Talk:William Timmons (lobbyist)/Archive 2

no consensus on inclusion of the Iraq lobbying section
No consensus for inclusion is apparent here. Per WP:BLP a consensus is needed for inclusion of such disputed material. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also no consensus for exclusion; I've tried to take all comments into account, presenting info briefly, with multiple sources, with no mention of Hussein, and including a bit of the Timmons response to the suggestion that he knew about the illegal activities of his associates. What part of what's there is still disputed?  Can you adjust it more finely that just censoring the whole topic?  Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have we been to BLP/N about this? Probably should. ... Ah, I see we did, here.  Didn't get much response though, just the usual characters from here repeating the RS/N argument.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The only response received on the BLP/N was that it was a smear job, and the reference was immediately removed. Anyone who agreed at that point really had no reason to chime in as the situation seemed resolved. If someone who happened to believe it wasn't a BLP violation chimed in, maybe that would have warranted more responses -- but that wasn't the case. Rtally3 (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no BLP issues; whoever said it was a "smear job" was only expressing an unhelpful and unsourced value judgement that has no bearing upon the article. The material should be included and WP:PRESERVE must hold -- if there are BLP or other problems you can articulate, we can change the wording to address those issues, but no valid argument for deleting this material has been suggested.  The consensus at RS/N was that Huffington Post] was reliable for this sort of claim, but even if it weren't, we have another source.  So at this point, simply deleting this and repeating "BLP" without evidence is just disruptive and unhelpful.  If you have a specific BLP issue, let us know what it is, and then change the wording to address it.  But please stop deleting this. csloat (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to force this garbage in the biography by lobbying the same people incessantly. Do you really expect one of us is going to agree with you all of a sudden? Your time would be better spent seeking outside intervention on the BLP/N, as I did, rather than continuing to lobby us for the inclusion of the article. Until that happens, the reference will continue to be removed on the grounds that most people consider it to be a smear job, and you need a consensus in order to include such disputed material. No variation of the wording will change this. Rtally3 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The claim that "most people consider it a smear job" is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. You are the one removing it, in violation of Wikipedia policy.  Stop it. csloat (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually there have been at least 4 people that have removed it. Rtally3 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No; only you and collect are removing the current version which includes additional sources; please stop blaming others for your violations of policy. csloat (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you AGF here -- can you show me where the consensus for inclusion was reached? Collect (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rtally is the one asserting consensus where there is none. csloat (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? I count two for inclusion, and more than two for exclusion. Collect (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, I count 2 for exclusion and now 3 for inclusion. Are we done here? csloat (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, please just tell us who, by name or link, you see as supporting the idea that we should say nothing about the connection to Iraq and Vincent. Recent discussions have just Commodore Sloat and myself trying to add stuff, and you and Rtally3 trying to remove stuff; and I wouldn't put any significant weight on the opinion of a WP:SPA whose sole role to is polish up the reputation of William Timmons.  So tell us who else you're counting on your side and we can ask them to speak up. Dicklyon (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I count myself, Jayen, Rtally, Amwestover and Threeafterthree as being clear. You and Sloat are the only ones pushing for inclusion. Seems that since consensus is required for inclusion that you have not met that burden.  By the way, SPA is not an impediment to having a valid opinion.  Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, just looking at people who have addressed the current version with the additional sourcing (and following additional discussion and consensus regarding sources on RSN), that leaves you and a single-purpose account. And if we're going to count the others we should certainly be counting Rifter0x0000 and the anon ip as well. csloat (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Counting? I find 5 on one side, two on the other. And the fact a relatively new account is SPA is true of almost all new accounts. It is not considered a valid argument against considering the arguments made by an editor. Try to get consensus on your side instead of filibustering Commodore. Collect (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to recount. You plus the SPA is still two, not five.  Cheers, csloat (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but for what it's worth, my account is definitely not an SPA. Rtally3 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It does matter, and it pretty much is. Yes you have a couple of other edits but it's obvious where your energy is focused. csloat (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no additional source that links Timmons to Hussein. The quote upthread was not taken out of the book, and speculating on Timmons' wishes is frivolous -- WP requires that BLP's be written conservatively. There is 1 source claiming a connection, and an overwhelming majority of users (more than just 5) agreeing that it is a smear job. You can extol Waas or the HP all you want, but you simply don't have a consensus for inclusion. Rtally3 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As a reminder, the text in question does not mention Hussein. Here it is:

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. 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).


 * Please be specific in saying what aspect of this paragraph you find problematic, and propose a modification to fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I find "involved with" to be a classic "guilt by association" claim, hence not properly in a BLP. Ab initio the section fails by my understanding of WP guidelines. Collect (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We could adopt instead the book's terminology: "joined together with...". Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good plan -- if that addresses the only BLP concern that has been specifically expressed, hopefully we can move on now. Thanks! csloat (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Vincent cite - Timmons not involved in sanctions at all
"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." Per cite given, Timmons was not involved in seeking end of sanctions (in fact he merits only one single mention in the entire book). In point of fact, Ted Sorensen appears to have had actual contact with the UN about sanctions, but he is not mentioned in this article. Thus trying to tie Timmons to the sanctions fails as it is not a claim made in the entire book. Collect (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification; maybe the interpretation that they were "joined together" in this venture as the book says does not extend to their hopes and what they worked on. So I changed the text just say while Iraq was under UN sactions; how they intended to work around that can be left unspecified.  Dicklyon (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding the sanctions is WP:SYN. The cite about Timmons makes no mention at all about him and sanctions. Indeed, the book cite mentions Timmons' name in precisely one sentence, which makes use of it as a cite a bit odd, indeed. Sort of like looking for every single one-word mention of Timmons in an online search. Collect (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it clearly mentions that Timmons and Vincent joined up to do an oil deal with Iraq when they under sanctions; why do you find mentioning that to be objectionable? Dicklyon (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it says absolutely nothing about Timmons and sanctions. It does, however, tie Ted Sorensen to an attempt to bribe Boutros Ghali, which appears to be relevant. (Heading is "Iraq's attempt to bribe the Secretary-General" and the connection is not with Timmons but with Sorensen).  Thanks for giving the impetus to correctly use the cite! Collect (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to get a clearer picture of what you mean by "relevant". Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought you would be sincerely interested in attacking the people who actually pursued the bribery -- no? Your cite is wondrous for this -- especially pointing the finger so clearly at Sorensen.  You do want to attack lobbyists, no? Collect (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in attacking anyone, but you seem to be. This article should be about Timmons; his involvement with Vincent and Iraq is what we're trying to figure out how best to cover.  You've objected to one source because it says too much, and another because it says too little.  Your political afinity for the Republicans is clouding your judgement about how to get to balanced coverage; following up the connection with a Democrat does not contribute the resolving this question.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not the one who presented this source. It is proper to accurately represent what the source actually says, is it not?  By the way, I was involved in NO campaigns for ANY parties in the past 10 years, so your assertion of a partisan bias ia totally off base.  And I have also made sure improper claims about Dems do not go into their BLPs either.  As you insisted that the source has to be used, we must use the full source. Cherry-picking in a source is not a good way to get a factual and encyclopedic article written, is it?  Collect (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Once the source is agreed on, which it is, the issue is how much of it is relevant to the article topic. The sanctions against Iraq that were in the way of Timmons and Vincent getting an oil deal are plainly relevant.  The actions of others with less relationship to Timmons are somewhat less relevant.  Where do you suggest we draw the line?  Your claim to be non-partisan is transparently false, in my opinion, as your recent edits illustrate; how else can you explain them? Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Timmons is mentioned in all of a single sentence. Said sentence does not say anything about the sanctions, only that Timmons met in early 1992.  The sanctions in that source are stressed in relation to Boutros Ghali and Sorenson. Saying that Timmons was important vis-a-vis the sanctions is actually not just cherry picking in the source, it is going against the primary information in the source, which is that Sorensen was to be the key player in bribing Boutros Ghali. As for your Ouija Board knowledge of my 'partisanship" which is totally false, that is another matter. Try AGF on this.  My edits are made in accord with the third opinions which you solicited!   Amazing! Collect (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The single sentence was part of a paragraph. The paragraph indicated that Iraq was under sactions; and that Vincent hoped to get the sanctions lifted.  Sorensen shows up two pages later.  Your logic isn't working for your case here.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And the paragraph made no claim about Timmons and sanctions. The source does so about Sorensen and Bhoutros Ghali.  Collect (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New book sources
There seem to be lots of book sources with stuff on the Timmons lobbying, which is his main claim to fame. Since most are not available in GBS, I've ordered copies via abebooks.com; 6 new books on the way for under $30 total! Anyway, I know this will complicate sharing the sources, so if anyone wants to argue, feel free to order your own copies, or ask me for copies of any pages that I end of citing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Connections
The reasons to discuss various connections and relationships in the article are two-fold: Am I right? So why the recent removals? Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because that's the information about Timmons that has been important enough to show up in the most reliable sources, namely books.
 * To contextualize the otherwise isolated facts, with links to other prominent things and people going on at the time. This applies to the Lennon/ACLU/FOIA/Wiener connections as well as to various lobbying connection.  It doesn't make sense to talk about memos he received and sent with no word on how those memos are relevant, not to talk about his great lobbying business without some observations that secondary sources make about it.


