Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:30, 1 March 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Timmons (lobbyist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Timmons (lobbyist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Watergate?

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

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

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

RTally3's Freddie Mac removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediate or something?

Hey, csloat, Rtally3, and Collect, what say we try to resolve this mess? I'm open to ideas. RfC? Mediation? Anyone willing to try? Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC is probably the next step if we can't settle this through compromise; it does seem to be working but at a snail's pace. I agree more eyeballs would be good for this. csloat (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How will you handle your ban on handling anything related to the last campaign help you in the RfC? We already have a couple of new participants here -- albeit they do not seem to agree with you. Collect (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee, Collect, if you think I am violating my ban, then report me -- WP:AN/I is where you need to be. But if you're just bringing it up in order to try to undermine my attempts to advance dispute resolution, be aware that your words could be interpreted as a personal attack. Cheers, csloat (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, if you had ver been found to use a puppet and it were iterated a few dozen times, that would not be a personal attack. Clear as mud. Collect (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's odd to me that you and Rtally keep bringing up his abuse of sockpuppets, and then complain about me bringing it up when I respond. I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up. And I'm really not clear on what you're accusing me of here at all. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion about the article, best to find another forum. Cheers, csloat (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect, please expand on that thought. What are talking about? Can you list/link the users who you mean as "new participants"? Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect, nothing constructive to answer?

Commodore, we have a couple of RfCs above already, with no clear outcome. In my experience, it's very hard to attract uninvolved editors to look and give an opinion; in this article, it seems even hard to get previously involved editors to come back and say if they're satisfied with the improvements or not. A mediation (probably informal, mediation cabal) is a way to get some help airing the issues. Dicklyon (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you have a reliable source backing up your assertions here, this would definitely be useful material for the article. If not, we've got to go with what is in the 500 sources that do discuss him. csloat (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't build a worthwhile encyclopedic biography from 500 tangential mentions. At least, right now we don't have one. Jayen466 22:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes them "tangential"? Have you read all 500 books? I certainly haven't. If you have more specific comments about the material actually here, it would be helpful. csloat (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Of the article as it stands, the lede is good, "Personal" reads well but is unsourced. The section "Convention and campaign management" could be structured better ("Timmons has managed national party conventions for several US presidents ... In 1968 ... In 1972 ... the way he did it in 1972 proved influential ... 1976 ... 1980... 1984 "). That Timmons set off a trend in how conventions were held is something worthwhile, perhaps the most worthwhile thing the article says so far. Much of the rest comes off as disjointed bits of information. The lobbying section would perhaps be better housed in Timmons_and_Company. Perhaps there are some among the 500 books that focus a bit more on the man and say more than one or two sentences; that would be helpful. Jayen466 01:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Agree, if we don't have sources for items they should be junked or we should find the sources. The lobbying material is really the main thing notable about him, however, and the claim that it should be in "Timmons and Company" is incorrect; I agree with DGG's response to that argument here. csloat (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on T&Co. That article has not been merged with this one. There is no need nor precedent for having all the same material in both articles. In fact, you have argued elsewhere with precisely the opposite argument you use here. Collect (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Timmons and Company is just a stub so far; looks like merging it here would make more sense, since there's at least as much written about Timmons as about the firm. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I didn't know there was a T+C article but it is a stub and there is no reason to have both articles. I think this would be the article to keep since Timmons has some notability outside the company but I'm not sure the company would on its own. But I could go either way on that. csloat (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorg

Please comment on the reorganization I did; the Lennon thing doesn't get a section head this way, so doesn't seem so prominent. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrected the Timmons quote as cited in the source. Collect (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to restoring the inferred "" into the quote, you removed the context that said what it was about. I fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Dunno, it seems a bit like a collection of things selected to embarrass the subject. If that is so, it is not in line with WP:BLP#Basic_human_dignity. Is it just me, or do other editors perceive it this way too? Jayen466 17:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

