Biography Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are 3 points I would like to make:

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

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

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

Rtally3 (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:RFCpol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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