 * Material in a BLP must have some semblance of being germane to the person. The FOIA request had nothing to do with Timmons, hence is not germane. No memo cited the election, hence it is not germane to a discussion of what Timmons did at all. There is, in fact, absolutely no evidence that Timmons did anything at all other than reply to a senior Senator.  Per WP:BLP disputed material needs a consensus for insertion in a BLP. Collect (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is disputed? I think I was very careful not to say or imply anything that was not what the sources said about these memos. Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether the material is germane at all to the BLP. The memo is in the BLP - fine. Anything else has precious little to do with the biography. This is a BLP, not a political sceed, and must meet WP standards.  Unless, of course, you have a cite that Timmons actively pursued Lennon in some way? As for listing employees of a firm, unless you can assert that Timmons was involved in their work, the nexus is broken.  Find a cite for Timmons being active in a particular lobbying project - maybe. But absent that, I suggest the list of employees is not germane to this article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which removals you're referring to specifially, but I'll try to explain 1) why I think the Lennon section should be removed again, and 2) why I removed the Freddie Mac reference. 1) There simply is no connection between Timmons and Lennon. Timmons just signed a reply letter to Thurmond informing him that the INS had taken action. It's completely uneventful. 2) The Bloomberg article states that the person McCain placed in charge of the transition planning was someone who worked in a profession that he says is partially responsible for the demise of the secondary mortgage industry, and subsequent crippling of certain economic underpinnings. The problem with this is a) In McCain's quotes, he is speaking about bureaucratic entities in platitudes, and doesn't mention anything about Timmons' company specifically b) Timmons was not the transition lead, and was never hired by McCain (another falsehood in the first paragraph of this bio).


 * McCain is not fond of Timmons' profession, and claiming that he named a lobbyist who he thinks "prevented reforms" to the financial inefficiencies as his transition lead is an attempt to make him look like a hypocrite. The only problem in this assertion is that ex- Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman was the transition lead, and McCain never mentioned anything about the role that Timmons' played in any work he might have done with Freddie Mac. If the only point of referencing the article was to list a prior client, then I suggest we use a different source that shows a comprehensive list. Rtally3 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to echo, "material" that is added to ANY bio has to have some relevancy the material that is already there so it is "tied" together so to speak or it has to be noteworthy enough for inclusion in the bio. This, oh course, can become subjective. I am sure there is a ton of both RSed and true facts about this individual, but that does not mean we include it all. Wikipedia is not just a collection of facts, especially when it comes to biographies. When adding "material", ask why is it relevant and does it improve the article or is it being added for some other "reason". For disclosure, I am a deletionist/minimalist. Thanks, --Tom 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem here is quite the opposite -- the few things that are published about this individual in RSs are the only notable things about him, and we have a hardcore contingent of editors trying to delete every one of them, in spite of the Wikipedia policy that mandates preserving and editing such information rather than deleting it. csloat (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The exceptions to that policy are worth reading. Rtally3 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting any lack of good faith on anyone;s part? Collect (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rtally: Yes, they are.  This doesn't fit any of them.
 * Collect: Definitely not; sorry if it came across that way.
 * Cheers! csloat (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF and have a cup of te as well. Collect (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I remain perplexed at what the objections are to the inclusion of details from reliable sources that are relevant to the subjects activities and connections to other historic people, actions, events, etc., as described in those sources. Do we have anything else to go on in writing this bio than these sources? Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you go to WP:BLP/N as I consider the material not germane, and irrelevant. Clearly you feel it is relevant to a biography -- so we need added eyes to look at it. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What clause in WP:BLP do you feel is being violated? Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Try the fact that the reference to the 1972 Nixon campaign is pure Coatrack. That the FOIA bit is totally irrelevant to any biography. Try the fact that the "link" between Lennon and Timmons is a memo to a Senator in response to the Senator's memo. Try the fact that saying the deportation failed has absolutely nothing to do with Timmons or any act of Timmons. Try the claim that Timmons was one of the specific lobbyists for Northrop. Try a few other irrelevant additions which are there solely to defame Timmons. All contrary to WP:BLP and all of which I consider as disputed material in a BLP.  Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know which article clauses are objected to. I'm asking which clauses on WP:BLP are the basis for the objection.


 * I get the point about maybe Timmons himself didn't do the lobbying for Northrop. But how does any of this "defame" Timmons?   Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove the uncited claim then as a start. The defamation is related to the Nixon campaign coatrack re Lennon. And the irrelevant FOIA bit which has no direct connection at all to Timmons. Collect (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't answered what clause in WP:BLP you believe is being violated. And please define coatrack and say how this defames Timmons. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I removed some "material". Unless we are going to add everything he lobbyied for, what is the point here? Can the sources for the Lennon "link" be placed here also so folks can review that as well? Thanks, --Tom 14:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything that he lobbied for would be great, but let's limit it to what we can find in reliable sources. What's the problem with the "link"; does books.google.com not work for you?  Do you need a page image to be email to you perhaps?  I'll be happy to help if that's it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Problem is that he is not named as the Northrop lobbyist -- which means that whole part is quite tangential to a BLP, interesting as it might be in an article on lobbying. Stuff in a BLP is supposed to be "biographical" of all things!   Use of the Nixon campaign is an excuse to put a mention of Nixon into an article beyond what is correct for a BLP. As the event occurred well before the campaign, linking it to the campaign fails common sense. And unless you can say Timmons opposed letting people see his memo, the FOIA bit is totally irrelevant in his biography, though it might be relevant in Lennon's bio.  Collect (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The link to the campaign is very clearly made in the source. The lobbying is what Timmons and his guy Korologos did immediately on leaving the White House.  These are the few things published about Timmons in reliable sources.  What can we use to support notability if not these sources?  Dicklyon (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Collect here - I don't think these alleged connections are germane to this article. Kelly  hi! 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What *is* acceptable to the deletionists here?
Can I just ask, what material that has been reported in reliable sources will you guys allow in the article? It seems one by one, every single thing about this guy that has actually been published is unacceptable to you for one reason after another. Most of the reasons don't seem very compelling to me -- variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- but I'd be more sympathetic to the explanations if it didn't seem like these objections were raised to every single thing that has ever been published about this guy. Is your preference that this article remain a permanent stub without references? csloat (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My focus is on only referencing material that is fair and balanced, and that seems relevant to the subject as well appropriate for a biography. I have provided reliable sources in my edits. Rtally3 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Fair and balanced"? That's a mandate for including more from reliable sources, not for excluding reliable sources that you don't like.  What material from reliable sources do you like here?  What's not "fair and balanced" about including what little material actually was published about this guy? csloat (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not basing any of this on whether or not I like the source -- a fair and balanced biography shouldn't be compiled by googling his name and dumping in whatever information is found. There was a conservatively written, comprehensive biography in place, which was then subverted by dumping in random media attention. Saying that objections are "raised to every single thing that has ever been published about this guy" is hyperbole. There have been plenty of sources provided with material relevent to the subject. Anything that claims he worked for McCain, or that singles out a particular client of his firm, is not germane to the biography of Timmons. He didn't work for McCain, and there's nothing notable about serving a client. Timmons' firm has serviced dozens of big name clients over the years, and none of the recent media attention found online is anymore notable than other work performed over the years -- especially if it doesn't say anything significant about Timmons' activities specifically. Rtally3 (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you want to be the Fox guarding the chicken coop, if I may mix my metaphors. Dicklyon (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, throwing out the old staunch republican insinuations. What exactly am I guarding against? As for Fox news, I've never watched it long enough to know about the slogan, and my efforts have nothing to do with any political views. The only people who have stated a party preference on this page are liberals who have asked for removal of some of the uncorroborated connections that you and csloat continue to push for. Rtally3 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rtally3's sock-puttetry blocks
In answer to denials and questions above:

This disembling is getting a bit absurd. Rtally3's block log says he was blocked for abusing multiple accounts ( and ), and the block was extended for evading the block via, which contributed only on this talk page. If these blocks are being challenged, we can ask the blocking admin whether he did a checkuser, or what evidence he had. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider attacks on editors to not be within the proper use of talk pages. Collect (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

