Jump to content

Talk:Bill Richardson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBill Richardson was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 30, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 7, 2023.

Allegations of corruption

[edit]

@Loonymonkey: what are the BLP violations in this edit? GrammarDamner how are things? 20:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The recently added material (and frankly, much of the "Controversy" section) violates WP:BLPGOSSIP for starters. We can't reprint rumors and unproven allegations, even those that have been repeated in reliable sources. There are also serious WP:BLPBALANCE issues in that section, particularly guilt by association.
Rather than demanding a reason for reverting the addition, you should really make the case for why you think it's necessary to include in a biography.
Loonymonkey (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's necessary because these weren't just "rumors and unproven allegations", these were cases investigated by the grand jury, and they were a significant part of the subject's career. Despite your assertion, they are not BLP violations. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And nothing came of it, which is the entire point. That's literally the definition of "unproven allegations." Your argument is essentially saying "these weren't unproven allegations, they were allegations that were looked into but never proven!" Loonymonkey (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he wasn't found guilty doesn't mean that "nothing came of it". The lead even mentions that allegations of corruption were seen to have damaged Richardson's career. More importantly, the edit didn't say what Richardson may or may not have done, the edit said what was alleged and was well-sourced, relevant information. We do not remove well-sourced, relevant information by simply crying BLP. Please self revert and stop trying to whitewash this article. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the previous comments, allegations are just that until proved. However, allegations have effects on a person (whether they be proven or not) and can affect them politically and should be acknowledged. I believe it is appropriate for the allegations to be included given the effect it had upon his political career and touched on briefly as it is part of his legacy. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]