Talk:Steve Bullock (American politician)

Requested move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Steve Bullock (Montana) → Steve Bullock (Montana politician) – He is not a Montana, but a politician. Standard procedure is to disambiguate using the occupation for which the individual is known. Since there is already a Steve Bullock (British politician) and a Stephen Bullock, who was a Massachusetts politician, further disambiguation is necessary. I have already moved this article, but it was reverted with the somewhat impolite comment by user:Montanabw that "if you want to make a drama out of this, take it to a drama board". Not sure if WP:RM counts as a drama board, but I'm doing as he wishes! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Support as the standard way to disambiguate politicians. Tassedethe (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose as while occupation is usual for a dab, it is not mandatory; the MOS says "usually". Here, ALL three of the people under this name are politicians (Steve Bullock, mayor of London, Steve Bullock, governor-elect of Montana, and Shephen Bullock, a now-dead former Massachusetts legislator), so saying (politician) alone would not work. Further, "politician" is kind of a slur, why don't we say "elected official" or "public servant"? The MOS also suggests that dabs stay simple. If we really must say "Montanan" or "Londoner" instead of Montana and London, the simple geographic locations, fine, but a longer dab is awkward; simple is better; no need to have more than a one-word clarification. There are precedents for use of geographic location where multiple individuals of the same name share a profession; see, e.g. Tashi Tsering. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Come again? Calling a politician a politician is a slur? What sort of bizarre newspeak is this? A person who runs for an elected political office (particularly one who runs on a political party ticket as Bullock did) is a politician, simple as that, from the President of the United States on down. It's not any form of slur. You have also picked a very poor choice of disambiguation to illustrate your point, as all three Tashi Tserings are Tibetan and two of them are Buddhist teachers. The best way to disambiguate these two without using several words is by using their institutions. However, normal disambiguation practice for most people is to use their occupation with a geographical modifier if further disambiguation is needed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I know that "politician" is used extensively throughout wikipedia, but if you are an American, you may have noticed that the term has taken on a rather perjorative tone in popular culture of late (as in "damn politicians"). It's one thing to run for office, it's another to serve. But that's not the fight I'm interested in here, I'm concerned about excessive disambiguation; It's one thing when we want to disamgibiguate John Smith (football player) from John Smith (doctor) from John Smith (politician) but it's silly to say John Smith (football player for the Dallas Cowboys) and John Smith (football player for the Denver Broncos) when you could also just say John Smith (Dallas Cowboys) and John Smith (Denver Broncos). That's where I am coming from. It's tiresome to edit other articles where the dabs are so complicated that you can't remember them and then have DPL Bot slap 10 annoying messages on the talk page. Why use two words when one is equally clear? Also, I don't know about Londoners, but I know Montanans, and we'd rather be defined by geography than as a "politician." Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support A qualifier like (Montana) is better suited to Montana geography, society, culture, etc. Montanabw's objections to the word "politician" are a call for euphemisms and WP:OR. Note that Steve Bullock (London) has already been moved to Steve Bullock (British politician). --BDD (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  Comment: The other one was moved by the same user who is requesting this move; so we are having the same issue, I just chose not to go over there an edit war. And the solution is simple" we could as easily add an "n" and make the people citizens of their homes (Montanan), or we could say (Elected official) or (Mayor) and (Governor). However, really if we want to look at the broader issue, "politician" IS a bit of a slur and is not in the least OR to say so:

• Politician: b: a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

IMHO, plenty of reason that an IAR approach is fine here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• politician is more often derogatory, and statesman laudatory. Politician suggests the schemes and devices of a person who engages in (especially small) politics for party ends or for one's own advantage.