JMcGee2 was a case of meatpuppetry, as was clearly stated at the time. It was clear who I was on rtally4. So, the theory that the consensus should be discredited on the grounds that it is made up of sockpuppets is completely debunked -- I haven't included these usernames in the consensus. What about some of the other usernames you've said were my sockpuppets? Why aren't you counting those? Rtally3 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh please stop; there is no sense in discussing this. You used sock and meatpuppets; you were blocked; you continued doing it and your block was extended.  Presumably you've learned your lesson; nobody's bringing this up to "attack" other editors; you are bringing it up yourself over and over because -- well, I'm not sure why.  Nobody is dismissing a "consensus" becayuse of JimMcGee or whoever; the only people who have given serious input on the issues currently relevant are the four of us.  That's 2-2.  With the addition of DGG, who most recently lent an outside voice, the consensus is now 3-2 for inclusion.  And of course regardless of any "vote," WP:PRESERVE suggests that we keep the material in and make changes if there is anything that conflicts with other Wikipedia policies.  We can do this without deleting well sourced content.  Cheers, csloat (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP is what governs here. WP:PRESERVE is vastly misused lately. You have no consensus. Period. Collect (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The two policies are not in conflict. Yes BLP governs, as does PRESERVE.  In this case BLP requires modification of well sourced content if there is a potential BLP issue.  The only issue you expressed specifically has been addressed with a suggested amendment (see bottom of this page).  If there are other BLP issues that we can address let us know.  Thanks! csloat (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP requires consensus for INCLUSION of material which is contentious or disputed. All you do is keep berating an editor for an incident in the PAST which has precious little to do with improving this article.  As for being blocked -- your own log of being blocked is quite impressive --as is yout topic BAN on editing here still in effect.  Would you consider that discussion germane here? Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I really can't stop you from bringing up whatever irrelevant nonsense you choose to, Collect. Have a good day. csloat (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How am I bringing this up over and over? You created this section, and you recently reported me for having sockpuppet Hazeldell -- which just wasn't true. If there's no sense in discussing it, then stop making the accusations, and I'll stop retorting. Rtally3 (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't create this section; it was created by Dicklyon after you blatantly misrepresented what had happened; I think he was only trying to clear the record. As for my "recently" reporting you, that was a while ago, and I made the report and was done with it.  The report was entirely justified, and it still should probably be looked into, but it is not a matter of consequence on this talk page, in my opinion.  You are the one who continues to raise it, which is bizarre, since the facts are already crystal clear on the issue. csloat (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize I'm a few days behind in this debate, but I'm having trouble understanding why you would believe my meager contribution to the debate to be the work of rtally or anyone else. If a group of people agree, they must be sockpuppets? What a bizarre way of debating the facts of Timmons's biography. Hazeldell97202 (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Hazeldell
 * Oh for christ's sake, can we please drop it? I'm not the one bringing the sockpuppet thing up.  It was brought up earlier because Rtally was caught using sockpuppets, and he also admitted to using meatpuppets.  Rtally is a single purpose account whose only purpose seems to be to keep sourced content off of this page.  Your account appeared and the first and only comment was an intervention on this (relatively obscure) talk page, siding with Rtally and demonstrating a familiarity with Wikipedia policy -- such accounts are always suspicious, especially when associated with another SPA who was blocked for, and acknowledged, sockpuppet violations.  This is ancient history at this point; if you're not a sockpuppet, and you don't have any contact with Rtally outside of Wikipedia, you have nothing to worry about.  It has nothing to do with being suspicious of people who agree about things -- notice nobody suspects Collect of being Rtally's sockpuppet, or me of being Dicklyon's. csloat (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My account is not a single purpose account, and I have not used multiple accounts to hide my identity as you claim. Suggesting that hazeldell doesn't have anything to worry about seems absurd considering that the account appears to be blocked. And are you currently banned from editing this article? Rtally3 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence that hazeldell was blocked? That does not appear to be the case, but if it is, I'm sure there was a good reason.  And yes, your account is basically a single-purpose account.  I realize you started a couple other articles with some plagiarized paragraphs in order to make it look like your account was doing other things, but the reality is that the overwhelming number of edits from your account are to this very talk page. csloat (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rtally3, it may be that your block and extended block for abuse of multiple accounts was a mistake. But there's little double that your single purpose on wikipedia is to polish the image of William Timmons.  You can check your history, here: . Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made several other contributions to WP. Cherry picking mistakes I made on 2 of them seems like a "bite", and I'm not sure how that is relevant. I choose to partake in the shaping of articles according to my knowledge and interest of the subject matter, as well as the level of improvement that can be made. That has directed me to this page more times than not, and I don't see why that should be a problem. I suggest all efforts would be better spent improving this bio instead of making accusations -- especially considering that one of the accusers apparently has a pretty impressive WP rap sheet himself, and is banned from editing this article. I wonder why... Rtally3 (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to wonder; all that information is as readily available as it is irrelevant to the current discussion. 75.31.200.197 (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to look at your contribs either -- a total of TWO. And you hop in here as whose sockpuppet? Lately, csloat has quite nearly posted as many messages here as Rtally has -- while a relatively new user will almost invariably be "SPA" at the start, it is unuaual for a long term editor with csloat's history to become so attached to one article. Collect (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Watergate?
Nice try that -- I wonder if the section should not be listed as "Advice to Nixon" as Timmons was not implicated in the Watergate scandal. Collect (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be fine. Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to annotate my edit, but I reworded the first sentence, from "Nixon decapitated the department", to "Nixon reorganized the department". The former is an repugnant metaphor and is not the way encyclopedia's read. Rtally3 (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RTally3's Freddie Mac removal
He says in edit summary "The FM sentence was a run on, and singling out the $ amount is irrelevant. Last revert stated that there was no source that said all clients have same fee, but it's actually in the bio, referenced."

Actually, nobody had complained about not having a statement that all clients pay the same; whether it's true or otherwise, the cited source only has speculative info on the amount. What's wrong with reporting the amount from the Freddie Mac source? I'd fix it, but I'm in danger of violating 3RR if I work on this article more today, so I'm taking a break. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the comments above, but I didn't remove the Freddie Mac reference, and I thought that one of the revert notes said that there was no source claiming that all clients had the same fee, when in fact there was. That being said, there was nothing written about Freddie Mac that was notable or that stood out from any other client, so I cleaned up the superfluous rhetoric and kept FM with other clients, in a clean and sensible fashion. Why expand on any specifics pertaining to Freddie Mac when it doesn't appear to stand out from other companies, especially when you think that the info provided might not even be factual? Rtally3 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This diff; your edit summary mischaracterized the previous comments as "Last revert stated that there was no source that said all clients have same fee, but it's actually in the bio, referenced."  No revert said such a thing.  I think you were referring to my diff here, where I said "Nobody has reported what other clients pay; this is the only report I found, and it's in a reliable source."  You're grasping at air.  Just put it back.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for misunderstanding the revert notes, but that really had nothing to do with the reason for cleaning up the section, and was more of a response to the perceived comment. Why should the Freddie Mac info be singled out when it doesn't appear to be any different from any other client, and you think it might not even be factual? Rtally3 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In spite of what Collect says, I'm not cherry-picking. Just reporting whatever I can find; I found this article; if you'd like to substitute another report of similar content, if you find it, that would be OK, but why just remove it?  Why not find and add new stuff instead of removing sourced relevant info.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have used newly sourced info to improve the article many times, most recently earlier today. I didn't remove the Freddie Mac reference, I just removed the comments surrounding it for the reasons stated above. Your response to my question as to why the info about Freddie Mac should be included was "just reporting whatever I can find". I'm not sure what the exact definition of cherry picking is, but it certainly sounds like this approach comports with how I intuitively think of the term. I would hope there would be a little more deductive reasoning performed before editing the written history of a man's life -- a little more logic used before moving from premises to conclusions. I think this approach results in a bio that is written in a sloppy manner -- the lobbying section specifically looks like a random assortment of whatever can be found online, regardless if it transitions smoothly or is really relevant to the life of Timmons. Flippantly tossing in whatever you find on the web does not sound like a prudent approach to editing an encyclopedia. Rtally3 (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Your idea of "more deductive reasoning performed before editing the written history of a man's life" sounds like what we call WP:OR. I agree that one should not move "from premises to conclusions," but rather just report what's reported in reliable sources. We're not supposed to be writing the history of a man's life here, just what's already in reliable sources about him; that's rather limiting, I know, but it's what we do here. Not "flippantly" as you call it, but including what we can find. And while it's so far only what I could find on the web, I've also ordered six more books that talk about him, as I mention above; from the snippets, it appears that they'll have more interesting bits of what he has been involved in in his lobbying career; other stuff about him is equally welcome, if you can find it. Like some sources for the fact tags that remain. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The "newly sourced info" that you added earlier today was a misrepresentation of a source that doesn't mention Timmons; you claimed the source supported the statement that "Timmons was found to not be involved in any of the illegal activity surrounding the Watergate Scandal." It didn't say that, and by not mentioning him that's not what it implies; not finding him involved is not the same as finding him not involved, right? Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Connecting my suggestion for more deductive reasoning to WP:OR is off base. I'm not drawing conclusions on my own or speculating at all -- in fact I'm doing quite the opposite by cleaning up connections made in the bio that don't appear in the sources. Reporting from reliable sources is obviously fine -- I just don't think you need to throw in every bit of minutia found, or move from premise to conclusion without a reliable source clearly doing as much. It ends up looking like a random assortment of information tossed in the bio that really has no relevance to the subject. The comment "we are not supposed to be writing the history of a man's life here" is perplexing. That is the definition of a biography. Doing this doesn't mean we need to perform original research, but it does mean that we can organize the material found in a organized and sensible fashion. As far as reference # 7 goes-- you're right, it doesn't mention Timmons. It mentions all of Nixon's staff who were found to be involved in the Watergate scandal (i.e. the Watergate Seven). Since Timmons was one of Nixon's staff members, and he is not included in the list of those found to be involved, I think it's fair to say that he was found not to be involved. I don't think there's a difference between the two statements you discuss -- it seems like you're bickering over semantics, but it looks like you already edited this section to elaborate on the sources information, so I don't understand the point in bringing it up. Rtally3 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Semantics is exactly what I'm "bickering" over. You don't seem to understand the semantics of what you write.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Timmons was not implicated in any way in any report by any agency in the Watergate break-in or cover-up. Granted this is not a specific statement found anywhere, but sonce none of the sources findable about any such reports list Timmons as involved, it would be unfair to imply in any manner that he was involved.  Collect (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean here. I already cited one source that says how he was involved at the end; it makes no suggestion that he was in any way involved in the coverup or other illegal activity.  That's no reason to jump to the conclusion that "none of the sources findable about any such reports list Timmons as involved."  Have you read all such findable sources?  Neither have I.  I agree that we must not imply in any manner that he was involved, but that doesn't justify adding a statement that he was found to be not involved, unless there's a source for that.  Just semantics, as Rtally3 would say. Dicklyon (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Six books on Watergate. Zero mention of Timmons as a perp of any type. Lots of reading -- to find a negative.  If this were on you, would you want a sentence saying "(your name) was not proven to be a murderer" or the like?   Golden Rule time here. Collect (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely would not want that. That's why I was surprised when Rtally3 tried to add a negative finding, though he phrased it in the unsupportable way "(your name) was proven not to be a murderer."  That's less bad sounding, but unneeded and unsupportable; no need to claim innocence when there's no accusation.  I was thinking of the 446 books that mention Timmons on the same page as Watergate; obviously, nobody is going to read them all, and if they did they wouldn't proven a negative.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a big difference between the two statements, but I'm not pushing for my statement to be restored and am fine with the changes Dicklyon made. I do think that the way the section was originally compiled made it seem as if Timmons was somehow involved in Watergate, although no such evidence exists, and that type of editing has been a steadfast problem during the creation of this BLP. Rtally3 (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Steadfast problem? I don't think I've added anything unfair or unsourced, and I've been extremely accommodating of suggested changes.  It's just the steadfast throwing out of stuff that gets me down.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediate or something?
Hey, csloat, Rtally3, and Collect, what say we try to resolve this mess? I'm open to ideas. RfC? Mediation? Anyone willing to try? Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RfC is probably the next step if we can't settle this through compromise; it does seem to be working but at a snail's pace. I agree more eyeballs would be good for this. csloat (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How will you handle your ban on handling anything related to the last campaign help you in the RfC? We already have a couple of new participants here -- albeit they do not seem to agree with you. Collect (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, Collect, if you think I am violating my ban, then report me -- WP:AN/I is where you need to be. But if you're just bringing it up in order to try to undermine my attempts to advance dispute resolution, be aware that your words could be interpreted as a personal attack.  Cheers, csloat (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OTOH, if you had ver been found to use a puppet and it were iterated a few dozen times, that would not be a personal attack. Clear as mud. Collect (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's odd to me that you and Rtally keep bringing up his abuse of sockpuppets, and then complain about me bringing it up when I respond. I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up. And I'm really not clear on what you're accusing me of here at all.  If you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion about the article, best to find another forum.  Cheers, csloat (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, please expand on that thought. What are talking about?  Can you list/link the users who you mean as "new participants"?  Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, nothing constructive to answer?
 * Commodore, we have a couple of RfCs above already, with no clear outcome. In my experience, it's very hard to attract uninvolved editors to look and give an opinion; in this article, it seems even hard to get previously involved editors to come back and say if they're satisfied with the improvements or not.  A mediation (probably informal, mediation cabal) is a way to get some help airing the issues. Dicklyon (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As Timmons was a "bit player" with not much in the way of books written about him, it would appear that straining to find connections is not really the right thing to do.  Jayen is in here now, as are a couple others. Commodore is not doing much other than attacking Rtally, and so we are at this juncture at a point where I am unsure Timmons really merits an article. Collect (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to propose leaving out stuff that's irrelevant to his notability, we'd need to understand first what is the basis of his notability, and what sources support that. What's your impression on that?  It seems to me that with mentions in over 500 books, there's not much chance you could argue that he's not notable enough for an article at all. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

