Talk:Scott Brown (politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Candidate to replace Ted Kennedy?

Shouldn't it be "..to replace Paul G. Kirk.."? afterall, Kirk is the current US Senator. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think sources support the replacing Ted Kennedy phrasing. Kennedy's death triggered the prevision requiring a special election to fill his seat. Kirk was explicitly appointed as a placeholder until Kennedy's seat could be filled be an elected senator. Further the statement refers to his quote on September 12th. Kirk wasn't appointed until later in the month.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But to be clear, the winner of the special election, will succeed Kirk (not Kennedy) as US Senator. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better wording would be "the Republican candidate to fill the US Senate seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy"? That would indicate the situation.... SirFozzie (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that would work. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally have no objections to refinment of the wording. The technical fact that the election winner will replace Kirk has a place in these connected articles. But I also think looking at the coverage and the overall situation that history will view this person as filling Kennedy's seat and IMHO we shouldn't eliminate the big picture perspective on a technicality.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I updated the wording. SirFozzie (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why no pic yet?

[1]

Above is a good pic for Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apetersen78 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Military Service

We should add a box indicating his service in the Massachusetts Army National Guard. He's served for thirty years and deserves it. most politicians have a box on their wiki page indicating service. I don't know how to build one though, will someone who does please do so? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.206.156 (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncontesable picture

I've uploaded an uncontesable picture of Brown created myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scottbrown1.jpg

I'm not sure how to properly edit it into the page, but it can be elevated to the title picture in case the one provided by the Commonwealth of Mass is deleted--though I don't see why it should be. Dexta32084 (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! User:Tom has now substituted your photo as the main image in the article. JamesMLane t c 16:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed some trivia

I removed some trivia, ie the car he drives and milage and rock groups. I also removed "however" from the section covering his religous support. Anyways, hopefully this isn't to big a deal. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Position on bank tax

Can there be a better source for Brown's position on the "bank tax", not sure of its name, rather than using a partisan blog? I have removed for it now. TIA --Tom (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a reference to the Globe is now included which is better, imho. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Brown seems to be going by just "Scott Brown" in the US Senate campaign that represents 90% of the reason readers would be looking for this article, and I just spent an unreasonable amount of time both with our search function and Google's attempting to find this page - the initial that he is not using in this campaign apparently causes trouble in this regard. Consequently, I have moved it to Scott Brown (politician), as you can probably see already. The former title redirects here, of course, so there should be no issue in that regard. I have also tweaked the Scott Brown dabpage to reflect the new title. I don't expect this will be controversial, but I'm open to hearing any objections. Bear in mind, though, that in practice this article was hidden well enough that even Google couldn't find it, so I would strongly oppose keeping it at the former title. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I support this move. We can't come up with our own interpretations of people's names; we need to go by the article's sources. If he goes by "Scott Brown" then that's his name, regardless of how many other people use it. —Designate (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Im cool with it -Tracer9999 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good decision. Boromir123 (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nude centerfold pics

See GOP Senate Candidate's Racy Pics Don't Matter─Because He's a Dude and The Kennedy Seat: Scott Brown's Naked Photos Resurface. Should this be included in the "Controversy section" or would it merit its own heading? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

yea it should, and the thing about yelling at the high schoolers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welpno (talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, he wasn't nude...the pictures were in Cosmopoiltan, not Playgirl. Dexta32084 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, he was nude. The magazine itself says so: "Long before he was a politician, the Republican candidate vying for Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat posed nude for the centerfold of Cosmo." [2] The magazine re-ran the photo, with that description, last September, so you can look at the photo yourself. If you can spot one piece of clothing that he's wearing, please point it out to me. Lying on a towel doesn't turn a nude photo into a semi-nude one.

I said in my ES, "the magazine called it a nude shot and to my eye there's not one stitch of clothing visible, so 'semi-nude' isn't accurate". User:Macduff had earlier said the same thing in an ES: "He's nude in the photo and Cosmo magazine states it is nude." Nevertheless, User:Boromir123 has again reverted this accurate description without offering any explanation. I'm restoring the information. JamesMLane t c 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken:) I was under the assumption that if the genitals are not visible, then its not considered "nude" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boromir123 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 January 2010

Oh, okay, I thought maybe you were relying on that scrap of cloth under him to say he wasn't nude. I'd say that "nude" means no clothing, or maybe no more than a baseball cap or high heels or the like. This is a nude photo but you're right that some nude photos expose the genitals and some don't, so it's certainly reasonable for us to include the additional information that this one doesn't. JamesMLane t c 16:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I see the distinction...you could indeed say he posed nude, but that the picture itself was not nude. I suppose if one were to take the wikipedia definition of "the state of wearing no clothing" (instead of the colloquial one I keep thinking of) it's correct. I take back my earlier assertion. Dexta32084 (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this the first thing in that section or even included at all? It seems like undue weight compared to the rest of that section and the overall bio. Was it really that big a deal or are folkstrying to make some sort of hay out of it? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tom, I think its a chronological order thing.. he was pretty young when he did that. I have no problem with it myself being in the section. -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nudity redux

Here we go again. The magazine in which the photo appeared describes it as a nude photo (saying that he "posed nude for the centerfold").[3] Furthermore, anyone who troubles to look at the photo (in the previous citation) can see that Brown is "without clothing", which is the definition of nudity.

Some editors were concerned to make clear that his genitals were covered -- fine, we've done that, and yet we still have to deal with this "semi-nude" spin.

I'm editing the passage to include the undeniable incontestable fact that Cosmo called it a nude photo. I'm using a verbatim quotation from Cosmo. Boromir has managed to dig up a publication ([4]) that asserts (without explanation) that it was semi-nude. Perhaps that writer wanted to make clear that his genitals weren't exposed, but as I pointed out, our previous language does so. I don't think this clear error is worth including in our article just because it was published, but if Brown's supporters insist on adding it, I can live with that, as long as the accurate information from the verbatim quotation from the source remains in the text. JamesMLane t c 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I respect your views James. Please look however at the Cosmo article. Its very sensational in its description.... Boromir123 (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we quoting any sensationalism or anything else unencyclopedic? I have grave doubts about quoting Cosmo saying that he's a patriot. That seems like sheer puffery. I suggest we remove that passage, as Cosmo's gushing over its centerfold doesn't really enlighten the reader. As for nudity, the presence of sensationalism or gushing in the Cosmo article doesn't change the fact that he's not wearing any clothing in the photo. It's really a sign of the debasement of the political dialog that a simple fact like that, readily observable to anyone who clicks on the link, becomes, in your ES, a subject of "both opinions". Welcome to the age of spin -- as long as someone denies an observable fact, it's just an opinion. Brown didn't pose nude, Saddam was behind 9/11, and we have always been at war with Eastasia. JamesMLane t c 23:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

hahahah a 1984 quote. awesome. 71.57.147.45 (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you care so much? And how do you know he's completely naked and not wearing a sock? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cosmo sells more magazines when they call a picture a 'nude photo' than if they call it a semi-nude photo. This photo is not full frontal nudity like the many other nude photos of celebrities, et al, they've shown. I wouldn't take what Cosmo says too seriously. Better to believe one's own eyes.Malke2010 00:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He's probably at least got the women's vote.Malke2010 00:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Current events tag or something?

