable sources had. Take a look at the Scott Ritter allegations, for example. But that's immaterial; the analogy simply doesn't apply because we're not bringing up that he was accused of any crime. csloat (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, a bit more context is clearly needed here. The paragraph before "Timmons told federal investigators that he was unaware of these particular activities, and investigators were unable to uncover any evidence to contradict that claim" says:

Investigations by the Justice Department and the Volcker commission disclosed that Park also served as the middleman for a million dollar payment that investigators believed was a bribe for another senior United Nations official. That official in fact admitted receiving the money from Park, but said he did not know that the funds originated with Saddam's regime.

There's no allegation here about Timmons; I don't know who the unnamed UN official is that admitted receiving money, but obviously not Timmons. Apparently, since Timmons with working with Vincent and Park, federal investigators asked him if he know anything about this; he says not; end of story. There is no reason here to conclude that Waas as a source is "unreliable" just because he writes about Timmons's connection to these felons. Let's just be sure we don't leave the impression in the article that he was accused of any crime. Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with all of the above interpretations of the HP quotes. Vincent was not a client as you claim, and your defense of the title just doesn't make sense. Lobbying to drop sanctions on behalf of Iraq when you aren't registered IS AGAINST THE LAW. Why do you think this isn't the case? THE 15th PARAGRAPH CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT TIMMONS LOBBIED ON BEHALF OF SADDAM:

""Perhaps unsurprisingly, not long after Timmons suggested that Vincent hire Park to assist their influence, lobbying, and back-channel diplomatic efforts on behalf of Saddam Hussein's government, much of that effort became increasingly bizarre, corrupt, and - on occasion - illegal."

To take a step back, what do you think the purpose of the article is? Why do you think no mainstream sources picked up on this? Was Timmons the transition chief? How did someone aid an influence on behalf of an enemy state and then not even participate in the trial after an exhaustive investigation? Would a conservatively written bio include these allegations? Instead of continuing to act as if no accusation is being made, suggest that I am interested in charging Timmons with a crime, compare the approach to this bio to that of Charles Manson's, or suggest that there is a difference between a reliable source and telling the truth -- just go get outside intervention, as I already tried to do on 2 noticeboards, which resulted in the immediate removal of the Hussein connection. A limited amount of users have been trying to squeeze the HP garbage in the bio for months now, and a wide variety of users have complained. Lobbying the same people to include the HP article over and over again is pointless. Rtally3 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A "limited number" meaning 2? And a "wide variety" also meaning 2? Or are you counting the sockpuppets you were using? csloat (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, what is meant by "2 noticeboards, which resulted in the immediate removal of the Hussein connection"? I thought I had reviewed the RS/N cases and didn't see any consensus. I've definitely seen other RS/N cases conclude that the HP is a reliable source. And we've got a book source for the connection, too. It seems clear to me that the "illegality" was about Vincent and Park, but we'll have to agree to disagree on interpretations. And why do you say Vincent wasn't Timmons's client? I don't see how else to interpret the lobbying that Timmons did on behalf of the deals that Vincent wanted to set up. Dicklyon (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Searching for more info on the relationship, I found that Murray Waas blogged on this. He clarifies, I think, what the "illegal" referred to, much as I interpreted it: "Apparently behind Timmons’ back, Vincent, Park, and the Iraqis had an even more aggressive—and illegal—second track in play to convince the United Nations to ease or bring to an end sanctions: They would simply bribe the Secretary General of the U.N." Now, since the bad guys have already been convicted, and nobody is alleging that Timmons did more than work with or for some bad guys, I don't see what the problem is. He did confirm working with them, it appears (assuming Waas was not twisting facts when he said "Timmons testified that he first introduced Vincent to Tongsun Park and encouraged him to hire Park to work on the deal."). Dicklyon (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The BLP/N post prompted the removal of the article, and Samir Vincent was a lobbyist, not a client. If I've been using sockpuppets, then have me blocked. And just by quickly looking over the page I can see that Tillman, Enigma, kbhickory, kiancilla, printthetruth, hazeldell, collect, and tom clearly have made an effort to exclude this. That's slighly more than 2. Rtally3 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You were already blocked after it became clear you were using sockpuppets as you know. In any case, none of those people have commented on the recent discussion, which proposes a very different version of the information than those editors commented on or removed. csloat (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Which accounts did I use as sockpuppets? What other users are you claiming me to be? I'd like to see this. The opinions stated all over this page clearly state that the article is a smear job -- no variation to the WP version will change that. Just because everyone isn't contenting each and every incessant attempt to include the article doesn't mean that their earlier comments are suddenly nullified. Rtally3 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not having the sockpuppet debate with you Rtally -- we both know you were blocked for it and then the block was extended when you used sockpuppets yet again to evade the block. It was embarrassing enough at the time; why would you want to relive it? It's all there in your user talk page history even though you deleted it. Your opinion that an article is a "smear job" is your personal opinion that you are welcome to but until you find a reliable source stating that, we really can't do much about it. And, of course, you're ignoring the fact that the HP article is not the only source on this anymore. csloat (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you bothered typing that, instead of just showing a few of the user names you claim I used. Seems like I would be blocked if it was so obvious that I'm using multiple accounts. You are correct -- the opinion that the Hussein connection has no place in this bio is my opinion. It also happens to be the opinion of just about every other user. As far as using the book as a reference -- the authors did not state that Vincent and Timmons hoped for removal of sanctions, only that Vincent did. Significant difference -- the paraphrased comments above were not accurate. Rtally3 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, you were blocked for using multiple accounts, and you admitted to it; are you really denying this now? Whatever -- either way, stop pretending that other users have debated this when we know very well they have not; the issue at hand is a very different paragraph, with different sourcing, than was debated before by other users. Cheers! csloat (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

