This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 20, 2018 and March 20, 2024. |
The section labeled "Critical" looks like a smear job, and may be libelous. It may be factual, but needs to be fleshed out and fully sourced before it can go in an article. I've commented it out until somebody who knows more about Brown and isn't pushing an agenda can work on it. !melquiades 18:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The parts not in the section labeled "Critical" look like a pump job, and may be echoing the self-serving press releases from Brown over the years. It may be factual, but needs to be fleshed out and fully sourced for alternative interpretations of the facts before it can go in an article. For example, characterizing Brown's architecturally inappropriate remodeling of City Hall as heroically spearheading needed repairs and upgrades. 98.255.201.201 ( talk) 22:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)50-year resident of SF
!melquiades, The below were all sourced and were the topic of many radio shows, newspaper articles. 1.If you can provide evidence that Miss Carolyn Carpeneti was indeed doing 100% city work in that office then by all means contact the San Francisco Chronicle. Please take the time to read the articles cited. 2.As far as pushing an Agenda?...... Hey, they don't call him Slick Willie because of these entries which are factual and cited. 3. He has admitted that on live TV that he is the father of Miss Carolyn Carpeneti's child. The records as to all the details are sealed as are all child related records but he hasn't exactly been quiet about it. 4.Oh, and this is not a smear campaign, just facts that are there. As far as libelous? Well, if I had made it up, there wasn't a child, no office or articles to cite yes, but the articles are all there. Let us be real and admit that the man has a colorful life and he has even upset some folks within his own party.
So, I have no agenda but I don't think it would be honest to omit his colorful life while documenting every detail of the Monica affair with Bill Clinton. There shouldn't be "Special" standards for Willie Brown....I do believe this is one reason so many voted for term limits. Jessie Jackson doesn't receive specail treatment and his issues are well known and documented. That is one reason so many still admire Jessie and Clinton regardless of the bumps on the road, they (Bill Clinton and Jessie Jackson) can still awe the people with their message.
Removed items:
So, do read them (do say how many would be enough.....sources that is) and then we can discuss the re-insertion of them unless you want to take a poll on special treatment for Willie on Wikipedia. Oh, please tell me too what is it he does as TV co-host?....political commentator? Peace TalkAbout 19:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Aside from this discussion of what's libelous or not (and I don't think that the current text is in the least), I was surprised, when reading this, that the "criticisms" section was so focused on potentially shady relationships. Brown was also criticized plenty for his politics, particularly what many considered an intense harshness and punitive approach to the homeless. For that matter, he was even pied for it (see http://bioticbakingbrigade.org/communique110798.html ). I have minimal experience with Wikipedia editing, so I don't want to take a lot of time to write something that may not meet the community standards. But it would definitely improve the piece. -Matt
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone confirm or deny the claim that Willie Brown was the U.S. politician who took more money from the tobacco industry while in office than any other in history? Gregbard 03:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Say wait a minute I just re-read that response. Do you mean to say that is wouldn't be appropriate to put the sources of contributions in a criticism section? That make no sense AT ALL. Gregbard 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I significantly modified the biography section to describe Brown's childhood and relationship to race and African-American civil rights issues in his earlier years. I thought the mention of his having a child out of wedlock was pejorative and partisan, given that he was separated from his wife at the time and that it was a complete non-issue with his electorate. So I moved that to the biography section out of the criticism section and added citations. However, he was criticized widely, not for having the kid with the woman but for his favoritism towards her in getting city contracts. I softened and made more encyclopedic the tone of some anti-Brown comments throughout. Please keep notability in mind when writing criticism. The point is not whether or not you agree with the man or he did something wrong. The point in an encyclopedia article is to report any criticism that rises to the point where the criticism itself is part of his legacy. I narrowed that down to three issues, favoritism and patronage, amassing personal power, and being pro-business while mayor.
I removed the discussion and analysis of term limits but merely mentioned that their passage was in part a move to reign in Willie Brown. Remember, this is an article about him, not state politics. Term limits affect many other politicians so if they're worth discussing that should be in some other article on state politics.
One issue I'm trying to convey while keeping editorial comments down is the "teflon politican" aspect -- his style, his dress, his persuasiveness, his ability to charm his way past any scandal. Whether that's good or bad, it is a very strong and important part of his political career.
I think the article is shaping up nicely. I hope these changes are okay with people. If anyone would care to expand on his legislative agenda and key actions in office that would be great. Wikidemo 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I really hope to leave this article better than I found it, so can we agree on what we need to overcome any NPOV concerns brought about by my edits. I don't think User:TalkAbout and I have any deep disagreement so let's have a go at it, okay? Thanks much, Wikidemo 12:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The article was recently edited to add "rapists" to the list of criminal defendants Brown represented. I'm removing that because it's not supported by the source material, and even if it is true, the fact is salacious without being notable or germane. The quote from the source material is "He took cases defending pimps, prostitutes, petty thieves and gamblers the ones high-powered attorneys would not take." -- no mention of rapists. It's not notable that Brown represented bad people. That's what criminal defense attorneys do, part of our system. The quote is there to show he was representing small time criminals, unglamorous cases, people of the street. That is interesting in two ways. First, Brown built a near political empire one block at a time, starting small. Second, it's part of the sweep of his career from the bottom to the top. Wikidemo 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
my appologies for not taking this route at the outset, i honestly didn't think it would be that controversial. my argument is for the use of 'wlbj' over 'wb':
since using the subject's actual, official, and also commonly used name, 'wlbj', is 'available without disambiguation,' that is the name that should be used for naming this article. -- emerson7 | Talk 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving this over from the article page. Though true - and quite amusing - it didn't belong in the main section about his political career and I don't think it's significant enough to mention given the overall size of the article. I would have put it in the "criticisms" section and modified the header a little, but the citation isn't done properly and it's not to a legitimate source (the news article is a legit source but not a copyright-violating talk thread repost post of the news article) ~~ Wikidemo 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
In 1998, Brown was the victim of a pie-throwing orchestrated by the [[Biotic Baking Brigade]]. <ref> http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9901/msg00029.html (Retrieved [[July 10]], [[2007]])</ref>
>>>>Brown's 'declaration of war' on the monthly Critical Mass bike rides in July, 1997, is absolutely historically significant to his mayoral administration, and made news headlines for weeks afterwards. His crackdown has a lasting political legacy in the city and resulted in exponential growth in the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition's membership rolls, which in turn has led to sweeping changes in transportation engineering throughout SF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.118.217 ( talk) 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
