Talk:Patrick Brown (Canadian politician)

Old dispute over article changes

Why is it that bad stuff about Patrick has mysteriously been replaced with good?

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Brown_%28politician%29&diff=83871168&oldid=83129377

Neither have listed any sources, so I'm not inclined to put a lot of faith in either, except that the whole sign thing was actually a real issue. Heck, I'm pretty sure it was common knowledge. Yeah, no source, but if that warrants deletion, then all the praise for Patrick there now should be cleared out as well.

69.157.72.230 06:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

2008 election performance

"Brown was re-elected to parliament in the 2008 election by a massive margin. He easily defeated the Liberal candidate by 15,000 votes, achieving the larger margins in the province. Brown has gained wide spread support in Barrie for his work recruiting doctors, fundraising for the cancer care expansion, frequent passport clinics, the return of the GO Train to Barrie, and a surprisingly steady stream of federal projects being announced by Brown throughout his term in office."

I find this last paragraph somewhat questionable. It makes it sound like Brown's strong showing was directly a result of his supposed support but this says nothing of Stéphane Dion's very low support as Liberal leader, not to mention the relatively unknown status of Rick Jones, Brown's challenger.

I also would question the GO Train as a source of support for Patrick, since it was approved under the previous MP, Aileen Carroll. The bit about the "surprisingly steady stream of federal projects" just sounds like it came out of a campaign brochure.

Any thoughts? I'll admit I'm not a fan of Brown to make clear my bias but I think the article should be neutral and I've seen in the past that it's been curiously edited for the positive, as mentioned in the above discussion section.

MatttK (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an edit to the article, since nobody has read the discussion in a week. What I did was I sourced the election results and then included some information and a source about Dion's effect on the election. I also removed the bit about the GO Train (find me an unbiased source on that one - you won't because it was approved under the previous MP - Patrick takes credit for this for political games) and the "steady stream of federal projects" bit that sounds like it came out of his campaign brochure. Elaborate and source it if you think it is true. MatttK (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Warning to those with nefarious intent

I am periodically checking this article, as it has a history of people coming to delete any potentially negative information about MP Brown, while adding in more positive information. If you want to do this, know that your changes are quite clearly saved in the history and are going to get reverted, if you're just deleting things without cause. Like or dislike Patrick Brown but let's try to keep this article neutral. Feel free to debate in this talk section if you don't agree with information in the article. MatttK (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This time, the vandalism was done by 192.197.82.155, which reads as parl155.parl.gc.ca. So that's nice that someone in government is trying to censor this article. MatttK (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone at the Parliament did it again. Same IP. MatttK (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

don't you know that you're never far away from the prying eyes of the harpoon and his goons? 184.145.95.157 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think childish name-calling makes you any better than the worst of the mud-slingers in the Conservative Party. :) MatttK (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Bias

Guys, let's all try to do a better job with the bias on both sides. Don't add information that sounds like it came out of a campaign booklet. On the other side, don't add paragraphs of negative-toned information. Nobody should be trying to prove a point, only provide information.

To give an example, I think we could improve the Hockey Night section. The bit that was added about Patrick not being the originator is actually very interesting; I didn't know that. But I feel like it has been written without regard for the work he has put into it, even though he apparently didn't come up with the idea and has claimed it for his own. I think it could be more neutral, while still conveying the same information. Maybe I will take a stab at it later.

And another note to those working for the Conservatives... all your changes are tracked here (we can see when you edit the article from Parliament), so don't bother warping the article for campaign purposes. It won't last long. Same goes to the anti-Brown people. :)

MatttK (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Guys, this is absurd. In the last month, the article has had a lot of anti-Brown bias crammed into every paragraph people can find. Check my history and you'll see that I've been trying to get rid of any bias, including the pro-Brown stuff that his people keep adding. Let's try to make this article neutral and better.

It can definitely be better than the current revision but that's not going to happen by following your own agendas. Please think about what you're adding and please try to make it worthy of an encyclopaedia. Some of the stuff added in the last month looked like it was added by a 5th grader.

I think we can also find some better way to display the information about the hockey article, other than that strangely-placed picture of the flyer. Maybe somebody has an idea there. I'm not sure it's even a valid source, to be honest, but I need to do some more looking into Wikipedia rules, etc.