While I was incorrectly blocked I made 2 posts under rtally4, and signed them as rtally3. I've never signed a post as anything other than rtally3, and in no way shape or form can this be considered an attempt to gain a phony consensus. If you disagree, then show specific examples of what other accounts I've used, otherwise the accusations should stop. Again, the book says that Vincent hoped for sanctions to be lifted -- not Timmons. The quote above is not what is in the book. Rtally3 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC

LOL -- you have the audacity to write this right after you openly deleted the evidence of your own sockpuppetry and blocks? If you think you were blocked incorrectly, contact an admin, but this really isn't worth debating here. csloat (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If Timmons was working with him, he likely had an aligned hope; certainly everything seems to say that. If you think it's not quite supportable from the sources, it would be more constructive to fix it to something you could accept than to remove it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Speculating on Timmons hopes is ridiculous, and is no reason to misquote the book. The Hussein connection has no place in this bio, and that's the end of the story. If you want to contribute to the bio, there are plenty of other things that can be done -- like cleaning up what appears to be a random assortment of information flippantly compiled by users clicking around the web, assuming that anything found online must be notable and worthy of including in the biography. Singling out clients, specific lobbying work that appears to have been performed by his company and not Timmons himself, and random memo's aren't really appropriate for a biography. The current version is sloppy and includes random information with no real relevance to the subject. Rtally3 (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, so you thin it's better if we don't use what little can be found out about Timmons from reliable sources?? It's obvious that the most notable thing known about Timmons is his connection to the Iraqi lobbying. csloat (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of information there that is relevant and well sourced. Just because you don't think it's notable doesn't mean we should resort to bringing in media sensationalism. And what on earth is "erm"? Is that supposed to be how sophisticated people clear there throats? I think I know some drunk college kids that might find that kind of thing amusing. Rtally3 (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have information that is relevant and well sourced, why not share it? Searching databases of books and news articles show that the most notable thing about Timmons historically is his involvement with Iraq. There's really nothing sensationalistic about the way this has been worded. I'm not sure I understand your comment about drunk college kids but I doubt it would be useful to the biography unless it is covered by a reliable source. csloat (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of relevant and well sourced material there. HP's main contributors are drunk college kids, so maybe we can continue to lean on them for reliability. Rtally3 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please strike or refactor your comment to delete the BLP violation -- your comment is as libelous as it is inappropriate. csloat (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Um -- you seem to spend more time assailing a "sockpuppet" case than arguing soundly for inclusion of the material you want. Collect (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The arguments have been conceded or ignored above; the only thing left is Rtally's comments calling people drunk. He's the one who keeps bringing up the sockpuppet allegation, and then deleting the evidence supporting it. csloat (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Kettle (ring ring): Hello?