---Hey Wikidemo, you make a fair point, that things need to be cited, so I'll leave it out until I can find a seaworthy citation. For similar reasons, unless YOU can provide a citation for "blocking" (do you mean "corking" see critical mass article) the Bay Bridge on ramps, I've removed that claim. It makes it sound as though the cyclists barricaded off the on-ramps, and unless you can cite that, its gone with the wind. I did refer to San Francisco Deputy Police Chief Rich Holder's quotation in the 7/27/97 SFE article that some of the cyclists "stormed" the San Francisco Bay Bridge, which currently lacks bicycle lanes on it's Western suspension span. I believe there is a semantic difference between critical mass "corking" off traffic and "blocking traffic" if what you mean by "blocking traffic" is bicyclists riding slower than car drivers, that's not blocking traffic, that "is traffic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.118.217 ( talk) 19:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
---Wikimedo, the SFC article makes no mention that the unlawful assembly arrests occurred near 1-80. That is my criticism, you have written the article in a way that implies the arrests occurred in response to the riders storming the bridge. According to Howard Bessler's sucessful lawsuit against the city, the arrests occurred near Montgomery and Sansome, not at I-80, unless you can cite a source than I belive it's fair game for good editing. I will try to provide citations for the location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.118.217 ( talk) 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedo, It's my belief the police misconduct and false arrests, and impounding of bicycles during the famous Critical Mass Crackdowns of 1997 is hisorically relevant to Brown's political legacy and his regard for civil rights as mayor, inasmuch as he is famously quoted as wanting to "confiscate their bicycles." Accordingly, I believe the confiscation, and crackdown generally, merits mention in this article on some level. Does it need 4 paragraphs, no, but it does deserve mention, as Brown was criticized from the left for his civil rights posture in a city with a decidedly liberal body politic. While I'm at it, I could mention that incidents like this helped to give rise to formidable opposition to the Willie Brown political machine in the form of Matt Gonzalez's Green party mayoral challenge to Willie Brown prodigal son Gavin Newsom, who narrowly won the mayor's race in a run-off election with Gonzalez. I will save that topic for another day. The current article is pretty much fine also, not to worry, I won't sic a gang of critical mass cyclists on the article...not at least until "Basic Brown" hits the bookstores next week! : )
Wikimedo, yes sir, get ready for that book! It's realease date is February 5th, the same day as the CA democratic presidential primary. Look's like your doing your spadework, getting things spruced up here. I'll be keeping an eye out for any obvious vandalism from knuckledraggers. I'm sure Willie will be hitting the air on some of the local radio talk shows also, and he may make a surprise endorsement of Barack Obama also. (just giving you other ideas for topics) You ask some worthy questions about whether the events of this article should be broken out into a political era, tough call. It's my sentiment that any policy 'stuff' in regards his mayoral administration or his time in Sacramento ought to stay --right here-- in this article, as both historians and the layman tend to hold big city mayors generally responsible for the successes and failures, policies, and scandals associated with, or occurring in relation to their time in office. Critical Chris ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
...Wikidemo, would you please explain to me what is point of view or "poorly sourced" about my latest critical mass crackdown edits on the Willie Brown article? If you believe that...the San Francisco Chronicle, respected investigative reporters (not editorialists) Phil Matier and Andrew Ross, PBS' MacNeil Lehrer New Hour/Jim Lerhrer (who has moderated major presidential debates just before general elections) and Time Magazine...are "poor" sources that could you please explain to me what your idea of an objective, respected, "good" news source is? Besides, those are about the only news sources out there with an historical record of Brown's 1997 crackdown, besides those in Critical Mass related books, 'zines, Police chat board sites, and other more POV sources on both sides of the fray. Brown --was-- criticized in a --national-- news sources, unless you consider Time Magazine to be the SF Weekly. On Brown's "threats" to jail the riders and impound their bikes, that has multiple sources and my wording is directly from the Time article...I will try to clean it up a bit to address your POV concerns, but please explain your claims that this article is poorly sourced.
Also, Wikidemo, you seem to be strongly concerned about the length of this article, why so much concern? Willie Brown was no small town dog catcher, he was a big city mayor and Assembly speaker of the most populous US State. He's no small potatoes. He's also an eclectic, complex politician who's world view cut across several ideological directions. he at least deserves an article on par with Byron Rumford and maybe one as long as a prominent US Senator, or State Governor, or Presidential Cabinet offical, maybe not as long as President. Yet I digress. Critical Chris ( talk) 09:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
...Wikidemo, I've copied some of my "poor sources" here to simplify the discussion. Can you please explain to me how the following are "poor sources:"
1)MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour (29 August 1997). MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour Transcript. PBS Public Televison.
2)Jim Herron Zamora, Chuck Finnie and Emily Gurnon, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF Examiner wire services contributed to this report.. Brown: Take bikes of busted cyclists. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 1997-07-27.
3)Steve Lopez (11 August 1997). The Scariest Biker Gang Of Them All. Time Magazine.
4)Glen Martin, Henry K. Lee, Torri Minton, Manny Fernandez, Chronicle Staff Writers. S.F. Bike Chaos -- 250 Arrests: 5,000 bikers snarl commute. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 1997-07-26.
5)Matier, Phillip and Ross, Andrew (18 July 1997). CRITICAL CHUCKLE: Lots of chuckles down at the Hall of Justice over San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown's demand that Critical Mass cyclists start obeying traffic laws.. San Francisco Chronicle.
6)Anastasia Hendrix and Rachel Gordon, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF (1 August 1997). Mayor again criticizes Critical Mass bicycle riders. San Francisco Examiner.
7)Paul Krassner (24 August 1997). YOU CAN'T GET A PERMIT FOR THE REVOLUTION. San Francisco Examiner. (OP/ED)
The last source, I do mention in the article that Krassner is an "editorialist." All the others are hard news sources that you can try to chop away at if you think your axe is sharp enough, but have you actually checked the sources before calling them poor. I've spent quite a bit of time on my documentation here, ferreting out POV horse poo from mainstream news sources and I'm quite frankly offended by your characterization of these as "poor sources." Critical Chris ( talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
...Oh yeah, something else, the Critical Mass Crackdown is in a ----"criticisms"---- section. Let's not forget that. This criticism section attempts to relate one of many sections of historic public political sentiment, a dischord and backlash against Brown that led to the exponential growth of the SF Bike coalition, a force to be reckoned with today in SF politics. I'm not in any way saying there shouldn't be balance to the article overall, but I believe the article would best be served by adding balance, "praise", call it what you want, either side by side in the criticism section or elsewhere, especially if you can find good sources to back up your edits, as I believe I have. Critical Chris ( talk) 10:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
...Do actually take the time to read the sourced articles and where is your discussion of your reversions to my edits and sources? I'm waiting. Critical Chris ( talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A single editor recently made a series of additions [13], all of which tend to cast the subject in a more negative light. I removed the part that I believe to be inappropriate material, and the user simply restored the material in toto [14] calling it "decently sourced."