MatttK (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why has the pro-Brown material regarding the Hockey Night in Barrie fundraiser been kept in it's own section while the rest has been relegated to the 'Controvery' section? The pro-Brown material includes a single citation to an editorial by Brown himself. The material relegated to the 'Controvery' section includes citations to three newspaper articles and a photograph.

Robert viera (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this material is fair and I don't see it as "pro-Brown". The section describes a major event in Barrie and in Patrick Brown's career, which he is indisputably involved in. The main point of the article should not be to detail controversy, which is why the controversy is not featured prominently in that section. Just the facts are there. You can then read further in the article to read into the controversial elements. I would agree that it is "pro-Brown" if the section attempted to state that Patrick is directly responsible for the event and its successes but it doesn't do that.

As for the source, I completely agree: the source is no good at all. You cannot use an opinion column by the subject of the article as a source for anything, unless it's a source for his own opinion maybe. I will search around for a new source but if somebody else finds one, please feel free to replace the current one.

MatttK (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I found another Examiner article from 2014, which included updated statistics, so I updated the text and changed the source. One could argue that the source clearly states that Patrick *presents* the event, which is a stronger word than *involved*, so I think "the other side" could even make the argument that this current text is "unfair" to Patrick Brown. I think there are two sides to the coin here.

MatttK (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@MatttK In regards to your comments above; if you're seriously worried about the flyer, you should go to the Barrie Public Library to obtain a better article or picture from the newspaper archives to use instead of this one; in the meantime, regardless of the fanciness of the flyer, he still wrote that, so it shouldn't be deleted. If you look at the history, about half of the things in the Controversy section were just conglomerated from other sections. In some cases there were more things like this than other content related to the Heading. It makes sense for a Controversy section, as the volume of his history of controversial actions shows this.

If you feel like he should have more information on his work for Hockey Night, add it, don't just talk about it.

I added back the content and tried to revise it to make it more neutral. The points are valid, they just need to be articulated in a more desirable fashion. Also, regardless of a person's age or writing capabilities, they should be able to contribute regardless. Consider using more constructive, inclusive language when commenting on fellow contributors work. No need to put someone down.

Thank you for your efforts to this page over the years.

129.97.125.198 (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The stuff that was added back in is still heavily biased.

During the 2008 Federal Election, he was quoted saying "I brought the GO train back to Barrie" in an attempt to take the credit for the project, when in reality the first phase was equally funded by all 3 levels of government, and was already in motion before he was elected in 2006 from the previous MP, Aileen Carroll.

This was a very valid point during the 2008 election but I don't see how it is particularly relevant by now. The paragraph is also filled with loaded words, which are meant to paint Patrick clearly as a bad guy.

Ever since 2008, when Brown sent out a flyer, he has claimed that the Hockey Night in Barrie fundraiser for the RVH was his idea & effort, even though the event had been running since 2004, under the original name "Go For The Goal", 2 years before he became an MP.[11] In a 2010 article about the fundraiser, one of the people who actually helped come up with it...

I don't see how this improved the original information, other than to make it less professional-looking and more accusatory. The information already existed 1 month ago.

On September 26, 2012, Brown voted in favour of Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth's private member's bill to create a special committee to examine the legal definition of when a fetus becomes a human being, suggesting that he does not support women's rights to have an abortion. Brown did so despite the fact that Prime Minister Stephen Harper specifically advised his caucus to vote against the bill.

Wikipedia isn't a place for suggestions. One might assume that Patrick Brown is against abortion by the way he voted by without an actual quote or otherwise documented position, it is not fair to put this assumption into writing. Moreover, the fact that Harper told his caucus to vote against the bill is not relevant, unless you are trying to forward the view that being against abortion is wrong.

Brown has been criticized for not resigning his Federal seat during his Provincial PC Leadership campaign, with Ontario PC leadership frontrunner Christine Elliott said that "If he really wants to show his commitment to provincial politics then yes, he should (step down as MP). It's not fair to his constituents in Barrie."

Wikipedia isn't normally a collection of quotations. It's all the more inappropriate when all the quotations that have been added seem to be negative.