It's unclear at this point why removing these people from their positions would be embarrassing. Perhaps he had good reason. "Decapitated" makes it seem as if his actions were malicious, without any support for that claim. Rtally3 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Decapitated" means removing the heads. That can be a good or bad thing, depending on what the heads are being removed from. I'm sure the Nixon Administration had an argument as to why it was a good thing. I don't see why any of this has to be looked at as "embarrassing." I agree with Dicklyon; the evidence published in reliable sources is what we go by, not by whether those things seem "embarrassing" to a particular Misplaced Pages editor. csloat (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Sources

There seems to be quite a lot on Nixon and Timmons in -- Book Title: Nixon in the White House: The Frustration of Power. Contributors: Rowland Evans Jr. - author, Robert D. Novak - author. Publisher: Random House. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1971. Pages: 106 116 117 120 123 124 125 126 130 132 143 144 232 352 375 376 377 378 379 392 424 430

Here's a small sample:

For now, the tactic at the White House was supposed to be the soft line, a smile and an honest attempt to get along with Congress better in 1971, with a huge new outpouring of legislation ready to be introduced. So, the January 5 statement, far from being planned, was an automatic release of pent-up emotion showing the President's deep-seated animosity against Russell Long's procrastinations and Mike Mansfield's pleas of impotency. He had encountered these procrastinations and these pleas in face-to-face conversation with the senators, smiling a tight little smile and listening without a trace of rancor in his voice. The emotion built up inside and poured out in a rush on January 5.

What also made that statement a clear disclosure of Presidential pique rather than conscious strategy was that the President had just named a new chief of Congressional liaison, who was embarked on a determined policy of kindness toward Congress.

The reason for the change could be traced to the Attorney General. For months, John Mitchell had been advising that the fault lay with Bill Timmons and his hard-working staff, and the President believed him. Mitchell's argument was that Timmons, who had spent his entire career on Capitol Hill as a staff aide, simply did not have the stature to deal with House members and senators. He was, indeed, a ready-made scapegoat. Once the election was over, Mitchell had his candidate for a replacement: Representative Clark MacGregor, who had sacrificed his safe House seat in a hopeless run against Hubert Humphrey for the Senate in Minnesota. Gregarious, aggressive, bright, and a veteran of ten years in the House, MacGregor had favorably attracted Mitchell's attention in 1968 as an early Nixon supporter in a state dominated by Rockefeller sentiment. Now Mitchell convinced Nixon that MacGregor was just the man for Congressional liaison.

When this word began to seep out, it naturally alarmed Timmons (who, in what had become standard practice in the Nixon White House, had not been consulted). Timmons went to Haldeman, who confessed having talked to MacGregor but said his would be a policy-making post with no responsibility over Congressional liaison. Thus, it was with some surprise that Timmons learned on December 1 that he had acquired a new boss; MacGregor was named White House Counsel with direct supervision over all Congressional liaison. In a procedure that after two years had become a familiar pattern, Nixon neither advised Timmons of any displeasure with his work, nor gave him personal prior word of his forthcoming demotion. Indeed, in a White House reception shortly after his demotion, the President went out of his way publicly to praise Timmons for the splendid way in which he had handled Congressional affairs.

— p.377-378

Like I said, there is quite a lot more. The book is available in questia. Jayen466 23:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are also a good few mentions of Timmons here: Book Title: Conservatives in an Age of Change: The Nixon and Ford Administrations. Contributors: James Reichley - author. Publisher: Brookings Institution. Place of Publication: Washington, DC. Publication Year: 1981. Page Number: x 85 86 87 88 89 92 159 278 312 441 447 460 481 Jayen466 23:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Book Title: Both Ends of the Avenue: The Presidency, the Executive Branch, and Congress in the 1980s. Contributors: Anthony King - editor. Publisher: American Enterprise Institute. Place of Publication: Washington, DC. Publication Year: 1983. Page Number: 64:

The Congressional Relations Office was one of the few components of the Nixon White House that never became entangled in the net of Watergate. Nixons director of congressional relations, William Timmons, continues to be a highly respected and soughtafter figure in Washington politics. Such cannot be said about many of Nixon's other senior aides.