I believe the correct procedure per WP:CONSENSUS is to leave the material out now that it has been challenged until and unless a consensus is built for including it. Inasmuch as this is a living person WP:BLP applies, and as a controversial former mayor of a liberal and politically active city there are always concerns over neutrality, balance, POV, etc.
Nevertheless, I'll go first and explain the reasons behind each of the deletions.
1)"Brown was also criticized widely in the local and national news media for.... There is no citation to support that the criticism was widespread. In fact, it's not clear that there was widespread criticism at all. The single source for the proposition that there was criticism at all is a McNeal Lehrer News Hour transcript [15] that neither contains, nor reports on, criticism of the mayor. Every mayor is controversial and there are people on both sides of every important issue. For "criticism" to be notable and to be called "widespread" or "national" it has to rise above the normal din of partisan politics.
(And a New York Times Story also) Critical Chris ( talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
2)He threatened to keep both the bikes and the riders locked up, because "a little jail time" would teach Critical Mass riders a lesson. There is no reliable source for this statement. It is sourced to an anti-Brown op-ed piece [16] written by a well-known activist. The piece ascribes various motives to Brown without support, so even if one believes that Brown uttered the words "a little jail time", the statement that it was to teach a lesson, that he wanted to keep the bikes and riders locked up, etc., are all not properly sourced. The quote is an attempt to show that the mayor was vindictive or unreasonable, which needs to have a reliable source given this is a BLP.
3)cordoned off by lines of riot-helmeted San Francisco police officers. The source [17] does not state that the police were in riot helmets or lines. Even if sourced, the evocative detail serves no purpose other than to make the event seem more ominous. It is not relevant to the outcome that the police were in lines or wore riot helmets. Given that this is politically charged, better to tell the story straight.
4)Brown was seen by many as hypocritical and lacking credibility on the issue of enforcing traffic laws against Critical Mass bicyclists since Brown gained a noted reputation for flying through town with a motorcycle escort just to make his meetings on time. Calling a former politician "hypocritical" and "lacking credibility" is best left to the partisans, not Wikipedia. The source [18] simply does not support this. It does not call the mayor non-credible or hypocritical, though it hints at such. However, it is in a very brief section called "critical chuckle" that is obviously supposed to be ironical and humorous. This is a well known scandal column that takes potshots at everyone. It doesn't work to say that a derogatory opinion of a person is widespread because a single editorial comment is made in a newspaper. Repeating a rhetorical political argument disparaging a politicain for the sake of Wikipedia is POV and impermissible per BLP
5)At a July 31st, 1997 press conference, Brown antagonistically referred to Critical Mass cyclists as "little weenies," and implied that bicyclists do not vote or comprise a significant portion of his constituency. The quote is sourced but "antagonistically" is editorializing. The matter is trivial. It is a WP:WEIGHT problem to selectively take a single juvenile sounding quote as something representative of a politician for the article here. If one wants to cover the subject encyclopedia and make a claim that he was prone to off-the-cuff insults, better to find a more significant example or better yet find a secondary source.
6)San Francicso Examiner editorialist Paul Krassner once compared Brown's description of bicyclists as "little weenies" to Richard Nixon's dubbing students at Kent State "a bunch of bums." Impermissible non-reliable source material per BLP. It is not useful to reprint editorial criticisms of a politician.
For whatever reason some people are determined to insert derogatory material about this politician over an 10+ year old controversy between him and a partisan political group of bicycle advocates. Although the incident is marginally relevant and important enough to report, Wikipedia is the wrong place to rehash old political battles. The section on criticism is already longer than the entire section on his political career. This is an encyclopedia, not a political debate. The article already reports the incident rather fully and neutrally. What we need here is a more full account of the person's political life and work, which is tremendously important to the history of the city and state. The last thing we need here is to become another POV edit war and BLP issue over a very minor part of the person's career. Wikidemo ( talk) 10:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(to avoid having things in multiple places, I am responding here to the new comments in the Critical Mass crackdown in 1997, which also appear more-or-less verbatim on my talk page, below)
After there seemed to be a truce of some sort, you (I'm assuming from the edit history that the "Critical Chris" account and some of the anonymous IP addresses are all you) went ahead and added a bunch more stuff that further slanted the article in favor of Critical Mass and the Bicycle Coalition and against the former mayor. Matier and Ross were clearly in op ed mode with the editorial comment you cite, that's facially obvious from the text and it's silly to argue otherwise. Reporters do not humorously accuse politicians of hypocrisy with funny but logically falacious rhetoric. There are two aspects to sourcing information. One is to find a reliable source and the definitions are there and in WP:V. The other is to actually make sure that the source supports the contention. The material I object to all fails one or other other - see the new section I have already started below for a more complete discussion. The Time piece was a highly slanted op-ed, and the fact of a single editorial criticizing a large city mayor does not support the contention that a person is widely criticized for something. It's just an unreliable source.
To be specific, regarding your list of sources:
I won't go into more detail here - I already do in the section above.
The nature of POV concern is apparent when you consider the other side of the story, which is simply not reported here. Many people, including the mayor, the police, and most of the citizens of San Francisco (according to some recent unscientific polling) consider Critical Mass to be a bunch of violent anarchist hooligans, and support a crackdown. A section on the event could just as easily begin "in 1997 a disorganized group of rowdy bycicle riders known as 'Critical Mass' began to provoke confrontations with citizens and law enforcement officers by blocking roadways throughout the city once a month during Friday afternoon rush hour. The Mayor, with strong support from the citizens..." Not that I believe this account either, but it is widely believed too and there are plenty of news sources for it.
