Talk:William Timmons (lobbyist)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Moving forward

Jayen pointed out (discussion on his talk page) that the sources don't explicitly say that these particular memos we're discussing were found as a result of Wiener's FOIA request; checking the sources, I have to admit that's so, even though multiple sources do discuss them in the context of that FOIA request and subsequent suit. I even got a few new sources and looked, but no explicit confirmation is found. So, let's take that bit out. Then I propose we move forward with:

The Strom Thurmond memo of February 7, 1972, recommending deportation of John Lennon, was addressed to Timmons in his role as assistant to President Nixon. The attached file from the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee associated Lennon with the Chicago Seven and noted that "This group has been strong advocates of the program to 'dump Nixon'." Thurmond told Timmons that "many headaches would be avoided if appropriate action were taken." Timmons responded to Thurmond on March 6, 1972, indicating that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had served a deportation notice on Lennon. The Nixon administration's failed attempt to deport Lennon before the U.S. presidential election, 1972, campaign season was illustrated by these memos, which were published in facsimile in 1975 and 2000.

If there's anything else in here that's not supported by a single source without synthesis, point it out, and let's fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. That looks better. Jayen466 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lacking other comments after nearly a whole day of unprotection and this proposal, I'll go ahead. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The bit about the elction campaign is still not connected with Timmons and is irrelevant. Collect (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And "memorandums" is a legit English word -- I do not know whether an editor here "sic"ed it, or Rolling Stone did. Collect (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I took out the sic; it's not in the original. Thanks for pointing out that this alt spelling is legit.

As to the election context and quote you tagged for relevance, I still have a hard time seeing your point. These memos are discussed in all the sources in the context of the 1972 Nixon reelection campaign, as I've tried to make plain via the quotes. What are you missing that I can help clarify? Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've shortened the quote. The first part was clearly relevant, the second clearly wasn't. I have also edited the passage sourced to The Swarming Lobbyists and marked verbatim quotations – please have a look, I hope it is a compromise wording that both of you can live with. It makes clear that Time attributed the stalling to the bill to the lobbyists' actions, but avoids the impression that lobbyists alone controlled the committee's proceedings. Jayen466 10:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. The extended quote was there to help Collect see that the source supported the (second) statement that it was cited for, but it's not necessary to quote it. I'm not sure what you mean however by saying it clearly wasn't relevant. It was very relevant as a reliable source for the connection between the the administrations actions of attempting to deport John Lennon and trying to get Nixon reelected; and that Timmons was the guy handling some part of that. Dicklyon (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually for all the thousands of lines in this Talk page -- no one has yet shown that Timmons in handling Thurmon's request was acting in any capacity for the campaign. Nor has any reliable source given a factual basis for such a claim. And complaining that I placed a citation needed on the claim is quite odd indeed. There is no cite given for such a claim, nor ddo I expect one will suddenly grow from Zeus' head "). Collect (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nor has anyone ever claimed that he was acting for the campaign; just that he was acting as Nixon's assistant and that the adminstration was very concerned about that campaign and convention. The sources do clearly discuss his memo in that context, since that's clearly what they were about. It's also clear, as stated in the article, that Timmons orchestrated the convention, which is the event they were most worried about according to sourses; we don't need to draw those threads together, unless a source does, so I've stuck to reporting what sources say in the same paragraph where they mention Timmons. It's up to the reader to decide who to interpret the reported verifiable facts. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) In short, a couple of degrees of separation. Planning a convention is primarily detail work -- making sure the placards are printed, balloons bought, assigning seats, dealing with networks, scheduling events to be in prime time etc. Not dealing with deporting someone because of the campaign. Collect (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, we seem to have found a wording to cover the Lennon case that we can all live with for the moment, and that does not go beyond the sources. It has taken a long time, but in the end I think we have done well here. Jayen466 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Oil for Food Program