I reverted the article to an earlier form after carefully examining the edits and finding a massive slant against Patrick Brown having been added. Again, check my contributions or the history of this article and you will see that I have been following this article for years, trying to keep it in line as best I can. Most of the time, I have been removing propaganda added by the Conservatives, so I don't think it is fair to say that I reverted the article because I disagree with it. I reverted it because the quality has decreased massively.

MatttK (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made several edits to the article today. Each one has been done separately. I have included the reasoning in the edit summary. I apologise for reverting the entire article earlier but the end effect has been somewhat similar. Please consider the edits individually and discuss here if you have an issue with any of them.

Let's try to avoid adding in loaded words, making assumptions without proper information, or outright misrepresenting the included sources. This article is not a place to forward an agenda or present one's own viewpoint on anyone, nor is it an election battleground. Let's try to provide the facts in as neutral a way as possible.

In the past, when making edits, I have stopped to consider my own bias and if I am being fair or unfair in the changes I am making. Please, everyone, try to do the same!

MatttK (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ontario PC Leadership Race

I suggest we move this to a subsection under Politics and then try to make it more neutral. The old version was pretty much just a Patrick Brown complaints list. The new version is an all hail Patrick Brown campaign flyer. When I get time later, I will compare the two and try to find something meaningful from both.

Let's discuss it here, rather than engaging in any revert wars. I will try my best to come up with a good version.

MatttK (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. Both versions are promoting different agendas, in my opinion, but the newer version was much worse, clearly having been written by someone on his campaign team. I moved the section to politics and tried to keep the valid points of the new version. However, these points are not currently sourced and needs sources. Because I still don't feel comfortable with the section as a whole, I left the POV tag there.

If anybody wants to help who doesn't work on any PC Party leadership campaign team, please do input your two cents.

MatttK (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop reverting to this paragraph about Patrick Brown's criminal actions, etc. Besides not being formatted correctly, the paragraph is poor written, very biased, and contains no credible source. Wikipedia is not a place for wild accusations but you can add this information to the controversy section, if you have some proper sources for it. MatttK (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

So I removed the line about Christine Elliott's voting record. While it put the paragraph into maybe a more balanced perspective, I can find no source to actually back this information up. For all I know, it is completely fabricated. If somebody has a source, we can add it back.

A low participation in voting is, however, not uncommon in this race, as competitor Christine Elliott participated in only 18% of the votes in the Ontario Legislature, in the same time period.

MatttK (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your claims of neutrality but the fact remains that far too much of the language in this article is stilted in a negative fashion. For example, it is contrary to the Wikipedia posting rules to say "Brown has been criticized for not resigning his seat" without attribution. You don't get to offer negative "spin" any more than the positive spin you criticize from others. In that case, for example, the most public quotes are the ones attributable to his opponent, Christine Elliott, "If Mr. Brown wants to make a commitment to Ontario politics, I would suggest that he might want to show that now.", Toronto Star, March 6, 2015. It is NOT news that someone's political opponent offers criticisms, hence, it is unworthy of commentary in Wikipedia. If you continue to post comments that simply parrot the message track of her opponent, it will be necessary to ask the Editor to referee this nonsense and, potentially, prevent further posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.168.224 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You make a fair point. In fact, there is a source right after this sentence but upon examining the provided source, I can find nothing to back up the sentence. That said, Patrick Brown's refusal to step down has been widely criticised and the following paragraph actually backs this point up, with appropriate sources (see the Ottawa Citizen article). I also think Christine Elliott's points have been made by many people, as I have seen these points made in various articles.

I don't have the time now but maybe a better version of the two paragraphs can be worked out, one which does not include anything from fellow competitors in the race. Let's try to work together on this, rather than against each other. In the past, there have also been many comments added that "simply parrot the message track" of Patrick Brown, so it does go both ways. We can all do better.

MatttK (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look at the newest version. I hope it is better but let's discuss if it can be improved or if anybody thinks I removed something important. MatttK (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ontario PC leadership election latest changes

I removed the new paragraph because the 308 article in question actually specifically states that the poll is highly suspect and of questionable value.