Wikipedia is in the business of creating an encyclopedia, not importing partisan political disagreements from the outside world. This is an article about Willie Brown the politician, not Critical Mass the wrongfully arrested protestors. Yet this section seems to be the only section anyone is expanding, certainly the only part you have worked on. Regarding length, if every controversy (and achievement, program, biographical detail) of equal importance to an understanding of Willie Brown got the same several-hundred-word treatment as this one the article would not be a normal article, it would have to be a 20,000+ word treatise. Rather than battle over POV slants it is best to simply report what happened, and if the reader wants to hear the rhetoric they can read the sources for themselves. To make this a decent article would imply actually covering more of the person's personal and political life, this time without so much slant. Wikidemo ( talk) 18:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"certainly the only part you have worked on" Incorrect sir, I'm the one who added the title and release date for Willie's autobiography last week and have changed the tenses also. I've also added the sections and references on Willie's "Aesthetic Style" and "Basic Brown." When I finish that book and go through some radio interview transcripts, if can get my hands on them, I will have more to work with also, straight from Willie's typewriter. Critical Chris ( talk) 19:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I've reverted one of Wikidemo's deletions in regards to Brown's implications that cyclists do not vote. It caused much resentment in the crowd and was seen as symbolic of his views of cyclists. Why do you believe it is irrelevant to Brown's Crackdown and the Bike Politics that emerged from the incident Wikidemo? Critical Chris ( talk) 09:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say also, don't be afraid if the article expands into a lengthy one, as Brown had a long and noteworthy career as a legislator and assembly speaker of the most populous US state, and two terms as the mayor of one of the most politically progressive, and cutting edge, and biggest US cities. He's no small town dog catcher, or just a city council-member/supe, so don't be afraid to let this article grow into a grand one on par with an article about a NYC mayor, or a US senator, etc....but let's leave the Critical Mass stuff as is for now Critical Chris ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I wa a California resident for many years. This reads like a grudge Biography, it has very little on the man. The Critical Mass stuff is small potatoes, worthy of a sentence or two at most. Take a look at this Biographical page http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bro0bio-1 for a more appropriate read on Willie Brown. Edit the critical mass criticism down to a paragraph at the most and build up the real history. 70.6.234.147 ( talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC) archangelrichard
Brown was the dominant politician in California for more than a decade, but there is nothing about his legislative career here except the fact that he held office and the final efforts to hold on with Republican front men. His early life and legal career should be filled in some and his Speakership should have as much depth as his Mayorality. The Critial Mass part is two or three times as long as it should be given the recommended length for articles here and how much other material still needs to be added.--
Hjal (
talk)
09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Section is not NPOV. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. See Undue weight, Balance, Fairness of tone, and Let the facts speak for themselves. Criticism section is way too long considering the size of the rest of the article. User:calbear22 ( talk) 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of reverting to a previous version of this article. I'm not HTML expert, but it seems Calbear22's latest reference addition was not properly formatted, and it jumbled the refence list. I did keep Calbear22's edit at the end of the Critical Mass section. I have no problem with Calbear's reference, but please get it right, as it --apparently-- affected the entire refenece list. Critical Chris ( talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemo, looks like this reference you added has no URL: LA Times article by David Colker, 7 September 1997 "In LA, Movement Lacks Critical Element--Bike Commuters" ...Could you please add one if you wish to include the reference? Many thanks in advance Critical Chris ( talk) 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC) [1]
References
I've dramatically expanded article size. In doing so, I've also addressed many POV issues, and if not completely, have changed the article so much that POV needs to be accessed again. I also removed the tag from the talk page, which was really misplaced. User:calbear22 ( talk) 08:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I made several changes to this section for several reasons. Firstly, the "wording praised by some and criticized by others" is weak wording and adds little to the article. We can list a few groups on one side or the other if you like, but the current wording isn't very encyclopedic. If it were allowed, that line would be used in almost every section of this article. The article focuses on Brown, not Critical Mass being praised or criticized by others. Now if we talk about criticism or praise for Brown's crackdown plan, that's a different story. Secondly, "declaring war" is just the fancy words of a few journalist and we're not trying to report what the journalist are saying. Further, a goal of NPOV is to allow Facts to Speak for themselves, and that includes grabbing a journalists quote to speak for the facts. It is really more of a scare quote which is not very NPOV. Thirdly, having excessive pull quotes from Brown detracts from the content and adds little. We only need one quoted segment to conclude Brown's view. Fourthly, word choice "blessing" is not a neutral wording of the matter. Fifthly, the anger by thousands is not what the source really says, its more of an interview of a few people from what I saw from skimming over it. If there was a poll in the article, then it's results might be relevant. We can talk further about all this if you like and get other editors opinions. I'm okay with you adding more facts to this section to make it a little longer, instead of the quotes that were removed. I know you had to cut it down quite a bit. User:calbear22 ( talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The article should note that Willie Brown is visually impaired to the point that he cannot read and cannot identify a person standing in front of him. http://www.blindness.org/coping/story.asp?id=22 Randall Bart Talk 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please stop arbitrarily deleting entire sections of the article. Willie Brown's involvement with Jones and the Temple were HEAVILY scrutinized in 1978 and 1979, while the Jonestown tragedy was like the Bay Area's 9-11. It should not be deleted. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I added back a cut down section and even made it a subsection of the Assembly section to address "weight" concerns. And believe me, the section is considerably shorter than it could be. For example, Brown wrote several support letters for the Temple blasting those wanting to investigate it to President Carter, members of Guyana's government and others that I don't even mention. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I gave the section some minor NPOV clean up. I was hoping you could describe how The Temple was "instrumental in delivering a close victory." Did they have a major get out the vote effort, give a lot of money, or make a lot of calls? Also, I think the section is absent Brown's response afterward. He probably voiced regret for supporting the group. Did the public react negatively to Brown supporting the group? Thanks. User:calbear22 ( talk) 08:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this article reads like it was written by PR Staff? The continued emphasis on his supposed Muni funding increases and other bullet points are particularly disconcerting.
Is the purpose of this an ambigous way of inserting a link to 9/11 being an inside job? It might be interesting enough but even the source does not give it too much weight. If this belongs in another article so be it. It does not seem appropriate for this article unless all mayors are receiving a sentance or two regarding their 9/11 response. Also, there is clearly an agenda witht he second paragraph of this section. Cptnono ( talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted this unsourced edit made at 13:20, November 6, 2009 by 96.19.240.102 "I think most white politicians do not understand that the race pride we all have trumps everything else." The quotation, if properly sourced, has a notable and significant political context that might be essential to fully understanding San Francisco's late 90's/early 2000's gentrification-era class and race politics, or another dimension of Brown's lengthy, and still unfinished, poltical career (I read Willie is considering throwing his hat in the ring for the upcoming mayoral race here in 'the Town.') Yet, this quotation needs good sourcing if it's to be included in this potential featured article candidate. CriticalChris 20:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Brown was originally one of White's targets in the Moscone–Milk assassinations. Section: Moscone–Milk assassinations#Trial and its aftermath. May be worth a mention. czar · · 05:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
As a perusal of this article suggests, Brown was a shoeshiner at a young age. The article on shoeshiners shows many other prominent people have been shoeshiners. So, why remove the category? It isn't an insult. He was literally a shoeshiner. Hoktiwe ( talk) 15:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Saw someone had edited the page to past tense following the death of Raiders hall of famer Willie Brown. The football player and the former Mayor of San Francisco are not the same person. The politician Willie Brown is still very much alive (at the time of this edit, at least). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyvalian ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Date of Mayor Brown’s Graduation from SF State should be 1955, not 1995. PTJ333 ( talk) 03:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 20, 2018 and March 20, 2024. |
The section labeled "Critical" looks like a smear job, and may be libelous. It may be factual, but needs to be fleshed out and fully sourced before it can go in an article. I've commented it out until somebody who knows more about Brown and isn't pushing an agenda can work on it. !melquiades 18:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The parts not in the section labeled "Critical" look like a pump job, and may be echoing the self-serving press releases from Brown over the years. It may be factual, but needs to be fleshed out and fully sourced for alternative interpretations of the facts before it can go in an article. For example, characterizing Brown's architecturally inappropriate remodeling of City Hall as heroically spearheading needed repairs and upgrades. 98.255.201.201 ( talk) 22:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)50-year resident of SF
!melquiades, The below were all sourced and were the topic of many radio shows, newspaper articles. 1.If you can provide evidence that Miss Carolyn Carpeneti was indeed doing 100% city work in that office then by all means contact the San Francisco Chronicle. Please take the time to read the articles cited. 2.As far as pushing an Agenda?...... Hey, they don't call him Slick Willie because of these entries which are factual and cited. 3. He has admitted that on live TV that he is the father of Miss Carolyn Carpeneti's child. The records as to all the details are sealed as are all child related records but he hasn't exactly been quiet about it. 4.Oh, and this is not a smear campaign, just facts that are there. As far as libelous? Well, if I had made it up, there wasn't a child, no office or articles to cite yes, but the articles are all there. Let us be real and admit that the man has a colorful life and he has even upset some folks within his own party.