• Timmons mentioned on pages 64 68 69 70 114 115 Jayen466 23:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Publication Information: Book Title: Richard Nixon and the Quest for a New Majority. Contributors: Robert Mason - author. Publisher: University of North Carolina Press. Place of Publication: Chapel Hill, NC. Publication Year: 2004. Page Number: 40:

The congressional-relations operation was truly successful under neither Harlow nor his successors, Clark McGregor and William Timmons. Although this failure was partly linked with the Democratic majorities' hostility to Nixon, the totality of the failure was more significantly linked with Nixon's personal shortcomings. Political scientist Nigel Bowles noted that Nixon showed little interest in the work of his congressional staff and that his general attitude toward Congress was one of "disdain".

— p.40

• Also a brief mention on p. 198. Jayen466 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Book Title: Ronald Reagan's America. Volume: 2. Contributors: Eric J. Schmertz - editor, Natalie Datlof - editor, Alexej Ugrinsky - editor. Publisher: Greenwood Press. Place of Publication: Westport, CT. Publication Year: 1997. Page Number: 738:

During the transition, Reagan also enlisted the talents of William Timmons, a prominent Washington lobbyist and director of the office of congressional liaison for President Ford. Timmons was brought on board to develop detailed summaries of each department for the new cabinet officers. Timmons developed an organizational blueprint of each agency and worked with the Cabinet nominees on the staffing and legislative mandates of their future department. 4 Once the selection process was complete and Timmons had met with the Cabinet-designees, the transition team began an intense orientation program with the new Cabinet officers. According to Martin Anderson, who worked for Meese on the transition team, the Cabinet orientation process was "basically an indoctrination course for cabinet members, especially those who were not closely connected with the campaign or fully familiar with Ronald Reagan's positions on major policy issues. There were two primary things one wanted to indoctrinate the new cabinet on: ideas and people." 5 The transition team worked with individual Cabinet officers to focus their agenda on Reagan's policy positions and to provide a list of personnel. Pendleton James was asked to head the transition team's personnel unit and to develop lists of politically acceptable people for the new administration. 6 They endeavored to ensure a common sense of purpose among the Cabinet officers during the recruitment process, to unify the new political executives and to reduce the strains of what Hugh Heclo refers to as "a government of strangers."

— p.738-739

• Jayen466 23:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Book Title: Separate but Equal Branches: Congress and the Presidency. Contributors: Charles O. Jones - author. Publisher: Chatham House Publishers. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1999. Page Number: 146–147:

If the president did not want to bargain personally with the members, he likewise did not want them to come to him. Stephen J. Wayne quotes a House Republican as saying that "I pretty well concluded that there was almost no way to contact him except if you had a personal relationship." 34 This distance between the president and the members was lengthened as a result of the reduced role of the liaison people in White House decision making. Though Harlow had the ear of the president, his successor, William Timmons, did not, and neither was as close to Nixon as O'Brien was to Johnson. In a manner of speaking, Nixon's style did not facilitate legislative lobbying at all. Instead, it contributed a rationale for the distance he wanted between himself and Congress. And, of course, much of what he personally wanted the government to do could be accomplished with limited legislative involvement (at least as contrasted to Johnson). Interestingly enough, Nixon's separation from Congress and his own legislative liaison personnel apparently reduced the effect of Watergate on the president's legislative program. "Despite the awesome political and personal consequences of the congressional investigation and legal controversies, Timmons believed the effect of Watergate on pending legislation was minimal."