I don't know if this is already being done or not, but shouldn't there be some kind of tag at the top of the article citing this person's relationship with a significant current event? 74.107.120.44 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture

That is not the cover it is the centrefold and not fair use. Please revert to the previous picture as it was more current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.85.17 (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Already reverted the vandalism.Malke2010 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No "Allegations Section?" Wow, I'm impressed

Can't believe it. I actually came to this article thinking "I wonder how many allegations and controverseys Wikipedia will stuff into his article. I'm shocked this is actually a neutral and objective article. I didn't think Wikipedia was capable of that regarding a politician. Good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

New editors

Please use this talk page to discuss changes and review Wikipedia rules re: WP:NPOV, WP:SYN. Remember to use edit summaries to explain changes.Malke2010 14:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Qualifing/labeling" columists

Can we please stop "labeling" columists, see Parker and Dionne, either liberal or conservative,? I am not even sure how notable including their opinions are or how it was decided that they should be included but folks can read their bios and decide for themselves. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ps, if these folks, columists, are really that liberal or conservative that they need to be identified as such, wouldn't it make sense to use more NPOV commentators? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Parker quotation is being included for the assertion that Brown is a "moderate". In that context, it is relevant for the reader to know that Parker is a conservative. If you want to delete the characterization entirely, go ahead, but if it stays, then the reader should have the information about the perspective of the person making the characterization.

Dionne isn't characterizing anyone as liberal, moderate, or conservative, but is assessing Brown's relationship to other Republicans. I agree with you that this quotation also could go. If it stays, I don't think it needs the term "liberal" because that's not relevant to the content of this particular quotation. Nevertheless, I have never removed it, and if people insist on inserting it, I won't bother fighting the point. JamesMLane t c 18:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to revert this again. I disagree that we need to let the reader know. This looks like adding "code" words to taint their opinion. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that for some readers it will taint the opinion, but for others it will give it added weight. Both groups will benefit by having the information. The third group, those who don't care, aren't injured by this brief inclusion. JamesMLane t c 19:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation page?

Now that Brown is apparently elected, he seems to be by far the most prominent Scott Brown. I propose to move this article to "Scott Brown" and move the present disambiguation page to "Scott Brown (disambiguation)".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this proposal. Safiel (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we have to allow some time for people to weigh in, including the regular editors of this article. In the meantime, I have moved this guy's article to the top of the disambiguation page to make life a little easier on the thousands who are probably coming in to check the artice.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with proposal to move article to Scott Brown. How soon can it be done?Malke2010 03:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that this is the time that most people are no doubt looking in on this article, why not IAR and do it now?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excellent point. Go ahead.Malke2010 03:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done.Malke2010 03:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly concur. Boromir123 (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As do I, despite my other recent move. Different circumstances and all that. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I also endorse this. It would have been premature hours ago, but now is very wise.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Rating C

The article is complete enough and well enough referenced to rate as C and I have changed the assessment accordingly. Safiel (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. Once the confetti settles down, perhaps it can be improved further.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is a little messy right now. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.140.30 (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Brown's family life

I removed 'biological' from 'biological mother.' He's not adopted, as far I can see. So what other kind of mother would he have? A non-biological one? Also, why does it say 'his mother received welfare benefits?' This might be relevant in an article about his mother, but. . .if it is meant to convey a sense of his home life, which after reading several articles, must have been miserable, then his statement to the reporter needs to be summarized and put in there instead. He shoplifted, the judge saw the circumstances the kid was living in, and gave him a good talking to. I got a much better sense of Brown's early life from the Boston Globe. My suggestion is to rework that quote and include the impression the judge made on him.Malke2010 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've edited this section for relevance and to clarify what was happening with Brown when he was 12.Malke2010 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the "biological" portion, but for what its worth, the part about his mother being on welfare was brought up by Brown himself numerous times during the campaign. Dexta32084 (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Saw that in the article and kept it in there, and also found out she was working, he lived with other relatives. Sounds like a miserable childhood.Malke2010 08:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Contraceptive discussion

The discussion of the Coakley ad against Brown is ridiculously partisan. It acts as if the Republican line of "get another doctor to do it" is the end of the discussion. What if all employees refused to issue the contraceptive pill?

The argument Coakley was making is that Brown wanted it to be legal for an employee to refuse emergency contraceptives to rape victims. That is absolutely true.

The Brown response of "what about other employees" is a legitimate counterargument, but it doesn't dismiss Coakley's argument that if it's legal for one person, then it's legal for all employees to do so. Therefore, Brown wanted it to be legal for EACH employee to refuse emergency contraceptives to rape victims.

In the end, it's likely unrealistic that that result would ever come, but Brown's position did allow for that possibility.

This is nothing new. It is a commonplace disagreement between those who believe medical personnel should be able to refuse to carry out services that go against their religious/moral beliefs, and those who do not believe that. This position sides with the the former. Therefore, this biased section needs to be altered, because as it stands, it is merely a Republican talking point with no balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.190.188 (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As Brown said in the January 5 debate, he supported religious hospitals to refer these women to another hospital. This is NOT about another person in the same hospital, and the FactCheck.org article makes no such claim. Flatterworld (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

do not violate WP:CRYSTAL

WP:CRYSTAL says we shouldn't predict stuff. We can say that several news organizations have declared Brown the winner but we can't say he is the winner. The election is not yet certified nor is 100% of the votes counted. JB50000 (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The news media are unanimously declaring him the winner and referring to him as "senator-elect". Let us not get overly pedantic. As I understand it, the Massachusetts Secretary of State will not formally certify the election for 15 days, but is planning to send a letter to the Senate tomorrow saying that Brown is the winner. We are a tertiary source, if the media is making a universal declaration, so goes Wikipedia. By your logic, we would have waited until January, when the electoral vote was counted and declared in Congress, to declare Obama president elect.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Also disagree. His opponent has conceded the election. He is the Senator-elect.--Paul (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Also disagree. The majority of the votes are counted and they are for Scott Brown. WP:CRYSTAL would apply if the race were too close to call and a recount were pending. There is no recount pending.Malke2010 16:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

JB50000 started an AN/I thread over this, he did not find a receptive audience there. He also did not notify other participants in the discussion here, which is a no-no.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

AN/I closed without action.Malke2010 05:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Quotation

anyone going to take out the pointless and biased quotation under the senate victory paragraph? 71.134.243.66 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

and possibly the line about his victory driving up stock prices? Its referenced, sure, but its one hell of a stretch and pretty clearly biased to assume that any single event, especially a single senatorial campaign in massachusets, somehow cause people to pay more for stocks than they did before. 71.134.243.66 (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have found some citations needed for article

I am a newbie to Wikipedia.

As the article is protected, I don't think that I can make edits.

I have found two citations for one of the (citations needed) requested for the article, and I'd like to see the citations added to the article in order to strengthen its informational value.

The citation needed is the one for Brown as a state senator voting for regional cap-and-trade (and later stating he regretted the vote).

Two links verify this to be true.