Pot: Kettle, this is Pot. You're black.

I can't recall how to strike, and "refactor" is not a word, but my comments were obviously said in jest. For the record, I have no evidence that HP's main contributors are drunk college students. Sorry for any confusion. If I'm able to find any reliable sources that suggest that is the case, I'll be sure to share. Maybe I'll look in The Onion, and while I'm at it -- maybe they will have some more reliable info about Timmons. Rtally3 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. If you'd like to strike, use the buttons at the top of the editing screen which will insert a "s" tag around the objectionable sentences. You might want to strike the personal attacks against me while you're at it as well, though I won't insist on it, since you're probably saying them in jest as well. Cheers, csloat (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

F-18 lobbying

The sentence in the article claimed that "shortly" after 1975 that Timmons' compnaied lobbied for the Northrop F-18. First - the F-18 was not a single venture of Northrop. The project was not named until 1977. The lobbying for purchase of the plane could not take place until it was at least designed. See F-18 etc. on this. Is 1977-8 "shortly" after 1975? Collect (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Shortly" was my interpretation; I agree that it should be out; the actual dates of the lobbying are not known, but not very relevant either. If you want to be helpful, check the dates in F-18; the Navy doc says "The resulting redesign was extensive and, when the McDonnell Douglas design was selected as winner in 1976, it was assigned the F-18A designation." (Northrop was MD's partner in this) Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears the Northrop designation was YF-17 -- the F-18 was the MD267 per Jenkins. Rather use the RS on this. In any case, it would appear the primary lobbyist would have been working for MD and not Northrop. Northrop ended up being rather the "junior partner" in all of this. Collect (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The source says Timmons & Co worked on behalf of Northrop. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it give any date for that? Any other specifics? Or just that Northrop was at some point a client of T&Co? Collect (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph is about Northrop in the 1970s; it mentions various of their lobbyists in the that period, then says,

In addition, Northrop also retained several outside lobbyists. Timmons & Co. was headed by William Timmons, who was legislative liaison for the Nixon White House and left to form his own firm in 1975. Tom Korologos, Nixon White House legislative liaison, is also a member of the firm. Timmons & Co. worked hard on the sale of Northrop's F-18 to Congress. According to Korologos, "We had our work cut out. We had a good product to sell, which is the most important thing to a lobbyist. But we also had to do some convincing from a constituent angle on the Hill".

If you'll use the "e-mail this user" feature to send me a note with an email address, I can email you a scan of the page. Feel free to put anything of that into a "quote" field in the footnote. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct, then, that your cite proffers no ditect connection at all of Mr. Timmons and that lobbying of the F-18? Collect (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It says just what I quoted. It's hard to imagine how you can interpret that as "no direct connection at all," especially given the described unique business model in the same section. Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The {{irrel}} tags should remain, three cheers for Collect for using alternative ways to question a page instead of deleting. I am very sincere.

As per my discussion with Collect here, Wikipedia:PRESERVE only "unsourced controversial claims about living persons" can be removed. If the source is well citied, it can be retained.

User:Dicklyon, page is right here:

The Politics of Defense Contracting: The Iron Triangle‎ - Page 146.Google books

Since this is not a policy violation, 3RR does in fact apply. travb (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

