Talk:William Timmons (lobbyist)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Proposal to merge here from Timmons & Company

I added merge tags to represent the idea we had discussed before. Since there are scattered snippets of info on both the guy and his company, and since some editors are suggesting removing stuff here on the basis of the company article existing, we need to decide which way to go. Merge or not? Please add a Support or Oppose bullet and some discussion. I haven't committed to merge yet, but am leaning that way, so I'll wait and see. Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. csloat (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Comment -- the company seems notable only because Mr. Timmons is notable, and a lot of what he is notable for in recent years seems to be the actions of his company. Timmons was not just an employee; he is the founder and chairman. csloat (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Not related directly to a biography. And a merge is an election article related edit IMHO. If the article on the firm is simply unable to be supported on its own as notable and being sourced, adding it here will not improve it, and would be deleterious to this article. Collect (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you then support deleting the T+C article completely, and not merging the content? Also, what does the election have to do anything? That accounts for some of the notability, for sure, but why is that a problem? Cheers, csloat (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support He started the company, he runs the company, would seem like a big part of his life to me, therefore relevant to a biographical survey of his life. Measles (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose We cited a source detailing all the people on the company that had "revolving-door" connections. Clearly it is not a one-man show. Other individuals within the company have made news, e.g. [1]. Jayen466 17:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This may be a quibble, but your source shows that Tarplin made news only for leaving T+C and striking out on his own, which suggests that the notability of T+C per se is still very much tied to Timmons. csloat (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you give a strong argument against merger. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

More news about the company: [2] Much of that is not about Timmons. The president and CEO is Harlow. Jayen466 19:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per Csloat: Timmins doesn't appear to be that active at his namesake firm now, and isn't getting younger. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, there's clearly enough oppostion that we shouldn't try to do this; I withdraw my proposal. Then should we instead make the "lobbying" section here shorter, with a "main" link to the company article, and move most of the contents there? Dicklyon (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would make sense. Things like the Time article that refer specifically to Timmons as an individual should stay here; company activities should move over there. Jayen466 20:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

disagree, he's a lobbyist, primarily what he's known for, he founded the company, the most notable thing about him is his lobbying, reducing this section makes no sense. Measles (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We can leave a few balanced things about his lobbying, but keep the section short, compatible with a "main" link; for things like the F-18 mention where he is not specifically pointed out as the guy doing it, that might go best in the company article, and then we'd have less to fight about here. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have this odd opinion -- that biographies ought to deal with the person and his acts, not with the acts of others. Collect (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How odd. I never would have guessed you had that opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I moved some stuff, put a main link, took out the merge tags, etc. Please comment. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the Timmons biography and the Timmons and Company site should not be merged. (1) They are two separate entries, one a person and the other is a corporation. (2) Timmons is a 78-year old “Emeritus” and probably has little to do currently with the firm. Another person is president and another one chairman of the board of directors. (3) Timmons & Company has a different history from the subject. Corporate officers have had backgrounds working for Democratic and Republican Members of Congress and Administrations. Worth noting is that one officer left to become President Reagan’s chief of staff, a former chairman left to become a principal member of President Clinton’s White House, another former chairman was confirmed as a U.S. Ambassador, and three alumni are now serving in senior capacities in President Obama’s White House. Others have become vice presidents of major corporations. In summary, the company is bigger than one person. Rtally3 (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, I already retracted that proposal and split up the material into the most relevant locations. Please do add all that other stuff, assuming you have sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort and attention to detail on this. Both articles are shaping up nicely.

A minor point: in this sentence (Lobbying section):

"In 1979, Chrysler Corporation hired lobbyist Tommy Boggs to influence Democrats, and Timmons, "a man skilled in gaining Republican sympathy for corporate causes," in their work to secure government assistance in the form of loan guarantees."

-- the Boggs bit struck me as superfluous. I started to edit it out, but perhaps he fits into the story?? In which case a bit more explication is needed. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If a cite is used, it should not be cherry picked. The cite an editor added had that material about Boggs in it, and since the big issue is politics, it would appear that it was germane. The part I demurred on was calling the loan guarantees a "bailout" as that has a distincet connotation right now which is not accurate. Collect (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Boggs thing shows that how bipartisan lobbying works, with Timmons on the R side. The "bailout" terminology is what over 600 books call it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

coming in a little late here, it seems clear that the role of Timmons as an individual prior to founding the company was of similar importance to the later role in the company, so I agree with the apparent decision not to merge. DGG (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Lennon memos

As it turns out, the situation is not as simple as either THF or I stated above. Subsections below are all started by me (Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

The FOIA Thurmond–Timmons memos

It appears that I was right, in saying what many of the sources say and/or imply, which is that the two memos between Thurmond and Timmons about the Lennon deportation move were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, in the 1980s.

The memo from Thurmond to Timmons, reproduced in several of the cited sources, does not indicate that another copy was being sent to attorney general John Mitchell. It is not marked confidential or anything like that.

The memo as written might very well refer to the memo in hand -- there is no requirement that we posit a "missing memo" for sure. And internal memos are not routinely classified on an individual basis. The classification is based on it being an internal memo, hence covered under Executive Privilege and other standards. Collect (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "missing memo". Both memos are published in facsimile. One in 1975, the other after it was found by FOIA request. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Thurmond–Mitchell memo

As shown in the July 31, 1975, Rolling Stone article "Lennon's Lawsuit: Memo from Thurmond", there was another memo from Thurmond, with the same Feb. 4 date and same content paragraphs, addressed to Mitchell and marked "PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL", which included the hand-written ps "I also sent Bill Timmons a copy of the memorandums [sic]".

The book Gimme some truth by Jon Wiener says under the memo "Fig. 1. The Thurmond memo. Another copy was sent to Attorney General John Mitchell. Originally published in Rolling Store, July 31, 1975." It's too bad he didn't punctuate it to be less ambiguous; it's now clear that the "originally published" referred to the "another copy", not to the one he was publishing in Fig. 1.

Relevance and what should we say

Since Wiener obtained all the Lennon papers through a lenghty FOIA fight, and concluded that Timmons was at the center of the Nixon attempt to deport Lennon, based on this exchange with Thurmond, the attached memo that they refer to, and maybe other papers about the context, we need to find a good concise way to say what these memos are and why Wiener is the relevant person to express on opinion.

Since my version F above was based on THF's erroneous interpretation of what it was that was orignally publisihed in the Rolling Stone in 1975, the closest we've come so far is the version B above. Modified thus to take out "secret":

In 1972, Senator Strom Thurmond sent Timmons an official 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."

Nope. Your assertion is still errant. You are pushing material into this BLP which, at best, would be relevant in the Lennon article. Collect (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what assertion is errant? Or what material is less than relevant to the topic? Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Who likes what

While THF and Collect fight all changes that add anything unflattering about Timmons, we have managed to get few outside voices to help clarify how to move forward. We did get one comment that "I edge towards version B as the best" from Jezhotwells before THF prompted him to object, based on what's now been shown to be a misinterpretation of the sources.

THF keeps mentioning COATRACK with respect to this paragraph. But WP:COATRACK says A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". But he hasn't said what "bias subject" he has in mind, or how he thinks this paragraph obscures the nominal subject, William Timmons. The most relevant section I an see there is Wikipedia:COATRACK#What_is_not_a_coatrack.

First AGF. Making charges about me and THF will not advance this article one whit. And I do not have any dog in the race, so I try to be as neutral as possible about BLP subjects, no matter their political hue. FOIA is not directly related to the BLP, hence is a clear COATRACK ab initio. Other material which was attempted before tried to connect Timmons with Saddam Hussein, and a raft of other nonsense. Remember? Collect (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No dog in the race? That's fine, but you do have a very strong political slant in your editing. And THF, who works for a conservative think tank and took time off to work on the McCain campaign, is another staunch defender of conservative POV. Both of you seem to prefer a disjointed paragraph to one that that explains what the topic connects to logically and historically. Statements like "FOIA is not directly related to the BLP" are just silly, when the FOIA directly connects the opinion of Wiener about Timmons to the Timmons memos. Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have endeavored to have no political slant at all -- and I have edited out attacks on Democrats as well as Republicans, on total horrid flakes, and on regular people. My position is simple -- material which I feel violates BLP I would like to have removed. I have not been involved in any campaign in any capacity for years now, and to suggest otherwise is a PA on me. Meanwhile, can you make as blanket a statement as I do about not being involved in any way with any campaign for quite a few years? Seems that would be fair. And you should note that THF and I have had a number of fairly strong disagreements in articles. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My expressed opinion of "a very strong political slant in your editing" is based on what I see; I've also gotten quite a few private communications from people who agree with this observation but don't want to get involved in another fight with you. I don't deny that you may have sometimes removed BLP material from bios; that's good, and I do the same when I encounter it. So tell me, does anything in this article violate BLP? Please be detailed so we can understand your feelings, as the edit history suggests quite a different picture. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems odd to have all those "private communications" for sure -- especially since I have had no political involvement for over a decade, my uncle was a close friend of the Kennedys as is my cousin, etc. So where is the bias? I do tend to dislike all material in any BLP which is not directly pertinent and accurate -- so that means conpiracy theories do not meet my criteria. I aslo prefer short article to overlong ones, ones which avoid trivia to ones full of marginal material, and ones which directly and nutrally present facts instead of ones filled with opinions of all ilks. I suggest you read my user essays (link from my user page) and tell me how biassed they are. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd to me, too. I don't generally get much in the way of wikipedia emails, but I've gotten quite a lot about you and THF. Weird. You've made a lot of enemies, which seems odd for someone without a political agenda. And your comments here have always seemed very disingenuous and biased, with claims like that the Lennon deportation attempt wasn't connected to the 1972 Nixon re-election campaign, even while all the cited sources clearly say it was. What's up with that? Dicklyon (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So, how to move forward

I'm going to put the updated version B back for now. Please provide comments on how to improve it, or let me know if there's any question about any part of it being unclear in light of the sources, or question of relevance to the subject Bill Timmons. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not with consensus on this, as you surely know. Collect (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am very aware that there is no consensus here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(WP:RPA section edited) about consensus on the Lennon memo.

