Talk:Ken Buck/Archive 1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Activist in topic Details of voting on controversial issues is not "POV"
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Notability
We should probably start this page now that he has won the nomination. He is a significant figure, and since losing candidate Jane Norton has a page, it is only proper that Buck have a page as well. I don't think this page should be deleted because it is a request for another page to be started. I tried starting the page itself, but it is protected and I can't edit it. I have also requested unprotection of that page. 192.35.35.34 (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's a page about Norton because she was Lieutenant Governor; her candidacy did not make her notable. Buck's just a local D.A.; nominees are not inherently notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ken Buck is notable because the latest poll shows him the winner in the General election. If one considers a U.S. Senator election to be of some importance, viable contenders are also of importance. If that many people are planning to vote for him, surely they should be as informed as possible? No reason to be an ostrich. Surely you remember these same arguments in the 2008 elections? I thought you were active in Wikipedia in 2008 when these issues were extensively discussed and hashed out. Perhaps not. The choice is to merge his entire article into the election article, causing serious issues of Undue Weight, or give him his own article. I really don't understand why anyone would want to pretend he doesn't actually exist, and that no one's interested in an article about him. Look at the page view stats - 843 on August 12th alone. Flatterworld (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ken Buck has won a republican primary, not a general election. In the United States, elections are not decided by opinion polls (registered voters vote in November and the results of the election are based on those votes). --RegentsPark (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- True. Not particularly relevant to a discussion of notability, but true. Flatterworld (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ken Buck has won a republican primary, not a general election. In the United States, elections are not decided by opinion polls (registered voters vote in November and the results of the election are based on those votes). --RegentsPark (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ken Buck is notable because the latest poll shows him the winner in the General election. If one considers a U.S. Senator election to be of some importance, viable contenders are also of importance. If that many people are planning to vote for him, surely they should be as informed as possible? No reason to be an ostrich. Surely you remember these same arguments in the 2008 elections? I thought you were active in Wikipedia in 2008 when these issues were extensively discussed and hashed out. Perhaps not. The choice is to merge his entire article into the election article, causing serious issues of Undue Weight, or give him his own article. I really don't understand why anyone would want to pretend he doesn't actually exist, and that no one's interested in an article about him. Look at the page view stats - 843 on August 12th alone. Flatterworld (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Re-creation of article
I don't know anything about this guy, but I didn't want people looking to Wikipedia and being disappointed. Please work on Issue positions. Also, I left the long list of articles intact for now as they might be useful in expanding the article, at which point they should become footnotes. Good luck. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- As RegentsPark has deleted Endorsements and Issue positions, I will only note that those are common sections to many Wikipedia articles about politicians. Good night, and good luck. Flatterworld (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wrote quite a bit of new material for the page, broke it up into better section, and sourced everything. (We still need sources for such contentions as him being hired by Dick Cheney at some point.) At this point, I think we need two things. First, the two sections for his service in the [U.S. attorney's office] and the [D.A.'s office] right now are too heavily weighted to references to his two ethics issues--this is simply what I could find readily available. Clearly, we need more about what his conviction rates were, what particular crimes he targeted, the election results of his Ward County race, etc. Second, yes, we absolutely need a section on his political positions. (I can live without the endorsement section.) I'll chip away at these two, but would love some help with this. Cheers. ThtrWrtr (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not against positions section. But, the previous version read like a campaign ad. Better to base his positions on what reliable secondary sources say his positions are and not base them on what his campaign literature says. Endorsements are definitely a campaign issue best left out of the article. If a particular endorsement is notable - for example, if Nancy Pelosi endorses the gentleman :) - then that could be included, but a general list of endorsements isn't acceptable in an encyclopedia. (Encyclopedic information should be of lasting value.) --RegentsPark (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just stopped by to see how the article's going - great to see some useful participation. RegentsPark, apparently you missed List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, with 918 footnotes. Few politicians require a separate article just for endorsements, but endorsements really are considered of some importance in an encyclopedia article about politicians. If you had at least moved them to the relevant election article, that would have demonstrated ASG. As for the link you were so quick to delete, he apparently founded that group. That was in the material you decided to delete rather than rewrite - or comment out for someone else to rewrite. My point: At Wikipedia, we're supposed to help people who are trying to write articles, rather than delighting in rapping their knuckles and trying to scare them off. Based on what existed originally, I thought it apparent that those interested in this article had little experience with Wikipedia. Assuming they would return to work on the article, I was trying to be encouraging (note my first post on this Talk page) and not make them 'start from scratch'. You may find it easy to search through the logs to find deleted material, but I don't assume everyone else does. After seeing the appalling work in other politician articles which has been going on for months (particularly in Connecticut), I think you could have given this article a few days to see what various people might have come up with, absent your