500 books if they all have the same sentence are not actually more informative than one book is. Timmons was a career government employee (22 years or so) who was basically not even in day-to-day contact with Nixon. His most noteworthy accomplishment was reorganizing the cabinet under Reagan. He had nothing to do with Watergate at all, other than keeping tabs on Congressional opinions. His abilities are almost entirely based on structure of authority rather than on political opinions. He is associated with no controversial decisions at all, and his style is to avoid any hint of such. He is simply a vanilla functionary. I can find no hint as to whether he is pro abortion or anti abortion, whether he favors gay marriage or not -- in fact no apparent opinions anywhere are attached to him. Collect (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me this viewpoint is contradicted, at least in his early years, by the position he took on Title IX. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source backing up your assertions here, this would definitely be useful material for the article. If not, we've got to go with what is in the 500 sources that do discuss him. csloat (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't build a worthwhile encyclopedic biography from 500 tangential mentions. At least, right now we don't have one. Jayen 466 22:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes them "tangential"? Have you read all 500 books?  I certainly haven't.  If you have more specific comments about the material actually here, it would be helpful. csloat (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of the article as it stands, the lede is good, "Personal" reads well but is unsourced. The section "Convention and campaign management" could be structured better ("Timmons has managed national party conventions for several US presidents ... In 1968 ... In 1972 ... the way he did it in 1972 proved influential ... 1976 ... 1980... 1984 "). That Timmons set off a trend in how conventions were held is something worthwhile, perhaps the most worthwhile thing the article says so far. Much of the rest comes off as disjointed bits of information. The lobbying section would perhaps be better housed in Timmons_and_Company. Perhaps there are some among the 500 books that focus a bit more on the man and say more than one or two sentences; that would be helpful. Jayen 466 01:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe most of what I found in the personal section is from reference #3, but I can't seem to annotate the section without creating a reference #4 that is a duplicate of #3. Help. I agree that much of the 2nd half of the bio awkwardly transitions from excerpt to excerpt, without any real connection or demonstrated significance. It just reads like random morsels of information thrown together. When I'm done reading each snippet I think "...and??" Rtally3 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Named refs: If you name the refs, they will merge. Use same on both; the second one can optionally just omit the details and self-close as  . Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, if we don't have sources for items they should be junked or we should find the sources. The lobbying material is really the main thing notable about him, however, and the claim that it should be in "Timmons and Company" is incorrect; I agree with DGG's response to that argument here. csloat (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an article on T&Co. That article has not been merged with this one. There is no need nor precedent for having all the same material in both articles. In fact, you have argued elsewhere with precisely the opposite argument you use here. Collect (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Timmons and Company is just a stub so far; looks like merging it here would make more sense, since there's at least as much written about Timmons as about the firm. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. I didn't know there was a T+C article but it is a stub and there is no reason to have both articles.  I think this would be the article to keep since Timmons has some notability outside the company but I'm not sure the company would on its own.  But I could go either way on that. csloat (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorg
Please comment on the reorganization I did; the Lennon thing doesn't get a section head this way, so doesn't seem so prominent. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected the Timmons quote as cited in the source. Collect (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to restoring the inferred "[Let's]" into the quote, you removed the context that said what it was about. I fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement, although I still think much of the bio is random and irrelevant. I'd also like to get other opinions on the use of "decapitated" in the Nixon section. I find it to be an odious metaphor, and just because it is used in a book doesn't mean we should use it in an ecylcopedia. I changed "decapitated" to "reorganized", and this change was reverted. Rtally3 (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Decapitated seems like an apt description of what Nixon did; if you want to replace it, you need to find another way to convey the idea that Nixon removed the heads of the justice department. "Reorganized" misses the mark by a mile. Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dunno, it seems a bit like a collection of things selected to embarrass the subject. If that is so, it is not in line with WP:BLP. Is it just me, or do other editors perceive it this way too? Jayen 466 17:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's perhaps unfortunate for the subject that his actions that made it into books are "embarrassing". Try to find some less embarrassing things to balance with.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unclear at this point why removing these people from their positions would be embarrassing. Perhaps he had good reason. "Decapitated" makes it seem as if his actions were malicious, without any support for that claim. Rtally3 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Decapitated" means removing the heads. That can be a good or bad thing, depending on what the heads are being removed from.  I'm sure the Nixon Administration had an argument as to why it was a good thing.  I don't see why any of this has to be looked at as "embarrassing."  I agree with Dicklyon; the evidence published in reliable sources is what we go by, not by whether those things seem "embarrassing" to a particular Wikipedia editor. csloat (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely Rtally3 is not unaware of how embarrassing this step was to Nixon. I believe the book I cited called it something like the greatest constitutional crisis in American history.  It was not a "re-org".  But Timmons only assessed the reaction, which grew quickly after his initial assessment; it is now notable primarily for how wrong it turned out to be. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The point isn't whether I'm aware of what happened during the Nixon administration. WP articles need to be written with the end user in mind, and assume that readers have no presupposed knowledge of the topic at hand. Otherwise, you're left with an esoteric article. If you want to surmise that someones acts are egregious, you can't simply hint towards the idea without supporting it. That being said, it is okay for the author of a book to write in an antagonistic style, but this isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Rtally3 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Printed Comments
Maybe some of the following quotes from reliable sources can be incorporated into this biography.