While shaping this article there have been several debates about linking Timmons to Hussein and BLP concerns that it might have as it is highly controversial. Editors decided to remove any mention of Hussein and the debate was put to rest, and now a new editor has reinstated the connection to the evil leader and removed a different section which explained that Timmons has had an honorable career. The paragraph in the source that links Timmons to oil deals in Iraq doesn't appear to mention any UN reports -- and it doesn't link Timmons to Hussein. All it says is that Timmons worked on an oil deal with Iraq, which is exactly what the Oil for Food Program was (although the program didn't officially start until 1995, there were efforts to get it underway immediately following the war). Saying that the deal involved Iraq and therefore involved Hussein is a bit glib -- any lobbyist who acted as an unregistered agent on behalf of Hussein was not doing so under the development of the Oil for Food Program. Tongsun Park and Samir Vincent deviated from projects that they worked on with Timmons when they tried to bypass the UN and work on behalf of Hussein's regime, and they were caught and convicted. The UN and FBI did a full investigation on Timmons, and not only did they not find any wrong doing, they didn't even find enough evidence to ask for a deposition in the trials. So, saying that Timmons worked on the Food for Oil program might be accurate, but saying that he was part of the Hussein dealings is inaccurate and highly controversial. BLP guidelines state that any questionable material be removed immediately without waiting for discussion. I'd like to remove the section -- if I have missed something, or if there are any questions/concerns please let it be known. Thanks... Rtally3 (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

One: No link between Hussein and Timmons has been given - hence it is in many senses a "coatrack" here. Two: No allegations of violation of law have been made by any authorities. Where no crime has been alleged, the use of "Hussein" seems placed solely as an anti-Timmons tidbit without proper basis in a BLP. Collect (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite the case that no link has been given; I understand why you object to the story in the Huffington Post, but at least the link was made there before here. And as you know, I object to your use of terminology like "coatrack" without saying what you mean by it. If you mean to refer to WP:COATRACK, which says "a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject", you need to explain what is the "tangentially related biased subject" that you see. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Material in the HP is primarily opinions, and should be cited as such. Second - the issue about Saddam Hussein being connected with Timmons when no one has made a claim that he contacted Saddam Hussein is precisely the same as saying someone did business with Hitler if they had business contacts with Germans in the 30s. It is "coatrack" because it injects Saddam Hussein into an article about a living person which is there only because a person in an opinion piece made the connection, not that there was any real connection. No verifiable factual source has connected Timmons with Hussein, nor has any factual source made any claim that any laws were violated. The rule on BLP is that such charges should be substantiated with strong sources, not editorials. Collect (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But you said no link had been given, which was not the case. Dicklyon (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No FACT link was given. An opinion link should be labeled as opinion, as noted above, and even then this runs afoul of BLP in connecting two people who have no direct connection. Collect (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you referencing the HP article? We are discussing what the current source provides. The HP article is not cited and the arguments surrounding that article were settled long ago. Rtally3 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dick above specifically cited http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html which is what I am referring to. The actual book cite used in the article does not make any claim that Timmons sought to deal with Saddam. The book only says they were trying to use the "Oil for Food" UN program. That program was indeed part of the sanctions system. Whether one likes or dislikes that program, it was set up by the UN, and using it was not violating any laws. This is a BLP and misusing a source is highly questionable. Collect (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My question was directed at Dicklyon, sorry for the confusion. I agree and don't know what the HP article has to do with anything at this point. The information in the Timmons bio doesn't comport with the info in the source. Rtally3 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. Since the source does not support the claims made for it, I suggest the entire claim attributed to that source be deleted. Collect (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What source and info are you guys talking about now? I had brought up the HP just to remind Collect of one place the link to Hussein had been made; it's not as if an editor here made it up himself. Dicklyon (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The footnote currently used as a cite for the claim is what we are now talking about -- it does not support the claim made. If no RS supports a claim in a BLP, the claim must be removed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this the bit you're referring to? : Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

According to United Nations reports, in early 1992 (just after the Gulf War) Timmons joined with entrepreneur Samir Vincent and public relations consultant John Venners in attempts to get a petroleum deal with Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which was under UN sanctions at the time.