We could do a lot of things, but we should name articles in ways that match similar articles—that's one of the pillars of our WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. And you're cherry-picking with your dictionary definitions. Merriam-Webster's first definition is actually positive ("a person experienced in the art or science of government"), and as you may know, dictionaries list definitions from most to least common. And no one is doubting that statesman is a more honorific term than politician, but we largely avoid such terms as peacock words. We usually reserve statesman for historical figures such as Otto von Bismarck. If you really think politician is too loaded to be a qualifier, you should bring the issue up at a bigger forum, such as Wikipedia talk:Article titles, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. --BDD (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "politician" question is one for a bigger forum than here, and I frankly lack the energy for that bit of drama. The point is, I don't see why we can't define these people by where they are from or SOMETHING other than "politician", which is kind of snarky, particularly for executive officials like state Governors; we don't name any of the presidents Barack Obama (politician), after all. No other governor of Montana is dabbed (politician). I suppose another way to solve this is to use the office; i.e. Steve Bullock (mayor) or (Lewisham mayor) and Steve Bullock (governor) or (Montana governor) or add the middle initial of one or both Steve Bullocks, but for the life of me, I cannot locate this information. Montanabw^(talk) 19:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Are you going to rename these folks when they stop being politicians? Why not Steve Bullock (lawyer), as that's his actual degree and function when he's not running for office? If folks are determined to keep some sort of politician construct (which by the way would have resulted in this article being renamed at least once), I'd prefer to see (Montana governor). Intothatdarkness 22:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. If the other Steve Bullock is a "British politician", this one needs a parallel construction. "Montana governor" would be even better. Kauffner (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Occupation seems a reasonable way to distinguish with location added to that when there are several of them.Princess Mérida (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  "occupation" isn't "Politician." I'd settle for "Governor" if you insist that geography can't be used. Montanabw^(talk) 21:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. He's been a civil servant, but now his occupation is that of a politician. As AG and soon as governor, he will be a paid, elected official. I'm a librarian by occupation even though I've had several titles and roles in such jobs. --BDD (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Amusing side note

Just found another Steve Bullock who is a political figure, this one in Australia, a member of the Green party: http://www.abc.net.au/elections/vic/2010/guide/fern.htm Montanabw^(talk) 19:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Full protected

Edit warring and an empty talk page, at least of recent material. Full protected for 12 hours, which is about as low impact as you can get. Use the time to talk about it if you don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No objection to any uninvolved admin changing this without consultation, based on the circumstances that he may find.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Compromised by keeping the stats, which were reliable, but tossing the analysis, which was biased and, more to the point, incorrect per this more reliable source who knows the inner workings of the state's political parties: [1]. No one can argue that a commentator for Fox News and the American Enterprise Institute will have a skewed analysis when looking at how a Democrat won in Montana, particularly when Obama lost Montana. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move February 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There is no consensus that the Montana governor is the primary topic of the name. The disambiguation page will be moved back to the base name. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• Steve Bullock (Montana politician) → Steve Bullock
• Steve Bullock → Steve Bullock (disambiguation)

The governor of Montana is significantly more notable than a mayor, who is the only other person named Steve Bullock notable enough to be on the encyclopedia. (There are two other fellows who spell their names differently, but neither is particularly relevant). Google News results were almost entirely about the governor. Note that Steve Bullock has redirected here for almost a year. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC). Red Slash 23:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support But full disclosure, I am from Montana, a democrat who voted for him, and a (small) contributor to his campaign, so I'm probably too COI to do more than revert vandalism. Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not just a mayor (one of the few executive mayors in the UK, where the mayoralty is usually an honorary position, incidentally), but a major local politician and a knight of the realm. The Montana governor may be well-known in Montana, but is he well-known anywhere else? No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment:Necrothesp may have a point that there is no primary topic, but there are only 50 governors in the USA at any one time, and hence all are notable. I mean, maybe the other guy is well-known in London, but is he well-known anywhere else? (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 21:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • This guy is the governor of an area roughly 10,000 times the size and of a constituency containing roughly three times as many people, and the head of a co-sovereign entity with the federal government. As for "is he well-known anywhere else?", umm, well, you could type in the name into Google News and see how many articles are about him and name him in the national news... [2] Red Slash 04:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
      • And we have even more cows than people!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, but there are only sixteen executive mayors in England and Wales! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: This is not actually a multi-move proposal. The DAB is already at its proposed name, since March 2013. Andrewa (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Executive Mayor of Lewisham Steve Bullock (British politician) is one of the best-known mayors in the UK. There is no clear primary topic, and the dab page should be moved back to the bare title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you have any sources that suggest he's anywhere near as well-known as the governor of Montana? Red Slash 21:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • To make it clear: Looking at Google News results and a rather overwhelming pageview disparity between the two politicians, I think it's pretty clear which one is the primary topic. Do you have access to a different set of sources that convince you, BrownHairedGirl? Red Slash 01:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. We do seem to be entering the realms of "America has more people than Britain so of course an American politician is more notable than a British politician", which is expressly not mandated by Wikipedia, which aims to be an international project. Does the Montana governor have more written about him than the Lewisham mayor? Yes, almost certainly; he operates in a country with far more people to dump stuff online. Does that mean he's the primary topic? No, not necessarily. He's not the President of the United States; he's the governor of a single, fairly sparsely-populated state and probably doesn't really register in the minds of many people outside that state, even within the United States. For an article to be a primary topic requires that the subject is overwhelmingly the best-known subject with that name. I do not believe that is the case here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize profusely for giving that impression, Necrothesp. My point merely was that being the governor of Montana is a much more notable job than being the mayor of a smallish part of London. That's it. It's not America versus Britain, not at all. It's the governor of Montana (executive of a semi-sovereign state with 900,000 people and an absolutely ginormous area) versus the mayor of a smallish part of London (leader of an area with no sovereignty apart from Parliament that has 300,000-ish people and a small area). Google News strongly suggests the governor is the more notable topic. I know WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requires it to be highly more likely to be read, which he is. By a margin of more that 10 to 1. Red Slash 01:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Comment It's a million people now, almost precisely, just saying... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 06:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm officially recusing myself from this discussion per my COI statement above. But please, let's not get into comparing London to Montana; that takes us off track. Montanabw^(talk) 22:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• The status quo of Steve Bullock redirecting to Steve Bullock (Montana politician) is WP:UNDAB and can't stand. If this move is not successful, the dab Steve Bullock (disambiguation) should move back to the base title. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I am a proud American Democrat, though not from Montana. Gov. Bullock is a fine leader; but, he does not rise to the level of "household name" outside of his native state. I am sensitive Necrothesp's concerns regarding nationalist systemic bias here. In the cases of other more prominent governors with known national aspirations/organizations (Andrew Cuomo, Jerry Brown, or -- across the aisle -- Chris Christie), I'd argue for primary topic status. Gov. Bullock is not yet such a case. A very notable London-area mayor is roughly equivalently notable in my view, especially when one factors in a desire to maintain international comity. Xoloz (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Religion = ?

