Talk:Bill Ritter (politician)

Picture

This article needs a picture of Bill Ritter. What does anyone else think? Editor19841 00:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Progress, Well Done

I'm really proud of how far this article has come, and consider it to be one of Wikipedia's best. When I started my work on the page, it contained only one sentence, but with some hard work and some research, we as editors have accomplished a lot by working together. I just wanted to thank everybody involved in the creation and forming of this great article for all your work. I think that after a good picture of Ritter is added to this article (hopefully next to "Contents"), I'm thinking of nominating the article to become a feature for Wikipedia. If any of you agree with me, please say so. I'm currently looking at possible pictures from Ritter's campaign site to add to the article, and if anyone has a suggestion... Editor19841 00:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nominating for USCOTW

I'm nominating the article at the USCOTW elections, to see how it fairs. Please vote for the article. Editor19841 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate

Anybody know Ritter's B-Day? Editor19841 23:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Political Ad ??

Just reading through this, it sounds much less (in sections) like an objective article about Bill Ritter and more like a political ad. Examples:

"He tirelessly worked on the prosecution of sexual and domestic violence abusers"

"His career was on the rise, but he and Jeannie decided to make a major change. They closed up their house, packed up their 1-year-old son and headed off to Zambia where they managed a food distribution and nutrition center."

There is also nothing negative anywhere I can see about Bill. I hardly say that is objective as nobody is perfect, especially not a politician. It doesn't even make mention of controversial things he's done.

I don't claim to be aware enough and good enough at critiquing wikipedia pages to say for sure, but this seems bias. I came here looking for an objective source of information and this reads more like his campaign website!

Which one of those statements isn't true? I'll reword the content in question if it bothers people that much, and I'll remove the POV. Editor19841 (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the factual accuracy that was challenged, it was the POV. I chose the NPOV tag accordingly. I think the rewording did well to clean it up. "Extensively" doesn't carry the same POV as "Tirelessly." Tirelessly sounds like the "Bill Ritter for Governor" mailer that I received today, extensively sounds like an encyclopedia article. Thanks. 24.9.3.69 05:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's not a question of being true or not, just that there is no negative comments about him. Go check out Beauprez's page and you'll see some controversy over there. What about allogations that while Ritter was DA crime actually increased and he plea bargained down 97% of cases (just taking this from an attack ad so who knows if it's true). This all just seems like way too much fluff and missing any real critique of his work. That may not be the place for wikipedia, but that's what wikipedia has on other pages. If I came here to learn about the two candidates in CO, then I'd see some negative stuff about Beauprez yet nothing about Ritter, and that seems bias to me.

I disagree with this complainant. The idea that an article cannot be objective unless it has negative comments confuses the purpose of encyclopedias and that of newspapers and journalistic organs. The fact that this person is a politician does not impose on Wikipedia the need to engage in the game of 'appearing fair to all sides' because there is *no presumption* that the information here is being scrutinized by its producers and readers for political fairness...it should only be scrutinized for accuracy and whatever standard of comprehensiveness applies to the subject. Does an article on our current president become biased if it doesn't mention that he has the lowest voter-approval ratings (estimated by polling in the past six months) of any president going back several decades? I don't think so. In my opinion, the only guiding principle in an encyclopedia is that the information is accurate, and that some effort has been made to be comprehensive at the level of detail appropriate for adumbrated sources of information on a subject (which is what encyclopedias are). This entry seems quite satisfactory on that score.

Children

I suggest either finding out his children's birth years or not putting them in at all, because we don't want to update their ages once a year for the rest of their lives. Biruitorul 07:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree somewhat; while the kids should be mentioned in the article either way, it would be nice to see some years if possible. Any clue where to find out such info (as campaign site has nothing more than what we've got)? Editor19841 (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming he wins, I suppose we can call his office and ask once he's inaugurated. Biruitorul 06:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds right. Editor19841 (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This still reads like copy from the Ritter campaign.

...albeit well-written copy. I don't have a horse in this race, or the time to edit the article, but it seems worth saying I am not convinced. Brennen 02:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Added an NPOV tag. Brennen 06:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Awright, to "no POV here", bollocks, I say. FWIW, if I'd been voting, I probably would've voted for the guy today, but see above comment. It still reads like campaign copy. The section on missionary work stands out in particular. Brennen 04:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

...and it turns out it (the missionary work section) reads like campaign copy because it is campaign copy: Taken essentially word-for-word from Ritter's campaign site. Even if this wasn't POV, it'd be plagiarism. Unless the folks who copied it over wrote it or were working for Ritter's campaign. This might not prove that it's biased and unencyclopedic language, but it sure wouldn't bolster the case for keeping it.