Even though Brown has sold about 40,000 of the 90,000 memberships in the party, in terms of who party members would vote for, as of March 31, 2015 he was trailing behind Elliot (51%) & McNaughton (13%), at 10% according to a poll conducted by Forum.<ref>{{url=</nowiki>http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/03/forum-tried-to-poll-pc-party-members.html}}</ref></nowiki>

I replaced it with a new version of the old, deleted paragraph:

In March Brown, emerged as the potential front-runner in the race, having sold over 40,000 of the 70,000 memberships in the party. By votes alone, this could see Brown elected on the first ballot come May. Brown's success thus far has been attributed to a highly effective campaign, through which he has brought many new members to the party. The past four leadership contests were won by those who sold the most memberships.<ref>{{cite news|title=Patrick Brown sells more than 40,000 Ontario PC memberships|last1=Benzie|first1=Robert|last2=Ferguson|first2=Rob|date=2015-03-01|url=http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/03/01/patrick-brown-sells-more-than-40000-ontario-pc-memberships.html|publisher=Toronto Star|access-date=2015-03-26}}</ref>

Compare to:

Brown has recently emerged as the apparent front-runner in the race, having sold over 40,000 of the 70,000 memberships in the party. This could see Brown elected on the first ballot come May. Brown's success has been attributed to a highly effective campaign, through which he has brought many new members to the party. The past four leadership contests were won by those who sold the most memberships.<ref>{{cite news|title=Patrick Brown sells more than 40,000 Ontario PC memberships|last1=Benzie|first1=Robert|last2=Ferguson|first2=Rob|date=2015-03-01|url=http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/03/01/patrick-brown-sells-more-than-40000-ontario-pc-memberships.html|publisher=Toronto Star|access-date=2015-03-26}}</ref>

I have modified the wording to address the concerns in the revision history, I hope. However, I do not agree that the paragraph didn't contain anything from the article. In fact, the paragraph's content was 100% from the article. If you disagree, let's discuss here what went wrong in the wording to give you this impression.

Edit: Forgot to sign yesterday. :) MatttK (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Front-runner?

Every news article I read clearly lists Patrick Brown as the front-runner in this race. The article used to designate him as such but it was removed as "misleading". I'm not sure how this can be said to be misleading, given that he's sold the most seats and has the most buzz in the media, given his rise from a nobody to a somebody. Take a look at the following articles:

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/03/01/patrick-brown-sells-more-than-40000-ontario-pc-memberships.html http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/2015/03/29/patrick-brown-promises-to-reset-pc-party http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/14/patrick-brown-christine-elliott-ontario-pc-leadership_n_7065484.html http://www.simcoe.com/news-story/5569250-patrick-brown-from-long-shot-to-front-runner/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/browns-hustle-attracts-eclectic-donor-group-in-ontario-pc-leadership-race/article24124468/

This is just a small sample of articles, which define Brown as the front-runner for multiple reasons. I realize that there are editors here who are openly not supporters of Brown but I don't think this should colour our presentation of the facts. Unless somebody can show me evidence to the contrary, I will re-add the front-runner wording to the article. In my opinion, it is certainly noteworthy that a nobody from Barrie managed to overtake much stronger candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatttK (talk • contribs) 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

On May 9, 2015, Brown was elected leader of the Ontario PC Party defeating Christine Elliott and announced that he will be resigning from the federal parliament.

Let's discuss the intro paragraph a little. It was added and re-added that Brown defeated Christine Elliott. The reader at this point has no idea who Christine Elliott is. It also isn't very relevant. I have looked at the articles of several other leaders and have not found mention in the opening paragraph of who they defeated. This info does appear later in the article, so the user can still find it, when it is relevant later on.

Let's also remember to source the stuff that is added. There is no source for Patrick's announcement to resign. I will look for one now. (I didn't actually read that he had done that already but it makes sense that he would)

MatttK (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"LGBTQ rights" in Controversy

I'm wondering what people think about the new paragraph added to the Controversy section. I don't see how this can be labelled a "controversy". Rather, it seems to be a listing of Patrick's voting record on the issue. In my opinion, putting it under the controversy section is introducing bias into the article, as it indicates his position on the issue should be viewed negatively. I would rather place it under the Political Views section, if anywhere. However, is it important to list a politician's views on every issue? I could not find anything similar in the articles for Kathleen Wynne, Tim Hudak, Mike Harris, Bob Rae, Ernie Eves, or Andrea Horwath.