This is the only US Governor page I've read without an affiliation. Is he still Catholic? Is he Congregationalist now? Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 09:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is sourcing, not sure the original designation had a source. He might be a Congregationalist, per this source: [3] Montanabw^(talk) 08:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Schumer/Obama

@Smith0124: Where in the NYT article does it claim that "Schumer convinced Bullock to run" or that "Schumer and Obama believed he was the only formidable candidate"? I'm behind a paywall, but the archived version only says: Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, flew to visit him in Montana last month. And when Mr. Bullock was in Washington last month for the meeting of the National Governors Association, he also met with former President Barack Obama, as was reported by Politico. We can speculate that Schumer's trip was about convincing Bullock to run, but the source doesn't support that. And the only thing it says about Obama is that he merely met with Bullock, not that he thinks Bullock is the only formidable candidate who could run. Surachit (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You’re right, so I added an article from Politico that backs up the statement. Smith0124 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The Politico article doesn't support the claims, either. It doesn't say what Schumer discussed with Bullock during their meeting and it doesn't say that either Obama or Schumer believe Bullock is "the only formidable candidate against Daines".

The way it's written now (The move came after Bullock met with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and former president Barack Obama.) reflects what has been reported on by reliable sources. Readers can draw their own conclusions about what Obama and Schumer might have discussed with Bullock, but it's not our place to speculate about it. Surachit (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not speculation, it is what is said in the Politico article. It says that they believed the race would only be competitive if Bullock ran. This is the second time I've asked you to read the article before removing stuff. Smith0124 (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Would you care to quote the section here then? Where in the article does it say Obama and Schumer believe Bullock is the only formidable candidate against Daines? Where does it say Schumer convinced Bullock to run?

And yes, this is the second time you've asked me to read the article, but the first time you acknowledged that I was right. Surachit (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Single-purpose account edits

I removed a number of changes by a recently created SPA. I removed changes that were poorly sourced, poorly worded, editorialized and WP:SYNTH, and kept the content that wasn't. If the SPA wants to add the content, they need to seek consensus for it here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

New infobox image

I think we should change the image to this. It’s clearer, he’s actually looking at the camera, it’s a looser crop, and it feels like a more formal portrait. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

My proposal

Personally, I prefer the current one. A closer crop is more recognisable and the lighting is directly on his face. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Facial shot preferred. Proposed image is not superior in quality. Sundayclose (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)