heavy-handed 'editing', complete with snarky comments. That really isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia, imo. Flatterworld (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- What snarky comments? Also 'rapped knuckles'? Are you sure you're reading my comments? I must admit to being a tad puzzled by your remarks above. -- RegentsPark (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Tad puzzled? Whatever. OnTheIssues just added a page for him which I've now added to External links for the benefit of anyone interested in working on Issue positions. I believe the operative phrase is, "Lead, follow or get out of the way." Your 'deletionist' philosophy helps no one. Flatterworld (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're being overly sensitive. The key point to note here is that an endorsement section and a positions section that is there to primarily market a candidate is not encyclopedic. I empathize with your need to see your candidate to be featured in a promotional way, but that is not the purpose of wikipedia. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Tad puzzled? Whatever. OnTheIssues just added a page for him which I've now added to External links for the benefit of anyone interested in working on Issue positions. I believe the operative phrase is, "Lead, follow or get out of the way." Your 'deletionist' philosophy helps no one. Flatterworld (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- What snarky comments? Also 'rapped knuckles'? Are you sure you're reading my comments? I must admit to being a tad puzzled by your remarks above. -- RegentsPark (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- For starters, nobody has established that he is even notable enough to have an article; mere nominees, unlike officeholders, are not automatically notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Secondly, endorsements are not encyclopedic content, and I feel that the existence of the Obama article mentioned above is merely a sterling example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. "Positions" sections have a nasty tendency to become mirrors of the candidates' position papers, especially if not sourced to impartial analyses from reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- See my comment in section above. And I disagree about endorsements, as the reasons given for the endorsements are generally of interest (which imo is a major reason they need to be footnoted). Flatterworld (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would argue Buck now qualifies under #3 of WP:POLITICIAN as he's received considerable national attention after his nomination. ThtrWrtr (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- See my comment in section above. And I disagree about endorsements, as the reasons given for the endorsements are generally of interest (which imo is a major reason they need to be footnoted). Flatterworld (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just stopped by to see how the article's going - great to see some useful participation. RegentsPark, apparently you missed List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, with 918 footnotes. Few politicians require a separate article just for endorsements, but endorsements really are considered of some importance in an encyclopedia article about politicians. If you had at least moved them to the relevant election article, that would have demonstrated ASG. As for the link you were so quick to delete, he apparently founded that group. That was in the material you decided to delete rather than rewrite - or comment out for someone else to rewrite. My point: At Wikipedia, we're supposed to help people who are trying to write articles, rather than delighting in rapping their knuckles and trying to scare them off. Based on what existed originally, I thought it apparent that those interested in this article had little experience with Wikipedia. Assuming they would return to work on the article, I was trying to be encouraging (note my first post on this Talk page) and not make them 'start from scratch'. You may find it easy to search through the logs to find deleted material, but I don't assume everyone else does. After seeing the appalling work in other politician articles which has been going on for months (particularly in Connecticut), I think you could have given this article a few days to see what various people might have come up with, absent your heavy-handed 'editing', complete with snarky comments. That really isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia, imo. Flatterworld (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not against positions section. But, the previous version read like a campaign ad. Better to base his positions on what reliable secondary sources say his positions are and not base them on what his campaign literature says. Endorsements are definitely a campaign issue best left out of the article. If a particular endorsement is notable - for example, if Nancy Pelosi endorses the gentleman :) - then that could be included, but a general list of endorsements isn't acceptable in an encyclopedia. (Encyclopedic information should be of lasting value.) --RegentsPark (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wrote quite a bit of new material for the page, broke it up into better section, and sourced everything. (We still need sources for such contentions as him being hired by Dick Cheney at some point.) At this point, I think we need two things. First, the two sections for his service in the [U.S. attorney's office] and the [D.A.'s office] right now are too heavily weighted to references to his two ethics issues--this is simply what I could find readily available. Clearly, we need more about what his conviction rates were, what particular crimes he targeted, the election results of his Ward County race, etc. Second, yes, we absolutely need a section on his political positions. (I can live without the endorsement section.) I'll chip away at these two, but would love some help with this. Cheers. ThtrWrtr (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
University of Wyoming
Okay, seriously, the dude went to Princeton and wound up going to law school at the University of Wyoming? He must have been a truly god-awful student... 217.35.89.71 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Or just really, really lazy. 217.35.89.71 (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- The University of Wyoming is a perfectly good law school, particularly in the fields of resource and environmental law. grczap (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Talk page is for discussions of the article, not the candidate. There are plenty of blogs available for you to share your insights with a rapt audience who will better appreciate your incisive commentary. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and have a nice day. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
2005 rape case?