It seems to more more like this is a simple listing of Brown's voting record on issues which some people consider to be important. However, I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for that, especially when compared to the articles of other politicians. Maybe some other have some thoughts on this? I would remove the paragraph entirely. MatttK (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have taken a closer look at the sources and have also noted that the final sentence draws together two entirely unconnected sources, as if they were related information. WP:NOR is definitely being violated here. I will removed the paragraph but please do discuss your thoughts here, if you disagree. MatttK (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the first section to political views then, as I think it is relevant and informative to today's discussion topics. It does not need to be outright deleted. In terms of the second section, firstly, thank you for helping to keep this article within standards; often editors do not even check these, including myself sometimes. "Synthesis of published material", states that one cannot say: IF(A & B) THEN C. So I have just put in the fact that he however announced on July 26, 2015 that the party would attend the pride parade event. That way that section is arguably more neutral in view, doesn't mention B or draw conclusion C. -William — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.124.110 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I still feel that this violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The source for the "non-straightforward answer" is actually an opinion piece from a lesbian and gay newspaper, hardly a neutral source. Moreover, nothing in the text states a political view. It only lists the way Patrick Brown voted. As we know, there are many reasons why politicians vote one way or another, including being directed to do so by their party or in an attempt to appeal to a particular group of voters. I don't think that merely listing the voting history can effectively prove his political views. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a collection of relevant-to-today discussion topics. It's meant to be an encyclopaedia. However, I don't want to get into an edit war, so I will await further discussion before making any changes.MatttK (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you help me further understand why you feel mentioning that he didn't give an answer, and then gave an answer for the pride parade violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? As mentioned above, the part relating to the SCOTUS ruling was removed, and I couldn't find further reasoning in your reply for what is still wrong with this part. For the neutral source comment, if you followed through to the original source, which was even mentioned within the article, that interview was conducted by CBC, which as a national news brand, is the closest to neutral we can hope for. Either way, quoted text from an entire question and answer in an interview, so long as it is not taken out of context, is the same regardless of who reports on it. The original interview is now cited in its place for readers to more quickly confirm this information, along with other related political views.

I agree. Politicians will vote for a variety of reasons, including to maximize votes, for strategy, from their own views, or because their party is moving in that direction, however it would be silly to say that we do not know his stance on these issues, and thus should not include them. Like the interview mentioned above, I have included other sources that talks about how he hold those views, rather than his voting record. There are plenty of other places where his political views on these topics are talked about, or where he has directly talked to media about this. If Patrick Brown really held opposing views to what was being written about in the national media about his stance on these, he would likely clarify or take action legally for slander or misrepresentation, but as we can see, this is not the case.

I also agree, Wikipedia is not a discussion board for current events, it is an encyclopaedia. As such, it should be informative of important information, such as a politician's political views, would you not agree? Not every political view they hold is necessary to include, however this one is important because it affect a lot of people, and especially because it has come up throughout his political career, and continues to do so in recent media.

-William

The whole idea of this "didn't give an answer" is what I find biased. It's subjective whether the answer was straightforward or not. He basically said he had attended events in the past but didn't commit to going to this one. When do politicians commit to attending anything? Do you even commit to everything, when you have a busy schedule? I could imagine that he simply wasn't sure enough if he'd go (for whatever reason - political, moral, scheduling, etc.), so he simply said that he'd gone to other ones in the past, which would allow you to infer he might go to this one. Shortly thereafter, he announced he was going. I don't see the controversy there. Instead, I see a manufactured controversy. We can see, based on his political party and past voting record, that he is willing to oppose gay issues for political gain but we can only guess about his political views. Wikipedia isn't the place for guessing.