Needless to say, I object. We seem to need a topic ban, since two blocks for his misbehavior isn't sufficient. THF (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The only one that claims consensus is you, T. I realize there's an open disagreement here. However, the new information that I detailed above made your latest complaint mute, so I went back to a version that was correct, changed "secret" that had been objected to, and put back the info that connects the stated opinion of Jon Wiener to the topic. You can call it COATRACK and SYN and "chutzpah" all you want, but if you won't present any specific problems with it, how can I improve it? Your latest edit summary on reverting me says "That is sure chutzpah to immediately revert after coming off your second block for edit-warring against consensus." THF, you are the main reverter here, there is no consensus, and I did plenty of other work including a big talk-page explanation and request for ideas above before editing the article. Yet you've got an admin taking your side in the edit dispute and blocking me but not you. This is really messed up. If there's misbehavior here, at least half of it is yours. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You realize that the words you have expended on this are longer than the memo in question, right? Drop the WP:STICK, please. It's you against the rest of the world, and you need to accept that you are not correct about this.THF (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that our arguments are ridiculously protracted, way beyond the importance of anything other than wikipedia principles. But this debate will not be at a "natural end" until the version we arrive at makes sense and someone other than you right-wing operatives gets to have some influence on it._WP:RPA Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Marvelous. You now wish to violate WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, in addition to WP:EW, WP:TEDIOUS, and WP:CONSENSUS? That will be productive. THF (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems curious to me that you, THF, as a supposedly experienced editor, would accuse somebody of wishing for a long string of WP:Policy violations, in the very same section which you have entitled "so-and-so's latest fantasy about consensus. It looks like the very title of this subsection is a Personal Attack as well as a very unCivil failure. Then you try to demand that so-and-so be blocked and banned, immediately after baiting them with your Personal Attack which most editors would see as an incitement to argument and aggressive ad hominem behavior. If you're so concerned about the quality of Wikipedia, why would you create a new Section in this Talk Page with such an intentionally inflammatory title? Is it because you just don't always get your way no matter how long you play your filibuster games on contentious articles? Or do you have some kind of justification for your blatant hypocrisy? ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 18:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RPA ~ i have applied StrikeThrough to the appropriate sections of this TalkPage in accordance with WP:CIVIL, and i must express terrible disappointment that this page is being Watched by administrators and yet none of them have moved to StrikeThrough all of the unCivil comments which have been glowering on this page for weeks. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 01:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

further outside editor comment on Lennon case

I really think that this is getting out oh hand. Tke a break and maybe see some other form of arbitation. Is it really worth this angst? I think that versions B or F are OK Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Dlabtot (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon asked me to comment also. I agree with Jezhotwells and Dlabtot. Let the current version stand. (I did some copyedits to avoid strings of names, but if anyone prefers them as before, change as desired). I doubt that it will ever be clear to what extent Timmons was in reality a major player or a messenger, and, based on the usual disputes in historical matters of this sort, it is probably that the different people involved had quite different views about his actual role, and furthermore might not have been quite candid about it. Thus all historical interpretations of something like this will be interpretations, as is most of history once it gets down to human interrelationships. Unless we are proposing to write a monograph about him, the current version seems to say things clearly enough. If anything about motivations of the people involved is clear, it is that Nixon & his advisors all saw everything in his first administration in terms of getting re-elected. The details are for academics to discuss forever. The only thing I'd change is a little later, to add something to clarify the context of Timmons last memo to Nixon about the impeachment, to explain what he meant by a chance to escape with honor without hampering future presidents. DGG (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be much more impressed with these admittedly illegitimately WP:CANVASSed comments if any of them rationalized the WP:SYN violation that occurs by coatracking the FOIA lawsuit that has nothing to do with Timmons. Since not a single one of these comments addresses the fundamental problem, I am reverting, as everyone who has addressed the SYN issue acknowledges the SYN violation except for Dicklyon. THF (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"admittedly illegitimately canvassed" means what? I asked DGG for advice and help with the admin who interfered with the process here; he took it on himself to get involved in the content issue. Dicklyon (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What the FOIA has to do with Timmons is it's how these memos were found. It's also the connection to Jon Wiener, whose opinion about Timmons is quoted. Why don't you acknowledge those connections and then say why you have a problem with it? Dicklyon (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'fundamental problem', rather there is a LAME dispute over nothing. Dlabtot (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

People who ask me for advice comment get my advice or comments, usually in public. that does not mean they get the advice or comments they hope to get--in fact, check my talk archives will find they very often do not. Dicklyon knows this very well, for he has asked me for comments before, and some of them have been directly opposed to positions he has taken. Anyone who wishes to challenge my objectivity in responding should go look at the record--the archives are rather long, though, because many people have asked. I strongly resent the insinuations here. THF should know better--I have sometimes responded to requests from him also, and I doubt he has always liked what I had to say. In a content dispute, I usually make a point of trying to ignore who has said what when I read the history--obviously that;'s not literally possible, but I do try. People who have strong positions often come to me, and I usually suggest some sort of compromise.

Given that I did read all this, I might as well say what I think on the issue.

Thurmond was a major power, who must either be accommodated or evaded. One function of the President's top staff is to accomplish this--officially, either one, depending upon what the President decides, but in practice, if they have sufficient power, whichever one they think politic. Their ability to function depends on telling everyone some approximation to what they want to hear, so even more than people in politics generally, no public or private statement is to be taken at face value. A perpetually debated qy about the Nixon and other presidencies is how much power individual staff members had relative to the president. Nixon in particular routinely sought to evade public responsibility for possibly unpleasant things, but to some extent all presidents do that. I expect this to be a major theme is all books treating the period indefinitely--people are still arguing this with respect to Queen Elizabeth I. The relative power of the formal and kitchen cabinets is a similar topic. My guess is that at that point Mitchell was dominant over Timmons, but that Nixon made the decision, or at least knowingly permitted it to be made. All 3 of them wanted to be in a position to take the credit if it succeeded and was acclaimed, and to avoid the blame otherwise. I would guess that Timmons was even at that part of his career not really experienced enough, that Mitchell was sufficiently stupid, and Nixon sufficiently foolish. A historian who has read much more than a citizen onlooker can make a much more informed guess than either you or me, but different well informed historians still say different things, and if the matter is important enough to be worth saying anything, they always will. The internal motives of individuals are know to nobody.

I do agree with Dicklyon there the attempt to represent everything in Timmons' career in a positive light here does see like an inappropriate attempt to push a POV. It would be better to state the different opinions of the sources. DGG (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for your comments, but I think you're making this too complicated. I don't know anything about Nixon stuff, just want to report what I find in sources, about Timmons, since the article was a mess when I first found it. I don't think we've said anything about motivations, or who decided what, or why. Just some bare facts and the opinion of one guy who has commented on it, and a few bits to say how he connects to the memos. If there are other sources with something to add, then by all means let's do add more. So far, I've seen nothing to suggest that John Mitchell had any involvement at all, other than receiving a memo, though it's quite possible, as you note; Timmons, on the other hand, obviously talked with people about it, as knew what was up and he sent a memo back about it; I'm not saying he made anything happen, but Jon Wiener seems to say he probably did, and he's the guy who studied all the primary docs, so I think that's an opinion worth reporting; but if we don't say Wiener's the guy who got the docs, it's pretty silly to have his opinion floating out there the way THF put it, as if the topic of the paragraph is Wiener's opinion, as opposed to Timmons's memos; that's the bias. And of course, we know, since he posted a link to it on wikipedia, that THF is an attornery for a big right-wing political organization, and that he took time off his day job, as he put it, to work on the McCain campaign; such a political operative needs to temper his POV when editing content that interacts with it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"obviously talked with people about it"? All we know is that he was told a deportation proceeding was happening. Nothing more, nor does the memo support the keap you make. "knew what was up"? All we know is that he asked if anything was happening, and interpolating anything else is OR and SYN. As for making charges that an editor works for a "big right wing organization" that is totally irrelevant -- did you say if you had been involved in any poilitical campaigns in recent years? Donated to one? Those who make such carges should be prepared to answer the exact same questions. What do you do instead? "Weird. You've made a lot of enemies, which seems odd for someone without a political agenda. And your comments here have always seemed very disingenuous and biased, with claims like that the Lennon deportation attempt wasn't connected to the 1972 Nixon re-election campaign, even while all the cited sources clearly say it was. What's up with that" Note that I said there was no evidence Timmons' memo had anything to do with the reelection campaign. So what do you do? You make assertions contrary to fact about me, and avoid answering any questions about yourself at all. Collect (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is simply that he couldn't have written back to say what was happening if he wasn't "in the loop" on that in some sense. I agree that in theory it could be as simple as "he was told" (or he overheard in the bathroom) and then recalled that memo and took it on himself to respond, so we don't want to say something that cuts off that possbility. But we do have the historian's opinion that it was more than that; as DGG said, if there are other opinions we can put in there, let's do that, too. Dicklyon (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's not CANVAS, it's certainly WP:FORUM, as Lyon failed to get the results he wanted through an RFC or an appeal to a different administrator. There's a WEIGHT issue: this was a single memo that Timmons wrote as part of his role in legislative relations (there's no evidence of a memo between Timmons and Mitchell), and only a single historian who has written about has said that Timmons played any major role, and the only place he said that was in an op-ed in a partisan magazine trying to slime John McCain years after he wrote his book about the subject. The FOIA mention, as several editors agree is SYN trying to slime Timmons further, despite the fact that "where Wiener got the memos" is utterly irrelevant trivia. I've made this position clear several times; I'm saying nothing here that I haven't said on the talk page repeatedly; not once has anyone addressed these simple facts and policy interpretations. There is not consensus to add the material that violates the policies, and that is where the burden of proof lies. That I refuse to play Argument Clinic and repeat myself over this WP:LAME debate over and over does not mean that Dicklyon gets to revert the minute I fail to respond to him within twelve hours. I hope some editor gets around to warning Lyon for his WP:NPA violation. THF (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're all three attacking each other, and you should all three just stop editing this article, stop arguing with each other, and move on to some other article where you can productively edit. Dlabtot (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to leave this article if the Timmons partisans (THF, Collect, and the returned Rtall3) will. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the "FORUM", I don't see the issue. It's true that the RfC didn't bring as much input as I hoped for, but the one guy it did bring preferred my version until THF poked him to look again and find a problem with it. It turns out that "problem" was wrong after checking more sources, and I asked the guy to have another look, and he supported me again. And I didn't ask DGG to look at the content dispute, just at the issue with admin Ruslik. It was a bit of a crap-shoot, as he's known to be very independent and I've been on his wrong side before, but I figured he'd be unbiased so I asked for his advice. THF is trying to make something that's not here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