— p. 146–147

• Jayen466 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Time Magazine article: The Swarming Lobbyists: Mention of Timmons on page 1; the article is also quoted in full in Book Title: Contemporary Readings in American Government. Contributors: Byron W. Daynes - author, Raymond Tatalovich - author. Publisher: D. C. Heath. Place of Publication: Lexington, MA. Publication Year: 1980. Page Number: 119ff. Jayen466 00:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Book Title: Organizing the Presidency. Contributors: Stephen Hess - author. Publisher: The Brookings Institution. Place of Publication: Washington, DC. Publication Year: 1988. Page Number: 130: "The president's helpers cannot simply be dismissed as a collection of intellectual ciphers; they represented a substantial reservoir of talent at hand. But Nixon was inclined to draw on it for specialized and technical advice and then, as had his White House working groups, invite his advisers to leave the room. The decisions that ended his career were taken alone. Nixon's relations with Congress were also as he wanted them to be, despite a liaison staff--Harlow, Clark MacGregor, William Timmons--deeply versed in the sensitivities of Capitol Hill. Even of Haldeman it was said, "If he didn't exist, Nixon would have had to invent him." Nixon's staff was, then, ultimately irrelevant to the root cause of Watergate." Jayen466 00:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Book Title: The Nixon Presidency: Power and Politics in Turbulent Times. Contributors: Michael A. Genovese - author. Publisher: Greenwood Press. Place of Publication: Westport, CT. Publication Year: 1990. Page Number: 36:

  Harlow was a longtime student of the Congress and, along with his assistant William Timmons (who later succeeded Harlow), put together the Nixon legislative strategy. But they did so without much assistance or input from the President, who displayed a profound lack of interest in the Congress. The early ambitions of creating a Congress in the president's image quickly gave way to an attitude of neglect, then contempt. This was exacerbated by the ill will and power struggle between Harlow and Haldeman. It was a power struggle over who would have the ear of the president and what strategy the administration would employ toward Congress. In this competition Harlow was bound to lose, and the loss spelt doom for Nixon's congressional relations.

  — p. 36

• Jayen466 00:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Book Title: Spin Control: The White House Office of Communications and the Management of Presidential News. Contributors: John Anthony Maltese - author. Publisher: University of North Carolina Press. Place of Publication: Chapel Hill, NC. Publication Year: 1994. Page Number: 107:

  "In the final days of the administration, Clawson's team closely followed the televised hearings of the Rodino committee as it debated and voted on articles of impeachment against the president. Clawson set up a room in the EOB that contained three television sets (one for each of the major networks) and two radios. Insiders called it the "Impeachment Room," but the sign on the door read "Office of Communications, Research Division." 157 There the impeachment hearings were monitored by Larry Speakes, the speechwriter Ken Khachigian, and Jack McCahill, one of Nixon's lawyers. The three men drafted rejoinders to statements and charges that were made by members of the committee. "We had immediate responses to the president's enemies down to a science," Clawson later wrote. "The responses were immediately dictated to Bill Timmon's congressional liaison staff in a room near the Judiciary Committee hearing room, and those responses would be delivered to friends on the Rodino committee to be used in defense of the president. Sometimes they were used and sometimes they weren't." 158 Speakes says that the operation was designed as a trial run for handling the floor debate on impeachment in the House of Representatives. He adds, however, that the Rodino committee rules made life difficult: "A member of the committee could only for a few minutes at a time. So if a Democratic congressman made a point and we felt it was wrong, by the time we developed a response the had gone from the Democrat to a Republican, and back to another Democrat, and there was no chance to get our response in. That taught us that we would have to streamline our operation before they began impeachment proceedings on the House floor."

  — p. 107

• Jayen466 00:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• His role in the Reagan transition is briefly touched upon here: Book Title: Presidential Transitions: From Politics to Practice. Contributors: John P. Burke - author. Publisher: Lynne Rienner. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 2000. Page Number: 98-100 ("Timmons's job was to gather information about departments and agencies."; heads of the various divisions, like Timmons, met daily) Jayen466 00:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, thanks for your help -- looks like some great resources. Hopefully Collect and Rtally3 will be able to focus on adding stuff now, instead of removing. Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And hopefully Dick won't twist the information into something it's not when referencing it. I am all for including anything relevant, well sourced, well written, and unbiased -- as my additions have been. If edits are made in this manner there will be no attempts for removal. Rtally3 (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Pleasure, hope some of it may come in useful. Here is one more:
• Article Title: White House Staff Size: Explanations and Implications. Contributors: Charles E. Walcott - author, Karen M. Hult - author. Journal Title: Presidential Studies Quarterly. Volume: 29. Issue: 3. Publication Year: 1999. Page Number: 638. COPYRIGHT 1999 Center for the Study of the Presidency; COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group:

  Nixon began with a congressional relations office staffed and structured in a manner similar to that under previous presidents, going as far back as Eisenhower.(17) The unit grew between mid-1970 and early 1971, in part due to dissatisfaction with its performance. Original head Bryce Harlow (who had a similar job under Eisenhower) was replaced by William Timmons; then former House member Clark MacGregor was brought in to oversee Timmons. During this period, the congressional relations staff grew markedly larger than any of its predecessors.(18) This expansion coincided with many of Nixon's major legislative initiatives. The growth, driven mainly by Nixon's priorities, preceded that of other WHO units, notably public liaison. By the time of the 1972 election, however, the congressional staff had shrunk to eight professionals, only slightly larger than it had been in mid-1970 (or under LBJ).

• Jayen466 00:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Printed Comments

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

In the opinion of several White House insiders, the youngest and least publicized of the President’s top assistants is probably the one most responsible for Nixon’s strategy, tactics and successes in dealing with a Democratic-controlled Congress. He is William Timmons, 39…. He’s already provided that he weathers high temperatures well.”

— Willard Edwards, The Chicago Tribune, November 17, 1970.

At a recent Washington party William E. Timmons was introduced by the hostess as ‘The man who gets President Nixon’s bills passed by Congress.’ Timmons smiled faintly and replied, ‘I’m glad I don’t get paid on a commission basis’.

— Bill Connelly, Richmond Times Dispatch, February 14, 1973.

William Timmons…an experienced Republican practitioner, did not agree with Ford’s advisors that Reagan would never dare challenge him…Timmons arranged two secret meetings between Reagan and Ford when the President was in Los Angeles the last weekend of the 1974 campaign…the relationship between the two became warmer.

— Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, The Reagan Revolution (NY: 1981), pages 44 & 45

William Timmons. Sometimes described as the ‘rain maker’ for his uncanny ability to change the weather on Capitol Hill…. A deft political thinker…Timmons was a loyalist who did all an honest man could for Nixon…. Timmons is one of those who have given lobbying an honorable name.

— Michael Kilian and Arnold Sawislak, Who Runs Washington (NY:1982), page 156.

While others scramble for publicity, the most powerful man at the Republican National Convention – other than President Reagan – is someone most Americans do not know. He never speaks from the convention podium, never appears on the network news shows and seldom gets his name in the newspaper. Yet he has been the mastermind behind Republican conventions since 1968, and virtually every big league politician – including former and future Presidents – call him a friend. He is William Timmons – a true behind-the-scenes political operative.

— Sara Fitz, Los Angeles Times, August 22, 1984, page 7.

Three years ago William Timmons was already one of the savviest, best-connected Republican lobbyists that American blue-chip companies could hire. Then President Regan made him a Wise Man.

— Wall Street Journal, July 14, 1986, page 1.

Timmons and I were ideologically in the same spectrum, and I liked him on a very personal basis, always trusted him. Bill’s a pro. He did a great job for Nixon, and under the toughest of circumstances.

— President Gerald Ford interview by James Cannon, Time and Chance (NY:1994), page 100.