Rtally3 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice work, both of you. Rtally3's quotes need full citations, but there are definitely some useful ones there. It would be great to see you adding to the article rather than just trying to remove things. csloat (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

While adding some of this I managed to mess up the reference list. # 18 is a duplicate of 7 (Nixon and Lobbying sections reference the same source). Also, the Personal section is from #3. If someone could make these changes, or give me a push in right direction it would be appreciated. I see that dicklyon did above, but I couldn't seem to get it to work. I believe this should correct all the citation issues. Rtally3 (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't -- what I meant is that we need full citations (titles of articles, author, etc., and links where possible). Shouldn't be too much of a problem. csloat (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Printed Comments II
More printed comments from RS's that might have a place in this bio.

Rtally3 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevance tags
User:Collect has restored 3 "irrel" tags. This would be a good place to discuss them individually. Each has something to do with Timmons or the historical context of stuff about Timmons, and it's not clear why he is questioning the relevance, except presumably to suggest removing the statements. Collect, please say here what each tag is about. Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First -- the insertion of the 1972 election wrt the Lennon memo. Discussion above had others agreeing that it was simply not relevant to this BLP.


 * Second - the bit about the ACLU and FOIA which has absolutely no relevance to the BLP of Mr. Timmons.


 * Third - the bit which basically says "an article accused him of being involved in Watergate. The article was wrong" In sum -- the damage is done by the accusation, and so the accusation is not healed by saying it was false. In a BLP, an accusation which has already been proven false does not belong. Consider a BLP of John Doe with a section "John Doe was accused of murder by the Washington Post. Later it turned out he did not commit the murder." Is that a fair sort of section in a BLP? I would trust not.


 * In each case, by the way, I have made the reasoning clear before. Collect (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarifications, Collect. I sort of agree on the third; that one was added by your buddy Rtally3 on Feb. 1, and you tagged it in this diff though your edit summary didn't say that's what it was about.  Anyway, it's pretty clearly relevant, but there are reasons to leave it out anyway, so I'll let you work that out with Rtally3.


 * On the other two, it's about connecting Timmons's actions in receiving and sending these famous memos to what the memos were about and how they came to be known. The sentence in question has two tags for some reason:


 * The Nixon administration's attempt to deport Lennon before the U.S. presidential election, 1972,[13][relevance?] was documented after these memos were discovered, after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took on the Wiener v FBI "Lennon files" case to challenge the problems in the implemenation of the Freedom of Information Act.[14][relevance?]


 * It's very clearly relevant that the memos were about "The Nixon administration's attempt to deport Lennon before the U.S. presidential election, 1972." Did you look at the source (or maybe watch the movie, even)?  And it's clearly relevant how these memos came to light, in a precedent-setting lawsuit about the FOIA.  Is one sentence too much to situate Timmon's involvement in this history?


 * If you'd like to assert that others support your position that these are irrelevant could you cite a diff, or at least a username that I can search for? Dicklyon (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The deportation memo was almost a year before the election -- clearly the odds of a memo being within a year before or after an election are quite high, and the cite does NOT connect the election campaign to Thurmond's memo. Hence - irrelevant. And movies are NOT RS for WP purposes.  The ACLU case was not about Timmons at all, hence is not relevant n a BLP about Timmons. It might be relevant in a separate article about the Lennon memos, but putting it in the BLP is COATRACK at best.   And since I state the case, the tags should remain. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note: COATRACK is an essay, not a policy. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~


 * Are you disputing the analysis of historians who said the deportation attempt was about Nixon's reelection efforts? Sounds like WP:OR on your part.  Both of the cited sources talk about Lennon and his plans and the deportation attempt with respect to the upcoming 1972 election; apparently, the Nixonians didn't start soon enough to work on the problem... Obviously, the movie is not cited as a source, but maybe if you saw it you'd have a better working knowledge of the times.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I take it that you have failed to find anyone supporting your position on this, so I'll take these distracting old tags out until you do. Dicklyon (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conversely - only you have removed tags for which a reasoning has been given. I note that you are the only person who argues that the election was relevant in the first place --- whle outside editors found it irrelevant. Thanks for abiding by WP guidelines in the tag retention. Collect (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Since only the two of us have commented directly on this issue of relevance of the memos and the election, a third opinion has been requested. 01:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been active on this page lately but I will add to the discussion to say I can't understand Collect's argument that the election isn't relevant; it's pretty clearly one of the big things that got the subject a mention in reliable sources. Vague disputes of established historians by wikipedia editors don't cut it -- see WP:OR. csloat (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi captain -- this is not a dispute about a source, it is about the RELEVANCE of the election to the Thurmond memo and Timmons. Collect (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is also now about abuse of cite -- the cite given shows the memo, and makes NONE of the other claims cited for it connecting anything with Timmons at all. Hence it is COATRACK, SYN and worse. Thanks for making me look at the cite given! Collect (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC).


 * I'm sorry you weren't able to find the relevant text in the cited source; I added the page numbers to help you. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The book says nothing about Timmons -- which means citing it for unrelated material is still using the cite for irrelevant information.  Sort of like citing Encarta -- on the basis that if it has an article on Timmons that therefore every article it has on everyoine is citable .   Collect (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're saying; both books clearly identify Timmons as receiver and sender of the subject memos. It's all their in black and white; the sentence you don't like just says what the memos were part of why they are historically important. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * NONE of the cites links Timmons to attempting to deport Lennon -- they show him ANSWERING a memo. None make any allegations at all about Timmons in the matter. None connect the ACLU bit to Timmons at all, nor do any say the ACLU was specifically interested in the Timmons and Thurmons memos. In short - none of the cites adds an iota of evidence connecting Timmons to any political effort to deport Lennon at all. You are headed to WP:OR on this one for sure! Collect (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
I notice that the third sentence being discussed seems to be deleted, therefore I'm assuming it needs no comment. As for the first two irrelevance tags, if there is no evidence Timmons was actively involved in the Lennon deportation case (as opposed to just reading a memo, as mentioned in the preceding sentence), then that part doesn't really belong in this BLP as it's just unneccesary detail. Bettia  (bring on the trumpets!)  14:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's unclear what you mean by "unnecessary detail", or what policy or guideline motivates the comment. How can the memos be understood without the sentence The Nixon administration's failed attempt to deport Lennon before the U.S. presidential election, 1972, campaign season was documented when these memos were discovered, after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took on the Wiener v FBI "Lennon files" case to challenge the problems in the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. to situate them with respect to the Nixon white house, which is the topic of that section?  Dicklyon (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I sort of agree with Bettia -- unless sources say that Timmons played an active role, say: pushing for Lennon's deportation, it is not worth mentioning here, if the memo was simply one of thousands of documents that passed through his office. Jayen 466 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As there is absolutely zero evidence connecting Timmons with the Lennon case other than the single memo cited, I consider your opinion valid. I would then also consider the fact that the memo was gotten by the ACLU is also "not worth mentioning" as well? Collect (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on what I've seen, yes. Not worth mentioning. If any RS make the point that Timmons played an active, noteworthy role in the Lennon deportation attempt, let editors present them now; otherwise I suggest we remove the para and be done with this issue. Jayen 466 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, the material in "Gimme some truth" (p. 2–5) might well be relevant and useful in our articles on the Nixon administration, but not here in this BLP. Jayen 466 17:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added quotes to the refs since Collect can't read strikethrough WP:RPA. They make it very clear what was going on; I have not attributed anything to Timmons that's not supported in the refs; I haven't even asserted what some refs assert, that he was "central to" the effort to deport Lennon.  Note that some refs don't bother to mention him by name, but talk of the White House and the administration when referring to these memos; since he was the adminstration/White House representative to whom Thurmond's memo was addressed, and the memo is shown in the same refs, the connection is plenty explicit there. Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please refactor the PA. The cites state that he received a memo, and that he answered the memo sent to him. They show nothing else. Period. And so far you have not given any cites whatever that actually say more than that. The bit about the campaign and the ACLU is (as you state on my Talk page) "reading between the lines." WP does not use that as a rationale for edits. Collect (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't invert my meaning by quoting me out of context; here is what I said. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article in The Nation does at least tie Timmons to the deportation attempt in a non-tangential and notable way. It appears to have been written by a Professor of History, so I'd say that makes it a RS. I think pretty much all the other sources cited in connection with the case at present are illegitimate, since they don't really mention Timmons, but the Nation article and the Gimme Some Truth book (because it is explicitly referred to in the article) are citable here. I would suggest we use this material with attribution, and use it in the Reception section rather than the bio section. Jayen 466 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC) The little para cited to "The Swarming Lobbyists" could go to form a reception section as well. A Reception section could perhaps contain more from Wiener, with attribution, but it should also contain the voices that profoundly disagree with Wiener -- e.g. "Timmons was a loyalist who did all an honest man could for Nixon…. Timmons is one of those who have given lobbying an honorable name." (see above). Jayen 466</i> 21:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wiener does not make any connection between Timmons and the election, nor between Timmons and the ACLU suit. And the article is clearly an opinion piece, thus any statements should be noted as his opinion.  Collect (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't read the quotes I added to the refs, then? Anyway, I took your suggestion and added an attributed quote that sets up the topic of the paragraph and makes the relevance more explicit from the start. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what Jayen is getting at when he says "I think pretty much all the other sources cited in connection with the case at present are illegitimate, since they don't really mention Timmons." Which ones don't mention Timmons?  I found them all by searching for Timmons, and the searches are apparent in the book hits, where his name is highlighted.  There are other sources than mention various combinations of Thurmond, Nixon, memo, 1972 election, and Lennon, but I didn't cite any unless they mentioned Timmons.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the faults of "sources by Google" is that one really also needs to search again within the book. Where the entire reference is the memo, and the books says nothing of substance about Timmons, the book is a poor reference (we already have references for the memo, after all). Collect (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * These are just books; the Google book search link is just given as a convenience for you to be able to check what they say. Which ones are you saying don't say anything about Timmons?  (I asked Jayen a similar question, but no answer so far).  I believe I've provided quotes from all of them about what they are cited for.   Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In comments on the article page I specified which ones had no substantive amount of material on Timmons.   Cites which are not actually in any sense about the person for which they are used as reliable sources are as weak as imaginable.   Try counting the number of times "search within book" shows any actual text on Timmons.  Collect (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been removing comments that don't belong in the article. Can you say specifically which book or two you don't think should be cited or does not support what it's cited for?  The number of times they use his name is not a useful statistic, unless it's zero. I have in fact looked at every use of his name in all those references, but I don't see what your issue is. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I checked each and every cite you gave. Start there. Collect (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not being constructive. Each cite mentions Timmons.  Can you point out one at least that we can start a discussion on?  Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just found and fixed one error: the sentence According to historian Jon Wiener, Timmons "played a central role in the Nixon Administration's campaign to deport John Lennon in 1972." was linked to the wrong Wiener ref. You've taken that sentence out several times, without mentioning why, as part of your edits to insert irrelevant tags.  Do you object to it?  Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Collect that if the cited source does not mention Timmons' name in direct relation to the Lennon case, then it is not a source we should use in that section. You helpfully added verbatim source quotes to the refs; a number of these don't mention Timmons' name. If the cited source does mention Timmons' name, then it would be better to quote the part that does. If the reference to Timmons' name is in a different context, somewhere else in the book, then we shouldn't use that book for detail on the Lennon case in this article. We should only use those parts here where a RS establishes a direct relationship between Timmons and the Lennon case. That is not so hard to understand, is it? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The other editor has officially given me a 3RR warning for keeping the relevancy tags in the article. I submit that the relevancy is being discussed.  I would ask the courtesy of keeping them in place until the issue is actually decided. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You should look at your edits; instead of restoring tags as your edit summary said, you were in fact reverting additional material, undoing my attempts to move the article forward by attributing the things you've been questioning, etc. For example, this edit of yours removed sourced material that I had restored and re-inserts your unfounded opinions into the quotes.  Your last 4 edits are simple unconstructive reverts; not all of me, and not all alike, but all simple reverts.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jayen, which source are you referring to? Just because his name isn't in the quote I used doesn't mean it's not in the book.  For example, Kane refers to him in the quoted sentence as "The assistant to the President".  Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fourth opinion
The above discussion is WP:TLDR. Collect, can you tell me how you would like the paragraph to read? The Wiener quote is certainly well sourced that begins the paragraph--are you objecting to that? The remaining material seems extraneous COATRACK detail that is WP:UNDUE, whether or not it is WP:SYN: it adds nothing that isn't stated by the first sentence, and belongs in John Lennon, not here, but I can be persuaded otherwise; Dicklyon, what's the argument for including it? And one paragraph from each of you, please, I don't go by WP:LASTWORD. THF (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Going by COATRACK isn't necessarily any more productive than LASTWORD because those are essays, not policies. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~