THF is accusing me of personal attacks (at User talk:Ruslik0), but hasn't pointed out what he considers to be an attack. I'll retract any that he points out, and be more careful of such in the future. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As for "utterly irrelevant trivia", that's an issue we can discuss; some of us think it's relevant and useful to show connections between the items in a paragraph, such as the Timmons memos being discussed and the historian whose opinion we quote. The "weight" thing is clearly contradicted by the amount of coverage in reliable sources, as I've pointed out repeatedly; these memos get more ink on Timmons than anything else he has done. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Source for Lennon Comments

This is an op-ed source, which, by definition is an opinion piece that ignores facts. Moreover, it is published by a self proclaimed flagship of liberalism -- not exactly a neutral source (as evidenced by the erroneous assertion that Timmons was a member of the McCain team. This was just another attempt to use Timmons as a vehicle to damage the McCain campaign). Dicklyon explained that the writers assertion that Timmons was involved in the deportation efforts was based on the memo to Thurmond, but the letter to Thurmond indicates no such thing. This letter is completely uneventful in the life of Timmons, and the current version of this article has BLP and RS concerns. There simply is no good evidence to suggest Timmons played in a role in the INS deportation proceedings with Lennon, and writing as much is not editing in a conservative manner, which is required in a BLP. All we know is that Timmons signed a response to Thurmond informing him of the INS actions -- one of tens of thousands of letters signed by Timmons.I propose the Lennon connection be removed altogether, as done previously. Rtally3 (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and also relying on the outside editors' comments that it is of extraordinarily marginal relevance at all to Timmons. Collect (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed that one. Who are the editors who said this and where can I read their comments? Dlabtot (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPA Rtally3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), what are you doing back? What do you mean by "by definition is an opinion piece that ignores facts", and why is Collect agreeing? This is a piece by the historian who obtained the documents, studied them, and wrote the book on them. Is it defined that historians "ignore the facts" when expressing an opinion related to their decades of study? Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe he means that WP states that op-ed pieces are usable only for opinions properly cited as opinions. Collect (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect is correct. Dicklyon said himself that this is an op-ed article. The Nation article, cite #11, is what I am referring to. This particular article simply isn't reliable enough to use for such a controversial claim. Many users have expressed concerns in claiming that Timmons was involved in the Lennon deportation attempt, and BLP guidelines state that any questionable claim be removed without waiting for discussion. For these reasons I believe it is most prudent to remove the section for now, and continue to discuss here if appropriate. Rtally3 (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The article in question, Nixon Dirty Trickster on McCain Team is not an opinion piece, or an 'op-ed' and it is not presented as such in The Nation. It is presented as a piece of straight reportage. Dlabtot (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not serious, are you? With lines like "McCain's selection of Timmons ties the candidate to Nixon's dirty tricks and enemies list" the motivation of the smear is evident: it's clearly an opinion piece, published in a partisan magazine. THF (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a notice at WP:RSN. Your participation there is encouraged. Dlabtot (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to judge it as an op-ed, but was perfectly OK treating it as such, since Jon Wiener wrote it and opened with what is best viewed as an opinion (in my opinion). And the headline writer pushed it a bit further by employing the term "dirty trickster"; I would generally suggest ignoring headlines, as they're designed to excite. However, now that I understand the tactic that THF is trying to use, of framing the paragraph as an opinion so that he can argue it should be thrown out, maybe I should change my mind; but, as I've said, we don't really need this opinion or that Nation article at all, as there are plenty of book sources that way predate Timmons's recent re-appearance on the political stage, that can be used for the base facts, as I had done before this came up on Feb 27 or so. Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My first instinct was that the whole thing should be removed, also. I was hoping the compromise I proposed, which simply recited indisputable facts neutrally, thus making it clear to a neutral reader that Wiener's claims were exaggerated, would resolve the issue. But given that Dicklyon refuses to compromise one iota from making this single memo the centerpiece of the article, and adding synthesis that falsely implies Timmons had a role larger than he had (up to and including litigating the release of the memos, which Timmons had nothing to do with), then I should return to my original position of removing the whole paragraph--I don't want to be in a position where I'm offering half the cookie and Lyon is insisting on the entire cookie, and third-parties come in and give him 90% of the cookie. The paragraph should be cut, since it reflects solely the factually inaccurate opinion of a single partisan historian. THF (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I trust that Dicklyon will provide evidence that this is an op-ed piece in accordance with his edits (the bio currently refers to the article as an op-ed piece). There is no question that The Nation operates from the far left and has a political agenda to disseminate, and that stating that Timmons was involved is extremely questionable based on the response from WP users. I don't believe there are any sources that have corroborated Timmons involvement. So far I count 3 in favor of removing the section, and 1 opposed. Frankly waiting for a consensus on this is gratuitous and is in contempt of WP BLP guidelines since this is undoubtedly a questionable claim. Rtally3 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It was THF who said above, "the fact that it was in op-ed in The Nation should be in the main text." And you never could count very well._WP:RPA This isn't even part of what we've been disputing about. Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"And you never could count very well" should be redacted, Dick. Collect (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Redacted? If RTally3 challenges it, I will either post this evidence of his past incorrect counts or strike it out. Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

THF, you're making up baseless stuff. Where have I ever "refused to compromise one iota from making this single memo the centerpiece of the article"? This brief paragraph has never been the centerpiece, and I've added tons of other stuff and addressed every substantive issue that has come up. Where have I ever done anything that "falsely implies Timmons had a role larger than he had (up to and including litigating the release of the memos)"? Never. It was YOU who wanted the "factually inaccurate opinion of a single partisan historian" displayed in a way that, in your words "make it clear to a neutral reader that Wiener's claims were exaggerated". Sounds like a POV you're trying to push. Why don't we just remove the opinion instead, and say what he memos are about and how they were found, as I had done originally? Such as this version of Feb 27, though it's a bit longer? Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That version violates WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK as I have repeatedly described. I don't feel like playing Argument Clinic. Collect wanted it out; you wanted it in; I proposed a compromise; Collect agreed to compromise; Jayden agreed to compromise; you refused to compromise or suggest a single change to your version that addressed any of the concerns the other editors on the page had, and were blocked twice for your obstinacy in edit-warring to include the irrelevant FOIA lawsuit. If there isn't going to be a compromise, and there is going to be further escalation of this, my position is that it doesn't belong in at all under WP:WEIGHT: it's a single memo relaying facts as part of his role as legislative liaison, and there's no evidence he had any role as a decision-maker in the Lennon decision, and no evidence that the Lennon deportation attempt wasn't a good-faith application of the law reflecting a legitimate concern over violence, as Senator Thurmond stated and the Justice Department apparently agreed. THF (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you ever actually explained what you meant by that SYN and COATRACK stuff (at three or four times you've refused to repeat it, saying you've explained it before); it's hard to discuss, when we don't know what it is. As for the "compromise" you claimed you made, I never understood that, either. You say "Collect wanted it out; you wanted it in"; referring to what? Collect's comments were all about not being able to find in the sources that stuff that I was cited them for, which was I why after telling him page numbers didn't work I began to add quotes to the cites so it would be more clear that they supported. He always spoke in vacuous generalities; never said "this source doesn't support this statement", which I could have then fixed or clarified. Your "compromise" was to make the paragraph about the Wiener opinion instead of about the Timmons memos, which seemed bizarre to me until you recently explained the strategy behind it. Anyway, explain how recent versions conflict with WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK or quit claiming it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Jon Wiener opinion was introduced in this third opinion from Jayen466. Neither THF nor Collect ever objected to it, as far as I can recall, and in fact fought to make it the lead sentence of the paragraph, as if the paragraph should be about the Wiener opinion instead of about Timmons and the memos. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't involved until 1 March. The only way we avoid WP:SYN is through the Wiener opinion, which is the only source claiming that any of this has anything to do with Timmons. I offered a compromise that gave you 75% of what you wanted, since you wanted it in, so long as it was put in the proper context without further editorializing and COATRACKing. You refused. I only offered the compromise because a stable version of the article that was slightly below perfect was better than a large fight, but you insisted on having a large fight to get your way no matter what, so if there is going to be the large fight you are insisting on, I want the optimal Platonic version of the article that omits the bogus allegation entirely, and we can let others decide how to mediate this.