They are:

Mass. Senate Journal 06/24/2008, Yeas and Nays No. 248 (i.e., Senate roll call vote No. 248)-- (i.e., Scott Brown votes for the Green Communities Act -- regional cap-and-trade) [5]

And:

"Being the underdog never deters a determined Brown" from Boston.com

[6]

This article shows that Scott Brown supported Massachusetts' health insurance mandate and recounts how he regrets his vote on the Green Communities Act, i.e., regional carbon cap-and-trade mandate, or Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative (RGGI)-- See [7].

Thanks for any assistance.

Pezzonovante916 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cardozo Law School Alumnus

Could someone with the proper authority please add that Brown spent a year at Carodozo Law School, and hence is also (technically) an alumnus of that school as well. (I'm trying to cite to a profile of Brown from www.wkrg.com but Wiki isn't letting me post the link.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Half king10 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

typographical error

The Army National Guard normal/regular retirement age is 60 not age 50. This is probably a typographical error. Recent changes allow reservists/guardsmen to retire under age 60, provided they were mobilized for combat duty in support of the Global War on Terrorism.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.152.75.124 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Why is the first paragraph including details that that should be under "Political Career" describing the election. The opening paragraph should be an introduction to the person with a general description of the notable points in their life, the specific details of the campaign and election results below down below.

I understand that this just happened, but these sentences really don't belong up top since they are just details not needed in a summary.

On January 19, 2010, he defeated Democrat Martha Coakley 52% to 47% in the special election to fill the remaining three years of the U.S. Senate term vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. Brown became the first Republican to be elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts since 1972.[2] While initially trailing Attorney General Martha Coakley in polling by a large margin, Brown closed the gap in the first weeks of January 2010 before going on to win the election.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Basically, too much information that is better placed elsewhere. I would be happy to make the changes but I know how the Wikinazis are about someone without an account making a change, they would be reverted without someone even reading them. 216.211.255.98 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you look at WP:LEAD, you will see that the first paragraphs, or "lead section" is to be a summary of the article. Most people don't read the whole article, so we have the first paragraphs as an overview of the subject. At the present time, Brown's election victory is a highlight that is expected to be and should be in the article. 20 years from now, probably his first election will not need to be covered in such detail, but now is now. Thanks for your thoughts,--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not his first election though, I can understand mentioning the win but going into details with the % and all the multiple references only makes it more annoying to read, move the technical details of the campaign and election lower in the US Senate Campaign section where they actually belong, and is there really a need for 7 cites up in the lead paragraph for that information? Why not keep it at 1 and move the rest down where they are more apt for the long term. Clarity is really the key to keeping any information source valuable, something like this reads more clearly than what is there now since.

During the special election in January of 2010 to replace the recently deceased Edward(Ted) Kennedy, Brown became the first Republican from Massachusetts elected to the U.S. Senate since 1972 with an upset victory over early poll leader Martha Coakley.[3]

After that, there is no real need for the other minor information, if a person wants to read in more detail about the actual events then they can go read more down below, or go read the information on the page that was built special for the election. Although, I also question whether 1972 should actually be used as the first republican since date, because in 1972 Edward Brooke was re-elected by a landslide versus his initial election in 1966. 216.211.255.98 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write it, but a lede section need not be cited at all, because it is a summary of cited (hopefully!) information further into the article. My bad, it is not his first election, but it is certainly his first election with national attention. We go with what a parson is known for. Right now, this guy is known for getting elected to the Senate. Therefore, the election is a major part of things. If he crashes his truck into the Senate chamber, we will adjust things accordingly.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The anon's version is better. Yes, he's known for the election, which is why it's reasonable for us to note in the introductory section that he won a special election and that he came from behind to do it. We don't generally give specific percentages in the introductory section. For example, Bill Owens (congressman) also won an upset after trailing early, and is the first Democrat in that seat in about 150 years, but the specific percentages come only later, in the section about the election. I would amend the anon's version only by adding "Democrat" before Coakley's name. JamesMLane t c 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the percentages are from the fever of the election, but just looking over a few other politicos, they have election percentages. I think even Obama does.Malke2010 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Early Life and Non-Political Career

Please use the talk page to discuss changes to this section. There appears to be some edit warring going on. The section is based on a Boston Globe interview with Brown. However, the editor whose version is there now, has substituted the Times Online which is merely a list of things about Brown. It is not the primary source. On a quick skimming of the section is would appear that Brown has a violent past and was brought up before Judge Zoll for that. This is not true. Also, the reference to Brown being a 12 year old has been deleted and replaced with 'twelve year old.' I am going to put the The Boston Globe references back again.Malke2010 21:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw that another edit has been made that makes it more concise. I deleted the Times Online reference as this section is not taken from the Times Online. It is from the Boston Globe interview which is the primary source. The Times Online is just a compilation and not primary.Malke2010 22:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Shor's name is misspelled

{{editsemiprotected}} It's Shor, not Schor.

 Done Algebraist 22:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Moderate Republican?

Is Scott Brown and moderate or conservative republican? The article does not actually address this issue or show his political positions in a clearer way. 141.157.197.254 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He says he's a Scott Brown Republican, which probably means he votes the way he sees it.Malke2010 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern about recentism and US-centric bias regarding disambiguation