"In 1980 Timmons was the national political director for the Reagan–Bush campaign"
This is dubious. Charles Black was the national political director for the Reagan-Bush campaign. See, e.g.,  THF (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tags
There are many many unreferenced claims in this article. The very first one I checked out turned out to be false. I thus have absolutely no confidence in any of the other unreferenced claims in this article. I am therefore adding the {disputed} and {originalresearch} tags. THF (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a refimprove tag would be more appropriate to your complaint, unless you're going to tell us what points you dispute, and what points you consider to be original research. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption of article
I've asked User:Collect to use the talk page to air his problems, but he keeps putting comments inside the article, even inside quotes in the article, instead. For example, in


 * "Early in 1972 he sent a secret memo to John Mitchell and the White House reporting on Lennon's plans and suggesting that deportation 'would be a strategy counter-measure'. (Timmons not mentioned in quote)"

he doesn't realize that this memo "to the White House" is the one we are discussing that is addressed to Timmons. And that in


 * "The assistant to the President wrote back in March and assured Senator Thurmond that the government had issued direct orders to rescind John's visa. The Justice Department and the Senate subcommittee feared that John and his friends would disrupt the Republican National Convention in Miami, and other events leading up to the 1972 presidential election. (quote does not mention Timmons in regard to the campaign at all)",

the assistant to the President is referring to Timmons, as is clear on the book page cited. And again in


 * "Senator Strom Thurmond sent a memo to the White House and Attorney General John Mitchell informing them that John Lennon and so-called radical friends were planning a national concert tour to coincide with the 1972 election campaign. ... The John Lennon files constitute a small but significant chapter in the history of the sixties, and of the Watergate era, and also in the history of bureaucratic secrecy and government abuse of power. (this quote does not mention Timmons at all)"

the memo to the White House is this same memo which is shown addressed to Timmons. And what's with


 * "A memo dated February 4, 1972, was forwarded to former Attorney General John Mitchell and Bill Timmons of the White House by Sen. Strom Thurmond, (portion not relating to Timmons is not relevant)"?

What portion is not relating to Timmons?

Anyway, I'm getting fed up with Collect's refusal to allow sourced material about Timmons into the article. He argued strenuously that


 * "clearly the odds of a memo being within a year before or after an election are quite high, and the cite does NOT connect the election campaign to Thurmond's memo,"

and


 * "Wiener does not make any connection between Timmons and the election, nor between Timmons and the ACLU suit,"

and


 * "NONE of the cites links Timmons to attempting to deport Lennon -- they show him ANSWERING a memo. None make any allegations at all about Timmons in the matter. None connect the ACLU bit to Timmons at all, nor do any say the ACLU was specifically interested in the Timmons and Thurmons memos. In short - none of the cites adds an iota of evidence connecting Timmons to any political effort to deport Lennon at all."

which are obviously false. I added the quotes to clarify that the sources do indeed make these connections, since he doesn't seem to be able to follow links and page numbers. And I added the attributed statement of historial Jon Wiener that Timmons was "central to" these proceedings; that much is not stated as fact but as his opinion, as it's obviously a matter of interpretation, but there's no doubt that he was CONNECTED to these efforts, and there's a lot of ink on that connection.

Can we put an end to this nonsense please? Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) What's the evidence of connection between Timmons and the ACLU suit?


 * Do you mean what's the evidence, or what's the connection? The connection is that the memo was found via the ACLU suit; the evidence is cited (The Secreet Histories).  Maybe should also cite p.1 of Gimme some truth.  Actually, now that I review these, there's some ambiguity as to whether these memos came out in the original FOIA request or in the later ACLU suit; given that ambiguity, I wont' object is someone wants to take out that ACLU mention and just say them came out in the FOIA request--unless I find something more clear on it.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What relevance is the FOIA request? Is there any evidence that Timmons intervened in the litigation?  Functionaries at Timmons's level (and higher even) don't have any say how the Department of Justice responds to a FOiA request or lawsuit, or any authority to release (or prevent release of) memos on their own--much to their chagrin, as I can tell you first-hand from seeing government officials near tears realizing that I was going to have my grubby hands on their emails and the press would have them a week later after I was done looking at them.  If Timmons wasn't a party to the suit, it seems as much a collateral detail as what songs Lennon working on that year, i.e., nothing to do with Timmons.  The FOIA litigation may be relevant to the John Lennon article or a fork from that article, but it doesn't really belong in this guy's biography. Unless he was a party, or unless he actively denied a role and the FOIA request showed otherwise.  The memo exists, and no one currently denies that it exists: what is the relevance to this article how it was disclosed or what typewriter was used to create it? THF (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, nobody has suggested that Timmons intervened; just what it says in the article. What it has to do with Timmons is that he received and wrote these famous secret memos that were discovered via an FOIA request.  That's all.  Every book that mentions the memos mentions that they were obtained via an FOIA request, so it seems to be a relevant fact about these memos to and from Timmons, worth mentioning; it only takes a few words.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (2) Why isn't simply the Wiener comment plus a cite to the book sufficient to make the case? (Or is Collect objecting to the Wiener comment, too?  That's well-sourced, though the fact that it was in op-ed in The Nation should be in the main text.)


