Talk:Scott Brown (politician)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New Senate Portrait

I have obtained a new photo of Senator Scott Brown via his website. However, It is too blurry and is not my personal photo. Plyjacks (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv314/sshguyqc/offsbsenate1.jpg

I've got a better copy, and will upload shortly and take it through OTRS.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much Wehwalt! The article looks a lot better now. Plyjacks (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice job, Wehwalt!Malke2010 17:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking Shorts

Did Brown actually use the term "Thinking Shorts" or did Rachel Maddow make this up? Hcobb (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Too much on memoir

I'm going to go ahead and delete the section on Brown's new memoir, and make some other related deletions. Politicians write memoirs all the time; that the book has had an unusual amount of publicity recently for such a work because of the sexual abuse revelation does not make the book especially encyclopedic. Adding a section for it and mentioning it elsewhere violates WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT, and WP:NOTNEWS. The abuse is encyclopedic, and is currently appropriately mentioned; where and when Brown revealed it is not, and those curious about that can read the cite.

(After the revert) The revert also deleted an edit that added a description of Cape Cod that is both irrelevant to the text and unsupported by the cite. Also, I would not oppose a mention of the memoir, but it should be one sentence or less; something like "...and in 2011 published a memoir, Against All Odds". Make the mention part of how we describe Brown, not a subject of discussion in and of itself. YLee (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Politicians all have spouses, but we still mention them. Even without the sexual abuse story, his memoir's notable by virtue of being released by a major publisher. —Designate (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

John McCain has 4 sentences on his memoir, which as I have seen WP:RS coverage, was fall less revelatory. Is a paragraph on coverage agree to all? Midlakewinter (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

McCain is also 1) twice a candidate for his party's nomination for the presidency, once successfully; Vietnam PoW for seven years; 3) and United States Senator and national political figure for more than a quarter century. Faith of My Fathers was a best seller, was well reviewed, became a TV movie, and has an article of its own, and McCain has written other books. Against All Odds may or may not achieve such levels of encyclopedicdom, but it certainly has not yet. Discussing in the article the month and year that the words that a particular publishing house chose in its press relase to announce its signing of Brown to a contract to a memoir is exactly the sort of pointless nonencyclopedic discussion that I mentioned above. As of now the book deserves a sentence at most, no more.

(Not that this is limited to this article, of course. Far, far too many Wikipedia articles have text on the order of "In March 2008, it was speculated in [major newspaper] that [some random act] had occurred.[40][41] In April it was confirmed by [notable figure]'s spokesman that [random act] had not occurred but would soon take place.[42][43] [Random act] occurred in June 2008.[44]." Setting aside the abuse of passive tense and unspecified pronouns, 95% of the time just saying "[Random act] occurred in June 2008[40]" is preferable.) YLee (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are extremely fair points. As I look at the section now, would it make sense to trim the book deal part (reader would assume - since book has been published) & also the book tour part (pretty obvious as well)? Midlakewinter (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Something like "In 2011 Brown published a memoir, Against All Odds, that recounted his successful candidacy" at the end of the U.S. Senate campaign section would not violate WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT, and WP:NOTNEWS as the current section does. YLee (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This page has been spammed

I just thought I might bring it to attention GreenPowerRanger420 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)GreenPowerRanger420 2/26/11

Maddow fundraising controversy

Does anyone object to removing this entirely? It was nothing but your typical pundit-blog-back-and-forth. It lasted a week. No one remembers it. After a year in the Senate he's done very little but surely it outweighs this section. —Designate (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Support striking it. It was news then, but nothing encyclopedic about it. Midlakewinter (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination

I haven't worked on this article but it seems fairly developed. Is anyone interested in nominating it for GA? —Designate (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nominated. —Designate (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert of Seleucus/Koch edit

I wanted to further explain my revert of Seleucus' edit. The fact that a particular set of wealthy conservative billionaires contributed to Brown's campaign is hardly notable. The edit looks, rather, like an attempt to use it to coatrack using links to Political activities of the Koch family and 2011 Wisconsin protests. YLee (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Clashes with the political right"

Shouldn't this be moved into his Senate record or positions, or deleted altogether? Brown's status as a moderate and some of his issue positions to the effect are already mentioned elsewhere in the article in more standard form, whereas this kind of section doesn't seem to be standard form across similar articles (even for other politicians considered to be moderates and who have clashed with their own party). I'm wondering whether it might have been Brown supporters who added the new section, especially given it's wording- political pundits tend assume that as a Republican in a "blue state" like MA, it is beneficial for Brown to highlight these differences in much the way the section does, and it therefore may be biased. Granted, you can argue that it's perhaps biased to remove it, but without a "clashes with the left" section there's an imbalance. Elliot341 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

·No, actually I added this section. I added this section for a class I'm in at a university, which I will not name for private reasons. It was the part of a project Feel free to merge it though. I'm not even from mass. Scott Browns Politics are not mine. I definately did not use the word Pundit in there originally. If pundit is in there, someone else added it. Lets take it out. The reason I added this article was because I was doing a project that required me to do a section on a moderate Republican, and I wound up zeroing in on "RINOs" and how they are attacked from Tea Partiers and other candidates from the extreme right. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to touch up this article/move it to make it more fair or fitting to the place. SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the references, it became evident to me that you went beyond the source material in your summary. One example is "the likes of John Kerry" which seems slanted and not within the cited sources. One need not agree with an article's subject to write about it, though Wikipedia's core policies do include no original research and a neutral point of view. If time allows, I'll see about making some changes to the section; if kept in this article, I don't think it needs to be in a separate section, perhaps nested under 'U.S. Senate'. —ADavidB 07:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Does Brown have bodyguards around him now that his term is over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.9.224 (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage in Massachusetts

It's mentioned under Social Issues that Brown considers gay marriage a settled issue in MA, and that he would oppose an amendment to the national Constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, what is not mentioned is that Scott Brown actually voted for a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution banning gay marriage in 2007 when he was a member of the Massachusetts Senate:

The articles that have him saying that he considers the gay marriage debate settled in MA and that he would oppose an amendment to the national Constitution aimed at banning gay marriage are from 2009 and 2010 respectively, 2-3 years after he voted for the Massachusetts amendment. It's possible that the failure of the MA amendment is what made him consider the debate settled, and it may be granted that supporting an amendment to a state Constitution doesn't mean that one must support the same amendment to the national Constitution, but I think it's definitely worth mentioning that Brown did in fact favor banning gay marriage in Massachusetts in the past and voted to make it happen. Provides a more complete picture of his record, no?

AngryHatter (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, if you can provide a secondary source that mentions his vote in order to indicate its significance. The votesmart article you referenced does not call out Brown's vote on the bill as being of significance.CFredkin (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Lessig "lobbyist" issue

No doubt [1] will be of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC

I hope I'm not being premature, but two edits I made to this article, concerning the turnaround in the opinion of the veteran who inspired Scott to introduce the Medals Act. seem to me to be appropriate: One was a comment from the author of the book, Stolen Valor, who called Brown's actions, in C.V. inflation, "really cheesy," a direct quote from the cited story. That seemed to encapsulate his turnaround to the point that he stopped supporting Scott, with whom he'd had an appreciative relationship. Instead, he supported Elizabeth Warren, who was challenging Scott in 2012 for the seat vacated by the death of Teddy Kennedy. The second was mentioning that the "stolen valor" issue was a bipartisan one, in which a Connecticut Democrat and a Illinois Republican, both had previously claimed undue credit for the extent of their respective service. I had, in the interests of brevity, eliminated their state and party identifications, but otherwise, it was again pretty much a direct quote. I probably should have retained those I.D.s, as not all readers and editors will recognize that it was a bipartisan issue, or even the states and parties each incumbent senator represented. Those parts of my edits were reverted, as conveying "undue" weight, I presume in good faith, but I think they should be restored. Before I revert one or both reverts, I'd like to hear from any or all others who have contributed to or followed this article, for their thoughts. I am certainly willing to respect the consensus opinions of others. As should be obvious from the article, and the bill's sponsorship, Scott had a lengthy and distinguished career in the Guard and had long been a champion of veterans' rights, both in the Massachusetts legislature and in congress. It's a shame he let what was probably an impromptu remark during a debate detract from his well earned reputation. Cheers. Activist (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The "really cheesy" partial quote is not needed. Arzel (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You're okay with the identification by persuasion and location of the other Senators? Thanks! Hopefully, we'll hear from others. Activist (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the comparison to Blumenthal and Kirk is WP:undue.CFredkin (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with CFredkin regarding the mention of Blumenthal and Kirk. I really don't see a need for comparison in this article of Brown's service claims with those of other senators, even though the quoted historian considers it a serious bipartisan issue. I've gone ahead and removed that bit and joined with the next sentence. —ADavidB 11:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I see some significant issue with the current content:

• Who is Doug Sterner, and why are his opinions of note? The citation that seeks to establish Sterner as a "military historian and Vietnam vet" does not do so (the only mention of Sterner on the given webpage is "A big thanks to Doug Sterner and his HomeofHeroes website for providing most of the content of this page.")
• "Sterner's website outing pretenders was the basis for Brown's "Stolen Valor" bill. 'I think it does go to an issue of personal character and that concerns me.'" There is no context here. What is the Stolen Valor act? The phrase "outing pretenders" implies that Brown is a "pretender." Who said the given quote? There's no inline attribution (I'm assuming Sterner?) and again, why is Sterner's opinion of note here? Is he actually a credentialed, notable military historian?
• ..."thought it broke the spirit of what Brown attempted by sponsoring the Stolen Valor Act, which was aimed at stopping people from benefiting by swiping the real glory from others." Again, why is Sterner's opinion of note? This also implies that Brown "swiped the real glory," a loaded phrase. And still no context for the Stolen Valor Act.

The notability of this section rests on establishing who Sterner is, and if he's a notable source. Also, we need context for the Stolen Valor Bill. Brown did serve in Afghanistan, and the sources here say as much. Is Sterner's opinion on what exactly "counts" as serving notable here? Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything from anyone so I'm going to make changes to the article based on my comments above. Champaign Supernova (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)