In the third week of December 1974 thirty-three Members of the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives (15 Democrats) paid tribute to William Timmons on his retirement from the White House. A few selected comments: Rep. George Mahon, “Mr. Speaker, over the years it has been my privilege to be closely associated with Bill Timmons and I consider him on of the finest public servants I have encountered…he has served with great distinction.” Rep. William Jennings Bryan Dorn, “Mr. Speaker, Bill has been extremely effective in his position because he has always been fair. His loyalty to both President Nixon and President Ford was unquestioned; however, he has always been nonpartisan in his dealings with the Congress.” Rep. John Rhodes, “William E. Timmons, my good friend, who did such an exceptional job… As minority leader, I depended heavily on Bill’s assistance and counsel…. Mr. Broder singled out Bill Timmons as a prime example of those people worthy of the greatest respect and admiration for his work for the country.” Rep. Al Quie, “Bill Timmons….grasped the myriad issues with great facility and tried to help weave the fabric of national policy to benefit all of our citizens. His integrity has been unquestioned; his word has been his bond. His talents have been used to benefit government.” Rep. Robert Michel, “One departure in particular will leave me with a sense of loss…One reason he is so well liked here on Capitol Hill is that he is a very dedicated and hard-working individual. Another is that he is very savvy and perceptive… That he performed it so well is a tribute to his tact, his keen sense of duty, and his selflessness…He is a great American.” Rep. Marjorie Holt, “We owe him our gratitude for a job well done.” Rep. Earl F. Landgrebe, “Bill Timmons was always a man I could really count on. In my opinion he was a most unusual public servant – always pleasant, patient, dependable, and efficient.” Rep. Elford A. Cederberg, “In my 22 years in Congress and dealing with six different administrations, I can attest that the professionalism of the White House congressional office was never higher or finer than that of Bill Timmons’ group. He has proved to be a man of great dedication and integrity He has given his country the very best and for this, we are grateful.” Rep. Leslie C. Arends, “It is impossible to measure in any meaningful way Bill’s contribution to the hundreds of bills enacted by the Congress during these past 6 years, but it has been substantial… Thanks, Bill – for a job well done.” Senator Peter Dominick, “I send him sincere thanks for his many years of consistent and dedicated service to the office of the President-he served faithfully through dark as well as sunny times…Bill did yeoman service in keeping the President pleased and we on the Hill happy.” Senator Russell Long, “…I do not know of anyone who has worked harder, put in longer hours or been more helpful to us in guiding important legislation from conception to the law books.

— Congressional Record, December 16-19, 1974

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

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

While adding some of this I managed to mess up the reference list. # 18 is a duplicate of 7 (Nixon and Lobbying sections reference the same source). Also, the Personal section is from #3. If someone could make these changes, or give me a push in right direction it would be appreciated. I see that dicklyon did above, but I couldn't seem to get it to work. I believe this should correct all the citation issues. Rtally3 (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't -- what I meant is that we need full citations (titles of articles, author, etc., and links where possible). Shouldn't be too much of a problem. csloat (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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. . 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: 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)

Printed Comments II

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

William Timmons, who had been in charge of House lobbying was promoted on February 4, 1970, to head the whole Hill Staff.

— Rowland Evans, Jr. and Robert D. Novak, Nixon in the White House (New York: Random House, 1971), pp. 116,117.

Bernstein had been told by a Democratic Party investigator that Baldwin had named two persons he thought had received them …and William E. Timmons, Assistant to the President for congressional relations and chief White House liaison to CRP for the Republican national convention…But the report was incorrect, and the decision to rush it into print was a mistake…Three men had been wronged. They had been unfairly accused on the front page of the Washington Post, the hometown newspaper of their families, neighbors, and friends…Timmons was dejected about the Post allegations, and his wife had wanted him to quit his job on the White House staff. Only after a long conversation with the President had he decided to stay on.

— Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, All the President’s Men (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), pp. 110,111.

Timmons and Burch felt that this morning’s Court ruling had been decisive; it was time for the President to pack it in….Now, argued Timmons, a moment of principle had come that would let the President resign with honor-this decision would undermine all future Presidents’ authority and thus, in defense of future Presidents, Richard Nixon should, at this moment, resign. (After lunch, Timmons would speak to General Haig in San Clemente and ask that this advice be brought, in his name, immediately to the President.)

— Theodore H. White, Breach of Faith – The Fall of Richard Nixon (New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1975, pp. 6,7.

At this juncture, Burch and Timmons were firm that, if not they, at least Buchanan be allowed to read the transcripts that were going to Judge Sirica. It was their right, they had an obligation to the President’s supporters on the Judiciary Committee and to the entire minority who intended to join in the defense. The President could not sabotage his supporters with any more nasty surprises.

— Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, The Final Days (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976), p. 327.

Even before Morton formally took the title of campaign manager, he received an unexpected and very private feeler from the Reagan camp. With former Nixon White House aide William Timmons acting as intermediary, Morton met at Timmons’ downtown Washington office with John Sears on March 20, four days before the North Carolina primary.