I discovered that this (article with transcript of conversation between Mr. Buck and victim) has recently reemerged in the news. Essentially, Mr. Buck refused to prosecute a rapist because he was invited over and had previously been the victim's lover, despite the perpetrator having admitted his crime to the police. Do we want to address this situation in the article, or, despite the fact that I personally view it as important to his stance on women's rights, is this the kind of material that is best left out? Somnambulent (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- It appears to be notable at this point but there are potential WP:NPOV problems with how the the material is presented here. Has Buck made any statements about this case? --Kvng (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
It is biased and politicized reporting. I was the jury foreman on a rape case that Ken Buck successfully prosecuted in Weld County. This kind of negative politicking makes me sick! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.185.37 (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
NPOV tag
It doesn't much matter because his opponents has won the election, but this article stinks of a hatchet job. Those who did it should be ashamed of themselves. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Specifically, which claims or areas do you feel are pushing a point of view? Just because he lost the election, it does not mean that this article some how becomes redundant. If there is POV, it should be neutralised. If you'd like to detail the areas you have concerns with, they can be examined and possibly changed. Malbolge (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Where do we start? I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know a hatchet job when I see one. Look at the BLP of his opponent in the election, chock full of positively spun political positions, with very little balanced criticism. Now, re-read this BLP, which looks to be taken from a Bennet campaign ad with the "extremist" tag seeping through the lines. The oft-mentioned rape case getting way too much text is but one example. I'll hand it to the politicos, they squirmed in here and added bits and pieces over time as part of a campaign to discredit Buck. They know who they are, but unfortunately we won't see them on Wikipedia until 2012. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The article has quality problems throughout but it is adequately referenced and generally gives space to both sides of controversial issues. The Bennet article is better because, already being a Senator, he's more notable. I originally flagged WP:NPOV on the coverage of the rape case. You claim this is but one example but you don't give any others. --Kvng (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The question is not one of referencing, but rather of significant, umm, "quality" issues and weight issues, and balance issues throughout. The matter needs no further support due to the prima facia nature of the junk that is in it. Can any prudent person really cliam that the BLP is balanced? Sad that partisans got to it. QueenofBattle (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the bias there that you do, QoB. He wasn't exactly a PR dream candidate. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The question is not one of referencing, but rather of significant, umm, "quality" issues and weight issues, and balance issues throughout. The matter needs no further support due to the prima facia nature of the junk that is in it. Can any prudent person really cliam that the BLP is balanced? Sad that partisans got to it. QueenofBattle (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The article has quality problems throughout but it is adequately referenced and generally gives space to both sides of controversial issues. The Bennet article is better because, already being a Senator, he's more notable. I originally flagged WP:NPOV on the coverage of the rape case. You claim this is but one example but you don't give any others. --Kvng (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Where do we start? I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know a hatchet job when I see one. Look at the BLP of his opponent in the election, chock full of positively spun political positions, with very little balanced criticism. Now, re-read this BLP, which looks to be taken from a Bennet campaign ad with the "extremist" tag seeping through the lines. The oft-mentioned rape case getting way too much text is but one example. I'll hand it to the politicos, they squirmed in here and added bits and pieces over time as part of a campaign to discredit Buck. They know who they are, but unfortunately we won't see them on Wikipedia until 2012. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
QueenofBattle, although I am on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you but I agree that at least in the matter of the 2005 rape case this goes into detail that is beyond being encyclopedic in order to push a POV. However, you have been asked twice to provide more SPECIFIC examples of your concerns and you've failed to do so. It is now 6-1/2 years later, so this is probably futile, but I'll ask for them one more time. Dgndenver (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ken Buck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100902112408/http://buckforcolorado.com:80/respect-life to http://buckforcolorado.com/respect-life