2RR? Why bring that sort of thing up for a talk page discussion? Your cite says that Korologos said he was the lobbyist for Northrop and does not support any claim that Timmons did any lobbying for the F-18. And still gives no dates other than the fact that Northrop used in-house lobbyists mainly until 1979, which would be consistent with what Korologos said. As for relying on WP:PRESERVE I commend you to read WP:BLP which is the governing guideline. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Does not support any claim that Timmons did any lobbying for the F-18" would take a stretch of imagination to believe based on what the source said; the "we" referred to the lobbyists of Timmons & Co; if you'd be more comfortable with it slightly reworded to that effect, feel free. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This claims that Korologos lobbied for Northrop on the F-18 jet. So what is the relevance of this? It is not about Timmons but the firm and what is so notable about serving a client? This is just random to single out in a biography. Rtally3 (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It took some trying to get the claim removed that Timmons must have been active in the lobbying "because the firm has everyone working for every client" or the like. A lot here is quite irrelevant -- such as listing him as having employees who had also worked for the government at some point in the past. I rather suspect that almost every lobbying firm extant has former government employees <g>. And I still think there is absolutely no basis for trying to make any inferences about Timmons and John Lennon at all. Collect (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Singling out the Lennon, F18, Bristol Myers Squibb, Freddie Mac, and Public Citizen information is odd. It appears that users are flippantly entering information based on whatever they can find by clicking around the web. Also there has been a quote added from the Obama campaign, “One of Washington’s most famous and powerful lobbyists” when Timmons joined the McCain campaign. Timmons was never was part of McCain’s campaign. He simply sent a study. There's a big difference. Besides, what is the relevance of what the Obama campaign has to say about Timmons? Is it appropriate for a biography? I'd suggest not. Rtally3 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Lennon, F18, Bristol Myers Squibb, Freddie Mac, and Public Citizen information is being singled out for one reason only: it's what we can find about Timmons in sources. If you have other sourced information about him, please include that, too. And since Timmons is closely identified with his company, anything about the company is reasonable to mention in his bio; adjust the wording if you feel it's put too personally. Dicklyon (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? ANYTHING about his company is relevant to a biography? Nope. Collect (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would think so. Alternatively, since there's more info on the company than on the man, maybe we should move the article and refocus it on the company, with a section on the man. He's marginally notable on his own, and not notable at all if we remove all the independent reliable secondary sources about him and his company. Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Timmons was not a minor employee of the company, but the founder and chairman; it was primarily his firm, and he set the policy and --certainly with respect to at least the major clients -- has the responsibility for the PR campaigns he conducted for them. I agree with the prev. ed that this material is relevant. DGG (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since a biography is the written history of a person's life, the focus should obviously be on a person, and not a company. Sure, perhaps some of the company activity is relevant to Timmons, but throwing in whatever random tid bits of information turn up in a google search is not a prudent approach. There is nothing notable about these services to clients -- under this approach you could randomly throw in anything the company has ever done. Also, there is plenty of notable information about him that isn't related to the firm. If you disagree, then recommend the article be deleted instead of subverting it with whatever random media attention you can find sleuthing around the web. Rtally3 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since an encyclopedia is not a random list of information about every person who existed, we should only cover notable aspects of biographies. And the only way to understand what is notable is to look at what reliable sources have to say about the person. The only "subverting" that is going on with this article is the relentless attempt by you and another user to remove every bit of information about this guy that can actually be reliably sourced as notable. csloat (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I demur on including every utem which does not have a reasonable nexus to the person. Hence I demur that there has been a "relentless attempt by you and another user to remove every bit of information about this guy that can actually be reliably sourced as notable." Collect (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's nice but the reality is you guys are arguing for excluding every bit of information that has a source discussing Timmons. csloat (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Who objects?