• 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.

What change do you suggest that make it more in agreement with the source? Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) First of all -- read the cite -- "In 1992, Vincent joined together with John Venners, then a public relations consultant, and William Timmons, a Washington lobbyist, to pursue the purchase and sale of Iraqi oil and the exploration by a consortium of companies of the Majnoon oil field in Iraq. To allow this project to go forward, Vincent hoped that sanctions against Iraq would be lifted, and that Iraq might grant his venture a long-term concession." (end cite) What we have is first that Timmons was not the leader in any way of this, that no contact with Hussein is mentioned, that the venture was contingent on lifting of sanctions, that no violation of law is even hinted at, and that Timmons gets only an identifying parenthetical mention in this at all. The principal is Vincent, and that is it. Vincent later, without any reference to Timmons, contacted the UN Secretary General -- not Saddam, and without any word in the source connecting Timmons to any such contacts at all. Who was his contact? Ted Sorensen, Not Timmons. So we have a sentence in which Timmons is mentioned as an insignificant player compared with Sorensen etc. And Saddam? Does not come anywhere near being mentioned! Therefore, this source containing such a trivial mention, and not connecting Timmons with anything remotely improper, is invalid. Collect (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're ranting. Why do you keep bringing up Saddam? Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please redact your PA. Collect (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The current article has "According to United Nations reports, in early 1992 (just after the Gulf War) Timmons joined with entrepreneur Samir Vincent and public relations consultant John Venners in attempts to get a petroleum deal with Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which was under UN sanctions at the time.[30]"

The cite number 30 is the one which I quoted above in full. The cite does not support the claim made. This is not "ranting" -- it is pointing out a misuse of a cite to support a claim not supported by the cite. The current artle has Saddam proiminently mentioned and linked. As the cite does not connect Timmons in any way whatsoever with Saddam, the claim should be removed. The cite further notes that it was Vincent and Soirensen who made the contact with the UNSG -- and does not imply that Timmons had any part of that operation at all. Thus the contact mentioned in the cite might belong in Sorensen's BLP, but definitely not in the Timmons BLP. Claims which are not only not supported by a RS must be removed per WP:BLP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Somehow I had missed that someone recently put Saddam Hussein's name back in there. So I took it back out. But RTally3 still thinks there's a problem. Can we discuss what exactly is the problem? Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

One part is that Timmons is not connected by the source with anything significant at all. The two who are connected are Vincent and Sorensen. And not connected with the UN stuff at all, though Vincent and Sorensen are. Collect (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You missed that Sadaam's name was back in there? How is that possible -- this whole section was basically created to point that out. Just read the first few sentences of the first post. Your edit notes state that it took a long time to converge on the current paragraph, but I don't think there was ever a convergence on what is currently written and certainly not on the version that existed this time last week. The problem with the current version is that I don't believe Timmons involvement was anything stated in the UN reports (the source provided doesn't seem to indicate as much), and the way the paragraph is framed makes it sound very shady. If anything it should just say that Timmons was involved in the beginning stages of the Food for Oil Program that the UN implemented, which is completely insignificant in my mind considering the other things Timmons has done. Apparently he simply explored opportunities -- briefly -- this is not noteworthy in the context of his life or career.

Another problem with the inclusion of this obscure reference is that it is continuously mischaracterized in an attempt to sensationalize the story. If you google Timmons, you see pictures of his face next to Husseins, which is purely a result of the smear job done in the HP article. People see this, and that he briefly explored the possibility of a Food for Oil Program with Iraq, that he is a powerful lobbyist that has received little publicity over the years, and they try to spin the story into something it is not so that it sounds sensational and interesting. This has happened time and time again. In fact, the Timmons WP page was originally created to do just that.