There are currently 10 people on Scott Brown (disambiguation). There are many politicians who are dabbed as such. Why does this Scott Brown get to be the primary meaning, and especially getting to be the redirect for Scott P. Brown, which is also another person? This seems to me to be due to recentism: he's in the news right now. But he's going to be a senator from MA, not president, and there are many senators who are dabbed. Is Brown really that much more notable than someone like, say, Sir John Kerr, a former governor-general and very notable figure, who isn't the primary meaning of John Kerr? 108.1.74.228 (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You bet he would be if this was 1975, and he was going at it with Gough Whitlam! Kerr has not been in office for 35 years, he is obscure except for his run in with Whitlam, and probably few people reading this will realize or remember (as the case may be) who Kerr and Whitlam are. Right now, the focus of many on an international basis is on this guy, not one of the footballers. We will reassess in a couple of months. If Brown is slowly starting to sink into obscurity, and the footballers are knocking them in, and the page views are comperable, well, maybe we switch it back. But for now, it isn't a question of US centrism, it is that he is attracting many more views than any other Scott Brown, and we're making things convenient to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree the page has been appropriately directed after consensus reached earlier. He is being discussed in news bits from all over the globe right now. There's no question that he's the most prominent Scott Brown.Malke2010 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for information, the other "Scott P. Brown" (Scott P. Brown (English footballer)) is that page because the two English footballers and the Scottish footballer were all born in the same year (1985); normally football players of the same nationality would be disambiguated by year of birth. It's a bit clunky, but it's the only way around it. Disambiguation by playing position would cause confusion between one of the English players and the Scottish player, because they are both midfielders. I have made comments previously about the issue of primacy at Talk:Scott Brown (disambiguation) and have no desire to repeat them. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This article got 19,500 hits yesterday. The Scottish footballer got 1,800, easily a year high for him (he's been averaging about 150). The English footballer got 64. The gymnast 43. The football coach 46. And so on. All these people are getting clobbered by Brown and are finding it hard to win, like they were Republicans in Massachusetts or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How many hits today?Malke2010 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That is "today", we work on Universal Time, so it was 7 pm EST Tues to 7 PM EST Wednesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, didn't realize the hour. Also, you did a most excellent resolution of the edits on the early home life, Judge Zoll thing.Malke2010 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Recentism is fine for disambiguation; it has no effect on article content. If he becomes less noteworthy later on, we can change it back. Disambiguation is about being as unobtrusive to our readers as possible, and almost everyone searching for Scott Brown in the next two or three months will be looking for this guy. —Designate (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems kind of silly to move it back to a dab when he becomes "less popular". I agree that this page should be a disambiguation at least and this article moved back to Scott Brown (politician). Anyone want to start a WP:RM for this? hbdragon88 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost everyone in the United States that is! I hadn't even heard of this guy until I saw him on the front page and the first thing I thought was he's got the same name as Scott Brown. As in Scott Brown the Scottish footballer of course. Maybe some of you americans need to remember other english speaking countries do read wikipedia as well. Yes, he is getting more page views due to current newsworthiness, but that is not a reason for replacing the disambiguation page with your senators page. JieBie (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with having Scott Brown a disambiguation page and moving the Senator elect to Scott Brown (politician) or Scott P. Brown. He is big news (this week) in the US, but this is not a US Wikipedia and we do not move articles, chasing headlines, around on a weekly basis. The days after the soccer player earns his big money transfer, he will become more significantly searched in the UK, but that does not mean we should move him to the primary subject. The question we should ask, when the new cycles move on, is whether any one is significantly more notable than any of the others on a global scale. I very much doubt it. Move it back. Rockpocket 03:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a United States Senator not some irrelevant soccer player. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You've made this point rather nicely with that comment, good work. Rockpocket 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your point? Look over Category:California State Senators as an example, there are plenty of dismabiguated (politician) articles. Being a Senator somehow does not confer one above to be the primary topic. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Now you are revealing your ignorance. This is a United States Senator not a State Senator. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So you dismiss my argument on a technicality...nice job, you've proven nothing other than your argument is wrong. Check out sub-cats of Category:United States Senators. There are plenty of (senator) and (state name) disambiguated topics, especially for common names like Walter Walker (U.S. Senator), John Hemphill (senator), etc. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are from the 19th century. Very few people will search for those individuals. Find a 21st century U.S. Senator that's disambiguated. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the page being left where it is. This Scott Brown is currently and will be for the next few years the most popular Scott Brown. If the soccer player wins or whatever there will still be far less of an audience that will be looking for the page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, how about Tim Johnson (U.S. Senator), Bob Bennett (politician), and Bob Casey, Jr.. All current senators, all three are disambiguated because they are not going to be the one person everyone is thinking of when they think that name. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Tim Johnson is also the name of a Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives, Bob Bennett should not be a disambiguated page and the Jr. is just part of Bob Casey's name. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Every country has parliamentarians, you know, and many are disambiguated. being a US politician does not impart automatic primacy any more than any other country. When one looks it this from a perspective that extends beyond the borders of your country, it smacks of both extreme recentism (keeping in mind 95% of the US population hadn't heard of him until this week, and as many will likely forget about him next week) coupled to systemic bias. Does it not strike you as odd, that you support disambiguation only when another American politician shares a name. Go team USA. Rockpocket 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The United States is more important than other countries. It's the only superpower in the world. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Systemic bias has nothing to do with this. There are lots of athletes named Gordon Brown and lots of American cities named Scotland, but the primary meanings for those topics are obvious (by view counts, incoming links, and reliable sources), so we don't disambiguate those titles. Scott Brown the senator's article got 180,000 views yesterday. The football player's article never got more than 140 views per day until the senator got elected. If one was moderately more popular than the other, we'd disambiguate, but we're talking over a thousand times more views. It's not even close. We go by what the majority of readers expect, not by what's relevant to the most countries. —Designate (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Political Positions

Just a reminder since there are so many edits here. The Political Positions section is getting weighed down with counter arguments to Scott Brown's positions. This is turning into WP:SYN and violations of Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. WP:NPOV. A reminder, this is a WP:BLP biography of a living person article. Scott Brown's political positions are his positions. This is not a section for refuting his positions. His positions should be stated without adding counter arguments, or adding references to the Democrats view of Scott Brown's positions, or references and/or statements from op/ed pieces. An example would be: 'Scott Brown advocates Free Tomatoes on Fridays." That's okay. What is not okay is to add to that, "The Atlantic called his stance on this nuanced." That's the position of The Atlantic on Free Tomatoes on Fridays and belongs on The Atlantic's wikipedia page. Somebody coming to this page looking for Scott Brown's positions just wants his positions. They can draw their own conclusions and they can do their own Google search for the opinions of others on the issues. Remember this is an encyclopedia. Not a debate forum.Malke2010 03:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it rather annoying that the section on his positions has information that is jumbled and placed into no logical order. There's a sentence on veterans followed by a sentence on gay people followed by a sentence on defense issues again. It's also rather annoying that some text is italicized for no reason, which is distracting and makes reading the section harder. Mask of Picnic (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert anything, but the section appears to be progressively getting worse over time. His explanations for his hypocritical positions on some of the issues (e.g. supporting universal health care in Mass. but not in the nation as a whole) are now apparently gone. Mask of Picnic (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to order things. I removed the lengthy quotes as the campaign is over, the votes are in, etc. Also, I added bullet points for easier reading. Short sentences with just his positions and not lengthy justifications for why he believes it, or voted a certain way, etc. is not necessary. I hope it reads better now. Citations still intact.Malke2010 04:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the shorter version is better. However, I don't think the bullet points are an improvement - the whole section more or less evolved as a bulleted list with no bullets, and adding the bullets will tend to encourage that style when it preferably ought to be prose. Having said that, I tried to draft an improvent to that section myself and couldn't get anywhere useful with it, so your work is better than what I could do. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The prose seemed to be getting weighed down with quotes, etc. I thought the bullets would help people be more succinct and keep things more encyclopedic.Malke2010 16:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is he, or isn't he?

Seems that editors are concerned over the exact wording of Brown's pictorial (for lack of a better word) in Cosmopolitan magazine. So that there is no edit war over that, please everybody weigh in on the words you would like to characterize this, but remember it's an encyclopedia, not an op/ed page. Some people consider the word 'nude' to mean completely naked with genitals exposed. Other's believe it means 'without any clothing.' You can also say if you believe both words, nude and semi-nude, should be used by way of explanation that there seems to be some debate about it. But is there a debate in the larger universe outside Wikipedia? Please consider that, too. Also, please show some citations, and remember that Cosmopolitan magazine calling it nude, well, they're selling magazines.

1) He's completely nude:

2) He's semi-nude

3) Let's include both (if you choose this option, come up with the sentence, too, so we can all see it.)

Thanks,Malke2010 16:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The nude definition on Wikipedia could be interpreted either way. I would like to see option 2 but 3 is alright with me as well. Following websites cite "semi-nude": 1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/20/massachusetts-election-scott-brown 2)http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/republican_scott_brown_seeking.html Also please keep in mind that the Cosmo magazine article is very sensational saying that they would like to see Brown's "stimulus package"...hardly reputable as they want to sell their product. Boromir123 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How about a qualifying phrase "nude, but without full frontal nudity". The absence of full-frontal nudity is the usual qualifier. Me, I prefer "nekkid".--130.111.163.179 (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I vote for nekkid, but I find it curious that two people here refer to Cosmopolitan wanting to sell magazines. The magazine was published in 1981, or did I miss something here? The "controversy" might cause any extant collectors' copies to rise quickly in value, but the laws of supply and demand don't apply to Wiki articles, or do they?