 * The shorter text and more concise cites of a few weeks ago should have been plenty (though I'm not sure what you mean by "to make the case", as no case is being proposed or made here, just a simple report of what's found in books). I added more sources and the quotes because Collect kept arguing that the cited sources did not say what they said. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny how the WP:LUC works. I think we can return to the more concise text; the Wiener summary in The Nation states the POV plainly. I'll take a closer look at the other cites. THF (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (3) WP:WEIGHT comes into play: this is a single memo in the man's life, and I don't see why it merits more than a sentence or two.
 * Can you respond briefly please? I'm new to this page, and lengthy rehashes of debates that have already happened are not helpful -- the page is such a mess that you did not even notice that I've already posted a comment trying to figure out what's going on. THF (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, this sounds like the exact same behavior which is going on right now on several pages, including Business Plot, Skull and Bones, Union Banking Corporation, Prescott Bush, has Collect deleted over 1,100 referenced words, with no conversation before? That is what Collect did on the Business Plot article a couple of weeks ago, and THF deleted 1,368 words in 1 hour 14 minutes, with no prior talk page discussion. Joe the Plumber has been protected off and on for months because of Collect, and Business Plot was protected too. Business Plot now is a shell of its former self, thanks to Collect and THF's tag teaming there. WP:RPA THF and Collect have worked together for some time now, as far back as BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant, but lately the tag teaming and edit warring has become even more disruptive. Ikip (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, because it seems like I'm going to end up disagreeing with Collect here. And you and Collect ganged up against me on Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant (2nd nomination).  And I've never edited Union Banking Corporation.  A weird conspiracy you've got there.  But your perfect record for harassment and disruption with personal attacks is intact.  Are you really sure you want to follow me around to page after page you were previously uninvolved in when you were just blocked for harassing me? THF (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This "single memo in a man's life" got him more ink than anything else in the article. Just reporting what's out there.  It was just 2 sentences five days ago, but I kept trying to make the relevance connections more explicit to address Collect's objections, which made it expand to the currenet 6 short sentences.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not true -- I see dozens of quotes above here, and it's just one author who made a big deal about Timmons and Lennon. THF (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that only Wiener "makes a big deal about Timmons and Lennon," but lots of authors see fit to mention it. Here are three more. Dicklyon (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know who's following whom here, but I'd appreciate it if either or both of you would look at the issues instead of just quibbling with each other. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try not to respond to my harasser. Sorry. THF (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested compromise
According to an op-ed in The Nation by historian Jon Wiener, Timmons "played a central role in the Nixon Administration's campaign to deport John Lennon in 1972."[12] Timmons, responding to a 1972 memo to him from Senator Strom Thurmond suggesting the deportation because of Lennon's support of the New Left,[13] wrote Thurmond a month later that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had served a deportation notice on Lennon,[14] though Lennon successfully avoided deportation.[15][16][17]

...

==See also==
 * Wiener v. FBI

(where 12 through 17 correspond to the footnotes in this version, though perhaps without the block quotes, and certainly without Collect's editorial comments about the footnotes)

Simply put, the FOIA litigation to retrieve the memo is not relevant to Timmons; it's just a coincidence that this was the issue the ACLU decided to litigate over, and not some other FOIA request. Explaining the history of the retrieval of the memo clutters the biography: it doesn't belong in the paragraph because it doesn't support the topic sentence, and it's jarring and UNDUE as a separate paragraph. (And the details are too complex and unwieldy to simply make it a subordinate clause--I tried.) The fact that that litigation was notable, well, that's exactly what the wikilinks in WP:SEEALSO are for. (Except on preview, I see that it's a red-link and that the current article pipes it to a redundant Jon Wiener link--all of which argues further against inclusion. Not that someone shouldn't fill in that red-link if the litigation is notable.)

I can understand Collect's objection: it seems to me from the primary documents that Wiener has overstated the case for Timmons's involvement. But Wiener's statement is V/RS, and the Wikipedia standard is verifiability, not truth; I'd like it if there was balance from another independent RS, but it's just such a trivial fact that that is not likely, though if we find it, it should go in. Because we have credited it to Wiener, there's not a BLP issue, and we've given sufficient context that intelligent readers can see through his overstatement. THF (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I endorse the above version by User:THF and propose that we implement it. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable enough. Collect (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a bit incomplete if it doesn't say why they wanted to deport him, which was to prevent him messing up the Nixon re-election try. Many sources make this connection explicit.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't object to a sourced sentence saying "Some historians believe the motivation for the attempted deportation was to assist the Nixon re-election campaign." While that is a colorable interpretation of events, I don't think the Thurmond memo or Timmons memo are explicit enough to state that reasoning as NPOV.  Thurmond was 70 years old, and it could have simply been good-faith fear of rock and roll and anti-war demonstrators during a tumultuous time when riots were not uncommon--the letter explicitly mentions the 1968 Chicago disruptions and support for jailed radicals.  A mixed motivation is also possible.  And if other historians have other interpretations, that's worth mentioning, too.  But it's okay to mention a verifiable POV on the issue, so long as we don't start loading down the paragraph making it UNDUE. THF (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think coloring it as a belief of some makes sense, when it's reported as fact in multiple relevant sources, has not been challenged, and is pretty explicit in the primary documents as quotes in the article now demonstrate. Also, the see-also to Wiener v FBI disconnects that very relevant case from where it matters.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "has not been challenged" -- I'm challenging it. It's not a NPOV unless the participants have admitted that was their motivation, and there were other plausible motivations, including the ones explicitly stated in the memo.  In addition, Kane's version of events is closer to my hypothesis than yours.  This is a BLP, so we source controversial claims.


 * I meant challenged in sources; that is, are there alternative POVs on this that we can cite, or is it unanimously understood to be about the election? Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your version misreads what Kane said about the motivation: "The Justice Department and the Senate subcommittee feared that John and his friends would disrupt the Republican National Convention"; that isn't about the election (other than temporally), that's about the very real fear of repeat of 1968 Chicago in an age of Weathermen and Kent State. Given the different interpretations, I think it better to just go with the cites (or just keep the footnoted block quotes to avoid cluttering the text) rather than trying to characterize what each of them says; if there's a Attempted deportation of John Lennon article, that would be the place to discuss the various interpretations. Indeed, since, according to Kane, the motivation was that of DOJ and the Senate, rather than Timmons, I begin to doubt whether it should be in the main text at all, though I don't object to block-quotes in the footnotes since each of these sources only discusses the memo for a few sentences. THF (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If Wiener v. FBI "matters," write the article about that case. Right now, it's a red-link, suggesting that a Wikipedia editor has never thought it mattered until now.  In any event, it has nothing to do with Timmons and doesn't belong.  We're not mentioning United States v. Nixon, either, which matters much more, but has nothing to do with Timmons, either. THF (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a redirect to the right place so we don't have to explicitly pipe it (is the dot in v. needed? I used Wiener v FBI as it says in the Timmons article); but maybe it does need to be worked on. Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * US cases have a dot; UK cases don't. At the moment, the section about the case in Jon Wiener isn't really about the case, it's about WP:PUFF for Jon Wiener and how notable he is. THF (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd article -- appears to be clear COI (editor is "jonwiener" and is a teensy bit PUFF). Collect (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FOI mention
I feel the reintroduced mention of the FOI in the Lennon section is WP:UNDUE. What do other editors feel? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree. The FOI bit has absolutely nothing to do with Timmons, and has, in fact, no relationship to why he wrote any memo. To connect him with it is applying "propter hoc ergo post hoc" reasoning.  Collect (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jayen. Timmons was not a participant in the suit, and it's far from clear that the suit is even independently notable. THF (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. These secret memos and their discovery via FOIA are discussed in numerous books; they're probably the single biggest thing that Timmons is known for in the Nixon administration. One brief mention that they came out via an FOIA request is hardly undue weight. Dicklyon (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Might you restore the apparently accidentally removed tags? Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And that should be mentioned -- under John Lennon. Else every person in the White House could have exactly the same mention. The only thing Timmons did about Lennon was -- write one memo.   He also was chief liaison at one point to Congress, IIRC -- which was certainly a far bigger role than the memo is.  Would you put the FOIA bit in every Nixon administration aide's bio?  Thurmond's bio?  Numerous books? "Your search - "john lennon" timmons memo FOIA - did not match any documents. " Nor any variants. So much for them being discussed "in numerous books." Collect (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be mentioned here, too. The memo is what's known; it's not know if this is all he did.  I added some more sources about FOIA and the "secret" nature of the memos and patched up the funny "though" bit that THF had inserted as he gutted the paragraph.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A BLP is not a place for speculation "it's not known" is not a reason for including this -- there has been absolutely zero presented to show he did anything other than send a memo -- I doubt he even typed it himself. And assume AGF about edits. Collect (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I "gutted" the paragraph. Every footnote from the original paragraph remains, and I gave extensive reasoning on the talk-page for what I included and excluded, and obtained consensus before I added the paragraph to the page. THF (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Collect and THF. Dicklyon, please consider accepting the consensus. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can reach an actual consensus via some actual compromise that involves both sides in this dispute. See if you like the new short paragraph I just re-arranged. Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There was compromise. Collect very plausibly wanted the whole thing out, and conceded on that once he realized other editors disagreed with him. THF (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The parenthetical mention is still quite irrelevant. And characterizing the memos as "secret" is misleading -- all internal government memos, including Obama's breakfast choices, are "secret" if you wish to use that term. It is, however, quite POVish to insist on calling them "secret." Collect (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Secret" is also not true: it has a specific legal meaning regarding security classification, and, after all, the memo was released. "Internal" is the NPOV adjective, but redundantly obvious.  Moreover the paragraph is appallingly written in an attempt to continue to include the COATRACK material.  In an op-ed in The Nation, historian Jon Wiener, who discovered these memos about the failed deportation attempt via a Freedom of Information Act request, said that Timmons "played a central role in the Nixon Administration's campaign to deport John Lennon." ?  Every single other editor agrees the FOI lawsuit has nothing to do with Timmons, you have presented no evidence that the lawsuit has anything to do with Timmons, yet you have edit-warred to add that material four times in 36 hours. WP:TEDIOUS starts to come into play. THF (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was using secret in the normal sense that it's used in the sources, not in the sense of classfiication; changing that would be fine. As for WP:COATRACK, I looked it up, and you're not making sense.  Can you explain what YOU mean by that?  As for it being badly written, I think maybe we should request a comment to compare it to your version, which didn't read like a sensible paragraph at all.   The quote from Wiener makes little sense if you don't identify his relationship to the memos.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wiener's comment doesn't make sense because it isn't consistent with the verifiable facts, not because of anything I did--you'll note that his smear piece didn't bother to support that sentence with any facts. What Wiener said is V and RS, so it goes in, but we're not going to make up or puff the facts so that Wiener's comment makes more sense.  The way to achieve neutrality is to straightforwardly report what actually happened.  Multiple people have already explained to you why the FOIA litigation is irrelevant to a biography of Timmons, and it's not productive to repeat arguments when you're not providing any new reasons to include the material. You can have the WP:LASTWORD unless you're going to say something new. THF (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the first you've mentioned about Wiener's comment, as far as I can tell. Obviously, it's the opinion of a historian who studied the primary sources, and should be reported only as such.  I was just trying to clarify where he got the sources he's commenting on.  If you want to exclude his statement, that's a different issue, but quoting it free-floating before a couple of sentences that don't connect to it seems silly. Dicklyon (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And you still haven't explained what you mean by COATRACK. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Lennon deportation memos paragraph
Several editors have been unable to agree on a good version of the paragraph on the Timmons memos about the attempted deportation of John Lennon. Help us choose one or construct a better one.