Can you quote any part of what I added that you consider to be "editorializing" or "bogus allegation"? Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And why keep repeating "only source claiming that any of this has anything to do with Timmons" when the other sources are plainly cited and even quoted already? That was Collect's m.o., which is why I added the quotes (some may have been taken out by now). Some refer to him as "the assistnat to the president" in the sentence quoted, and as Bill Timmons elsewhere, or say the memo was sent "to the White House" and show it with his name on it; none fail to mention his name in connection with the memos. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You asked for a third opinion (Jayden's); you asked for a fourth opinion (mine); you asked for an RFC, and the fifth and sixth opinions refused to give you what you wanted; then you WP:FORUM-shopped for another mediator. THF (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't count, too?_WP:RPA I implemented Jayen's suggestion to cite the opinion of Timmons's central role; you supported that. The opinion from User_talk:Jezhotwells#William_Timmons was useful, even though you prompted him to find a problem when you were mistaken about which memo was published in the Rolling Stone. I have no idea what other opinions you're citing. I didn't forum shop for anything; if you think I did, post a diff. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is too much bizarre logic and arguing over minutia to even comment on. The bottom line is that this is not a tabloid, and the decision to include any controversial material needs to be done judiciously. Anything questionable shouldn't be added at all. I am confident this will be removed, just as Dicklyons attempts to connect Timmons to Saddam Hussein were. Re: the decision to remove the section on the grounds that the source isn't reliable and the subsequent count -- THF and Collect have clearly agreed with me within this section. That equals 3 people. I assume that Dicklyon thinks that it should remain. That equals 1 person. Therefore, I have count of 3-1 in favor of removing the section due to reliability concerns. Is that incorrect? Rtally3 (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't take votes or count noses to resolve disagreements at Wikipedia. If you want to make an argument that the Nation article is not reliable, you should do so at the notice at RSN. Dlabtot (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted on the RS board. Re: the WP guidelines: voting is not forbidden. I understand that a consensus is preferably obtained through discussion to the point of agreement, but that doesn't seem viable here. Perhaps it will work out on the RS board. Rtally3 (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What point are you seeking to resolve there? You're the only one who has a problem with that source. But personally I think the article was better before we introduced it, reporting instead only facts backed up by sources that predate the opinion and the 2008 electoral politics that apparently provoked its publication. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying someone is "the only one" does not make that claim true. Nor does an opinion held by one person lose or gain weight thereby. Collect (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that Collect and THF don't have a problem with the source? What are you basing that on? Seems to me that the first two responses in this section clearly express concerns. And I don't believe I got a response on the count issue (?). Where exactly did I miscount? Rtally3 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither THF nor Collect ever removed the Wiener source, nor suggested removing it (or if I'm wrong, point it out); around Feb 28 Collect did vandalize the citations in a way that suggested he disagreed with the sources, however. And you agreed with Collect when he agreed with me saying "I believe he means that WP states that op-ed pieces are usable only for opinions properly cited as opinions." Again, no suggestion that we're using it improperly, since it's presented as an attributed opinion. Anyway, it remains unclear what you were counting, but at least I, DGG, Jezhotwells, and Dlabtot seem to be OK with the recent versions by DGG and/or myself. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As you stated, my disputes are new. I don't see DGG, Jezhotwells, or Dlabtot disagreeing with any points I've made. And I already pointed out that THF and Collects first posts in this section clearly state that they think the section should be cut. Please read them and let me know if I somehow miscounted, as you claim so disparagingly. Rtally3 (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the article is not an op-ed, but is a source of factual reporting. Certainly The Nation has a liberal bias, (all publications have biases), but that doesn't prevent it from reporting facts as facts. You may not like that source -- you may think it's opinions and conclusions are reprehensible -- but that doesn't make it unreliable in its factual reporting. You can't remove a source just because you don't like its political agenda. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Nation is more biased than other news sources. Most people would suggest Fox to be on the right, and CNN to be on the left, but we don't see such a polarized divide to the point where the networks are claiming a flagship position for one of the parties, as The Nation has done. It is true that WP users shouldn't remove a source based on whether its beliefs comport with ours, but it is also true that sources in a BLP need to be somewhat neutral, and The Nation is no where close to being neutral. Rtally3 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we dislike it because it has specific false statements making it less than reliable? Such as the assertion that McCain chose Timmons? And with one fact (at least) wrong - we are to assert it is actually right because "it is in an RS"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

Not sure what you are talking about. Are you actually claiming that because The Nation, like Time Magazine and Bloomberg, reported that McCain chose Timmons to head his transition team, therefore they are an 'unreliable' source? Dlabtot (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Nation and Bloomberg articles incorrectly reported that Timmons was on the team, and the Time and LA Times articles correctly reported that Timmons was tapped for transition documentation, and that was the extent of his role. Rtally3 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with those characterizations. Dlabtot (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So then you must believe the Time and LA Times articles are inaccurate. Why? You believe that McCain hired a lobbyist to head his transition planning, and not John Lehman?Rtally3 (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Many (most) relialbe sources sometimes include mistakes, or false statements, along with facts and opinions. That is not in itself a reason to disregard the source, though of course we should strive to use the most accurate sources we can find, and to not report statements that have been unequivocably shown to be incorrect. In the present case, I still think the question of whether it's an "op ed" is a red herring; it's a news report that clearly contained slanted interpretations that are best reported simply as the opinion of the author. Wiener's observation that Timmons's role in the Lennon deportation attempt was "central" seems like more of an opinion than a fact. But it's not really that important to reporting the facts, so I'm happy to use it or drop it, either way. Dicklyon (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- articles which have non-facts in them are less reliable. The articles based on the Eisenstadt stuff are totally unusable as the hoax reduced the level of confidence in the entire rest of the article. Collect (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the first mention of that name in relation to this article. What are you referring to? Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What is a 'non-fact'? I don't believe that is a standard English term. What does it mean? And how does your response relate to my question about Bloomberg and Time Magazine? Dlabtot (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Posit a Time article using Martin Eisenstadt as a source. Time is "generally reliable" but that artcle, perforce, is not. Once a linchpin claim in an article is disproven, the rest of the article is on shaky ground. See also "unfact." Or [3] ... any other cites needed or is Webster good enough? Frequently used in discussions about subjunctive usage in English. Though I had hoped the use in context was clear. Collect (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the fault is no doubt mine, but I have no idea what you are talking about. You claimed that the Nation was unreliable because they reported the same thing that Time and Bloomberg did. Then you started using the term 'non-fact' - in relation to what, I don't know. Dlabtot (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem removing The Nation reference? If not, then the question is, is signing the letter to Thurmond noteworthy without any evidence that Timmons did anything other than signing the letter? I would suggest not, and that the section be removed altogether. Rtally3 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to propose coherent reason why it should be removed, first. Dlabtot (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why The Nation reference should be removed, or the Lennon section altogether? I think the reasons for removing The Nation reference are pretty clear above (even when you assume that this is not technically an op-ed piece), so I'll just explain the reason for removing the whole section. There is no proof that Timmons played a role in the deportation attempts, so what we're left with is the fact that he signed a memo to a Senator -- one of thousands of letters Timmons signed leaving the White House during his tenure as Director of Legislative Affairs. Is this significant enough to include in the written history of a man's life? I would suggest not. The editing of the Lennon piece has turned into a vicious circle. Timmons role is exaggerated, corrected/removed, then exaggerated again in order to seem worthy of inclusion. Rtally3 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence in support of the fact that Timmons played the role of receiving a memo and a month later sending back a reply. That's all we need to say about his role, but we need to say a few words about the memos, what event in history they were a part of, why we know about them, and the like. They're notable enough to have been reproduced in full in multiple books and magazines, so it's hard to imagine a coherent reason to exclude discussion of them from the wikipedia article on the guy who received and sent them. In addition we've got the opinion of the historian who studied them and the rest of the Lennon papers, that Timmons played a central role; I'm OK leaving out that scholarly opinion, but leaving it out can't be a reason to not cover the topic. Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The memo is published because it reveals Strom Thurmonds opinion on an interesting issue. If you take the same scenario, and replace Strom Thurmond with constituent John Doe from Tennessee, none of us would know about the memo, even though Timmons role is exactly the same. The memo might be germane to the bio of Strom Thurmond, but not Timmons. It was a menial office task. Rtally3 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems likely. So what? And if Jon Wiener hadn't filed an FOIA request, we wouldn't know Timmons had written back to Thurmond either. But he did; so we do. The memos are between Thurmond and Timmons and they are famous. Do you disagree? Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This memo is definitely not "famous", and we knew about the memo before the Weiner article surfaced. "So what" is exactly what readers will think when they read that Timmons signed a memo to a Senator. This memo is not even mentioned on the Strom Thumond bio, it definitely doesn't need to mentioned here. Rtally3 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not famous? Have you tried a book search? Or a web search? Yes "we knew about the memo before the Weiner article surfaced" because of these many books; and one side of the transaction was hinted at in the 1975 pub in Rolling Stone of the memo from Thurmond to Mitchell, too. We could mention these also in the Thurmond bio, but he's actually pretty well known for lots of other stuff, while with Timmons the pickings are pretty slim. Actually, let's do add a bit on it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) the rationale is that since very little has been written on Timmons that it is therefore right to give undue weight to trivial mentions as though they were of great importance? Has it occured to you that "the pickings are pretty slim" precisely because Timmons was not important? Sorry -- that argument goes well against WP policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course he was pretty unimportant; I think I've said as much. What I don't understand is why there's such resistance to mentioning the few things for which he has been mentioned in book. It was clear from the beginning that you a knee-jerk reaction mentioning anything that would cast him in a less than flattering light; you kept arguing things like "none of the sources make any connection between these memos and the 1972 election." I addressed all your issues by providing detailed source pages and quotes for everything mentioned in the article. All it said was that he got this memo and responded thus, and here's what they were about and here's how we know about them. It's not SYN or COATRACK as THF keeps saying, just a report of what I found in books about Timmons, like the rest of the article (most of which I found and added, and most of which you fought for unknown reasons). Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to allege policy violation please say what policy, and even say why you think it's being violated (insted of just naming policies and not saying anything useful like THF does). Dicklyon (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with collect re: giving the Lennon memo undue weight because there isn't that much to report on. The Lennon memo should be looked at independently and the decision to include or exclude it should have nothing to do with the amount of information already in the bio. And just because this memo is in books does not make it "famous". Timmons is in all kind of publications, but I don't think most people would consider him famous -- I bet 95% of the population has never even heard of him, much less the memo. As far as the accusation that certain people are just trying to polish up this bio, I can see where that perspective is coming from, but if there was any well sourced information that could easily be corroborated I don't think you would run into resistance. There simply isn't any evidence that he lobbied on behalf of Hussein or tried to get Lennon deported, and the attempts to make those connections are nothing but smear jobs that should be left to the spineless media. Rtally3 (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the concerns expressed on this page ascertain that the Lennon connection is questionable, and according to WP BLP policies questionable material should be removed immediately, without even having a discussion. We have had a discussion, however, in the interest of avoiding any heavy handed motions. I think it's time to request that the Lennon section be removed, and the discussions can continue here if need be. Please list any concerns/thoughts, otherwise I plan on proceeding with the request. Rtally3 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lennon break 1