Besides Collect and Rtally3, does anyone object to recent versions of the sourced info on Lennon/FOIA, F-18, Iraq/Vincent, pharma lobbying, or anything else? Please state your objections. Collect, if you'd like to ping the talk pages of those who you've said are with you, please go ahead. I'd like to hear what the objections are. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, on Lennon, I think it's undue, unless you have sources showing substantial and meaningful involvement on the part of the subject. Jayen466 23:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to report it with less weight. He wrote a memo in his official capacity; it came to light via FOIA; the memo is shown in books because it's an interesting and important part of history. What do you suggest? Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this Lennon thing covered elsewhere in WP, using these sources you are using in the 2nd and 3r sentences? Jayen466 00:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The section John Lennon#Political activism has extensive sourced coverage, focusing on the deportation attempt, FOIA, etc.; the Thurmond memo is mentioned, but not the Timmons reply (since he is relatively unknown, his name is not usually dropped in such summaries). I haven't compared the sources; it's quite possible that they've told the story all from sources that don't mention Timmons, even though he signed the memo that was part of "smoking gun" sequence. Jon Wiener#Freedom of Information case: Wiener v. FBI also has some coverage. Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the way it is now is okay; could you live with that? I've put in a direct wikilink to the appropriate section of Lennon's bio. Jayen466 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The link is a good improvement; I can live with it, obviously, but the question is whether it's an issue to put a sentence or two here to say what the context of the memo was. Can you look at what was removed, and say if it's too much, or propose a shorter version, or say whether the article is better off without it? Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the lobbying part, I see a lot of details that don't connect very well. The implication seems to be that there is something behind it, but we don't know what it is, because no source has linked all these events together and built a case from them. So it seems a bit SYNNY. At any rate, I'm left confused, like I've seen a lot of trees but no forest. Jayen466 00:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what might help already would be to put things in chronological order in the Lobbying section. Right now, we go from 2007 to 2008 to 1975 to the 1990s to the early 2000s and back to 2008. So if this were in sequence it would help. I would consider putting the report on the business model last, since it appeared in 2007 and is retrospective, or slot it in at 2007 in the chronology, whatever works best. (Note: I haven't checked the sources, which I assume are accurately represented; this is just a comment on the timeline.) Jayen466 00:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good ideas. It's true that it's just trees and no forest; what's behind it I think is that the lobbying business tends to be fairly private, and only a few interesting bits get into reliable sources. Certainly I have not intended to draw or imply any connection between them, other than "lobbying". Dicklyon (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• As I've stated at length upthread, I don't feel we should use the HuffPost/Waas article unless support can be found elsewhere. Not a reliable source, glaring errors in article (including the title!), pretty obvious political smear-job. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you coming back to register your thoughts. The last time you complained about the sourcing was before we had the book source to go along with it. And the HP is widely accepted as a reliable source for the opinions or findings of their writers, by very neutral parties such User:DGG. Do you still feel that in light of the book source the further detail in the Waas article is in violation of BLP guidelines? Can you suggest a fix to the text? Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point, you now have two outside opinions -- neither of which back your position. And instead of accepting them, you appear to be disputing them instead. Perhaps "consensus" only means anything when your side has the editors, and if it does not, then it is not "consensus" the other way as long as you can keep disputing it? At this point, there is a clear majority opinion that the material does not belong, and per BLP ot os up to you to gain a consensus for including that marterial. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for more backing, I was seeking to understand the objections. That's why I asked them what could be changed to address their concerns. Let them answer. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile you reinsert the material to which THEY also objected -- contrary to the "burden" set forth in BLP? And accusing me by name in your "edit summary" of not participating in the Talk page? Wow! Collect (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect is correct in his interpretation of WP:BLP - the burden is on the person who wants to insert the material. Kelly ^hi! 19:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the burden? Obviously, we're not going to convince Rtally3 or Collect to allow anything that can be interpreted as critical of their guy. That's why I'm trying to elicit reactions, complaints, suggestion, help, etc. from others. Do you see any other objection to mentioning the Iraq connection? I don't. What about the other stuff that Collect keeps removing? If he has a beef, let's address it; but he just keeps removing stuff for no clear reason. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"They" didn't object to anything; I reverted your unjustified and misrepresent removal. Tillman questions the Murray Waas bit, but hasn't said yet whether he's looked again after we provided another reliable source as he requested. Jayen466 questions the weight in the Lennon section, and we're waiting for his suggestion on what would make it better. Nothing here comes close to violating WP:BLP. Please stop being so disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for trying to make this BLP as NPOV as humanly possible and conforming to all the WP:BLP guidelines. Collect (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Anyway, I've added back a minimal amount of information on the various points, omitting parts that have been ojbected to. I don't think it's great, but it's better than the complete censoring that you keep doing. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that you not call good faith edits "censoring." Collect (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466, thanks for your work on the Lennon section; I still think it sounds like it's begging for a line or two of explanation, but at least it links to it. And the lobbying section re-order looks good, too. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)