Since this small, meaningless reference continuously results in big mischaracterizations with serious BLP concerns, I suggest it be removed all together. Otherwise, we're going to find ourselves back in this very position when someone else comes along and tries to sensationalize the story again. It's happened over and over. Rtally3 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I do feel stupid having missed the point, as when I copied the sentence here I somehow didn't see that the name was in what I had copied, so didn't see what you guys were going on about. I thought the name had been removed already, but it looks like you guys left it in (perhaps so you'd have a reason to remove the whole paragraph?). So I blew it. I'm unclear on why you say "Timmons was involved in the beginning stages of the Food for Oil Program that the UN implemented." I haven't seen anything to that effect. And I don't buy that we have to say nothing just because some other sources use his involvement with this Iraq deal as a reason to pair him with Hussein. Here's the version I meant to ask Collect (and you) what needs to be changed in:

According to United Nations reports, in early 1992 Timmons joined with entrepreneur Samir Vincent and public relations consultant John Venners in attempts to get an oil deal with Iraq, which was under UN sanctions at the time. (before the 5 Aug. change)

Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1) In response to the fact that you thought it was removed -- The last time we were involved in shaping the article, I believe during the summer, the link to Hussein was removed. During that time, I pushed for the removal of the entire paragraph for the same reasons I am stating now (his involvement in the Food for Oil Program is trivial and is "low hanging fruit" for those looking to expand the smear jobs done across the internet into his biography). Since then, as has happened several times throughout the development of this page, the Hussein connection was added back without any discussion. I believe it is much easier for them to sneak a Hussein connection in an existing paragraph involving "Iraq/Oil" than to add an entire new paragraph with new sources.

2) In response to the statement "I don't buy that we have to say nothing just because some other sources use his involvement with this Iraq deal as a reason to pair him with Hussein". My concern isn't that other sources have done this (in a roundabout and contradicting way), my concern is that other WP users will CONTINUE to add "Hussein/Park/Vincent/under UN Sanctions" back into the article when they see "Iraq/Oil", and see the smear jobs done across the internet. I said last summer that the attempts to tarnish his name with the Lennon/Hussein connections were turning into a vicious cycle whereby we would start off with a version that sensationalized the info provided in the source, then ratchet it down to the facts, then it would be seen as trivial so users want to sensationalize it again, or push for it's removal. I don't think my perspective can be seen as overprotective of BLP guidelines, because this exact sequence of events has happened agian and again. You simply can't refute that. That is why I say we just remove it -- the article is already kind of verbose and this won't subvert it all. At the very least, "UN Reports" and "Under UN Sanctions" should be removed for now. It makes it sound as if the UN confirmed that Timmons was ignoring the sanctions and going directly to Iraq to try to make a deal, which is exactly what Vincent and Park did that brought on felony charges. And what UN reports? The source doesn't say anything about UN Reports/Timmons. Rtally3 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) I concur. And note that the attack on me was not redacted :(. Collect (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The book is not a bad source; and the Murray Waas article can help in understanding what it all means. The ultimate source, the mentioned U.N. Report is THE MANAGEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAMME Volume II - Report of Investigation Programme Background, which says

In early 1992, Mr. Vincent joined together with John Venners, then a public relations consultant, and William Timmons, a Washington lobbyist, to pursue the purchase and sale of Iraqi oil and the exploration by a consortium of companies of the Majnoon oil field in Iraq. The business plan, intended as a possible alternative to a United Nations oil-for-food program, envisaged that the United Nations would receive the bulk of the profit from sales of Iraqi crude oil from this field. Mr. Vincent suggested that sanctions against Iraq would be lifted imminently and that the Iraqi government might grant a long-term concession to an American oil company.

And the U.N. Report's footnote of sources for this paragraph is:

William Timmons interview (July 22, 2005); John Venners interview (Aug. 9, 2005); William Timmons memorandum to Rady Johnson (Oct. 7, 1994); William Timmons memorandum to Samir Vincent (Sept. 14, 1994); William Timmons concept papers (Dec. 29, 1994 and undated). Mr. Vincent also wanted their assistance to determine more specifically when the United States administration expected sanctions to end. William Timmons interview (July 22, 2005).