So, I have no agenda but I don't think it would be honest to omit his colorful life while documenting every detail of the Monica affair with Bill Clinton. There shouldn't be "Special" standards for Willie Brown....I do believe this is one reason so many voted for term limits. Jessie Jackson doesn't receive specail treatment and his issues are well known and documented. That is one reason so many still admire Jessie and Clinton regardless of the bumps on the road, they (Bill Clinton and Jessie Jackson) can still awe the people with their message.
Removed items:
So, do read them (do say how many would be enough.....sources that is) and then we can discuss the re-insertion of them unless you want to take a poll on special treatment for Willie on Wikipedia. Oh, please tell me too what is it he does as TV co-host?....political commentator? Peace TalkAbout 19:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Aside from this discussion of what's libelous or not (and I don't think that the current text is in the least), I was surprised, when reading this, that the "criticisms" section was so focused on potentially shady relationships. Brown was also criticized plenty for his politics, particularly what many considered an intense harshness and punitive approach to the homeless. For that matter, he was even pied for it (see http://bioticbakingbrigade.org/communique110798.html ). I have minimal experience with Wikipedia editing, so I don't want to take a lot of time to write something that may not meet the community standards. But it would definitely improve the piece. -Matt
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone confirm or deny the claim that Willie Brown was the U.S. politician who took more money from the tobacco industry while in office than any other in history? Gregbard 03:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Say wait a minute I just re-read that response. Do you mean to say that is wouldn't be appropriate to put the sources of contributions in a criticism section? That make no sense AT ALL. Gregbard 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I significantly modified the biography section to describe Brown's childhood and relationship to race and African-American civil rights issues in his earlier years. I thought the mention of his having a child out of wedlock was pejorative and partisan, given that he was separated from his wife at the time and that it was a complete non-issue with his electorate. So I moved that to the biography section out of the criticism section and added citations. However, he was criticized widely, not for having the kid with the woman but for his favoritism towards her in getting city contracts. I softened and made more encyclopedic the tone of some anti-Brown comments throughout. Please keep notability in mind when writing criticism. The point is not whether or not you agree with the man or he did something wrong. The point in an encyclopedia article is to report any criticism that rises to the point where the criticism itself is part of his legacy. I narrowed that down to three issues, favoritism and patronage, amassing personal power, and being pro-business while mayor.
I removed the discussion and analysis of term limits but merely mentioned that their passage was in part a move to reign in Willie Brown. Remember, this is an article about him, not state politics. Term limits affect many other politicians so if they're worth discussing that should be in some other article on state politics.
One issue I'm trying to convey while keeping editorial comments down is the "teflon politican" aspect -- his style, his dress, his persuasiveness, his ability to charm his way past any scandal. Whether that's good or bad, it is a very strong and important part of his political career.
I think the article is shaping up nicely. I hope these changes are okay with people. If anyone would care to expand on his legislative agenda and key actions in office that would be great. Wikidemo 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I really hope to leave this article better than I found it, so can we agree on what we need to overcome any NPOV concerns brought about by my edits. I don't think User:TalkAbout and I have any deep disagreement so let's have a go at it, okay? Thanks much, Wikidemo 12:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The article was recently edited to add "rapists" to the list of criminal defendants Brown represented. I'm removing that because it's not supported by the source material, and even if it is true, the fact is salacious without being notable or germane. The quote from the source material is "He took cases defending pimps, prostitutes, petty thieves and gamblers the ones high-powered attorneys would not take." -- no mention of rapists. It's not notable that Brown represented bad people. That's what criminal defense attorneys do, part of our system. The quote is there to show he was representing small time criminals, unglamorous cases, people of the street. That is interesting in two ways. First, Brown built a near political empire one block at a time, starting small. Second, it's part of the sweep of his career from the bottom to the top. Wikidemo 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
my appologies for not taking this route at the outset, i honestly didn't think it would be that controversial. my argument is for the use of 'wlbj' over 'wb':
since using the subject's actual, official, and also commonly used name, 'wlbj', is 'available without disambiguation,' that is the name that should be used for naming this article. -- emerson7 | Talk 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving this over from the article page. Though true - and quite amusing - it didn't belong in the main section about his political career and I don't think it's significant enough to mention given the overall size of the article. I would have put it in the "criticisms" section and modified the header a little, but the citation isn't done properly and it's not to a legitimate source (the news article is a legit source but not a copyright-violating talk thread repost post of the news article) ~~ Wikidemo 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
In 1998, Brown was the victim of a pie-throwing orchestrated by the [[Biotic Baking Brigade]]. <ref> http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9901/msg00029.html (Retrieved [[July 10]], [[2007]])</ref>
>>>>Brown's 'declaration of war' on the monthly Critical Mass bike rides in July, 1997, is absolutely historically significant to his mayoral administration, and made news headlines for weeks afterwards. His crackdown has a lasting political legacy in the city and resulted in exponential growth in the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition's membership rolls, which in turn has led to sweeping changes in transportation engineering throughout SF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.118.217 ( talk) 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
---Hey Wikidemo, you make a fair point, that things need to be cited, so I'll leave it out until I can find a seaworthy citation. For similar reasons, unless YOU can provide a citation for "blocking" (do you mean "corking" see critical mass article) the Bay Bridge on ramps, I've removed that claim. It makes it sound as though the cyclists barricaded off the on-ramps, and unless you can cite that, its gone with the wind. I did refer to San Francisco Deputy Police Chief Rich Holder's quotation in the 7/27/97 SFE article that some of the cyclists "stormed" the San Francisco Bay Bridge, which currently lacks bicycle lanes on it's Western suspension span. I believe there is a semantic difference between critical mass "corking" off traffic and "blocking traffic" if what you mean by "blocking traffic" is bicyclists riding slower than car drivers, that's not blocking traffic, that "is traffic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.118.217 ( talk) 19:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
