Talk:Rick Davis (politics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Neutral sources, anyone[edit]

"The Buying of the President?" Really? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 19:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You needn't post a neutrality contested tag. Just go ahead, be bold, and delete the link for such things. I overlooked it on my first-pass cleanup of the article. RayAYang (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent removal of quote[edit]

I recently removed a quote by Rick Davis that had no explanatory context for the quotation, serving only to set him up for a attack by the Obama campaign. Wikipedia is not the place to engage in political propaganda; there are severe WP:POV issues with selectively quoting people only to give the other side's explanation of their quotation. RayAYang (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Freddie Mac Paid McCain Campaign Manager's Firm Through last Month[edit] Macshill (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) macshill

The primary--and more objective--source for this story is the New York Times article to which Huffington Post links. It is —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. How does one put that source in the source area? Macshill (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) macshill

Slow it down a bit, please. Wikipedia is not about news, and this is a very recent story, with accusations still flying. For one thing, McCain's campaign has accused the New York Times of "wilful disregard for the truth." Wait a while for the facts to come out, Wikipedia will still be here, and we'll be more capable of writing something evenhanded and coherent then. RayAYang (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of controversies[edit]

We can do most recent to least recent, or straight chronological, but I think it's a very bad idea to do them in order of what a particular editor thinks is "important" -- lends itself strongly to POV. Right now, the effective ordering (chronology) is 2-1-3. Given my choice, I'd prefer straight chronological, to avoid recentism. RayAYang (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this; I did the rearrangement primarily because another editor had done so (I reverted that change because most of it was wrong, but thought that the basic concept of putting a very recent controversy first was in fact better for readers). I agree that chronologically is typically the most neutral way to do things (and oldest first), though not always (sometimes importance should be taken into account). Again, not a big deal; I'll defer to others who feel more strongly on this than I do. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, reverse chronological makes sense, I suppose. There is something to be said for putting the more recent things first ... but "importance" is hard to gauge on political accusation back-and-forths, like this one. It would require, among other things, going into the possible truth of the accusations while the debate is still ongoing. RayAYang (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Career listings risk indiscriminacy[edit]

What would people feel about a breakout "affiliations" section? It seems that Mr. Davis' primary job from 2000-2006 or so remained lobbyist, with particular clients and jobs coming in. The current setup, where people randomly add connections and companies he's connected to a growing laundry list, does not seem ideal for reader comprehension. RayAYang (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)