You're making some big leaps here about how things worked in the Nixon White House, but all we can report is what's in sources. I am not fighting to smear Timmons. I joined this page because it was locked up in disputes about sources like Huffington Post and I noticed that there were things in books not yet mentioned, so we ought to cover that stuff from reliable sources in preference to modern political stuff. That's the direction I've taken it. Compare it what it was back in December and you'll see. And I had to fight RTally3 and Collect the whole way, and now you. Timmons is nobody to me; I just don't like abandon an article to a cabal of such blatantly biased editors. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased editors? You won't run into any resistance if you have a reliable source reporting something bad about Timmons. The idea that he lobbied for Hussein is absolutely ridiculous, and there's no evidence that he tried to get Lennon deported. Those were blatant smear jobs in an attempt use Timmons as a vehicle to damage the McCain campaign. The Huffington Post and The Nation? Are you serious? If anything, we are keeping the biased bologna OUT of the biography. Rtally3 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As for mentioning SYN and COATRACK, that's what I'd call TEDIOUS. You refuse to back them up with any discussion, just keep throwing them out as if that's enough to make some point. I've read those, and can't see how they apply to this small paragraph that has no bias subject, advances no POV, and just reports the facts from the cited sources. Dicklyon (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have backed them up all over the place. I really don't feel the need to every time I post. The Lennon connection needs to be removed, as it is questionable, and questionable material needs to be removed from BLP's immediately. YOU might not think it is questionable, but it is clear based on the responses from users that it is. Rtally3 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A single diff to some backup would be enough for us to know what you're referring to. As to "questionable", per what policy? A set of facts from realiable sources, presented without interpretation, is generally considered to be acceptable in a BLP unless the facts themselves are questionable; are you saying some of the facts stated are questionable? Specifics, please. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously enjoy getting the goat of other editors and _WP:RPA I'm not playing this game much longer. If you to re-read some postings, get to it and stop this nonsense. All that needs to be said is that one man working for a publication that promotes itself as the flagship of a particular political party has an opinion that a member of the opposite party played a "central role" in the Lennon deportation attempts and backs it up with no concrete evidence. That is questionable material to include, as other editors have stated, and such material should not be included without a consensus. BLP guidelines state that the material be removed immediately without discussion. Rtally3 (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rtally3, before you came back, we had complete concensus on the inclusion of the opinion of Jon Wiener; Jayen suggested it; I added it; THF made it the topic sentence; Collect reverted to THF's version more than once. But if it's a problem, I'm happy to take it out. We can go back to the Feb. 27 version, take out the ACLU bit, and get to a version that states the facts about the memos' existence, what they were a part of, and how they were found, without including any opinions. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Without any evidence that Timmons played a role in the deportation attempts, we are just left with the fact that he signed a memo. Such a menial office task is completely uneventful in the life of Timmons -- there is plenty of good information already there, and including this minutia subverts the biography. Rtally3 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the way to avoid edit-wars and bullying tactics (especially the heavyhanded wikilawyer mumbojumbo being thrust at a less experienced editor without much helpful explanation) is to request some informal mediation. Dicklyon, this could possibly result in your suggestions being deemed invalid by a general consensus of other editors, and you might have to accept a compromise which totally favors their positions simply for the sake of treading carefully around the strict WP:BLP requirements, but you would at least be able to have the discussion without being Personally Attacked, and even if your viewpoint is in the Minority, it can't be totally dismissed without being respected in the Dispute Resolution process. Since you are absolutely definitely not in a position of just you against the rest of the whole world (and i'm seething at such OUTRAGEOUSLY overt attempts to force an end to discussion when an editor has legitimate concerns!) i would recommend going somewhere down the Mediation route. It won't guarantee happiness, but it will make people treat you with a lot more CIVILity. I have a feeling that we often run into situations similar to a "tyranny of the majority", but one of the good things about Wikipedia is we have very clear policies which protect your right to discuss legitimate edits and reasonable Good Faith actions without being bullied. Hope that helps! ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 02:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not a less experienced editor; I have plenty of experience with entrenched opponents, dispute resolution processes, up through getting people banned indefinitely; but that doesn't mean I'm good at it or like it, as it's always stressful to be in a failure to communicate. And the wikilawyer THF (who in real life in a lawyer for a big conservative organization, and who worked for the McCain campaign, since you're new here) has turned me down flat and whined some more when I asked him to reconsider. I'm perfectly willing to listen to new opinions, and in fact have gotten at least you, DGG, Jezhotwells, Dlabtot, vaguely Quadell, and in some respects even Jayen (who never answers me when I respond to his stated points) to express support for my position that way. I'm not afraid of reaching a consensus, but it's hard when THF and Rtally3 refuse to get specific about objections such as SYN and COATRACK in THF's case and "questionable" in Rtally3's case, and when Jayen won't acknowledge or respond to my responses to his assertions; he says we shouldn't use any sources that don't mention Timmons in connection with the Lennon deportation attempt memos; I'm OK with that, and if he can show me such a source, I'll happily remove it. That the kind of specific objection that's easy to address (but I don't think he'll find such a source cited in my version, as I've tried to tell him). Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

THF, why don't you try framing an RfC this time? You could show the version that you believe has SYN and COATRACK problems, and see if you can get comments from others on whether that's so or not. Last time people were OK with it, but maybe you'll get lucky. Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That I refuse to repeat the same points over and over and over and over means that I am being courteous, not that I "refuse to discuss." My point is made, and hasn't been rebutted once. There is no leap: I get all of my information from the papers themselves. THF (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That I ask over and over and over is just to underscore that if you EVER did say how your complaints relate to these policies, I missed it and you refuse to point it out via a diff or repeat it; say SYN and COATRACK is not enough; you need to say what you mean by it; how about just a link to where you said once? Dicklyon (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: on the John Lennon deportation attempt memos

Does the recent version of the paragraph on the memos between Thurmond and Timmons violate WP:SYN or WP:COATRACK? If so, how, and how would you suggest fixing? This version:

In 1972, Senator Strom Thurmond sent Timmons an official memo suggesting that John Lennon be deported, because of his support of the New Left, and fears that Lennon and his friends would disrupt the upcoming Republican National Convention and Nixon re-election campaign. A month later, Timmons informed 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."

involved editors

• Yes. The paragraph falsely implies the memo was of great importance, but it is important to realize that the "Lennon Papers" in question consisted of several dozen memos and documents: the only one of these that was written by Timmons was a two-sentence note answering the inquiry of a senator who had asked about the status of Lennon. There is no evidence in any of the other Lennon Papers that Timmons had any role in decision-making (that would have been Attorney General Mitchell or Mitchell's underlings); indeed, there is no evidence that Timmons had any more of a role in the matter than the interns who acted as messenger-boys delivering Thurmond's memo. That's how bureaucracies work: Thurmond makes an inquiry to the legislative liaison in the White House, the liaison funnels the inquiry to the DOJ liaison, the DOJ liaison funnels the inquiry to the DOJ decisionmaker; the DOJ decisionmaker makes (or, in this case, has already made) a decision; the DOJ decisionmaker reports back to his liaison, who reports back to the legislative liaison; the liaison then reports back to the senator. If this had been done in the age of e-mail, Timmons's role would have consisted of hitting the "forward" button and typing "FYI" twice--which would have been redundant, because Thurmond also sent the same memo to Mitchell!. How is any of this biographically notable? Moreover:

1. If you read the first sentence of Timmons's memo, it shows that the Thurmond inquiry was superfluous to the actual deportation attempt. Since the only evidence connecting Timmons is the single exchange between him and Thurmond--who cares? The incident is not mentioned in the article of Thurmond, who clearly had a bigger role than Timmons in this matter. It's not mentioned in the Mitchell article or the Nixon administration article. It's barely mentioned in the Lennon article. Why hang it on Timmons? Why is this even in the article?
2. "official memo" is an attempt to give the incident more weight than it has. What's an unofficial memo?
3. "Nixon re-election campaign" is POV and SYN. Not in the Thurmond memo or Timmons response.
4. The quotes in the footnotes are coatracks largely irrelevant to Timmons or the underlying memos.
5. "who discovered these memos about the failed deportation attempt via a Freedom of Information Act request" is SYN and COATRACK. The FOIA request is utterly irrelevant to Timmons, and simply an excuse to COATRACK sources that have nothing to do with Timmons.
6. "Another copy of the memo, from Thurmond to attorney general John Mitchell, with handwritten note "I also sent Bill Timmons a copy of the memorandums [sic]", had been made public in 1975" -- Who cares? What does this have to do with Timmons?
7. None of the sources -- except a partisan op-ed written in 2008 to smear John McCain by second-hand association with Nixon -- connect Timmons as having a major role in the deportation attempt.
8. The quoted Wiener opinion is a questionable source because of the facts above, and the context and motivation of his op-ed, which states an opinion absent from his longer book, written years earlier with the same facts in hand. Severe BLP problem. -- THF (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Since THF is the editor who has said so, let's examine what he says:

• Re SYN: See his points 3 and 5 above. The fact that these memos were about the upcoming election campaign is in the cited source that is talking about the memos (the one to Timmons being referred to as "to the White House", since Timmons wasn't much known) and in ever other source about the memos, since the memos wouldn't make a lot of sense if their context weren't mentioned. Number 5 is also in the cited source. An accusation of WP:SYN would seem to require a showing some sentence or paragraph was made in violation of the instruction "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Yet no such combining of sources, not any such "conclusion" has ever been pointed out, so it's hard to address.
• Re COATRACK: the quotes in the footnote were to help the editor who had trouble finding where the cited book page supported the statement; this seems to be the first time anyone has objected to them. Point 5 above says that ""who discovered these memos about the failed deportation attempt via a Freedom of Information Act request", yet it's had to see how that relates to WP:COATRACK, which says "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." Where is a "bias subject"? This article is about Timmons, and this paragraph is about the memos he received and sent, which are widely published in books and magazines since they are seen as a significant representation of the Nixon attempt to deport Lennon.