---Wikimedo, the SFC article makes no mention that the unlawful assembly arrests occurred near 1-80. That is my criticism, you have written the article in a way that implies the arrests occurred in response to the riders storming the bridge. According to Howard Bessler's sucessful lawsuit against the city, the arrests occurred near Montgomery and Sansome, not at I-80, unless you can cite a source than I belive it's fair game for good editing. I will try to provide citations for the location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.118.217 ( talk) 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedo, It's my belief the police misconduct and false arrests, and impounding of bicycles during the famous Critical Mass Crackdowns of 1997 is hisorically relevant to Brown's political legacy and his regard for civil rights as mayor, inasmuch as he is famously quoted as wanting to "confiscate their bicycles." Accordingly, I believe the confiscation, and crackdown generally, merits mention in this article on some level. Does it need 4 paragraphs, no, but it does deserve mention, as Brown was criticized from the left for his civil rights posture in a city with a decidedly liberal body politic. While I'm at it, I could mention that incidents like this helped to give rise to formidable opposition to the Willie Brown political machine in the form of Matt Gonzalez's Green party mayoral challenge to Willie Brown prodigal son Gavin Newsom, who narrowly won the mayor's race in a run-off election with Gonzalez. I will save that topic for another day. The current article is pretty much fine also, not to worry, I won't sic a gang of critical mass cyclists on the article...not at least until "Basic Brown" hits the bookstores next week! : )
Wikimedo, yes sir, get ready for that book! It's realease date is February 5th, the same day as the CA democratic presidential primary. Look's like your doing your spadework, getting things spruced up here. I'll be keeping an eye out for any obvious vandalism from knuckledraggers. I'm sure Willie will be hitting the air on some of the local radio talk shows also, and he may make a surprise endorsement of Barack Obama also. (just giving you other ideas for topics) You ask some worthy questions about whether the events of this article should be broken out into a political era, tough call. It's my sentiment that any policy 'stuff' in regards his mayoral administration or his time in Sacramento ought to stay --right here-- in this article, as both historians and the layman tend to hold big city mayors generally responsible for the successes and failures, policies, and scandals associated with, or occurring in relation to their time in office. Critical Chris ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
...Wikidemo, would you please explain to me what is point of view or "poorly sourced" about my latest critical mass crackdown edits on the Willie Brown article? If you believe that...the San Francisco Chronicle, respected investigative reporters (not editorialists) Phil Matier and Andrew Ross, PBS' MacNeil Lehrer New Hour/Jim Lerhrer (who has moderated major presidential debates just before general elections) and Time Magazine...are "poor" sources that could you please explain to me what your idea of an objective, respected, "good" news source is? Besides, those are about the only news sources out there with an historical record of Brown's 1997 crackdown, besides those in Critical Mass related books, 'zines, Police chat board sites, and other more POV sources on both sides of the fray. Brown --was-- criticized in a --national-- news sources, unless you consider Time Magazine to be the SF Weekly. On Brown's "threats" to jail the riders and impound their bikes, that has multiple sources and my wording is directly from the Time article...I will try to clean it up a bit to address your POV concerns, but please explain your claims that this article is poorly sourced.
Also, Wikidemo, you seem to be strongly concerned about the length of this article, why so much concern? Willie Brown was no small town dog catcher, he was a big city mayor and Assembly speaker of the most populous US State. He's no small potatoes. He's also an eclectic, complex politician who's world view cut across several ideological directions. he at least deserves an article on par with Byron Rumford and maybe one as long as a prominent US Senator, or State Governor, or Presidential Cabinet offical, maybe not as long as President. Yet I digress. Critical Chris ( talk) 09:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
...Wikidemo, I've copied some of my "poor sources" here to simplify the discussion. Can you please explain to me how the following are "poor sources:"
1)MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour (29 August 1997). MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour Transcript. PBS Public Televison.
2)Jim Herron Zamora, Chuck Finnie and Emily Gurnon, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF Examiner wire services contributed to this report.. Brown: Take bikes of busted cyclists. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 1997-07-27.
3)Steve Lopez (11 August 1997). The Scariest Biker Gang Of Them All. Time Magazine.
4)Glen Martin, Henry K. Lee, Torri Minton, Manny Fernandez, Chronicle Staff Writers. S.F. Bike Chaos -- 250 Arrests: 5,000 bikers snarl commute. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 1997-07-26.
5)Matier, Phillip and Ross, Andrew (18 July 1997). CRITICAL CHUCKLE: Lots of chuckles down at the Hall of Justice over San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown's demand that Critical Mass cyclists start obeying traffic laws.. San Francisco Chronicle.
6)Anastasia Hendrix and Rachel Gordon, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF (1 August 1997). Mayor again criticizes Critical Mass bicycle riders. San Francisco Examiner.
7)Paul Krassner (24 August 1997). YOU CAN'T GET A PERMIT FOR THE REVOLUTION. San Francisco Examiner. (OP/ED)
The last source, I do mention in the article that Krassner is an "editorialist." All the others are hard news sources that you can try to chop away at if you think your axe is sharp enough, but have you actually checked the sources before calling them poor. I've spent quite a bit of time on my documentation here, ferreting out POV horse poo from mainstream news sources and I'm quite frankly offended by your characterization of these as "poor sources." Critical Chris ( talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
...Oh yeah, something else, the Critical Mass Crackdown is in a ----"criticisms"---- section. Let's not forget that. This criticism section attempts to relate one of many sections of historic public political sentiment, a dischord and backlash against Brown that led to the exponential growth of the SF Bike coalition, a force to be reckoned with today in SF politics. I'm not in any way saying there shouldn't be balance to the article overall, but I believe the article would best be served by adding balance, "praise", call it what you want, either side by side in the criticism section or elsewhere, especially if you can find good sources to back up your edits, as I believe I have. Critical Chris ( talk) 10:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
...Do actually take the time to read the sourced articles and where is your discussion of your reversions to my edits and sources? I'm waiting. Critical Chris ( talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A single editor recently made a series of additions [13], all of which tend to cast the subject in a more negative light. I removed the part that I believe to be inappropriate material, and the user simply restored the material in toto [14] calling it "decently sourced."