Anyone want to guess how much of the rest of the article is a slightly reworded version of the campaign site? Brennen 07:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're standing alone on this one. No offense. Editor19841 (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being a plagiarist or a shill, but in the long term I imagine it doesn't matter much. Someone else who cares enough to replace the text will notice this, or maybe incremental edits will render the text unrecognizable. Brennen 19:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! What's this about? "Plagiarist"? "Shill"? Are these personal attacks necessary? This isn't your little website, this is an encyclopedia. Resorting to name-calling won't accomplish anything. You're fighting alone, and you're losing, so you’re turning on me, an accomplished Wikipedian who's reporting a truth you'd rather not hear. We're dealing with an article here, Brennen, so if it's possible, try to keep it nice-nice, OK? Again: this isn't the "Wikipedians for Beauprez" blog. Editor19841 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Two points: First, I think "plagiarist" and "shill" are purely descriptive. They're either true or they're not. The text is plagiarized, or it ain't. Demonstrate that I'm wrong about the bulk of the article's biographical text (now somewhat altered, by myself and others) being taken directly and without substantial modification from the Bill Ritter for Governor site, and I'll happily admit I was mistaken. It's possible that I haven't assumed good faith to the extent that it's encouraged on WP, but if I've overreacted, it's to your casual dismissal of what I perceive to be serious issues with the article.

Secondly, since I did call you names, it's understandable that you assume some political motivation on my part. You're mistaken. I live in Colorado, but am not a registered voter here, do not have a party affiliation, did not participate in any way in this election, and as mentioned above probably would have voted for Ritter had I voted. I have no particular bias against Ritter because until a week or so ago, I had never even heard of the man. The relevant point about the current state of the article is that this is not the "Wikipedians for Ritter" blog either.

Sorry I don't feel like being nice-nice. The article's uncritical, campaign press-release tone annoyed me, and I reacted accordingly. Likewise your perfunctory indication that you weren't interested. My bad, but if you're actually interested in the quality of the article, and not merely shilling for its subject, then you're under some obligation to do more than dismiss the original, substantive points. I, meanwhile, have learned my lesson: Just edit the article and move along. Brennen 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You're a trip, Brennen. Even when you tried to semi-apologize for attacking my character, it still came out asinine (not you, your statements). To be honest, I don't think you're trying to come off like this, and I'm willing to work with you to get things done, but it gets increasingly more difficult when this bickering persists. I don't like to fight. But, as you've probably come to realize, I don't take punches without responding. Here's what I've got to say: 1. I didn't plagiarize anything. 2. I don't have a political agenda on Wikipedia. I write what I know about, and I happen to know a lot about our Governor-elect. Persecute me for my knowledge, call me names, pretend to apologize, make a fool of yourself before your peers, I don't care. I'm innocent of these things you accuse me of. I'm sorry that you don't feel like being nice-nice, because you're going against a Wikipedian philosophy of keeping cool. Again, this is your problem, not mine. I didn't want it to come down to this kind of arguing back and forth, but it's what things have come down to. You trash me on your blog as a shill and a plagiarist, and you expect me to just sit here and take that?! You’re on the wrong Wikipedia, Brennen. For someone who's been here as long as I have, it crosses me as though you're a new user!

Second of all, aside from all that, as far this article goes I'd have to say you're out of luck! I can't help that Bill Ritter is popular, and that most the facts speak in his favor! Not much criticism here? Probably because there's not a whole lot outside the GOP! And again, this is not a GOPer's blog; this is an encyclopedia. All you seem to be doing here besides citing yourself as a source for your accusations and edits, is sling mud at me and the Ritter article. I didn't even have a problem with you to begin with, let alone your point of view. Here's my advice, cool down and get some citations for your accusations. If you think the article is not neutral, than PROVE IT instead of slamming it at folks like me! I am not a plagiarist nor a shill, but just an editor. Ritter won the race. Get over it. He's popular. Get over it. There's a lack of neutral criticism coming from folks outside your party. Get over it. I am a nice-nice kind of guy, but I know how to fight. Get over it. Get some real sources, alike a real position. Editor19841 (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Editor19841. You have yet to answer a *single* one of Brennen's complaints. None of us are buying it. You obviously lifted the text directly from Mr. Ritter's campaign website. Either apologize and help correct the article, or discontinue editing this page please. For posterity. 65.190.208.61 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unregistered, Republican users never fail to amaze me. Editor19841 (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, logged in. My complaints still stand. Registered democrat, btw. Will you answer the accusations now Editor19841? Sdball 03:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Assumptions about political bias are not helping, and do not constitute an assumption of good faith.