I also think it's important that all the facts we know are listed here, especially when they are relevant and affect many people, but we need to walk this line of balance and fact versus original research. For years, mysterious users (sometimes from Parliament) have been coming on this article and deleting anything bad about Patrick Brown, which I find highly annoying. However, since he's stepped into the limelight, people have felt the need to add more negativity to the article, to list every possible bad point about Patrick Brown. When it's founded, when there's a source about a factual piece of information, I think we should add it. But if it's simply a run-of-the-mill politician non-answer, I don't think that's noteworthy and inferring a reason for it is the domain of opinion pieces, not of an encyclopaedia.

MatttK (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section

The "controversy" section should be removed, per WP:CRITS and WP:IMPARTIAL. The first subsection--about how Brown was criticized for claiming "Hockey Night in Barrie" was his idea--seems trivial and much to do about nothing. In that subsection, the second sentence--the "smoking gun" of this scandal--has been unsourced for over a year. If this information remains in the article, I'd suggest it be trimmed to one properly sourced sentence, and moved to the section about Brown's involvement in that charity.

The other part of the controversy section about his spending can be moved to section about his work as an MP. I'd appreciate the input of others. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the Hockey Night information could be moved to the section about his involvement. It doesn't need to be in its own Controversy section. Whether it should be removed entirely or not, I can see both views. On one side, it seems quite clear to me that it was added and expanded by people with an agenda, who want to bring down Brown. However, on the other hand, it also seems quite clear to me that Brown wants to claim he started something he didn't, which is rather dirty considering it's a charity. While most people don't really care in the end, it would be unfortunate for this small fact to be lost.

The spending part should definitely remain in the article and could, as you say, be moved to the other section.

I think the Controversy section was created after seeing it in other articles for other politicians but it does seem to quite clearly violate WP:CRITS.

MatttK (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. This text was part of the main article at one time before it was moved to a separate controversy section about February 2015. By they way, I found references for the second sentence in the first paragraph so it should remain. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The HNIB paragraph was entirely WP:SYNTHESIS that makes a mountain out of a molehill of a harmless, but inaccurate statement that from a Google News search, got no mileage in the press, so I've removed it. I also removed the HNIB section by itself, since it seems to be a fairly standard local event that all MPs are expected to routinely show up to or face bad press. If this assessment is wrong, feel free to re-add it, though I would prefer to see it in an appropriate section (federal politics?) as opposed to its own standalone section.

The other paragraph does have coverage from reliable sources, so I moved it into the federal politics section to get rid of the standalone "controversy" section. It could use some more text on any statement issued by Brown or a resolution (if any) if it was sent for review by a Parliamentary institution. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that the portion on hockey night has been removed and strongly disagree with it's removal. This is because it is not an isolated incidence of Brown claiming credit to other projects that were not his. Thus this sample of his politics should be included, especially for voters who will be looking him up when the next election rolls around. A prominent example of this was with the GO Train in Barrie where he sent out a brochure saying "I brought the Go Train to Barrie". The only easy to find evidence of this is prominent Barrie resident, Jack Garner's opinion letter in the Barrie Examiner criticizing him on this about how much of it was in place before he was elected in as MP. 2:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.52.103 (talk)

Municipal election

In his first municipal election, I'm not sure Brown did beat the incumbent; I think the incumbent either was dead or had resigned due to illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrancisRobert9 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sex allegations in this article?

This was removed by a frequent editor of the Wikipedia article.

The Vancouver Sun and CTV News (8th paragraph) reports that Brown passed lie detector tests about the two sets of allegations. In one incident, there was an allegation of oral sex. The accuser alleged that she was a minor when the oral sex incident occurred but on February 13, 3 weeks after the first public report, stated that she was not a minor at the time of the alleged incident.In the other incident, there was an allegation of kissing. Nothing has been proven in court (standard Canadian disclaimer - nothing proven, guilt or innocence)

I propose one of two ways.

1. Remove ALL mention of the allegations unless something is proven or dis-proven in court.

2. Include more, like the above paragraph. The current version, prior to the above paragraph's removal has no details about sexual allegations, except there were 2 allegations. If we don't specify, the reader has no idea if they were lewd comments, fondling, rape, rape and cannibalism (like in Luka Magnotta ).