I believe the correct procedure per WP:CONSENSUS is to leave the material out now that it has been challenged until and unless a consensus is built for including it. Inasmuch as this is a living person WP:BLP applies, and as a controversial former mayor of a liberal and politically active city there are always concerns over neutrality, balance, POV, etc.
Nevertheless, I'll go first and explain the reasons behind each of the deletions.
1)"Brown was also criticized widely in the local and national news media for.... There is no citation to support that the criticism was widespread. In fact, it's not clear that there was widespread criticism at all. The single source for the proposition that there was criticism at all is a McNeal Lehrer News Hour transcript [15] that neither contains, nor reports on, criticism of the mayor. Every mayor is controversial and there are people on both sides of every important issue. For "criticism" to be notable and to be called "widespread" or "national" it has to rise above the normal din of partisan politics.
(And a New York Times Story also) Critical Chris ( talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
2)He threatened to keep both the bikes and the riders locked up, because "a little jail time" would teach Critical Mass riders a lesson. There is no reliable source for this statement. It is sourced to an anti-Brown op-ed piece [16] written by a well-known activist. The piece ascribes various motives to Brown without support, so even if one believes that Brown uttered the words "a little jail time", the statement that it was to teach a lesson, that he wanted to keep the bikes and riders locked up, etc., are all not properly sourced. The quote is an attempt to show that the mayor was vindictive or unreasonable, which needs to have a reliable source given this is a BLP.
3)cordoned off by lines of riot-helmeted San Francisco police officers. The source [17] does not state that the police were in riot helmets or lines. Even if sourced, the evocative detail serves no purpose other than to make the event seem more ominous. It is not relevant to the outcome that the police were in lines or wore riot helmets. Given that this is politically charged, better to tell the story straight.
4)Brown was seen by many as hypocritical and lacking credibility on the issue of enforcing traffic laws against Critical Mass bicyclists since Brown gained a noted reputation for flying through town with a motorcycle escort just to make his meetings on time. Calling a former politician "hypocritical" and "lacking credibility" is best left to the partisans, not Wikipedia. The source [18] simply does not support this. It does not call the mayor non-credible or hypocritical, though it hints at such. However, it is in a very brief section called "critical chuckle" that is obviously supposed to be ironical and humorous. This is a well known scandal column that takes potshots at everyone. It doesn't work to say that a derogatory opinion of a person is widespread because a single editorial comment is made in a newspaper. Repeating a rhetorical political argument disparaging a politicain for the sake of Wikipedia is POV and impermissible per BLP
5)At a July 31st, 1997 press conference, Brown antagonistically referred to Critical Mass cyclists as "little weenies," and implied that bicyclists do not vote or comprise a significant portion of his constituency. The quote is sourced but "antagonistically" is editorializing. The matter is trivial. It is a WP:WEIGHT problem to selectively take a single juvenile sounding quote as something representative of a politician for the article here. If one wants to cover the subject encyclopedia and make a claim that he was prone to off-the-cuff insults, better to find a more significant example or better yet find a secondary source.
6)San Francicso Examiner editorialist Paul Krassner once compared Brown's description of bicyclists as "little weenies" to Richard Nixon's dubbing students at Kent State "a bunch of bums." Impermissible non-reliable source material per BLP. It is not useful to reprint editorial criticisms of a politician.
For whatever reason some people are determined to insert derogatory material about this politician over an 10+ year old controversy between him and a partisan political group of bicycle advocates. Although the incident is marginally relevant and important enough to report, Wikipedia is the wrong place to rehash old political battles. The section on criticism is already longer than the entire section on his political career. This is an encyclopedia, not a political debate. The article already reports the incident rather fully and neutrally. What we need here is a more full account of the person's political life and work, which is tremendously important to the history of the city and state. The last thing we need here is to become another POV edit war and BLP issue over a very minor part of the person's career. Wikidemo ( talk) 10:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(to avoid having things in multiple places, I am responding here to the new comments in the Critical Mass crackdown in 1997, which also appear more-or-less verbatim on my talk page, below)
After there seemed to be a truce of some sort, you (I'm assuming from the edit history that the "Critical Chris" account and some of the anonymous IP addresses are all you) went ahead and added a bunch more stuff that further slanted the article in favor of Critical Mass and the Bicycle Coalition and against the former mayor. Matier and Ross were clearly in op ed mode with the editorial comment you cite, that's facially obvious from the text and it's silly to argue otherwise. Reporters do not humorously accuse politicians of hypocrisy with funny but logically falacious rhetoric. There are two aspects to sourcing information. One is to find a reliable source and the definitions are there and in WP:V. The other is to actually make sure that the source supports the contention. The material I object to all fails one or other other - see the new section I have already started below for a more complete discussion. The Time piece was a highly slanted op-ed, and the fact of a single editorial criticizing a large city mayor does not support the contention that a person is widely criticized for something. It's just an unreliable source.
To be specific, regarding your list of sources:
I won't go into more detail here - I already do in the section above.
The nature of POV concern is apparent when you consider the other side of the story, which is simply not reported here. Many people, including the mayor, the police, and most of the citizens of San Francisco (according to some recent unscientific polling) consider Critical Mass to be a bunch of violent anarchist hooligans, and support a crackdown. A section on the event could just as easily begin "in 1997 a disorganized group of rowdy bycicle riders known as 'Critical Mass' began to provoke confrontations with citizens and law enforcement officers by blocking roadways throughout the city once a month during Friday afternoon rush hour. The Mayor, with strong support from the citizens..." Not that I believe this account either, but it is widely believed too and there are plenty of news sources for it.
