Talk:Richard N. Swett

Factual

Academic: No, it's factual. Look! http://www.denvergov.org/vote/bio_t_dick.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.231.118 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

daily show

this person was mentioned on the daily show after posing a question to obama at a recent town hall. Who knows if this is worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.68.9 (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous Name?

Come on people, his name is too friggin hilarious not to mention something about. Maybe include something on the mention of him on the Daily Show. It seems too forced not to include at least a little mention of this, I mean that's gotta be the reason that most people even travel to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.18.26 (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought publicly ridiculing other people's names is something we were all supposed to have outgrown in elementary school. Seriously, though, Wikipedia's rules on sources would require us to find a reliable secondary source (such as a newspaper or magazine) reporting, for example, that someone on a major TV show had told a raunchy joke to poke fun at Swett's name—and then describe the issue in a neutral, non-libellous, and encyclopedic fashion. If stating the requirement in this way doesn't make the idea of putting it in WP absurd enough for people to just forget about it, there's also the little matter of WP's strict rules regarding material in biographies of living persons. Richwales (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could this, this, or this help? Sarujo (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

photo

The article would probably look better if the photo was moved into the infobox. It could always be moved back if an individual photo were found (such as his last official photo as Ambassador or something). Flatterworld (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)