The lie detector expert is supposed to be one of the leading ones in Canada, not a tabloid and sensational person. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to remove the allegations as they led to his resignation as leader. As for lie detectors, they are not credible and not acceptable as evidence in court in Canada so the fact that someone is a leader in that field is irrelevant. Nixon Now (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Should the lie detector even be included in the article? This section of the article is not incredibly detailed, so it's not clear to me why we would include reference to a Toronto Sun lie detector test.

Also, is there a past precedent of how specific we should get in the details regarding the allegations?

--Tkbrett (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The use of lie detectors is widespread and employed by the CIA, CSIS, etc. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not that all facts must be admissible and proven in court. If that were to be the case, then the allegations should not be in Wikipedia because they haven't been proven in court. The lie detector, whether admissible in court or not, is the catalyst for Brown re-entering the race. He took the lie detector test, was deemed truthful, and then thought "yes, now I can run for PC leader". Whether or not you believe him is not the issue. Other news sources, even CTV, the ones that orginally released the accusations, report that there were lie detector tests and the results favor Brown.

I also must add that until the accusations, I didn't know who Brown was. Never heard of the man. I am neither a supporter or a supporter of his opponents. I am neutral in such battle.

There should be some key facts in the article. What were the allegations? (If we are too vague, the reader doesn't know if it was some lewd comments or rape with torture) What happened after the allegations? What were some related events that occurred before he re-entered the race? Vanguard10 (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now made several changes. Reading them, it makes the 2nd allegation much more serious than the first. I disagree. The first allegation was that Brown asked for oral sex and got it. His penis was in her mouth. In the second allegation, the accuser and Brown were looking at travel photos in his bedroom on his bed when he started kissing her while she was lying down on the bed. She felt his erection through her clothes but both people were fully dressed. She said she had a boyfriend and Brown offered to drive her home and did. I'd say that accusation #1 is much more serious than #2 but the Wikipedia article, by referring to "sexual assault", makes #2 look more serious. #1 could get you thrown in prison but probably not #2. Involuntary penis shoved in your mouth, particularly if you are a minor sounds like prison to me. Kissing then stopping when told to doesn't.Vanguard10 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No report that I recall said she was a 'minor", only that she was 18 which is below the legal drinking age of 19. Turns out she was 19, not 18. Nixon Now (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Lie detector

The latest version by Tkbrett portrays a situation different from the actual events. The lie detector mention was removed by Tkbrett. Like it or not, Brown had a lie detector test done. Believe the results or not, he used the results to reenter the race. To not have this creates an inaccurate Wikipedia. I suppose one might try to discredit the lie detector examiner or discredit the validity of the lie detector but the test is a part of the Brown saga. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This quote from the National Post sums it up, even though it's not the most favourable to Brown. It mentions the lie detector, which is critical. Mere denial would not have been enough for Brown to re-apply for leadership. http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/patrick-brown-audio

Brown’s dramatic move to re-enter the fray capped a week in which he aggressively fought back against the sex allegations, threatened to sue the TV network that first aired them, suggested he never officially resigned as leader – and reportedly took a lie-detector test on those sex charges.

CTV News, the one the original broke the story about Brown writes this. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patrick-brown-kicks-off-bid-to-reclaim-pc-leadership-1.3808631

Brown said Sunday the last three weeks have given him time to clear his name. “And I’m grateful that’s been accomplished,” he said. He said he and his supporters have proven the events described by the two women “could not have happened.” He added he has taken two lie detector tests and “passed both with ease.”

Conclusion: the lie detector was a material fact in the campaign to run for leadership post. Very hard to deny this. Not right to refuse to include it. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read up on original research and WP:SYNTH. Nixon Now (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. The fact of the matter, which is essential for Wikipedia, is not that the lie detector test proved or disproved guilty or that some may not want mention of lie detectors because some courts do not allow them. The fact of the matter is that Brown took lie detector tests and that it was a major factor in his entering the leadership race. That should be in Wikipedia for accuracy and completeness. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you may want to read Nixon Now's link again. The conclusion that you're enthusiastically pushing does not seem to follow from the references you are providing.--Tkbrett (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I am writing no conclusion in the article. I even added the word "claims" to give weight to anti-Brown people. I am not pro-Brown, never heard of the man a month ago. It is an interesting way he is trying to clear himself. Rather than say "no, I didn't", he also took lie detector tests and then re-entered the race. That is historical. Not quite as historical as Juno Beach, but still a historic saga. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vanguard10:is correct. It should stay in. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a source that says Brown entered the race because of the lie-detector test because none of the quotes Vanguard10 is quoting above actually say that - which is why it looks like WP:SYNTH to me. Nixon Now (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The version in Wikipedia that has been up for more than 24 hours does not say "because". There is no synthesis. In fact, the Wikipedia version that I put in is a bit skeptical, using the word "claims". Perhaps, it should be more neutral? Vanguard10 (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Preventing WP:SYNTH