 * I don't believe this is a fair characterization of the dispute. One editor disagrees with three editors who believe that the current version accurately summarizes the issue without including information irrelevant to Timmons. Earlier discussion is at Talk:William_Timmons and Talk:William_Timmons. THF (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

These two recent versions:

Version A:

In an op-ed in The Nation historian Jon Wiener said that Timmons "played a central role in the Nixon Administration's campaign to deport John Lennon in 1972." Timmons, responding to a 1972 memo to him from Senator Strom Thurmond suggesting the deportation because of Lennon's support of the New Left, wrote Thurmond a month later that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had served a deportation notice on Lennon. Lennon successfully avoided deportation.

Version B:

In 1972, Senator Strom Thurmond sent Timmons a secret memo suggesting that John Lennon be deported, because of his support of the New Left, and fears that he and his friends would disrupt the upcoming Republican National Convention and Nixon re-election campaign. Timmons responded a month later, informing Thurmond that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had served a deportation notice on Lennon. In an op-ed in The Nation, historian Jon Wiener, who discovered these memos about the failed deportation attempt via a Freedom of Information Act request, said that Timmons "played a central role in the Nixon Administration's campaign to deport John Lennon."

And these older versions:

Version C:

According to historian Jon Wiener (in an op-ed in The Nation), Timmons "played a central role in the Nixon Administration's campaign to deport John Lennon in 1972." 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 Securit Subcommitte 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 documented when these memos were discovered, after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took on the Wiener v FBI "Lennon files" case to challenge the problems in the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.

Version D:

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 Securit Subcommitte 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 documented when these memos were discovered, after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took on the Wiener v FBI "Lennon files" case to challenge the problems in the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.

Version E:

The Strom Thurmond memo of Feb. 7, 1972, recommending deportation of John Lennon, was addressed to Timmons in his role as assistant to President Nixon, and 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 attempt to deport Lennon before the U.S. presidential election, 1972 failed.

And this newly-added version:

Version F:

In 1972, Senator Strom Thurmond sent Timmons and attorney general John Mitchell an internal memo suggesting that John Lennon be deported, because of his support of the New Left, and fears that he and his friends would disrupt the upcoming Republican National Convention and Nixon re-election campaign. Timmons responded a month later, informing Thurmond that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had served a deportation notice on Lennon. These memos first came to light when they were published in Rolling Stone magazine in 1975; Lennon had received a copy of the memo and used it in his lawsuit against the INS for trying to deport him for political reasons. In an op-ed in The Nation, historian Jon Wiener, who spent many years researching the "Lennon papers" that included these memos about the failed deportation attempt, said that Timmons "played a central role in the Nixon Administration's campaign to deport John Lennon."

Please comment here on how to choose a version, or propose a new one.

Involved editors

 * Version A as the version that already has a consensus, does not violate WP:WEIGHT (since we are talking about exactly one memo written by Timmons that merely relayed a decision made by others in the administration at the suggestion of a senator), reflects all of the critical sourced detail without including any original research or misrepresentations of the cited sources, and omits the WP:COATRACK violation of including discussion of a FOIA lawsuit that did not remotely involve the subject of the article. See the now-WP:TEDIOUS discussion at Talk:William_Timmons and Talk:William_Timmons, and request that an editor drop the WP:STICK. THF (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Version B is particularly bad: "secret memo" is both inaccurate and POV, and the last sentence (1) is ridiculously awkwardly phrased and (2) COATRACK's the irrelevant FOIA lawsuit. THF (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the version you wrote; we get that. The RfC was intended to get outside comments; feel free to remove this section if you'd like those comments to be less biased. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus version A Succinct and accurate. What WP articles all too often forget to be. Collect (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Version A. The sources only say that Timmons received a memo from Thurmond recommending deportation of Lennon and wrote back to him a month later to inform him of actions taken by the INS. We cannot speculate on what happened between these two events. As for the FOIA, the Nation article clearly says that "The Thurmond-Timmons documents were first published in Rolling Stone, July 31, 1975." The memo is among the documents displayed in the Nation article. According to our article on Jon Wiener, his FOIA request took place almost a decade later. Hence I see no basis for stating that the Thurmond/Timmons communication was part of the documents released under the FOIA. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a new objection, not previously raised as far as I can recall. If the text is wrong, or not verifiable, that should be fixed.  But it has only been removed so far for "relevance" issues.  The sources give the definite impression that Timmons got there as part of his FOIA request; it's also possible that they came out before as well; in any case, he's the historian who investigated the whole incident and got the "Lennon papers" via FOIA request and subsequent long lawsuit, and studied them, and wrote a book, and that's why he's the guy who opinion about Timmons's role is worth quoting; we should mention the connection.  Sounds like a way forward, anyway, as now THF has an objection that's not so hard to address. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't relevant. I don't think Jayen's claim is correct, but Timmons was not part of the FOIA lawsuit, whether or not the two memos in question were retrieved as part of that lawsuit. THF (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Version A is broken: The version being supported by THF, Collect, and Jayen is motivated by trying to minimize the content about things that are negative in Timmons's past; Collect has a very long history here of doing that, and the others recently joined him. This version (A) doesn't even identify who the guy is who is having his opinion quoted, or why he might be expected to know anything about it.   The other versions (or some at least) identify him as the historian who obtained these secret memos via a FOIA request, spent 16 years getting the rest of the Lennon papers, and wrote a book about it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please redact your personal comments about me. It is not helpful to getting the article improved, and very much goes against AGF.  And agasin it is clear the memos were not "Secret" as your usage impkies -- they were internak government memos and as "secret" as Obama's breakfast menu.  Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further note one editor redacted coments by me without notify me of the redaction. Use History to find out what my poists were. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My comments were not about you personally, but about your account's edit history on this article. It's easy to check. Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Version F added: To address the substantive error that THF pointed out, I've added a new version above. Dicklyon (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Version F has weight and SYN problems, as it is about Lennon, not about Timmons. None of the added language between A and F is about Timmons, which shows the SYN/COATRACK problem. Timmons wasn't a defendant in Lennon's lawsuit; he wasn't even deposed. So what relevance is the lawsuit (which is arguably not notable)?  Put it in the red-linked Lennon v. Marks. THF (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The last sentence -- In an op-ed in The Nation, historian Jon Wiener, who spent many years researching the "Lennon papers" that included these memos about the failed deportation attempt, said that Timmons "played a central role in the Nixon Administration's campaign to deport John Lennon." -- is clearly about Timmons; the material that was added to it -- who spent many years researching the "Lennon papers" that included these memos about the failed deportation attempt -- is needed to say why Wiener is a relevant person to quote the opinion of. The other added sentence -- These memos first came to light when they were published in Rolling Stone magazine in 1975; Lennon had received a copy of the memo and used it in his lawsuit against the INS for trying to deport him for political reasons. -- is to point out a bit about how these memos we're discussing connect, per the article that first revealed them to the general public.  I'm not sure what you mean by "SYN/COATRACK" here, or why you think this sentence adds too much weight.  Can you explain?  Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside editors

 * Not really much difference between these versions, when you come right down to it...I'm having trouble understanding exactly why you think this is worth arguing about. I suggest you all take a voluntary one month break from editing the article. In other words, chill. Dlabtot (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dlabtot - not much difference. I edge towards version B as the best. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been asked by THF to comment specifically on whether the mention of the freedom of information request violates WP:NOR. On checking the references it appeasr possible that it might.  Weiner does not specifically name his sources - but he does state taht the letters and documenst were originally piblished in Rolling Stone in 1975.   He also cites a (presumably) TV documentary and a 2006 book.  THese are stated to be his sources, not FOIA requests, although such requests may have sourced the documentary and book.  That would have to be established. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)