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110717001312/http://www.kdvr.com/news/politics/kdvr-buck-va-health-care-privatizing-txt,0,4560478.story to http://www.kdvr.com/news/politics/kdvr-buck-va-health-care-privatizing-txt,0,4560478.story
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101015210714/http://www.greeleytribune.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060301/NEWS/103010095&parentprofile=&template=printart to http://www.greeleytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060301/NEWS/103010095&parentprofile=&template=printart
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Details of voting on controversial issues is not "POV"
Buck isn't in remote danger of losing his seat. There's no point even for a partisan editor scrubbing pages, to dilute details of his record. Activist (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with why this edit was reverted. The content you added fails wp:IMPARTIAL since. It tries to present a vote against as if this were an obvious moral choice while failing to note why Buck voted against the bill. That is why it was reverted. Please self revert as the content you have added is in dispute. Springee (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Springee This was the second COVID-19 bill he votes against in ten days: In the first it was only a single congressional representative who joined him, in a bill also supported by the president. It's only "in dispute" by you, in the absence of your canvassing for support. This seems to be a commonality in your editing, perhaps just a coincidence. The conventions of Wikipedia however, do not encourage one editor attacking the efforts of so many others. You have certainly canvassed against my edits in the past, and I'll provide diffs if you care to see the obvious supported. You've even encouraged another editor to make a change to avoid your violating 3RR. I see that you're only on noticeboards for 8% of your last 500 edits, down from 18-20% six months ago, and I had hoped it had reflected some change in behavior.Activist (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- If your only argument is an attack on my motivations then you haven't supported a challenged edit and it's clear that reverting is the correct action per WP:NOCON. Springee (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Springee I haven't made any actual, inferred or speculative assumptions about Buck's morality. I haven't the faintest notion why he did what he did, but his behavior, as a congressional outlier, and even in that instance counter to the president's hopes, who remarked afterward that he was pleased that congress gave him considerably more than he asked for, was in fact notable and well-sourced. I don't know why you want to obscure Buck's behavior from Wikipedia readers. He certainly wasn't trying to hide it. You're edit warring as you do so often. When you've done this with my edits before you went to discussions on my Talk page that I'd left, sometimes for years, and contacted other editors with whom I've had varying differences of opinion, often very minor and amicably resolved, and canvassed them directly to join you in your quest to remove my edits. You even approached at least one editor, encouraged and recruited him or her to join your opposition and to delete a specific post of mine so you wouldn't violate 3R by doing so yourself. That's what you wrote to him or her. You've left a trail. So again, I'd much rather than edit the encyclopedia than fight with you, but I will start compiling a sequential list of your actions if that's your desire. While I was responding to you about Buck my power went out and I lost the extensive repair work I had been doing on another article, one coincidentally to which you had stalked and Wikihounded me about six months or so ago. Activist (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- If your only argument is an attack on my motivations then you haven't supported a challenged edit and it's clear that reverting is the correct action per WP:NOCON. Springee (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Springee This was the second COVID-19 bill he votes against in ten days: In the first it was only a single congressional representative who joined him, in a bill also supported by the president. It's only "in dispute" by you, in the absence of your canvassing for support. This seems to be a commonality in your editing, perhaps just a coincidence. The conventions of Wikipedia however, do not encourage one editor attacking the efforts of so many others. You have certainly canvassed against my edits in the past, and I'll provide diffs if you care to see the obvious supported. You've even encouraged another editor to make a change to avoid your violating 3RR. I see that you're only on noticeboards for 8% of your last 500 edits, down from 18-20% six months ago, and I had hoped it had reflected some change in behavior.Activist (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)