Jump to content

Talk:Timmons & Company

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original research, Timmons & Company

[edit]

Hi. What's the reason this is original research? Is it because he's not reported in reliable sources as a political advisor to the Obama campaign, he's not the same Dan Shapiro that's reported as a political advisor to the Obama campaign, or something else. Thanks. Ha! (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for that assertion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the assertion in the text that was removed,
  • that he's a foreign policy advisor for Obama is in multiple reliable sources from a Google News search [1], e.g. in CNN [2] (image caption and 12th paragraph)
  • that he is (maybe was actually) vice president of Timmons & Co is from Google News [3], e.g. The Washington Post [4]
  • that he's from Timmons & Co and also is a foreign policy advisor for Obama in the same article is in another Washington Post article [5]
In terms of the text that wasn't removed remove though, I noticed he's no longer listed as vice president on the Timmons website [6], although he was in the version that was current in Jan 2008 [7]; so it's likely he's not VP any more and Michelle M. Bright is instead. Ha! (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see .... I think that my mistake was related to some confusing wording. Shapiro is the VP of Timmons... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems that the advisory role to the Obama campaign, was during the primaries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree (the CNN article and video above is from a month after the primaries) or get your point. Do you object to the text being in the article? If you do what are your objections? To clarify my position - my original reason for adding it was to try and stay balanced and demonstrate the "bipartisan" claim in the Politico source. Ha! (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

Follow the tag's link to the merge discussion; this is not where it's happening. Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]