Talk:Bill Richardson (politician)

Discussion on WP:RM
''This entry was moved here from WP:RM, as a record of the discussion there. Please do not add to this archived content, but instead make new entries in the section below.'' Noel (talk) 14:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bill Richardson (politician) &rarr; Bill Richardson
There is consensus that Bill Richardson (politician) is a far better known personality than Bill Richardson (radio). I have moved the disambig at "Bill Richardson" to "Bill Richardson (disambiguation)" -- Jord 17:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unless you were to move his page back to Bill Richardson, there's not much point in that. A bigger issue is probably that there have been a number of politicians named Bill (or William) Richardson, including a few other Congressmen and a longtime California state Senator (H.L. "Bill" Richardson) who ran for U.S. Senate. Outside of politics, there are probably any number of others. I'd recommend leaving the Bill Richardson page as a disambig, but moving the N.M. governor's page to Bill Richardson (governor) or Bill Richardson (New Mexico). MisfitToys 21:19, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are too many famed individuals named Bill Richardson to justify the move...and more than just the two listed on the disambiguation page.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 21:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons MisfitToys stated above. I hope someone will add a few more Bill Richardsons to the list, even if they don't currently have articles.  --LostLeviathan 21:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just wonder whether the three authors named Bill Richardson (that I know of) will require a disambiguation page at Bill Richardson (author) and what their individual articles should be named. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 23:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, Bill Richardson (author) should in that case be a redirect to the main disambiguation page for the name. No point in having a twisty maze of little disambiguation pages. Gdr 21:23, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
 * Oppose can't really see any evidence of consensus (or discord for that matter) and who's to say there aren't others? Icundell 22:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm canadian, and have heard of the radio guy, and never the politician. here's my biased vote. SECProto 03:47, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What SECProto said.  &mdash;Michael Z. 05:13, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
 * Oppose Keep it as is, More B. Richardson may appear in the future. Scott 20:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous comment on Wen Ho Lee case
MISHANDELING OF WEN HO LE CASE


 * Wow. What an argument you make.  Or not.  It earns discussion, perhaps, but how was it mishandled?  Because Lee plead out on the charges?  Think Richardson had control over the FBI investigation?  You're ill-informed if you believe that.  --ABQCat 08:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I'm not really informed on the Wen Ho Lee case I think even Richardson himself admits that it was mishandled.

First sensible thing on Talk page
NBC had a story on the Latino/Hispanic vote and briefly profiled Bill Richardson on October 14, 2004. Brokaw said that Richardson was born in Mexico. Before anyone goes and changes the article for that comment, according to Project Vote Smart (most respectable source I could find in 5 minutes, Vote Smart's entry for Bill Richardson), Richardson was born in Pasedena, California. Brokaw was mistaken as far as I can tell. --ABQCat 01:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for move
I was just wondering - when two notable people have the same name, is it necessary (per wiki policy, for example) to create a disambig page, or could the predominant user of the name keep the main article? I'm asking because I've noticed this in the past and honstly don't know - Brian Williams, for example. I thought for example that the Bill Richardson (radio) blurb up at the top of Bill Richardson was quite sufficient, but as I said, I'm not up on what the policy is. --ABQCat 05:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please note that this move has broken links on at least 10 pages I have found so far. I just think someone should bother taking care of that before deciding to just move the page.  --ABQCat 05:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:RM decided to keep the page here; see above. Noel (talk) 14:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Richardson' Conversion to Supply-Side Reaganomics and Tax Cuts for Business ("The Rich")
Where does this UPI story fit into the text with the following quote:

'''"Make no mistake," Richardson said. "The point of cutting the personal income tax and the capital gains cut is to send an unmistakable message to business ''' (2/19/2003)

or this Letter to the Albuquerque Journal from a citizen:

'''Richardson Emulates Reagan's Tax Cuts

Airport/Enron Comment
This is clearly biased. First of all, Santa Fe is not 2 hours from Albuquerque and the writer included none of the discussion of the article. I have posted it here to be edited before it is put back on the main site.
 * Sante Fe is a two hour round trip, as the article states.Nobs01 19:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed Text
The Albuquerque Journal reported on June 12 2005, that a New Mexico State Auditor concluded the Governor used Enron type accounting after his adminstration "circumvented the Legislature and proper accounting procedures when it opened the office in 2004 because it used money intended for the Taxation and Revenue Department to pay for the governor's Albuquerque digs." The Governor had opened an office in Albuquerque five minutes from the airport to meet with potential out of state donors for his 2008 Presidential campaign without inconveniencing them with the two hour round trip to Sante Fe.

Non-objectivity
I haven't changed anything, but this article reads like a hatchet job.

A sentence like "In 1995 he travelled to Baghdad with Peter Bourne and personally shook hands with Saddam Hussein" would never appear in any reference work I have ever seen. It makes it sound as if he dropped in for tea with his pal, rather than a diplomatic mission to negotiate the release of hostages. There are similar instances throughout the article.

Someone competent needs to clean this up.

Family
This should include information about his family life. Does he have a wife and/or children? (Alphaboi867 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

Gov's jet
Perhaps something needs to be added about the Gov's purchase of a new jet to fly to New York for fundraisers; fuel consumption to fly at 40,000 ft, the flight lanes provided for non-commercial jet traffic, is impractical for flight within New Mexico which is purportedly how the appropriation for purchase passed the state legislature. nobs 18:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Spaceport
The spaceport is actually near T or C not Los Cruses. I know I live in NM.

Father's birthplace?
His father, born in Nicaragua, was a native of Boston How can this be? Last I heard, Boston was not in Nicaragua.

Link spam?
There is a vibrant Richardson netroots--why were all of the links deleted as "link spam?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.44.72 (talk • contribs)

Blogs are nearly always link spam. For politicians, the only blogs that are appropriate are ones where the candidate contributes. For example DailyKos has some Democratic congressmen who contribute regularly.

I completely disagree. Isamuel

You may disagree, but it would help if you knew Wikipedia policy: External_links. Now, on what basis should this blog be added to external links? I find it suspect, particularly when it is added at the top of the external links list (common behavior for link spamming). Ted 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I do know Wikipedia policy. The concern with link spam is promotion of a site via bots; that's clearly not what's going on here. The reality is that links to a politicians' netroots make the article more complete and provide a resource. If the concern is NPOV, then link away to critical blogs or the anti-netroots or whatever. 216.165.44.72

The extreme of link spam is via bots. This doesn't mean that this is the only concern. As I understand it, the concern is that this is using Wikipedia as a vehicle to advertise for various blogs. Another concern is proliferation of blogs. Does Wikipedia really want 30 blogs concerning Bill Richardson? If not, is there an objective criteria to decide which stay and which go? I also don't believe you understand the concept behind Neutral Point Of View. Compounding the error by adding critical blogs is, well, compounding the error. I've done a quick survey of politicians' entries, and have discovered a mixed bag. Unfortunately, policy enforcement is a real problem with Wikipedia. Until I can find some specific direction, I hope you will not mind a rearrangement, in the manner of John Edwards.

I can live with this resolution. Isamuel

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)