Nixon Now brings up an excellent point! Let's carefully examine every statement in the section that does not have a citation, in order to follow BLP.

Here's the version since yesterday and today:

On January 24, 2018, citation available? probably easily found Brown was accused by two women of engaging in sexual misconduct should have a citation where it says "sexual misconduct" and not make up the term ourselves, which dated back to the time he was a federal MP - citation for "federal MP" . Brown denied the allegations and initially refused to step down . Four senior staff from Brown's campaign had advised him that he should resign as party leader is this in citation 43? ; he did not accept their advice and consequentially the staff jointly resigned from his campaign team.[43] After pressure from within the party is this in the citation?, he resigned as leader in the early hours of January 25.[44][2][3][4][5] The day after his resignation, he was succeeded on an interim basis by Nipissing MPP Vic Fedeli.[45]

Fedeli, who was unanimously elected by caucus the day after Brown's resignation, asked Brown to take a leave of absence from Queen's Park while he defends himself against the allegations this definitely needs a citation. He added that he would not sign Brown's nomination papers if he attempted to run in a Barrie riding at the June 7 provincial election.[46] Brown had intended on running in Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte in that election, but Fedeli's announcement would mean that he would have to run as an independent.

In one incident, there was an allegation that Brown exposed himself to a teenager and asked her to engage in oral sex after plying her with alcohol. The accuser alleged that she was an 18-year-old high school student when the oral sex incident occurred but on February 13, 3 weeks after the first public report, she amended her claim to say she was a year older than she had previously recalled and was therefore over the legal drinking age.[47]In the other incident, Brown was alleged to have kissed, without consent, a female aide in his employ while in his bedroom.[48] Brown later took a lie detector test[49][50][51] and claimed[52] that he felt his name[53] was cleared[54]. No charges have been laid as a result of either alleged incident[55]. He then entered the PC should spell this out leadership race less than one[56] or two hours before the deadline[57]. ---

Vanguard10 (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Infobox - Ontario PC Leader & Official Opposition Leader

I removed "TBD" from the infobox under Vic Fedeli as Patrick Brown's successor. Patrick Brown was succeeded by Vic Fedeli, not whoever the convention chooses. Precedent can be seen in his predecessor's pages. For example, Tim Hudak was succeeded by Jim Wilson, not Patrick Brown. RoyalObserver (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Patrick brown (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Photo

His photo is awful quality. What are the thoughts on using this image?

File:Patrick Brown 2 Crop.jpg

Patrick Brown in a campaign video

Will provide the same feedback I offered on the 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election talk page. I'd recommend we stay away from the screenshots from that video. The uploader didn't provide appropriate license information when they uploaded the screenshots. Good chance they get deleted. Also, I think the current photo looks better. He's squinting too much in that video. RoyalObserver (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Brown has been disqualified from the conservative leadership race

News hasn't broken yet, though it will in the next several hours, that Patrick Brown has been disqualified. A statement emailed out to conservative party members minutes ago from the chair of the Leadership Election Organizing Committee, Ian Brodie, reads in part:

“The information provided to date by the Patrick Brown campaign did not satisfy concerns about their compliance with our Rules and Procedures and/or the Canada Elections Act. The Chief Returning Officer has therefore recommended to LEOC that LEOC disqualify Patrick Brown and earlier tonight LEOC agreed to do so. The Party will be sharing the information it has gathered with Elections Canada, who is responsible for ensuring compliance with, and enforcement of, the Canada Elections Act." Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)