— Jules Witcover, Marathon-The Pursuit of the Presidency 1972-1976 (New York: Viking Press, 1977), P. 413.

On October 3 the Post reported an allegation by ‘sources’ that Bill Timmons had been named as one of the people who had received reports from the Watergate wiretaps. The allegation was false, and Timmons denied it. It was still false when the Post repeated it three days later, this time on the front page under a big headline.

— Richard Nixon, The Memoirs of Richard Nixon (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1978), p. 708.

William Timmons, assistant to the President for Congressional relations… All three were accused in a Washington Post article in October 1972 of having regularly received reports on wiretapped conversations in the Democratic National Committee’s Watergate office, thus charging them directly of complicity in the breakin plot…It was totally incorrect, and the reporters who wrote it, Woodward and Bernstein, eventually conceded in their book that the men named had never seen any papers having to do with the wiretapping…Not a word of sincere apology, even then.

— Maurice H. Stans, The Terrors of Justice-The Untold Side of Watergate (New York: Everest House, 1978), pp. 64, 65.

Most of the people involved resigned voluntarily. Actually, the Nixon-appointed men and women who left the West Wing to return to private life were, with a few exceptions, people of high quality and personal integrity who had had nothing to do with Watergate…So were legislative liaison man Bill Timmons,…I was sorry to see them go because I knew they would be hard to replace.

— Gerald R. Ford, A Time To Heal-The Autobiography of Gerald R. Ford (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), p. 234.

Bill Timmons, as Assistant to the President, would stay on as long as he liked, with all his gang...I would take over retiring Bill Timmons’s suite, the second most spacious (after the President’s) in the West Wing..

— p. 281. Robert T. Hartman, Palace Politics-An Inside Account of the Ford Years (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980).

In fact, the Reagan Convention operation is being run by the same man who ran Ford’s four years ago-William Timmons. Timmons, who is forty-nine, worked for Goldwater’s nomination and then for Nixon’s, handled congressional relations for the Nixon White House during Watergate, managed the alarmingly precise 1972 Republican Convention, and now has his own Washington lobbying firm.

— Elizabeth Drew, Portrait of an Election-The 1980 Presidential Campaign (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 195.

...and Timmons, with his solid organization that he believed Carter could not match in place across the country was willing to ride with it. ‘The risks were so great,’ he said later, ‘because we were going to win .’ Timmons made a lengthy argument to Reagan and the inner circle. ‘I wanted to make sure the governor knew what was out there politically. The things I talked about were direct mail, saving our media money , we had a lot of in the can.’ Timmons reviewed the whole volunteer and field operation, which included distribution of five million pieces of literature and hundreds of thousands of yard signs, a ‘fantastic’ door-to-door canvass operation, and the placing of literally millions of phone calls to most Republican precincts in the country and some Democratic.

— Jack W. Germond and Jules Witcover, Blue Smoke & Mirrors-How Reagan Won & Why Carter Lost the Election of 1980 (New York: Viking Press, 1981), pp. 270, 271.

The first briefing group was headed by William Timmons, an old political pro, with long experience in the campaigns and administrations of Nixon and Ford. Separate teams were established for each major government department and agency. Most of the people on the teams, besides being smart and tough-minded, had a lot of government experience. They knew how Washington worked.

— Martin Anderson, Revolution (San Diego & New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988), pp. 198,199.

Timmons was an old Young Republican leader whom I had known from my days as a reporter. He had worked on the Hill as well as in politics and campaigns. He was one of the class acts in the Nixon White House.

— Lyn Nofziger, NOFZIGER (Washington, DC: Regnery, 1992), p. 100.

Timmons had been one of the young recruits who worked with me on the Goldwater campaign, and he already signed up to work for Reagan as political director. I had a great deal of respect for him because he had beaten me in 1968 when I backed Reagan and he was Nixon’s floor manager. Timmons showed me what he was capable of doing that year, and I regarded him as one of the best convention men in the country.

— F. Clifton White with Jerome Tuccille, Politics as a Noble Calling – The Memoirs of F. Clifton White (Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books, 1994), p. 5.