How about "nude with his hand covering his genitals"? - that would be an accurate description. Or to put it more delicately, and in the passive voice, "he was a featured as a centerfold 28 years ago in Cosmopolitan magazine with no full frontal nudity showing"—KeptSouth (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Someone earlier referred to how Cosmopolitan characterized the photo at the time of publication. So mention that they were sellling magazines was made.Malke2010 17:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not include the photo itself the way this one is [8]. That way there can be no misunderstanding about what's meant or implied. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a whole other edit war, my friend. XD. Let's stick to this [9]Malke2010 18:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think ChildofMidnight's suggestion is good. People would understand any vagueness in the language if they saw what was actually being talked about in the article.Chhe (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

CoM: If somebody wants to see the photo they can access it online. It doesn't need to be in the article. Also, didn't it happen in 1981? That's nearly 30 years. It's not like he just had the picture taken and it caused a huge controversy, etc. etc. The question now is as I have outlined above.Malke2010 20:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

KeptSouth: I don't know if you're being factious, but a more graphic description might work. "Posed naked with only his hand covering his genitals." I think it's accurate. There's no POV, etc. What does everybody else think?Malke2010 21:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

'Only' seems to imply that covering himself with his hand is insufficient. "Nude, with his hand covering his genitalia"? Or is there a masculine version of the Handbra? -- Vary | (Talk) 22:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think including the image here is undue weight, btw. If this blows up enough to deserve its own sub-article it'd be appropriate, but not now. -- Vary | (Talk) 22:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good point. remove only, it's not needed. "Posed naked with his hand covering his genitals." Yes, I think including the image is WP:UNDUE as well. Anybody curious can Google it. LOL 'masculine handbra.' Nice one.Malke2010 22:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Posed nude" is more correct than "posed naked". That's the term that's typically used when you're talking about modeling. -- Vary | (Talk) 22:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to say 'nude.' So how does that line work now? Would that settle it for now?Malke2010 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Vary. It is clear and accurate.Malke2010 22:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of Italics

A number of editors have either added italics to quotations or deleted them. Other editors have complained about the difficulty of reading italicized type. I haven't had time to see what the Wikipedia rule on this is, but if somebody could find it, it would be good to discuss it here. There are quotes from Scott Brown, and a few others, in the body of the article, and it would be nice if all the sections matched. I agree it can be annoying to have italicized type breaking up the flow of reading, etc. So, a consensus would be great.

1) For

2) Against.

Thanks, Malke2010 23:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki policy on quotations can be found here -->[10]. The fifth paragraph down in the "How to use quotations" section covers it. To paraphrase it states that quotations don't use italics unless there is special circumstances.Chhe (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mandatory Retirement

In the article there is the following:

Expressing regret that he will soon be forced to retire from the Guard at the mandatory age of 50, Brown has said: "I'm probably one of the most qualified soldiers in the entire Massachusetts [Guard].... I have enlisted service, I have infantry, quartermaster, JAG, I'm airborne qualified, I’ve been to all the courses".

Reading the cited article I can see where the author who put this in may have drawn the conclusion that there is a mandatory age of 50 retirement rule, but there isn't. There is a mandatory retirement age of 60 for all soldiers, and this can be extended to 62 in some cases if the soldier applies for and is granted an extension. What I believe Brown was referring to is the mandatory removal date (MRD) that all commissioned officers fall under up to the rank of Colonel. The rule is that commissioned officer must be removed (retired) after serving as an officer for 28 years up to the rank of LT Colonel. Officers in the rank of Colonel can serve 30 years. General officers have no MRD. Officers can request to extend beyond their MRD, but approval of that is rare and usually reserved for officers with special skill sets or working in critical job positions.

I can correct this, but just wanted to explain it here so no one will be upset that my edit doesn't match the Globe article used to cite the paragraph.

Would you put in the citation that explains this, or do you want to explain it within the article with the citation? So long as it doesn't give WP:UNDUE to the Guard retirement rules, putting in a clarification would help. Brown obviously meant that, but his speaking style seems to be, he will say something like that without giving heavy explanation. Like he did in the Boston Globe article about his childhood. He said enough that you get the drift of that things were not good for a 12 year old kid.Malke2010 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I put in a citation to the Army Human Resources Command site which lists the MRD dates (including the age MRD for general officers which I was unaware of when I posted above). I didn't put an explanation within the paragraph though, if you think it would help I will. Hardnfast (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As a Senator, doesn't he have to resign his position in the NG? ~DC _{Talk To Me} 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I can't be certain of that opinion. I know there are congressmen who serve in the Guard and Reserve, but don't know of any Senators who do so. Hardnfast (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Political Positions

Looks good with the organization there now.Malke2010 00:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, mainly for style, the constant repition of the phrase "he this" and "he believes" is rather poor. I'll work on it. Also believe that a few sections could be combined and that some of the content isn't really that important. Soxwon (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a work in progress. The constant he said, he, he, he, is because the bullet points have been removed. That's why I put them in in the first place. Don't agree about combining anything right now. Also, don't agree with removing the quote about the turbines on Boston Common. That made national news when he said it. Ted Kennedy didn't want turbines on Cape Cod either. Bostonians very emotional about the Common. And the shoreline, etc. You should put that back for now. Election is just barely over. In time, some of these things will get replaced as he works in the senate.Malke2010 01:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too. Much clearer. Flatterworld (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I like that someone sorted the positions into categories. Makes it much more accessible.Malke2010 22:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Senate Campaign Section - Misleading Sentence

Under section 3.2 titled "U.S. Senate campaign" the following line should be changed.

"The Boston Globe reported that Brown claimed he was unfamiliar with the Tea Party movement."

It should say "The Boston Globe disingenuously reported that Brown claimed he was unfamiliar with the Tea Party movement."

This is an important distinction because the Boston Globe is considered to be a reliable source. The present language will lead readers to believe that Scott Brown was actually unfamiliar with the Tea Party movement. If you read the transcript it was very clear that Scott Brown was not claiming to be unfamiliar with the Tea Party movement. He was claiming to be unfamiliar with the characterizations of the Tea Party movement that were loaded into questions asked by the interviewer.

The Boston Globe was being disingenuous and this article should reflect that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.210.215 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Will take a look at it now.Malke2010 04:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Here is the actual audio of the interview. [11] Brown says he isn't sure what the reporter means but when she explains to him that the tea party movement is all over the country, etc., he then says he has supporters from all over, Democrats, Republicans, etc. So I will delete that. I also checked other sources and I think the wikipedia editor may have been relying on the synthesis of this by the Huffington Post.Malke2010 04:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party moneybomb

Why are there no references to the Tea Party establishment throwing their support behind Scott Brown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.93.236 (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why mention that one organization specifically? MrDestructo (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(To the initial question)- Funny...and simple: Because the Tea Party folks have only a tiny fraction of the wealth and media influence possessed by the vast East Coast Democratic machine that threw its weight behind Coakley to the Nth degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.4.187 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

An Orgy of overlinking?

Here are just a few examples of recent overlinking - I am not listing them all. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16],[17]

For an interesting edit summary see [18] Since I have to assume good faith, I will assume that the editor in question is suffering from an irresistible impulse to "wiki highlight" — KeptSouth (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I will be removing some of these links per the Wiki guideline that says: "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links .... as it can make it harder for the reader to identify and follow those links which are likely to be of value." WP:Linking — KeptSouth (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. I have highlighted links to wikipedia articles that will aid the reader in understanding victim's rights, religious beliefs, etc. You have deleted that. I added these links with students in mind who come to Wikipedia to research. Is it important to understand religious beliefs in this context? Is there a connecting link on Wikipedia? Yes. these are not obvious, redundant, or useless links.Malke2010 17:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I question your characterization as an 'orgy of overlinking.' What exactly are you trying to say here?Malke2010 17:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's overlinking as well. For instance why would you link "large" like you did in one of the diff's provided above? Do readers have trouble determining what that means? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree I over did that, but he's deleting links to Wiki pages that will prove useful to readers, such as religious beliefs. The issue in that section is over religious hospitals refusing to provide birth control to rape victims. So what exactly are religious beliefs? The link is useful to the reader. And when I did the linking, I was thinking of students. You have to assume people don't know everything about a topic or issue.Malke2010 17:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious beliefs are the belief in a religion; it's self explanatory. Don't assume that wikipedia readers are stupid. For instance there's no need to link terms such as United States because without being to haughty, everyone knows what the United States is. We shouldn't link every word just because it may happen to have its own page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't link United States. I didn't put in every link here. The link to the religious beliefs is within Wiki policy on linking. If it's within policy, it can stay. Removing legitimate links might be seen as more POV pushing than concern for Wiki policy.Malke2010 17:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to like internal links too, but I agree with the users above...its excessive. I think people know what a "religious belief" is. As such this is certainly overlinking and many of them should be undone.Chhe (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people incorrectly believe that 'religious belief' is limited to 'membership in a recognized religion', so imo that wikilink may indeed be useful. Flatterworld (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Positions on Global Labor Arbitrage -- Foreign Outsourcing, H-1B and L-1 visas, Mass Legal Immigration, Illegal Immigration

Could someone please post Scott Brown's positions or lack of stated positions on these subjects? What is his view on the foreign outsourcing of American manufacturing and knowledge-based jobs overseas? What is his view on the displacement of Americans from often knowledge-based, college-education-requiring jobs by foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas? What is his view on mass legal immigration, which puts downward pressure on wages for lower class Americans and contributes to population explosion? What is his view on illegal immigration? Does he support deporting the illegals and prosecuting businesses that knowingly or recklessly hire them? Was he ever asked about those issues during the campaign? Every politician should have a section pointing out their positions or lack of a position on these important economic policy issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.45.207 (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a political positions section for this article. He does have positions on drivers licenses, etc. In regards to the other questions you posed, I would first recommend a Google search to find answers. Illegal immigrations issues are common in border states in the South and Southwest of the U.S. As a state senator, in a state where the population is less transient, and not the first choice location of illegal entry into the U.S., these particular issues might not have been so pressing. As a U.S. senator, he will definitely be asked these questions and I would expect him to have positions. Perhaps as a first step, you could send an email to his state senate office or his campaign. They are easily found through Google. Hope this helps.Malke2010 18:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I did do a little bit of a search for some of those things, but what I am hoping for is that people who know the answers to those questions will put the information up here on Wikipedia, which is, after all, part of what these Wikipedia entries are for anyway. It might make a nice research project for a bored political junky. I'm sure Brown's office and handlers read all of this and edit the entry often. Perhaps they could fill it out.

Since you have the interest, you might want to take the time to search out the citations and add the reference yourself. You will have to log-in and register in order to edit this article as it has semi-protection.Malke2010 19:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I could log into my account if I wanted to. My guess is that there aren't any citations to search for and that he has never publicly stated positions on this issue. I did send an email asking those questions of the Brown campaign half-an-hour ago, however, I'm not expecting to receive an answer, at least not a substantive answer that directly addresses the issues. Brown probably understands that it is best not to publicly state one's positions on these types of issues, but perhaps he'll prove to be a sincere and unconventional politician. I'll take your post as an invitation to post whatever information I find on the main page with references.

Be sure to adhere to WP:BLP when doing so, and post to the relevant section. If you are already an experienced user, then you know that. But if you are relatively new, you can search through Wikipedia for other questions about sources WP:REF, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, WP:WEASELetc. And remember to sign your posts.Malke2010 20:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Senate Campaign

It might be a good idea to include here just how Brown ran his campaign. I keep hearing references by news show talking heads about what a good campaign he ran, etc. Seems like mention of his campaign strategy would be appropriate. But not heavy on criticism of Martha Coakley's campaign. Also, Brown siphoned off the Independent vote, while I've seen news reports that Kennedy may have siphoned off the Democratic vote from Coakley. So mention of the demographics would be appropriate here. Nothing WP:UNDUE, but this section really should have more campaign strategy and issues, and less bad ads by Martha, etc. I'm not suggesting removing what is there, just adding to it to round it out so that it includes other aspects, for balance. More encyclopedic.Malke2010 05:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds good for now, though I don't know abou the long term. Have you scouted around for such articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have looked around but right now everything is health care reform and senate votes, etc. That's why I put up the post. I thought maybe somebody from Massachusetts would remember things about the campaign when it started and know better how to find the articles.Malke2010 16:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like the kind of article that can get written in the weeks following an election "how he won". Keep your eyes open, and especially check the Globe and the Herald. If I happen to run across anything I will let you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Right now your control over the article is limited because the community is insisting on adding stuff, but when things calm down a bit, you might want to consider breaking out part of the article into "Political Positions of Scott Brown" or some such.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Make it easier to get and keep the article at a high level, too. Just ask the Obama article people. Practically every proposed change is diverted to a subsidiary article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that's a great idea for later. Eventually, his positions as a U.S. Senator will expand beyond the scope of his biography, especially with the health care debate, etc.Malke2010 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Content

Malke 2010 recently removed important content from this page with this edit [19] with the strange explanation that it was redundant. I checked the edit and it was quite clear that the information was in no way redundant so I undid the edit [20]. The information explained Brown's position on gay marraige that he was against it, but that he wouldn't attempt to overturn it. Malke 2010 removed the part about him being against it and left only the part stating that he wouldn't try to overturn it with the edit summary claiming that this was redundant. Its in no way redundant however as it provides additional information about Brown's position and puts into context why he said he wouldn't try to overturn his states gay marraige law. Malke 2010 then subsequently undid my undue edit [21]. This edit by Malke 2010 doesn't make any sense.Chhe (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Brown's support of President Obama's views on the subject make it clear what his position is. It is redundant to say he believes marriage is between a man and a woman since this what President Obama said so clearly in the debates and several times since. If you have an issue, you can start a new section with that title, and not with my user name. As anyone can see by the history what my contributions are, it seems redundant to point them out in a section title.Malke2010 18:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, Obama's position on gay marraige is extremely unclear as explained in this article [22]. At times he has said he is against gay marraige, but then at other times he indicates that he is strongly in favor of it. Additionally, it doesn't make any sense to say in an encyclopedia article that a certain poltician's position is the same as this other politician's position. It should just say flat out what he thinks assuming that it is known, which in this case it appears to be.Chhe (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Brown said he agrees with President Obama on the issue.Malke2010 19:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that. Whats your point? What does that have to do with anything with regards to your claim of redundancy?Chhe (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's generally misleading to include that politician A claims he has the same position as politician B. For one thing, the implication is that politician B agrees with that claim. For another, the implication is that their position in total is the same, not just on one particular point within this entire issue (i.e., Scott supports civil unions, but wants that left up to each state. I think it's likely Obama wants more protections, rights and responsibilities included in civil unions.) For those reasons I prefer specific quotes (and/or votes) from the particular politician in question. See OnTheIssues which only includes his 2004 vote. That's clear. If there are later statements which are clear, include them. Otherwise don't. Flatterworld (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Flatterworld's assessment. If no other user wants to input their opinion I'll add in the quotes Flatterworld provided and remove the part about Obama some time soon. Or we can start a RFC if anyone prefers.Chhe (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a pattern developing here. I just re-added an important point in the Patient's Rights section, also deleted by Malke 2010. Any attempt to make Brown appear as anything other than he actually is, is simply not encyclopedic. He is what he is. He's perfectly clear about it, and I doubt he wants anyone here to purposely 'muddy the waters' about his beliefs. Flatterworld (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Flatterworld, as far as I can see, there is nothing improper about the removal of material. We write in what is called "summary style" here. We are not trying to say everything we can about Brown, just enough to give the reader sufficient information to go on to more comprehensive resources. So to speak briefly about his position on any one issue is enough. Unhappily, we are not geared to lengthy, nuanced discussions of each of Brown's positions. Hope this helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, we have a duty to be clear. "Summary style" and "nuance" are not to be used as an excuse for spinning his actual views. They are what they are. Flatterworld (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where I've removed content and I certainly don't mean to step on someone's edit.

But as an FYI, Brown's amendment is not even properly represented here. His amendment would have allowed an individual healthcare worker to refuse to administer what is known as the "Morning After Pill" to a rape victim if that healthcare worker objected on religious grounds.

BUT, the hospital would have been required to provide another healthcare worker who would administer the morning after pill. And if the rape victim had gone to a religious facility, that facility would have been obligated to still see to it that the victim received the Morning After Pill at another facility and within the time frame that the dosing is recommended.

The Morning After Pill is meant to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, or, in the event that implantation has taken place, disrupt that implantation. And despite Martha Coakley's comment that Catholics should not work in Emergency Rooms, other religions view the Morning After Pill the same way.

Scott Brown was trying to help those workers as well as the rape victims. He was merely attempting to solve a problem with a solution that would satisfy all. In the end it is a moot point because it didn't pass. Will that bit be important a year from now? I don't see a problem with it there now, but now that you mention it, do we need to repeat the sentence twice?Malke2010 01:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I removed my name from the title of this section. I understand why Chhe put it there, but I don't like having a target on my back, and since this is my name, I'll do what I want with it. Thanks all the same.Malke2010 01:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section in question to include all of the above and with the appropriate citations.Malke2010 02:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

and I still can't find a diff where I removed anything. Malke2010 02:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose rewriting rather than removal was th best term; I rather carelessly adopted Flatter's term. Still, I see nothing inappropriate. I am becoming increasingly concerned that this aritcle is becoming bloated, despite its relatively short size, with everyone's favorite quotes and characterizations of Brown's political positions.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. What do you suggest? What would you trim?Malke2010 06:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the rewrite. The earlier version that stated another healthcare worker would simply provide the pill implied it would be given at the same hospital administering the rest of the care after a rape. This care (which includes collecting various samples) can take several hours, is traumatic, and forcing a woman to then go to another hospital and fill out a bunch of paperwork (again) and wait (again) just to get a pill is quite a different story. (And a worker/hospital which refuses to hand a woman a pill is not likely to see a big difference of 'facilitation' in helping her at another hospital.) The pill prevents implantation, or if implantation has already taken place it causes, in effect, an abortion (if taken within, I believe, 72 hours). Implantation doesn't happen instantly. Therefore, the sooner the pill is taken, the more likely the former rather than the latter is what happens. For some women, this is a crucial difference. Forcing her to wait is cruel, and may well encourage her to try to speed through the process just to get out of there. It's not as if 911 ambulances take a victim to the hospital of her choice. Flatterworld (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually they do believe it or not. --Tom (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually they don't. I know that from personal experience. Flatterworld (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually they do. I too know that from personal experience. Obviously this differs from place to place I guess. Anyways, what were we discussing :)--Tom (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Cistercian or Trappistine

There seems to be confusion over the name of the Order of the Sisters that Scott Brown and his family provide financial support for. On their website the Sisters of St. Mary's Abbey in Wrentham identify themselves as Cistercian. This is a derivative of the male Trappistine monk order. Here is the Sister's website. Another editor wants to call the Sisters' order Trappistine because they sell merchandise under a Trappistine label. To prevent an edit war on the issue, but more importantly because this is an encyclopedia it really should be correct, it would be helpful if other editors looked at it and offered their opinions. Thanks.Malke2010 20:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If they call themselves Cisterian, absent secondary sources saying otherwise, I'm inclined to go with Cisterian.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've just made two edits and replaced a ref that should make things more clear. Hope everybody is happy now.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good.Malke2010 21:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Cheers, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is not a point meriting huge controversy. Btw, the monks are not Trappistines, and I dare you to call one that to his face. ;-) but the Order does have a dual identity of being both Cistercian and Trappist, unlike the other Cistercians, who are not Trappists. The Trappist Order's own website lists this abbey among their establishments. But then, so does the general Cistercian one. oh, well. Daniel the Monk (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. And coming from Ireland, I know exactly what to say and what not to say to religious. LOL. Do you think the edit as it now is clear enough? I think it's a good solution to have both mentioned as I said on your talk page.Malke2010 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo Copyright

An editor is attempting to get an official U.S. senate photo of Brown. In the meantime, if you add a photo, please be sure it confirms to the Wikipedia rules on copyright, etc. If you have questions about that, Moonriddengirl is an admin and expert on this topic. Thanks. Malke2010 22:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's me, I think. I will be emailing them tomorrow. Keep in mind that a Massachusetts state senate photo does not fall under federal copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Let's keep the picture that's here now until the official U.S. senate is available. I don't think editors are universally aware of the copyright issues when they add pictures. We have to keep tabs on that.Malke2010 19:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Harassment Accusations

I have added accusations of harassment in 1998 from the original source (Boston's Sun Chronicle) and two other sources, but I am still looking more and better sources. Steelersfan7roe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

The suit was dismissed with prejudice after the plaintiff's lawyer quit and the accuser asked that the suit be withdrawn. Nothing happened here. Although this episode may rise to the level of interest that a political blog might talk about it, it is not encyclopedia material.--Paul (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not of note in Brown's career. Anyone can file a lawsuit. WP:UNDUE.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pink leather shorts

What is with Scott wearing pink leather shorts? Is this another attempt to hurt his rep? CApitol3 (talk)

• no, he admited it himself. [23]--Eion (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Modeling

There seems to be some dispute as to the content in the modeling section. I've deleted the sentence "long, lucrative career" as it is WP:OR and not supported by the citation. It's not a quote from Brown nor is it a quote from the New York Times writer. The edit that I've made makes it clear what kind of modeling Brown did and it also includes the fact that this is how Brown met his wife. She was also a catalog model. These are facts supported by the citation and give the reader a clear understanding that Brown did this 'career' as a means to an end and not an end in itself. He used the money to pay his way through law school.

Please leave the edit as is and don't lets get into edit warring over it. Thanks. Malke2010 15:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a bit of the New York Times Magazine article that helps clarify things:

During college, Brown excelled on the basketball court, majored in history and graduated in four years. “He wasn’t a scholar,” says Michael Quinn, one of his best friends since junior high, adding that Brown was practical in his approach to school. “It was his ticket to a better life.” So was modeling, which helped him sock away money for law school and beyond. An acquaintance with whom he was painting houses­ one summer suggested it as a way to earn a quick buck, and the Cosmo spread gave him momentum. Without his knowledge, he said, his half-sister had sent his picture to the magazine for consideration in the “sexiest man” contest. He said he thought the subsequent call from someone identifying herself as Helen Gurley Brown was a prank — until he received a plane ticket to fly to New York.

Oh, for heaven's sake:

• "Long, lucrative", far from being WP:OR as you claimed twice, is taken directly from the cited NYT magazine article:

The Cosmo article came toward the start of a long, lucrative modeling career, and it was hardly his last voyage as a showboat.

• There's already concern in Talk about this article getting bloated. I made the original edits in question after reading in the NYT Magazine article that Brown had modeled more seriously, and for a longer period of time, than the famous Cosmo appearance everyone heard about during the campaign. I found this to be interesting and notable for a politician and added it to the article. There are limits to relevance, of course; that's why my half-of-one-sentence add merely said:

  , and began for Brown a "long, lucrative" part-time modeling career in New York and Boston during the 1980s

• Brief, to the point, and completely supported by the cite. (If Brown had become a model without appearing in Cosmo I'd have put this sentence in the Early life and education section; it's his centerfold appearance—especially unusual and notable—that causes his modeling to get a subsection of its own, and even then we shouldn't go into too much detail.) Your version, which you stepped in with after being shown—not for the first time in this discussion—that you didn't bother to read the cite, in three sentences:
  • Misspells "Wilhelmina"
  • Says Wilhelmina hired Brown; "represent" is a much more-accurate way of describing the agent/client relationship. (I'd argue the details of his New York agency just isn't important for this article, period; then we'd have to talk about his Boston modeling agent, too, who represented him for a much longer period of time.)
  • Goes into unnecessary detail for this article on how long he was a model in New York, versus Boston
  • Goes into unnecessary detail for this article on what type of model he was
  • Does not state the period/length of his modeling; a reader could easily infer that he modeled until recently, or even today
  • Mentions Cardozo Law. If Brown's attendance at another law school besides Boston College is notable it belongs in the Early life and education section, not here.
  • Discusses how he met his wife through modeling, something more appropriate for the Personal Life/Family section (admittedly a matter of personal taste, but on top of the other issues...)

So, let's review:

• You twice (here and here) falsely claim WP:OR because you didn't bother to read the cite.
• After being shown to be mistaken, you overcompensate with the heavy-handed and problematic edit above.
• You then again falsely claim WP:OR despite having being told exactly where the quote comes from.

Have I missed anything? YLee (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You put the "long lucrative career" bit in quotes as if Brown had said it. I don't care what Bruni considers a long, lucrative career. It came off as sarcastic and it gives the wrong impression as if to say that Brown was doing this work as his life's ambition. It was not. He didn't keep it up, he moved on to what his real work was. And it still belongs at the bottom of the article. It was a minor gig in his life, in the way that working at the dining hall or student bookstore is a gig for any college student. He was just more fortunate than most in that it was something that paid so well. At least now the thing mentions that is where he met his wife. The New York Times article is sufficient to cover all that, but I notice that the Cosmopolitan citation is there simply to offer the photo, which many edits ago, had been removed from the article. So please, my error in mentioning the New York Times writer, but the edit as it was before was not meant to compliment Brown.Malke2010 23:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just making things up, in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that you were completely wrong:

• "Long, lucrative" (Not "long lucrative career") being in quotes does not imply Brown said it. It only means that the words are taken verbatim from a reliable source. (Although Bruni, for the record, writes "long, lucrative modeling career".) You still haven't admitted to repeatedly missing the quote in the article.
• "I don't care what Bruni considers a long, lucrative career." I don't even know how to respond to that.
• "It came off as sarcastic..." I don't see how anyone could read that portion of the NYT Magazine article and view it as negative. The article portion is entirely admiring of Brown's good looks, business savvy, moneymaking ability, winning personality, and self-confidence.
• I agree that if the Cosmo appearance had been the extent of his modeling it wouldn't have been much of a career. But it wasn't:

His hourly rate was $150, he often earned $1,200 a day and he did, by his own estimate, “thousands and thousands of ads.”

• That's over a period of many years in Boston and New York during and after law school, mind you. Yes, the work was part-time, but that's a lot more significant in every way than the part-time job that I worked at through college.
• That said, no, modeling is not what his real work became. One brief paragraph fully covers its significance in his career. *You're* the one who, in your sad attempt to compensate for being shown wrong (the first time), made the paragraph longer than warranted (and thoroughly bungled it in the process).

Bottom line: I don't want to risk WP:3RR but I am going to revert back to my edits when I can unless someone else does it first. YLee (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's still considered edit warring. You risk full protection being extended onto this article and admins looking to see who the edit warriors are and acting accordingly. What about, for one thing, putting "long, lucrative career" in quotes and attributing it? Please keep in mind here that we write in summary style here and Brown is most notable as a politician.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be more than happy for admins to intervene, and stand by everything I wrote above. I don't understand your third sentence. The phrase in question is "long, lucrative", and it was not attributed to Brown himself; I put the phrase in quotes as it was taken directly from the article. If desired it can be replaced with "lengthy" or "lengthy and successful" or even deleted completely.

I completely agree that modeling is a relatively small aspect of Brown's career (although, as Frank Bruni implies, illustrative of the positive aspects of his personality and drive that have benefited his career); Malke is the one who, after falsely accusing me of WP:OR, turned half of a sentence into three gloriously mangled ones. YLee (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of the "long, lucrative" phrase, we could have something more definite, like the period of time he worked as a model and some mention of what he did with the money.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The article does not discuss either precisely. It does say that he part-time modeled for two years in New York and "the better part of a decade" in Boston, and that the money helped pay for "law school and beyond".

Again, I am happy to delete or reword the "long, lucrative" phrase; my objections are to a) Malke's repeated false accusations of WP:OR against me (and proven failure to read the article until repeatedly prodded), and b) going into unnecessary and unimportant detail on his modeling. I admit b) is subjective but a) isn't based on the above and the edit history, something he has yet to acknowledge much less apologize for. YLee (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it is best to settle matters. If there is repeated conflict, then let's get into the whys and wherefores.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)