Talk:Rick Davis (political consultant)

Neutral sources, anyone

"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

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/freddie-mac-paid-mccain-c_n_128770.html 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

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/24davis.html?scp=1&sq=rick%20davis&st=cse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.213.202 (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

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

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)