Reasonable observers may agree that my tone above was confrontational and unlikely to get a productive response. I cede this point, if I haven't yet done so to your satisfaction. The discussion to-date is in full public view; I won't rehash this further. My notes on the plagiarized text and citations for same are also in full view, prominently linked. (If an apparently external link to the early version of this article where Ritter campaign (ritterforgovernor.com) text seems to have been pasted in (wp) has caused any confusion, see Help:URL on linking to old article snapshots. I assumed I was being lazy in linking with a full URL, but that appears to be standard.)

As to the bulk of your remarks above, I rest my case. If you'd like a discussion of personal politics, I'd suggest that we take it to my user talk page or some other, more appropriate forum. Brennen 08:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm done bickering. I stand by the edits I have made in the recent and distant past to this article, as well as the statement I had made prior defending myself as a non-shill and a non-plagiarist. I continue to protest this verbal persecution of my good name and the decent reputation that this article once had. I am neither a plagiarist nor a shill. I am a member of the Democratic Party and am considered by most who know me to be ultra-progressive. These facts, which I have not hid during my time contributing to Wikipedia, have led some of you to think that I am a shill, which is not true. I have openly stated to things in the past: I am well aware of the background of Governor-elect Ritter, and endorsed him during the 2006 election cycle. I only contribute to articles in which I am aware of the subject, whether I like the subject or not. I personally typed the information which is in question today. I am a writer offline, and one online, and despise plagiary. I am not a plagiarist. As to your political agenda, Brennen, I am still left to question your motives and your story. I have strong reservations as to your editing and sparking of debate here on the talk page. I believe it is quite possible that you are a "shill" or activist yourself, on the conservative side of this argument. But I refuse to further impede the growth, expansion and success of this article by participating in your mini-debate on Colorado politics. Any vandalism that you or anyone else here contributes to this article will be reverted, and the perpetrator properly punished. We do not edit in a freewheeling blog. This is serious, and will not tolerate further harassments of myself, of Wikipedia's policies, nor of this article. I wish nothing but good will unto all of you, here and otherwise. I chose to be civil. I rest my case . Editor19841 (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Editor19841, I have to say that you have tried to keep a "clean" image of Ritter on this page. When I added some cited facts regarding his stances, such as his stance on abortion (which people want to know), you edited it out. I had to add it back in several times before you left it alone. Yes, Ritter is popular, and yes, I voted for him, but I find it troubling that you are here pretending that this article is exceptionally positive about Ritter because people like him. That's part of it. But it's also that way because you edit out even hints of what you see as criticism, calling it "rhetoric" or biased, even though it is thoroughly cited. I tried to keep out of this debate as long as possible, but I cannot tolerate you acting as if Ritter comes across very clean in this article by complete coincidence. 67.190.108.208 12:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Governor of Colorado ?

Ritter has yet to take office. Therefore he shouldn't be listed (in the info box) as Governor, neither should the Lt.Gov-elect be listed. Please wait until January 2007. GoodDay 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on this article

Now that the election is over, shouldn't this article try to summarize details of the campaign instead of going into specific details about the campaign. This article looks like maybe it should be called the "2006 Colorado Gubernatorial Race" and not an article on Bill Ritter. Jcam 19:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I had similar feelings. I think I'll move the debates over into the main article for the election. Any thoughts? Editor19841 (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Maybe a summary of the debates (as part of a campaign '06 section) would be adequate here. Jcam 16:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The article will probably need to be summarized heavily. I think we can remove the survey information, as well as the Governor-elect's stance on the Referenda and Amendments, since they have already been decided. Trodaikid1983 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Amendment and Pre-Election Tables

Seeing as how the elections are over, I am going to remove the election information pertaining to his stance on the 2006 amendments and referenda, as well as pre-vote polls between Ritter and Beauprez. If anyone objects, please let me know. Otherwise I will do this soon. Trodaikid1983 02:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still there so I'll remove it now.--Gloriamarie 21:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bill Ritter disambiguation page

A governor of a state is much more important than a TV anchorman. Bill Ritter should go directly to the governor not a disambiguation page. Tocino 7:52 P.M., April 20, 2007 (CST)

I disagree. The anchor in question is a New York City anchor, the nation's largest market, and occasionally substitutes on national news shows. He's probably better-known than Colorado's governor.--Gloriamarie 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Shooting

The shooter is named here although it might be wise waiting until all the informaiton is out before updating it. (Emperor 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:BillRitterSOS2007.jpg

Image:BillRitterSOS2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)