Talk:David Urban

Urban dethrones Kelly

Speculation has it.--Wikipietime (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

At this time, it is merely speculation. bd2412 T 00:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Defending Cohen raid for Trump

After raid by FBI on Michael Cohen office, he appeared on CNN expressing support for Trump. April 9 2018 Wikipietime (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that an individual appearance is independently notable (we list some milestones, but hardly every single one). However, I'll definitely have a look in a bit. Thanks. bd2412 T 20:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I added "CNN" to the intro as that appears to be where he is always speaking. The rest is just random news and we don't report everyone's commentary or we would have to make this page 100x's longer than it is. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Earning $2.3 millions for lobbying Trump in 2020

The article should clearly note the amount that this person has earned lobbying the administration. RS mention the amount – why shouldn't we? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, "collecting lobbying fees" is not the same as the individual "earning" money, because collections are the gross income of the business. If we specify the amount, it makes it sound like it must be significant, which would be incorrect. Of course, to the average person, $2.3 million sounds like a lot, but there are lobbying firms that collect $30-40 million per year doing that work. We either need to provide the context of how significant or insignificant $2.3 million is in the field (which would lead to the entire amount-of-money discussion taking up too much space in the article), or we avoid that by leaving it out. BD2412 T 17:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I say we just stick to what the cited source (WaPo) says. What other firms earn or what lobbying entails is not pertinent. Also, this sum is not the entirety of what this firm earns. WaPo just says it earned "more than", because this is what it has confirmed it earns. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't actually specify whether Urban's fees relate to lobbying the Trump administration at all. It literally just says Urban has collected amount x in fees, and that his firm represents y companies. It doesn't say Urban has "earned" anything, either. I'm sure Urban takes home a hefty income, but that isn't stated. BD2412 T 18:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually think it doesn't deserve a mention at all. Its trivial. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of this information. This has been reported in a reasonably high-level source, signifying that it bears mention at least to the degree that I have streamlined it in the article. I gather that Snooganssnoogans would prefer it to be included to this degree rather than not at all, so unless there are other editors who think this should be removed, I would consider this to reflect consensus to include the content as presented. BD2412 T 04:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, and while I normally agree with your assessments of pages, I don't agree with this one. The statement is about his company. It says he made money lobbying and the rest is about the company. I don't see how putting this in the page isn't trivial and bordering on WP:SYNTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The same reason it doesn't belong here is the same reason why this doesn't belong in the page for Gavin Newsom. Its trivial and SYNTH. I understand why the media does this type of thing but this is Wikipedia. Just because something is covered in a reliable source doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article cited doesn't describe Urban as merely an employee of the company, it specifically states: "The firm he leads, American Continental Group, represents 15 companies, including Walgreens and the parent company of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, on coronavirus issues". It seems fairly implausible that someone with an identified role as leader of the company is not being described as representing the clients of that company, and it is a noteworthy fact for any article subject, whether as an individual or through their leadership of an entity, to be the chosen by companies like Walgreens and the UFC to represent them with respect to COVID-19 issues. This is a fusion of notable elements—highly notable companies making the article subject the nexus of their response to a highly notable event. The issue with Gavin Newsom is incidental. Newsom's own response to his issue is that he doesn't have anything to do with running that company. For this article subject, representing such clients as these in such situations at this is at the core of his activities. I would also note that noting that a well-recognized lobbyist is doing lobbying work is neither positive nor negative towards the subject, even if the news article mentioning that work appears to conflate it with work by others that is claimed to be problematic. BD2412 T 04:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

What you described is exactly what I said above. It is SYNTH. Yes it is a fact he leads the company and the article says such. THEN, it talks about his company and putting those together makes it seem like he does all the work. If its noteworthy, then it should be covered in that article. Putting it here attempts to paint him in a negative light as being associated with Trump. Not trying to argue with you but saying that the issue with Newsom is incidental also goes to my point. How is that incidental and this not? Not trying to take sides for Left or Right here as I would fight to keep something like that from Newsom's page as well if worded in the way it is with the AP article (or like the AP article I shared about Newsom above). --CNMall41 (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The contested sentence states, "In 2020, Urban's firm represented businesses including Walgreens and Ultimate Fighting Championship in lobbying with respect to COVID-19-related issues". Nothing in that sentence associates the lobbying activities with Trump, which reflects the fact that nothing in the news article specifies that lobbying with respect to the identified entities has anything to do with Trump. There are plenty of other political entities that could be the subject of lobbying, including executive agencies, members of Congress, the Senate, state governments. Its not painting Urban in a negative light to say he's a lobbyist when the article already notes that he's a lobbyist, and in fact has been named a top lobbyist numerous times. It surely can't be painting Urban in a negative light to say he's associated with Trump when the article already describes him as being "a trusted confidante to President Trump". BD2412 T 05:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You missed the point. The original did say that he was lobbying the Trump administration. The reference itself is synth and listed in that manner ("associated with Trump") is an attempt to paint him in a negative light. Like I said, I am not taking sides, but Wikipedia is not the news and needs to reflect things from a NPOV and not SYNTH based on opinion. But, it is what it is I guess. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Then the issue you are complaining about is the one that has already been fixed. I don't understand why you want to remove the current language, which accurately tracks the assertion made in the source, omits the erroneous phrase about lobbying the Trump administration, and is no more negative than the several other times in the article pointing out that he is a lobbyist in a lobbying firm that does lobbying. Granted, this isn't the most important piece of information in Wikipedia, and the article wouldn't have a glaring hole without it, but it provides additional information relevant to the article. At this point I don't expect to win you over to liking it there, but it does the article no harm to mention. BD2412 T 05:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)