That's all it is. I won't address THF's other points here, as they're outside the scope of the RfC. I'll be happy to discuss them in a new section or a new RfC. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes for the umpteenth time it seems --- there is no showing of any connection between Lennon and Timmons other than a short memo which does not show any other connection at all. Collect (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, just the memos connect them. But did you have any comments on SYN and COATRACK, per the RfC? Dicklyon (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

One part: Timmons wrote a memo with Lennon's name in it. The memo was written to Thurmond. Therefore Thurmoin's rationale for his memo is relevant to Timmons. (SYN) Therefore Timmons memo is relevant to seeking Lennon's deportation. (SYN) Therefore the FOIA action to get the memos is relevant to Timmons (SYN) Therefore the upcoming election campaign was relevant to Timmons (SYN) Therefore Weiner is an expert relative to Timmons because he was the named plaintiff in the FOIA suit (SYN). Four clear cases. Need more? Collect (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So your interpretation of "SYN" is in finding things to be "relevant"? I didn't see that there. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. My intrerpretation of SYN is in WP:SYN you take two facts and link them when there is nothing in the source to suggest the link is actually there. That is SYN. One source says A, another says B, and you leap to A and B are both true therefore if A and B imply C, then C must be true. It is not. Collect (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

SYN is about combining sources to "advance a position" or "reach a conclusion". You haven't identified any position or conclusion, since indeed the text we're discussing does not advance any position or any conclusion; it's nothing but facts; there's nothing in SYN to say you can't put multiple facts into the same paragraph. If you're saying the "position" being advanced is that this stuff is relevant to the bio, that's not SYN, but a relevance issue, which is the way you argued originally, but didn't get much agreement on. It's relevant because it's one of things you find in a lot of books and magazines when you search for William Timmons. If I've got this wrong, please tell me at least one example of what A, B, and C are per your analysis, as this is exactly what I've been trying to find out. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Which is exactly and precisely what you are seeking to do. Collect (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that's what you're saying; so why can't you point out what conclusion is being reached? I thought I only reported simple facts; am I wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes as per THF. Also, I understood the Nation article to say that "The Thurmond-Timmons documents were first published in Rolling Stone, July 31, 1975", making Wiener's FOIA request some years later immaterial to the Timmons memo, which is the one tenuous thing that connects Timmons to the whole thing in the first place. (Sorry if you have discussed this further since then; I haven't read everything above, but thought I'd mention this again just in case.) Jayen466 04:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That misunderstanding has been addressed above. The memo published in the Rolling Stone was the Thurmond-Mitchell memo; Timmon's reply wasn't known until after the FOIA request was partially fulfilled. And since THF still hasn't said what aspects of SYN and COATRACK he sees being violated, your "per THF" is equally unhelpful; give us something we can address? Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dick, this is an RFC. You've made your argument once. You don't need leave a comment every time someone else reiterates their position, much less violate WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK by falsely misrepresenting the arguments of others as you have repeatedly done in every single comment you have left in this RFC. Make one statement and let other speak without being harangued. You know darn well what issues are going to be addressed, because this is the fifth iteration of the same debate you've forced to happen for several weeks because you won't accept WP:CONSENSUS or Wikipedia policy on synthesis. THF (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to elicit comments relevant to the RfC question (and, in this case to bring him up to date on a point that he was behind on). Furthermore, I've repeatedly asked for some kind of explanation of what you mean by "is SYN", yet you refuse to say. You jump in with a ton of non-responsive text when we're seeking comments from fresh eyes, and then chide me. It's not helpful. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

outside editors

I'd like to point out that COATRACK is only an essay and is not an official policy. There is no way to "violate" COATRACK because it's only a general principle, it's not a rule. And in a situation where there are numerous Reliable Sources which offer Verifiable information pertaining directly to the contentious issue, it's rather difficult to insist absolutely that the inclusion of some of that information is somehow "Undue Weight", and thus the whole Coatrack issue is kind of superfluous anyway. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 18:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; since it's an essay that we all agree with (I think), that won't change how we look at it. Same with policy WP:SYN; we all agree with "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

. As for SYN, 1/Thurmond sent him a menu about X. 2/He told Thurmond he had initiating the process for X which to me implies 3/He was involved with facilitating the process to do X. That's not SYN. It's common sense. Actually, the real question is whether he was a messenger boy or a policy maker in this instance, and I doubt we'll ever know. But we're stating that Weiner said he was in a central role, with a good source. . What would be SYN? to say that Weiner was an enthusiastic support of Nixon, yes. to assign him motives, yes. to say that he had been waiting for Thurmond do do this all along, yes. But to repeat the sequence of facts, and give the opinion of an authority? no. The question of whether the whole thing is significant. Lennon was such a public personality, and the effort to deport him so typical of the Nixon administration and so well know at the time and remembered later, that, yes,it makes appropriate content. Now, if I were to say in the article that it was typical of thurmond and of Nixon, and of the role Timmons customarily played, that would be SYN and OR. But the paragraph doesn't say that. Those who think it does are interpreting it for themselves. Perfectly reasonable paragraph, and anyone who'd object is working from some assumptions that I do not understand. DGG (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I demur. The fact is that Thurmons sent a memo. Timmons' memo does not say Timmons did anything at all, only that INS had goiven a deportation order. Timmons did not say he was "initiating" anything at all. Hence it is a leap to assert such. Any version which seeks to ascertain Thurmond's motives is, at best, totally tangential to Timmons. And any connection of the FOIA request to Timmons is SYN ... A. Weiner discovered memos in FOIA request. B. Timmons wrote one of the memos. C. The memos were kept secret for some reason. Therefore D. Timmons was involved in some way in having them secret -- and E. Timmons was therefore a "central figure" in have the deportation order. The real problem is that there is absolutely no reason to think Timmons initiated the deportation order, that he had anything, in fact, to do with the deportation order and (noting the bccs) that Timmons viewed the memo as anything more than a courtesy to the Senator. Harlington Wood was Assistant Attorney General, and why not say he was the culprit, for example? Tom Korologos was apparently a minor functionary -- if you use bcc as your link. So SYN was there in the prior version (and a lot more in an earlier one). Collect (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, that's your personal interpretation. You have no right to have factual material which other people may possibly read as contradicting your interpretation, or informed people's interpretations published in reliable sources but that are different from yours, omitted from Wikipedia, because that's what you're trying to do. I don't think there's more to be said. I neither know nor care about Timmons as an individual. You apparently care, if not necessarily know. You have an obvious COI and should not be editing this article. DGG (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I not only have no COI, I have never met Timmons or anyone else mentioned in te article. I came here because of a noticeboard listing this article. I fear you might have misread my point that in order to state a fact in a WP article, we must find it stated as a fact in an RS. Dick is the one who is making the SYN. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i think this proposed paragraph is fine. all of the objections regarding synth, etc, seem to be misplaced and based on interpreting the primary sources. using the primary sources and then making your own interpretation about intent is original research. using reliable secondary sources (like The Nation) who draw conclusions, and citing them properly, is not. untwirl(talk) 05:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How about mediation then

THF, how about formal or informal mediation, since you don't like the scope of my RfC? And the rest of you guys? If we agree in principle, we can start the process; I'll be happy to do it, or let one of you start it up. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You've refused every compromise offered here, ignored WP:CONSENSUS, repeatedly personally attacked me, refused to address the issues I've raised (instead wasting time with multiple RFCs that violate WP:RFC by failing to state the actual issue), and been blocked twice for edit-warring to get your coatracked way. I'm not wasting more time on this in mediation so you can relitigate a BATTLE you've lost four times. The problem here is your violation of WP:TEDIOUS and WP:FORUM. THF (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite the contrary; before you showed up I was involved in lots of compromises. But I don't litigate, as I'm not an attorney; and a mediation is not a trial, just a process to help us talk to and listen to each other. I'm having trouble getting any understanding of why you keep saying SYN and COATRACK; a mediator might be able to draw you out and interpret to me. And maybe also get you to hear my position. Declining mediation cuts off an opportunity to make progress, so please reconsider. Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I listed nine problems with your proposed edit, every other involved editor agrees with me, and no one else has addressed any of my points. THF (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed your points. If you don't wish to follow ordinary Dispute Resolution processes here, then i suggest you make some kind of request for Mediation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teledildonix314 (talk • contribs)

I made a lengthy comment at 00:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC), and, no you did not respond to it, other than to say that COATRACK was just an essay. Since my argument went far beyond the COATRACK problem, that's not "addressing my points." THF (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, I'd be happy to discuss those, just not to have my request for comment on SYN and COATRACK allegations hijacked by them. The fact that you got no comments on them in that RfC can hardly be taken as evidence that "every other involved editor agrees with me," and even if so, the point was to get some uninvolved editors to comment (isn't that what an RfC is for?). On particulars like your complaint about "official memo", that was a compromised after you rejected the "secret memo" as it says in the first cited source and "confidential memo" that I think was from another source; "official" just means it was on the letterhead of the office, as opposed to "personal", which is what the copy to Mitchell was marked. But I'm flexible on this; no need to take up RfC space on it. Similarly for lots of other issues; as you know, I've suggested taking out the Wiener opinion altogether, but Jayen had proposed it and you've fought to keep it as the topic sentence of the paragraph. So don't blame me for that one. SImilarly, if we talk about each point, we can probably come to some agreements, instead you just always reverting to the "compromise" that you wrote after getting me blocked. I've tried quite a few variations since then, but unless I can understand the objection it's hard to work toward a version you can accept. Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the WP:HOUNDing. I've stated my position multiple times and you've refused to address it. THF (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the unCIVIL Personal Attacks. I've used StrikeThrough all over this TalkPage because nobody has taken the time to remove their Personal Attacks. That goes for lots of editors, not just any one or two in particular. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 01:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your position on SYN and COATRACK has been stated multiple times; but never actually explained, as far as I can tell; for example, as Collect points out, one can explain SYN by saying what sourced facts A and B are being interpreted to conclude some C. What are A, B, and C in your position? Dicklyon (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And as to WP:HOUNDING, it says

Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

I'm sorry if you feel that my request to mediate is threatening or intimidating, or undermines or frightens you. It seems unlikely that it is going to discourage you from editing Wikipedia, though. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for once again misrepresenting the argument. It is harassing to repeatedly relitigate an issue where consensus was against you, put an eight-hour time-limit overnight for responding to repetitive arguments before claiming that "I am not responding," to misrepresent my argument at multiple places on the talk-page to force me to repeat myself, to personally attack me, etc. So, yes, that is a pattern of offensive behavior to force me to waste my time and discourage me from productive editing. THF (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) Consensus is, and has been, clear for some time now Dick. Exceedingly clear. Vitreously clear. Crystal clear. And your multiplicitous and duplicative iteration of the same arguments over and over without end is verging (barely?) on tenedentiousness. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't rise to the flamebait, Dicklyon. They're not worth it. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 11:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Above editor has never edited on any topic remotely related to Timmons. Unless you count his apparent tracking of me. Collect (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I'm watching another editor, because i've been seeing how you and THF work as a team to bully people, and this TalkPage here is a perfect example. You might want to redact your Personal Attacks in the next few minutes before i bring this over to WQA and ANI. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 11:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please redact your baseless personal attack on me, which appears to be retaliation for my role in documenting your incivility. User talk:Dicklyon shows very nicely which two editors on this page are "working as a team." THF (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering how much THF and I disagree, that would be some sort of circus, right? I did not make any personal attacks, so I do not know what you are asking me to redact. Might you elucidate? Collect (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to your Personal Attacks on the other Mediation page which is supposedly privileged. I'm referring to THF's three Personal Attacks on this page which i StruckThrough and he then unStruck. I'm also thinking about a recent two-part question which was asked of you on VirtualSteve's TalkPage; interestingly, you never answered him. I wouldn't normally consider it any of my business, except you are now intentionally flamebaiting me and other editors this morning. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 12:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)

Proposed new version

Responding to a general feeling (at least by me and Rtally3 and THF) that it wasn't a good idea to feature the opinion that Timmons was "central" to the Lennon deportation attempt, I've taken out that information and that recent left-leaning source entirely. And lacking clear info at what stage of Wiener's FOIA battle got the release of these two memos, I've taken out the bit about the ACLU lawsuit that got the rest of the Lennon papers that his opinion reflects, which we had in the last version before the Wiener opinion was added. So we're back to a version with no opinions, just facts. And no "SYN" (or if I'm wrong point out what pair of sourced facts A and B are being used to reach some conclusion C, in which case I will remove C or cite a single source that says it, so we don't need to argue about SYN any more).

Here:

The Strom Thurmond memo of February 7, 1972, recommending deportation of John Lennon, was addressed to Timmons in his role as assistant to President Nixon. The attached file from the Senate Internal Security 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 after these memos were discovered by a Freedom of Information Act request by Jon Wiener.

This is even worse. Stop it. As you now finally acknowledge, this has nothing to do with Timmons, and doesn't belong in the Timmons article. If the subject fascinates you so much, create an article about it. THF (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Worse in what respect? Did I not address the specific complaints I mentioned? Are there other specific complaints that I did not address? Is there any sentence not about Timmons? Yes, sort of: the last sentence is just about the memos, which is after all the topic of the paragraph, serves to say what these memos are and how we know about them. Thanks for not saying SYN and COATRACK again. I'm listening if you can point out any actual problems, or if you have any improvements you'd like to propose. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and what are you referring to when you say "As you now finally acknowledge, this has nothing to do with Timmons, and doesn't belong in the Timmons article." Are you confusing me with Collect? Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While I like the idea of removing The Nation reference, what does all of this have to do with Timmons? This background info belongs in the bio of Nixon, Lennon, or Thurmond, not Timmons. He simply signed a memo -- a completely menial and uneventful office procedure that the Timmons performed thousands of times. Rtally3 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a section on each and every Timmons memo? Collect (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a paragraph on every Timmons memo that has been reproduced or discussed in multiple books would be a reasonable goal. Agree? Dicklyon (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The "multiple books" are not fully independent sources here -- and so it fails quickly. As you admitted, Timmons had essentially nothing to do with the Lennon deportation. Collect (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you guys smoking? THF doesn't answer when I ask what he means by "you now finally acknowledge", and now you say "As you admitted". Will you be willing to point out what you're referring to? And I'm not sure what you have in mind about "fully independent" sources; the memos were discovered by Wiener's FOIA request; are you thinking we need sources that know about them by some other route? Actually, we do have one other, which is the memo to Mitchel that's reproduced in the Rolling Stone, with handwritten note "I also sent Bill Timmons a copy of the memorandums." It remains unclear which of them forwarded their memo to the FBI or the INS, but Timmons's copy seems to have ended up in the FBI files, and from there became known to us. What other Timmons memos are you thinking we need to write about? Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose everybody to take a break from editing this article for a few months. The current version of that paragraph can stay, because now it appears to be a compromise: one side wants to remove the paragraph completely and the other to expand it. If there are any suggestions about edits to other parts of the article I am ready to implement them if there is a consensus. Ruslik (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, THF called it a compromise when he wrote it, while you had me blocked after Collect's 4 reverts, but it's not so simple, since nobody here actually supports featuring the opinion of Jon Wiener. I suspect you're telling me that I've been trying too hard to work this out; I'll think about it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the nature of the edits, Dick. As for casting stones, I fear that the glass will break on you <g>. Recall NPA, and AGF before posting. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe everyone is comfortable removing the opinion of John Weiner in the 4th paragraph of the Richard Nixon section. Can we please have this removed? I am also curious how we decide whether to remove the entire section on Lennon. It doesn't appear as if there will be a consensus, and while I know that voting is not a preferred method, I don't see any other viable solution. Rtally3 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Can we all agree on going back for now to the "Version E" above, the shortest one without the opinion? Or propose some other previous version. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If it would end this, I can accept a variant of E that isn't in the passive tense voice and is more accurate: "Thurmond sent a memo to Attorney General Mitchell and to Timmons written by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee recommending deportation of John Lennon; Timmons sent a two-sentence memo a month later to Thurmond to let Thurmond know that the INS had issued a deportation order." Of course to state that accurately then begs the question why it's in the article at all. THF (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How is that more accurate than version E? And why are you thinking you get to use this opportunity to write a new version that includes words designed to minimize the importance of the topic? Why not just quote the two sentences instead of saying "two-sentence memo"? And I'm not sure what you mean by questioning whether it belongs in the article at all; is it WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Oh, and passive is a voice, not a tense. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's more accurate because (1) it doesn't falsely imply that Thurmond sent his memo only to Timmons; (2) it correctly identifies the source of the deportation recommendation as coming from the staff of a bipartisan committee controlled by Democrats rather than from a partisan Republican politician; and (3) it doesn't exaggerate the role of Timmons's memo to Thurmond. Forgive the slip of the tongue re passive voice. WP:WEIGHT is the issue: why is a two-sentence memo that has nothing to do with anything in the article at all? It's only by falsely exaggerating its importance (as Version E does) that it seems like it should be in the article. But you know all this already, as you've forced me to repeat it multiple times. THF (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I can find no evidence on this talk page that you've previously had expressed any problem with (1) an implication "that Thurmond sent his memo only to Timmons" (actually, it's made clear in the last footnote that that's not the case); nor (2) any evidence that you previously mentioned the "deportation recommendation as coming from the staff of a bipartisan committee"; nor (3) do I see anyone but Rtally3 using words like "exaggerate" with respect to Timmons's role (and that was with respect to a version that said his role was "Timmons responded a month later, informing Thurmond that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had served a deportation notice on Lennon," which sounds not so different from yours, except that you point out how few sentences the memo had and you abbreviated INS. So thank you for providing these specifics; the more we know about what the objections are, the more likely we'll be able to come to an understanding.

Also, your interpretation of the attached memo doesn't look right to me; did you even read it? I see no evidence for your OR suggestion that the source of the deportation recommendation was the staff of that committee. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Another source

Here's another source that helps one understand the historic focus around this deportation attempt and the memos that document its origin: [4].

In some ways, it's not shocking that the government would declare war on rank-and-file leftists. But the government also went to war against John Lennon. His political activity caught the attention of the rouges in government who did not want any more messiahs in the wake of Martin Luther King Jr. and other slain leaders who could have made a difference. Lennon was maybe the greatest rocker we ever had, and if the Beatles magic could extent to leftist political activism, who knows where his influence could take us?
Lennon was a British national living in New York. In the midst of his high-profile activism, Sen. Strom Thurmond tipped off the White House to the possibility that the government could terminate his visa and ship him back the England as a "strategy counter-measure." In a memo given to Thurmond, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee staff advised that leftist activist leaders wanted to use Lennon for political rallies/rock concerts to promote the anti-war cause, stimulate voter registration and recruit protesters for the 1972 political convention in San Diego, when Nixon would kick off his re-election campaign.
Strom Thurmond's tip-off got results. In a memo dated March 6, 1972, one of Nixon's assistants wrote that "in connection with your previous inquiry concerning the former member of the Beatles, John Lennon, I thought you would be interested in learning that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has served notice on him that he is to leave this country no later than March 15. You may be assured the information you previously furnished has been appropriately noted."
Think about this for a minute. Richard Milhous Nixon took the oath of office to faithfully execute the Constitution and ensure that the laws were faithfully executed. Then this paranoid animal went on to destroy constitutional freedoms and attempt to throw a cultural icon out of the country because of his political views. Imagine how far this kind of surveillance and harassment went. If they could do it to Lennon, they could do it to anyone.