Wikipedia is in the business of creating an encyclopedia, not importing partisan political disagreements from the outside world. This is an article about Willie Brown the politician, not Critical Mass the wrongfully arrested protestors. Yet this section seems to be the only section anyone is expanding, certainly the only part you have worked on. Regarding length, if every controversy (and achievement, program, biographical detail) of equal importance to an understanding of Willie Brown got the same several-hundred-word treatment as this one the article would not be a normal article, it would have to be a 20,000+ word treatise. Rather than battle over POV slants it is best to simply report what happened, and if the reader wants to hear the rhetoric they can read the sources for themselves. To make this a decent article would imply actually covering more of the person's personal and political life, this time without so much slant. Wikidemo ( talk) 18:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"certainly the only part you have worked on" Incorrect sir, I'm the one who added the title and release date for Willie's autobiography last week and have changed the tenses also. I've also added the sections and references on Willie's "Aesthetic Style" and "Basic Brown." When I finish that book and go through some radio interview transcripts, if can get my hands on them, I will have more to work with also, straight from Willie's typewriter. Critical Chris ( talk) 19:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I've reverted one of Wikidemo's deletions in regards to Brown's implications that cyclists do not vote. It caused much resentment in the crowd and was seen as symbolic of his views of cyclists. Why do you believe it is irrelevant to Brown's Crackdown and the Bike Politics that emerged from the incident Wikidemo? Critical Chris ( talk) 09:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say also, don't be afraid if the article expands into a lengthy one, as Brown had a long and noteworthy career as a legislator and assembly speaker of the most populous US state, and two terms as the mayor of one of the most politically progressive, and cutting edge, and biggest US cities. He's no small town dog catcher, or just a city council-member/supe, so don't be afraid to let this article grow into a grand one on par with an article about a NYC mayor, or a US senator, etc....but let's leave the Critical Mass stuff as is for now Critical Chris ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I wa a California resident for many years. This reads like a grudge Biography, it has very little on the man. The Critical Mass stuff is small potatoes, worthy of a sentence or two at most. Take a look at this Biographical page http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bro0bio-1 for a more appropriate read on Willie Brown. Edit the critical mass criticism down to a paragraph at the most and build up the real history. 70.6.234.147 ( talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC) archangelrichard
Brown was the dominant politician in California for more than a decade, but there is nothing about his legislative career here except the fact that he held office and the final efforts to hold on with Republican front men. His early life and legal career should be filled in some and his Speakership should have as much depth as his Mayorality. The Critial Mass part is two or three times as long as it should be given the recommended length for articles here and how much other material still needs to be added.--
Hjal (
talk)
09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Section is not NPOV. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. See Undue weight, Balance, Fairness of tone, and Let the facts speak for themselves. Criticism section is way too long considering the size of the rest of the article. User:calbear22 ( talk) 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of reverting to a previous version of this article. I'm not HTML expert, but it seems Calbear22's latest reference addition was not properly formatted, and it jumbled the refence list. I did keep Calbear22's edit at the end of the Critical Mass section. I have no problem with Calbear's reference, but please get it right, as it --apparently-- affected the entire refenece list. Critical Chris ( talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemo, looks like this reference you added has no URL: LA Times article by David Colker, 7 September 1997 "In LA, Movement Lacks Critical Element--Bike Commuters" ...Could you please add one if you wish to include the reference? Many thanks in advance Critical Chris ( talk) 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC) [1]
References
I've dramatically expanded article size. In doing so, I've also addressed many POV issues, and if not completely, have changed the article so much that POV needs to be accessed again. I also removed the tag from the talk page, which was really misplaced. User:calbear22 ( talk) 08:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I made several changes to this section for several reasons. Firstly, the "wording praised by some and criticized by others" is weak wording and adds little to the article. We can list a few groups on one side or the other if you like, but the current wording isn't very encyclopedic. If it were allowed, that line would be used in almost every section of this article. The article focuses on Brown, not Critical Mass being praised or criticized by others. Now if we talk about criticism or praise for Brown's crackdown plan, that's a different story. Secondly, "declaring war" is just the fancy words of a few journalist and we're not trying to report what the journalist are saying. Further, a goal of NPOV is to allow Facts to Speak for themselves, and that includes grabbing a journalists quote to speak for the facts. It is really more of a scare quote which is not very NPOV. Thirdly, having excessive pull quotes from Brown detracts from the content and adds little. We only need one quoted segment to conclude Brown's view. Fourthly, word choice "blessing" is not a neutral wording of the matter. Fifthly, the anger by thousands is not what the source really says, its more of an interview of a few people from what I saw from skimming over it. If there was a poll in the article, then it's results might be relevant. We can talk further about all this if you like and get other editors opinions. I'm okay with you adding more facts to this section to make it a little longer, instead of the quotes that were removed. I know you had to cut it down quite a bit. User:calbear22 ( talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The article should note that Willie Brown is visually impaired to the point that he cannot read and cannot identify a person standing in front of him. http://www.blindness.org/coping/story.asp?id=22 Randall Bart Talk 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please stop arbitrarily deleting entire sections of the article. Willie Brown's involvement with Jones and the Temple were HEAVILY scrutinized in 1978 and 1979, while the Jonestown tragedy was like the Bay Area's 9-11. It should not be deleted. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I added back a cut down section and even made it a subsection of the Assembly section to address "weight" concerns. And believe me, the section is considerably shorter than it could be. For example, Brown wrote several support letters for the Temple blasting those wanting to investigate it to President Carter, members of Guyana's government and others that I don't even mention. Mosedschurte ( talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I gave the section some minor NPOV clean up. I was hoping you could describe how The Temple was "instrumental in delivering a close victory." Did they have a major get out the vote effort, give a lot of money, or make a lot of calls? Also, I think the section is absent Brown's response afterward. He probably voiced regret for supporting the group. Did the public react negatively to Brown supporting the group? Thanks. User:calbear22 ( talk) 08:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this article reads like it was written by PR Staff? The continued emphasis on his supposed Muni funding increases and other bullet points are particularly disconcerting.
Is the purpose of this an ambigous way of inserting a link to 9/11 being an inside job? It might be interesting enough but even the source does not give it too much weight. If this belongs in another article so be it. It does not seem appropriate for this article unless all mayors are receiving a sentance or two regarding their 9/11 response. Also, there is clearly an agenda witht he second paragraph of this section. Cptnono ( talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted this unsourced edit made at 13:20, November 6, 2009 by 96.19.240.102 "I think most white politicians do not understand that the race pride we all have trumps everything else." The quotation, if properly sourced, has a notable and significant political context that might be essential to fully understanding San Francisco's late 90's/early 2000's gentrification-era class and race politics, or another dimension of Brown's lengthy, and still unfinished, poltical career (I read Willie is considering throwing his hat in the ring for the upcoming mayoral race here in 'the Town.') Yet, this quotation needs good sourcing if it's to be included in this potential featured article candidate. CriticalChris 20:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Brown was originally one of White's targets in the Moscone–Milk assassinations. Section: Moscone–Milk assassinations#Trial and its aftermath. May be worth a mention. czar · · 05:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
As a perusal of this article suggests, Brown was a shoeshiner at a young age. The article on shoeshiners shows many other prominent people have been shoeshiners. So, why remove the category? It isn't an insult. He was literally a shoeshiner. Hoktiwe ( talk) 15:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Saw someone had edited the page to past tense following the death of Raiders hall of famer Willie Brown. The football player and the former Mayor of San Francisco are not the same person. The politician Willie Brown is still very much alive (at the time of this edit, at least). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyvalian ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Date of Mayor Brown’s Graduation from SF State should be 1955, not 1995. PTJ333 ( talk) 03:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)