So that's what we need to cover, as objectively as possible. Omitting this involvement that's in the U. N. Report is not a viable option. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Timmons gets a few more mentions in subsequent pages, for example:

Meanwhile, throughout this period and continuing through 1994 and 1995, Mr. Vincent and Mr. Park, along with Mr. Timmons and others, persisted in their efforts to establish a foothold in the Iraqi oil business. In February 1995, Mr. Vincent circulated talking points, drafted by both himself and Ambassador Hamdoon, to Mr. Timmons and other influential Washington, D.C. figures to assist in meetings with other American officials to press them to “rethink the Iraqi situation” and to urge the easing of sanctions.

with footnote:

William Timmons interview (July 22, 2005); William Timmons calendar (1992-1995); William Timmons memorandum to Rady Johnson (Oct. 7, 1994); William Timmons record, Concept Paper (Dec. 29, 1994); William Timmons record, Nizar’s Points (Feb. 15, 1995).

Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at the Volcker Report as it stands -- it has 263 pages. Timmons is important enough that he gets mentioned as a witness interviewed on page 78 with this amazing bit -- he talked with "former classmates from Jesuit High School in Baghdad". Wow. The footnote continues that he served on Capitol Hill and founded Timmons and Company. Major mentuion -- not. Page 79 has your quote -- but note that it never mentions Timmons doing anything particularly at all. What doies the report stress" The Tongsun Park connection. Timmons? A bystander who knew Park, and told Vincent that he gave big parties. Another wow. In 1994-5 he wrote a memorandum -- but the issue of sanctions was, in fact, hotly debated while Clinton was President. Issuing a memorandum on the issue was not, in fact, improper in any way, and barely relevant at best to a BLP. When did this get mention in the NYT? Not until October 2008 - when it became a "political issue." Spring 1993 - Vincent "retained Theodore Sorensen." Gillian Sorensen was a special assistant to Bhoutros-Ghali. Since the B-G connection was the key link in the Vincent case, it would appear that this is much more properly in his BLP than it is here. Now as to sanctions -- the UNSC voted for "oil for food" in 1991 -- it was not improbable to many that Iraq wouls accept this -- which means that Vincent was not improperly making contact. The impropriety occurred with his contacts with B-G in 1995 -- when B-G approved things without telling the Security Council! So we have Timmons acting legally at all stages in this, and in a rational manner (afer all resolutions baking it had already been passed in the UN!) only to have Iraq decline the deal. Then in 1995 after Timmons was fairly well out of the picture, Sorensen and wife and the Secretary General did the dealing. All of this is clear in the Volcker Report. So much for Timmons whose connection was minimal and legal. Collect (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you were unable to spot the relevant bits, so I'll point them out: "In early 1992, Mr. Vincent joined together with John Venners, then a public relations consultant, and William Timmons, a Washington lobbyist, to pursue the purchase and sale of Iraqi oil..." and "throughout this period and continuing through 1994 and 1995, Mr. Vincent and Mr. Park, along with Mr. Timmons and others, persisted in their efforts to establish a foothold in the Iraqi oil business." Is there a reason to suppress mention of these? Is it hard to report accurately? Dicklyon (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Iteration does not change the facts. Timmons did not make any improper contacts with anyone. The "improper contacts" were made by Ted Sorensen and his wife. Did you add this to Sorensen's BLP? Timmons never contacted B-G. The impropriety was B-G's failure to tell the security Council anything. And the fact that there was a resolution adopted by the SC which would have allowed the sale of Iraqi oil meant that no violations of sanctions was envisaged, and no violation of UN rules was made by Timmons. Anything more is SYN. Collect (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree; let us not allege that he made improper contacts with anyone. Has someone made such an allegation? Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon, way to just completely ignore my comments made in response to yours. It disturbs me that anyone thinks the Murray Waas article can give any kind of insight or act as a supplementary source of any kind. That being said, I am having trouble scrolling through the new sources PDF file, but it doesn't appear to be a UN report, as the paragraph claims (?). And the wording of the paragraph still makes Timmons actions sound shady. There isn't even mention of the oil for food program in the paragraph, or that his involvement dealt with finding an alternative to the UN plan, and that it would still allow the majority of the profit to go to the UN. The current wording makes it sound as if he was going behind the UN's back to make some money. Once you strip this down to the facts you are left with uneventful minutia about a UN business idea that didn't come to fruition. It's simply not noteworthy, and is low hanging fruit for people to spin into a smear job, as we have seen over and over again. Rtally3 (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked more into what the report was, and I agree that it might not be correct to call it a UN report; the UN appointed Volker and others to the independent commission, and it was their report; so I made the change in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Saddam Hussein in Iraq" should be changed to "Saddam Hussein's Iraq", to avoid giving the impression (as we don't know for sure) that Timmons and Hussein were in direct contact. I'm far from happy with the "Rain Maker" section that makes Timmons sound like a social worker. The only reference given for it is a broken link. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no mention of Hussein in the article, and nobody suggesting it be added. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And the "Rain Maker" section? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking about who added the "rain maker" quote and why, it was Rtally3 in this diff. The book link is broken, true, but I'd trust that the book supports what he said at the time (I probably checked it at the time) unless you want to find the book and see. Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Added Volcker statement as parenthetical comment about the UNSC resolutions which would allow such "deals." Night as well be accurate. Collect (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand either your comment here or your addition to the article. Can you quote what in the source you're referring to, and maybe I can help you write it correctly? Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) You still have not redacted your claim that I was "ranting" when I pointed out that Saddam Hussein indeed had been in the article not that long ago, remember? The Volcker report states in no uncertain terms than UNSC resolutions were not being evaded by Timmons in any contacts at all. As to removing mterial because you do not like the grammar, that is not a proper reason for deleting a statement on WP. In fact it looks like you simply do not wish to add the fact that Volcker mentions the UNSC resolutions <g>. Please go back to the language I had used, or improve the grammar, rather than removing inconvenient truths about the Volcker report. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The "ranting" comment was in response to your less-than-productive response to my inquiry as to what change you would make. I was under a mistaken impression myself at the time, for which I apologize, but if you had simply answered the question or made the simple change needed, you could have save us both a lot of trouble; instead, you ranted. As to the clarification of the UNSC resolutions point you added, I don't find the place in the source that motivated your statement, so it's hard to fix it properly, which is why I've asked you to clarify. I have no objection to clarifying the context of Timmons's involvement in this UN stuff, but the source doesn't say a lot about him that I've found by text search, so if you've found something relevant that I missed, please point it out or use some words in your edit that help me find it; or cite a page number or something. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The report makes clear that the UNSC resolutions were the basis for all oil deals -- hence the deal sought would have been "pursuant" to such resolutions. Is that difficult to grasp here? Collect (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually read the report, which is why I'm asking for a pointer to where to talks about that. It's possibly not hard to understand once I see what you're referring to. Will you tell me? Dicklyon (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually read the report. I suggest you do likewise. Note especially how Sorenson et ux come out. Collect (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, every time you questioned my sources I provided page numbers, quotes, and links to online copies of what I was referring to. So now you're refusing to do similarly to help me find what you're referring to? I need to just read the whole report? Dicklyon (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the report just too long to read to actually understand what it says? I found it useful -- especially the stuff about Sorensen et ux, and the SG. Collect (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that the "Rain Maker" section, whether or not the book referred to in the broken link speaks of him in a similar vein, is not NPOV. Like I said before, it makes Timmons sound more like a social worker than a lobbyist. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The source, which I received recently, says "rainmaker", but doesn't quite say what our article says. I'm on wikibreak, so I'll let you decide what to do with it. I think it's neutral enough to reported attributed published opinions about the guy. Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the lead

It isn't really accurate to say "all Republican presidents since Richard Nixon" in the lead if he's retired and hasn't worked for Trump, is it? - Sdkb (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)