They don't refer to Willaim E. Timmons by name at all, just as "one of Nixon's assistants"; this is typical, and is why I referred to him in the article that way, saying "in his role as assistant to the President" or something to that effect. They do quote his words, though, and do explain once more that this was a matter of considerable interest not just to historians but to the nation. I'm not saying we need to repeat their opinion that Nixon was a "paranoid animal", but it would be disingenuous to pretend that a good portion of the country didn't think this stuff was significant; since the Timmons memo is probably the only concrete documentation of the White House doing anything against Lennon, it has naturally attracted a lot of attention.

By the way, I knew nothing about Timmons, the deportation attempt, or any of this until I started looking in books to see what's published about Timmons, in my effort to help bring the article out of the sludgy mess it started in. Dicklyon (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon is now resorting to a blog published by PlanetWaves Astrology that doesn't even mention Timmons to support his BLP violations. Which says it all. THF (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "resorting" to it, I'm saying it's one more source to help you understand that these memos of 37 years ago were noticed. And I already pointed out it doesn't state his name, but does quote his words. And are you saying this organization Planet Waves, Inc. and author Steve Bergstein are not a reliable source for such opinions? Possibly you're right; I hadn't noticed that it's a blog, and I'm not familiar with the author, but I wouldn't dismiss him for having his articles on an astrology-related site. Apparently he's a real person, as another page on a different site says "Steve Bergstein is our music editor. When he's not busy burning compilation CDs for his friends, he is a civil rights lawyer who lives in New Paltz, NY. Email: PsychSound@gmail.com." So I think he's probably OK for his opinion on civil rights issues and music issues, and that's why he was writing about the Lennon deportation attempt. No?

And are you now asserting BLP violation? This is new, right, because before you only said "The quoted Wiener opinion is a questionable source...Severe BLP problem" (though you had previously said "Because we have credited it to Wiener, there's not a BLP issue") and I keep agreeing we want to get rid of that opinion. So what BLP issue are you bringing up now? Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am noticing a trend whereby, when confronted with citations to policy that demonstrate indisputably that his proposed addition doesn't belong, Lyon repeatedly tries to change the subject into a meta-discussion over whether he understood that the argument had been made several weeks ago. As for the blog post in question, I see no evidence that Bergstein did anything but parrot Wiener's Nation op-ed; he certainly evinces no understanding of the underlying memos or the context in which they were written or anything beyond what Wiener wrote in the Nation. And we've already explored in detail why the Nation opinion is worthless, and a blog post simply repeating what Wiener said in the Nation doesn't bootstrap the BLP violation into a non-violation. THF (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how Bertstein's "blog post simply repeating what Wiener said in the Nation" was published 2 years before Wiener's article. Cut the nonsense, THF. I don't really care what you say about me; it just makes it more clear that you have no on-topic points. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:CIVIL to comment on the editor (THF mentions Lyon) instead of commenting on the edits. Please stop violating this core policy of Wikipedia, THF, or i will report you to Wikiquette Alerts, thank you. Also, you have no authority to dismiss The Nation nor any other Reliable Source, no matter how much you dislike their reports. They are a reputable news magazine, used as a reliable source in countless other places in this Wikipedia, there is no problem using them here. In fact, a BLP needs citations from sources which are as Verifiable and Reliable as the Nation. And it also doesn't matter if you don't like Steve Bergstein's blog post, nobody is trying to put the Bergstein info into the Timmons article, it's just an example of how the memos were relevant and notable and therefore it is not Original Research to mention them, clearly Bergstein has done more "Original Research" whereas Dicklyon is merely paraphrasing, as a good editor should. Further abuse of this page will not be tolerated, please consider your actions carefully and avoid returning to such unCivil comments. Thank you. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 04:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

TD314, you're really going to report me to WQA because I'm complaining that Lyon is violating WP:TALK and WP:TEDIOUS? It'll be quite apparent that you've filed such a frivolous claim in retaliation for my pointing out on COIN that you violated CIVIL so egregiously that an admin noticed my diffs and you got yourself blocked for a week, and you'll just get yourself blocked for WP:HARASS. Please stop following me to other pages. THF (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see -- non-RS and does not use Timmons' name at all. And it is a "source"? Nope. And Tele -- see [5] [6] etc. And I would suggest that the attack in in the immediately prior post to mine. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Collect (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or does this excerpt not bring anything new to the table at all? What a waste of time. Rtally3 (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing new, just one more source to support the interpretation that these memos have been widely regarded as important. Here are some more: [7] [8] Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Nixonland" has nothing more than any other source you have used. Perlstein is well-knwon on the left (Amazon review, not my opinion), and still gets in the single mention of Timmons in an 881 page tome. Your second cite is just the Google search which adds, in point of fact, not a single source to your list -- and shows that out of ALL the books indexed, only 5 have "memos Lennon Timmons" including ones you already cited <g>. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct, Collect, all the info has been cited before; nothing new, just two more books that discuss these same memos including mentioning Timmons, indicating the kind of attention that they gotten the press over the years; books, magazines, blogs, etc., not all of which would qualify as reliable sources, but enough will. Only five books combine those three words on one page – you take that as evidence that it's not worth mentioning? Dicklyon (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

With a slightly modified search you get more books and a different snippet for Fawcett; combining the snippets yields

On Feb. 4, 1972, Senator Thurmond wrote to John Mitchell attaching the memo. "This appears to me to be an important matter, and I think it would be well for it to be considered at the highest level," he wrote. "As I can see many headaches might be avoided if apppropropriate action be taken in time." Handwritten at the bottom was this afterthought: "I also sent Bill Timmons [a White aide] a copy of the memorandum." ... They did, and the INS moved to revoke John's visa because of the 1968 drug arrest in England. Farrell's associate commissioner, James Greene, called New York INS district director, Sol Marks, on March 2, 1972, and told him to "immediately revoke the voluntary departure granted to John Lennon and his wife." He further directed Marks to disapprove Lennon's preliminary application to remain ...

This could be useful, it does also support the idea that Timmons was mentioned by a third party with respect to the memo even before Wiener found his memos via the FOIA request (Fawcett's book was 1980, so could only draw on the single memo to Mitchell that we see in the Rolling Stone article); so I was wrong, Collect, there actually is something new here; thanks for poking. I'll see if I can get a copy of the book and make sure we use the source correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out that he's just quoting (or reproducing) the Rolling Stone artilce by Flippo, verbatim. I just noticed it has all this same text in the fourth (right-most) column.

Wow. Not. No new sources. No new information. And John Mitchell's article is not what we are editing. Collect (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. Jayen466 18:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, you drop in from time to time to "agree with Collect", but you never clarify why or exactly what you agree to, or follow up on fruitful discussion directions, such as my request for clarification at the end of the "third opinion" section above. I agree with some of your main points, like that we should not go beyond sources that mention Timmons in writing this paragraph; but you're acting like we're doing so when we're not. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There is just nothing of substance in the sources. All we know is Timmons wrote a memo advising Thurmond of action taken. The man surely wrote thousands of memos as part of his job. I find it exceedingly odd that this issue is being pushed here again and again and again and again. There is nothing of substance, and until there is, any attempt to expand on what several editors have told us is the appropriate amount of space to give to this in this BLP is WP:COATRACKING. I can already say that this is the most persistent and odd attempt at coatracking a BLP against clear consensus that I personally have ever come across here in this project. Please stop it. Jayen466 14:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We could use the new book sources that mention Timmons and his Lennon memos this way:

The Strom Thurmond memo of February 7, 1972, recommending deportation of John Lennon, was addressed to Timmons in his role as assistant to President Nixon. The attached file from the Senate Internal Security Subcommitte associated Lennon with the Chicago Seven and noted that "This group has been strong advocates of the program to 'dump Nixon';" the memo reported a confidential source who "felt that if Lennon's visa is terminated it would be a strategy counter-measure" but also urged caution to avoid alienating "the so-called 18-year old vote." 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 initially made public when another copy of Thurmond's memo, addressed to attorney general John Mitchell, with handwritten note "I also sent Bill Timmons a copy of the memorandums [sic]", had been made public in 1975 and discussed in a book in 1980. Timmons's response to Thurmond remained unknown until it was discovered by a Freedom of Information Act request by Jon Wiener. Dicklyon (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Your "new" sources, ain't. The material which was UNDUE is still UNDUE. What we have as fact is: "Thurmond sent a memo to Timmons about Lennon. Timmons answered a month later saying the INS had issued a deportation order." That is the sum and substance of FACT. Collect (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

NO. Jayen466 14:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, what the last sentence says is not in the cited source, and furthermore it seems to be wrong, at least according to the Nation, which confidently states "The Thurmond-Timmons documents were first published in Rolling Stone, July 31, 1975." Jayen466 14:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See, this is what I mean by you dropping in but not following up; I pointed out last time you pointed that out that it was incorrect and had already been discussed. See #The_Lennon_memos. And why do you say it's undue weight? The weight comes only from adding a bit of detail from the many book sources on this topic. Dicklyon (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Still object, and resent the TEDIOUS trolling. It's amazing that Lyon is responding to the WEIGHT and COATRACK and BLP problem by hanging even more on the coatrack. It's mysterious to me why he is wasting so much effort on an article about a marginal player in the dispute when there isn't even an article about the dispute in Wikipedia. Create the lengthy article about the dispute, and then you can add a See also here. THF (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What dispute? Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A simple solution to the edit-warring over this article

Just topic-ban the edit warriors. Dlabtot (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Better yet -- why not read the discussions above and make decisions about consensus? Collect (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Because my goal is to improve Wikipedia. Engaging in pointless arguments won't further that goal. Dlabtot (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeking to improve articles is the single best way to improve WP. Lots of opportunity for sure. Collect (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)