Cooler heads in the Ford White House – like Cheney and Bill Timmons, Ford’s talented political aide – did not agree with the others around 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue about Reagan’s interest in running or his intelligence or his appeal.

— Craig Shirley, Reagan’s Revolution (Nashville, TN: Nelson Current, 2005), pp. 47, 48.

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

Relevance tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third opinion

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

It's unclear what you mean by "unnecessary detail", or what policy or guideline motivates the comment. How can the memos be understood without the sentence The Nixon administration's failed attempt to deport Lennon before the U.S. presidential election, 1972, campaign season was documented when these memos were discovered, after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took on the Wiener v FBI "Lennon files" case to challenge the problems in the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. to situate them with respect to the Nixon white house, which is the topic of that section? Dicklyon (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Bettia -- unless sources say that Timmons played an active role, say: pushing for Lennon's deportation, it is not worth mentioning here, if the memo was simply one of thousands of documents that passed through his office. Jayen466 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As there is absolutely zero evidence connecting Timmons with the Lennon case other than the single memo cited, I consider your opinion valid. I would then also consider the fact that the memo was gotten by the ACLU is also "not worth mentioning" as well? Collect (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen, yes. Not worth mentioning. If any RS make the point that Timmons played an active, noteworthy role in the Lennon deportation attempt, let editors present them now; otherwise I suggest we remove the para and be done with this issue. Jayen466 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the material in "Gimme some truth" (p. 2–5) might well be relevant and useful in our articles on the Nixon administration, but not here in this BLP. Jayen466 17:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well, the article in The Nation does at least tie Timmons to the deportation attempt in a non-tangential and notable way. It appears to have been written by a Professor of History, so I'd say that makes it a RS. I think pretty much all the other sources cited in connection with the case at present are illegitimate, since they don't really mention Timmons, but the Nation article and the Gimme Some Truth book (because it is explicitly referred to in the article) are citable here. I would suggest we use this material with attribution, and use it in the Reception section rather than the bio section. Jayen466 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC) The little para cited to "The Swarming Lobbyists" could go to form a reception section as well. A Reception section could perhaps contain more from Wiener, with attribution, but it should also contain the voices that profoundly disagree with Wiener -- e.g. "Timmons was a loyalist who did all an honest man could for Nixon…. Timmons is one of those who have given lobbying an honorable name." (see above). Jayen466 21:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Collect that if the cited source does not mention Timmons' name in direct relation to the Lennon case, then it is not a source we should use in that section. You helpfully added verbatim source quotes to the refs; a number of these don't mention Timmons' name. If the cited source does mention Timmons' name, then it would be better to quote the part that does. If the reference to Timmons' name is in a different context, somewhere else in the book, then we shouldn't use that book for detail on the Lennon case in this article. We should only use those parts here where a RS establishes a direct relationship between Timmons and the Lennon case. That is not so hard to understand, is it? Jayen466 23:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Fourth opinion

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

"In 1980 Timmons was the national political director for the Reagan–Bush campaign"

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

Tags

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

Continued disruption of article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What portion is not relating to Timmons?

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

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

and

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

(3) WP:WEIGHT comes into play: this is a single memo in the man's life, and I don't see why it merits more than a sentence or two.

Can you respond briefly please? I'm new to this page, and lengthy rehashes of debates that have already happened are not helpful -- the page is such a mess that you did not even notice that I've already posted a comment trying to figure out what's going on. THF (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this sounds like the exact same behavior which is going on right now on several pages, including Busines Plot, Skull and Bones, Union Banking Corporation, Prescott Bush, has Collect deleted over 1,100 referenced words, with no conversation before? That is what Collect did on the Business Plot article a couple of weeks ago, and THF deleted 1,368 words in 1 hour 14 minutes, with no prior talk page discussion. Joe the Plumber has been protected off and on for months because of Collect, and Business Plot was protected too. Business Plot now is a shell of its former self, thanks to Collect and THF's tag teaming there. THF and Collect have worked together for some time now, as far back as BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant, but lately the tag teaming and edit warring has become even more disruptive. Ikip (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles