Talk:Kate Brown

Edits by staffers

At some point--I don't feel like looking up the diffs at the moment--Kate Brown, being social media savvy, had some staffers edit her article. As I recall it all worked out OK, but just something to watch out for so anyone with a conflict of interest can be shown how to manage that. Valfontis (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Drmies and I were picking out some of the more obvious examples of CoI editing on this article earlier today. There might be more to do. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, I had that feeling already, though I didn't look at the article history. The best way to counter that is to not just watch but also improve the article. I'll ping Rosiestep, who's been asked to keep an eye on the article with her big, bad admin tool. Thanks Kudzu. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks folks. As a side note, under Brown's leadership, the SoS-produced Oregon Blue Book includes links to all the Wikipedia Oregon city articles on its web version, so there may be more State of Oregon interaction with Wikipedia when she becomes governor. Hopefully we can have a productive collaboration. Valfontis (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Now up for deletion. Sorry, but we can't go K-pop all over Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. All the photos by Gary Havorson on the Blue Book website are also uploaded to Commons. Valfontis (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the offending edits. Valfontis (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, she's on Flickr. Valfontis (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits by detractors

I invite you all to have a look at the article history and the "Controversy" section, which I will keep removing as a BLP violation unless a. it is rewritten to be more than a piece of innuendo and properly incorporated in the article and b. there is consensus on the talk page that it needs to be in. IPs 98.248.145.87 and 12.201.116.58, who I have no doubt are the same person, will be blocked if they persist in re-inserting it, and the article semi-protected if it needs to be. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am the editor who created the "Controversy" section and have been fighting with you to keep it posted. The section is cited properly as is given a completely neutral tone. Your assertion that it is some how "innuendo" and "suggestive" is incorrect. My citations link to source material. The Verge article was referenced by today's NYTimes article on Brown. I think the onus is on you to explicitly state what violations are present in the section. Your inability to do so along with your threats to ban be due to "vandalism" have me question your partiality on the subject. --K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.116.58 (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding. First, no "controversy" sections; incorporate the material into the main text. Second, what is the controversy? Third, get consensus here on the talk page. Fourth, the suggestion of my partiality--bullshit. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Drmies, the controversy section as inserted, even though it seems neutral is not a controversy. Taking only $10,000 from Comcast over a number of years does not seem out of the ordinarily, nor is sending a specific letter given by a donor. The Times did publish this fact but I don't see why such taking a donation and then doing a small favor in return is a controversy. Frmorrison (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I am starting to agree with the IP editor on further reflection. Taking 10k for her campaign is not bad, but then signing a letter written for her by Comcast, a contributor, in support of its business interests does seem like a controversy. If she had rewritten the letter I would let it slide, but mostly just signing a letter may be impropriety. I am considering adding the content back with editing. It would be something like: In January 2015, Brown submitted a letter to the Federal Communications Commission in support of the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger that had been written almost entirely by Comcast, a company that has made over $10,000 in donations to her election campaigns. Frmorrison (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Frmorrison, I don't have a problem with that, I think, if...well, I suppose I made myself clear/played my authoritay card. I would like to see some more/better sourcing; after all, if this is supposed to be a controversy, it should be easy to prove that it is. And the best thing to do is to use language that stays close to what those sources have. But considering that this is a BLP on a high-profile case, I am (I hope you don't mind) pinging Rosiestep, since it's important we get it right. A note on BLPN might be a good idea as well.

        EC with you: at first glance your text seems fair, but I don't wish mine to be the only pair of eyes on it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

        • Frmorrison and @Drmies: IMO, if it appears to be controversial, stay close to the source, or add a direct quote. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Since nobody else has said it: the proper way to get something into an article when you are reverted isn't to keep "fighting" by edit warring. It's to come to the Talk page and do what Frmorrison is doing: explain the proposed change and work toward consensus. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Things seem to be going in the right direction with this discussion -- just one additional point, thought I generally agree with the point Frmorrison is coming to, it's not our opinions that matter, in whether or not the amount of money, etc. is significant; it's the editorial judgment of WP:RS. Speaking as somebody with familiarity with Oregon press, I think it's important to both consider that WW has won Pulitzers, and also that WW is well aware that WW has won Pulitzers. I don't know so much about the Verge. -Pete (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times re-reported The Verge's news about the Comcast letter. The Times has won 114 Pulizers, but not The Verge. Peteforsyth, The Verge is a reliable source for technology related matters and Comcast is large part of the technology world. Frmorrison (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Gubernatorial tenure

Does Brown serve out the rest of the 4-year term, or only the first 2-years ('til Jan 2017)? In otherwords, is there a Special gubernatorial election needed in 2016? GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Special. Valfontis (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Acting governor or governor?

Is she, in name and title, governor of the state or just acting governor? --89.14.6.217 (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Governor. Valfontis (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

She is NOT first

She is not first gay or bi governor. What about Jim McGreevey?? After his coming out he was still a governor, so he is the first. M.Karelin (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

McGreevey didn't identify publicly as bisexual. He came out as gay (making him, yes, the first openly gay or LGBT governor) and then he resigned. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how this was pov

Removed as pov was "Brown has taught at Portland State University, and practiced family and juvenile law. She was a family law attorney with Youth, Rights and Justice (formerly the Juvenile Rights Project), a non-profit corporation in Portland, Oregon, providing legal services to children and families with both defense and advocacy programs." I can't figure out how it's pov. It needs sourcing but [1] and [2] should be sufficient. Doug Weller (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Clean energy legacy

Could a section be developed here on Gov. Brown's clean energy legacy?

• Embrace economy of the future
• Strategies around carbon pricing to empower the private sector to invest in ways that grow 'clean green jobs' - 'carrot rather than stick' approaches* Oregon clean energy bill
• Clean energy jobs bill (>55,000 'clean green jobs' from developments, accompanied by rising GDP) MaynardClark (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kate Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218210039/http://m.startribune.com/politics/national/291931131.html to http://m.startribune.com/politics/national/291931131.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Source re: spirituality

• https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-governor-kate-brown-religion-franklin-graham-yoga/ ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

List ALL family.

Brother, father, family of origin, Jerry Brown should be listed. This seems highly censored. 2601:1C0:CD00:B1C0:84E:4B6:54DF:BAF (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)