Talk:Willie Brown (politician)

"Critical" section needs work before it goes in.

The section labeled "Critical" looks like a smear job, and may be libelous. It may be factual, but needs to be fleshed out and fully sourced before it can go in an article. I've commented it out until somebody who knows more about Brown and isn't pushing an agenda can work on it. !melquiades 18:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The parts not in the section labeled "Critical" look like a pump job, and may be echoing the self-serving press releases from Brown over the years. It may be factual, but needs to be fleshed out and fully sourced for alternative interpretations of the facts before it can go in an article. For example, characterizing Brown's architecturally inappropriate remodeling of City Hall as heroically spearheading needed repairs and upgrades. 98.255.201.201 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)50-year resident of SF

!melquiades, The below were all sourced and were the topic of many radio shows, newspaper articles. 1.If you can provide evidence that Miss Carolyn Carpeneti was indeed doing 100% city work in that office then by all means contact the San Francisco Chronicle. Please take the time to read the articles cited. 2.As far as pushing an Agenda?...... Hey, they don't call him Slick Willie because of these entries which are factual and cited. 3. He has admitted that on live TV that he is the father of Miss Carolyn Carpeneti's child. The records as to all the details are sealed as are all child related records but he hasn't exactly been quiet about it. 4.Oh, and this is not a smear campaign, just facts that are there. As far as libelous? Well, if I had made it up, there wasn't a child, no office or articles to cite yes, but the articles are all there. Let us be real and admit that the man has a colorful life and he has even upset some folks within his own party.

So, I have no agenda but I don't think it would be honest to omit his colorful life while documenting every detail of the Monica affair with Bill Clinton. There shouldn't be "Special" standards for Willie Brown....I do believe this is one reason so many voted for term limits. Jessie Jackson doesn't receive specail treatment and his issues are well known and documented. That is one reason so many still admire Jessie and Clinton regardless of the bumps on the road, they (Bill Clinton and Jessie Jackson) can still awe the people with their message.

Removed items:

• Carolyn Carpeneti and Mayor Willie Brown Had a daughter in 2001 while still married to his long time spouse.[1]

• The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Carolyn Carpeneti had been paid at least $2.33 million by nonprofit groups and political committees controlled by then Mayor WIlie Brown and his friends in a period of five years.[2]

• 1998, Brown arranged for Carpeneti to obtain a rent-free office in the city-owned Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. She moved out after the San Francisco Chronicle began to inquire about the use of the office.[3]

• Fajita Gate During his tenure

• Cronyism allegations have followed Willie Brown’s tenure as San Francisco mayor with Kimiko Burton-Cruz being the most visible as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle[4].

So, do read them (do say how many would be enough.....sources that is) and then we can discuss the re-insertion of them unless you want to take a poll on special treatment for Willie on Wikipedia. Oh, please tell me too what is it he does as TV co-host?....political commentator? Peace TalkAbout 19:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually know anything about Willie Brown (which is why I was looking him up; he was mentioned in a newspaper article). He may be the worst human being on the face of the earth for all I know; I'm not trying to defend him. It was just a very poorly written section. You don't need my permission to fix the section and reinstate it -- just (1) make sure it is encyclopedic in tone, and doesn't read like a partisan diatribe (as the old entry did), and (2) is properly footnoted, using the sources you gave, and doesn't venture beyond the facts of the sources into POV material or speculation. In other words, it just needs to adhere to Wikipedia's standards. It sounds like you hate this guy a bunch, so that may take some self-discipline on your part, but give it a go. Obviously, the page should reflect the controversy surrounding him -- but it should keep itself above that controversy. !melquiades 06:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the section, in what I believe to be a more encyclopedic tone (I like prose over lists, anyway). I also removed the Fajitagate reference, as Brown isn't mentioned in that article, so I don't think it had much impact on him. I also removed a lot of the section headings, as one paragraph sections are way too small. Please have a look and see if these changes are accecptable.

Looks good to me! !melquiades 17:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

!melquiades,

Yes, it looks good to me too! As to the Fajitagate he was in office at the time and was not pro-active which led to numerous complaints...I thought the article mentioned he was in office (Mayor).... As to your question above: I believe elected officials need to be accountable and transparent. When this is not the case it leaves people disenfranchised as they do not want to participate in the electoral process. When participation drops we find that civil liberties go next. Cheers!TalkAbout 19:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Aside from this discussion of what's libelous or not (and I don't think that the current text is in the least), I was surprised, when reading this, that the "criticisms" section was so focused on potentially shady relationships. Brown was also criticized plenty for his politics, particularly what many considered an intense harshness and punitive approach to the homeless. For that matter, he was even pied for it (see http://bioticbakingbrigade.org/communique110798.html ). I have minimal experience with Wikipedia editing, so I don't want to take a lot of time to write something that may not meet the community standards. But it would definitely improve the piece. -Matt

I'm no expert either, so don't let that hold you back. Be bold, and have a go! If you are worried about meeting community standards, you probably will. Basically, use common sense: it should read like an encyclopedia; it should stick to facts and not take sides; anything that seems like it needs to cite a source should. Read the policies and guidelines for more detail if you like — but do contribute! !melquiades 17:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tobacco industry connection

Can someone confirm or deny the claim that Willie Brown was the U.S. politician who took more money from the tobacco industry while in office than any other in history? Gregbard 03:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but I hope you're not putting that in the criticism section. You can always criticize a politician based on a political affiliation or a particular vote or position. In my opinion that's only notable if it is a significant issue in relation to his overall career or if he is publicly famous for that. If it's just curiosity I would suggest google of course, but also some of the references in this section. You might start with his biography.

• Criticism? No I think it's a wonderful thing! (haha) I'm not planning on including any facts that I don't know for sure. However, if it's true it should be included don't you think? Gregbard 22:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Say wait a minute I just re-read that response. Do you mean to say that is wouldn't be appropriate to put the sources of contributions in a criticism section? That make no sense AT ALL. Gregbard 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that you shouldn't use the "criticism" section as a place discuss the funding sources and voting records of a politician unless it is an issue that generated actual controversy beyond the usual give and take of politics. In other words, the fact that he was criticized for it should be a noteworthy event. Otherwise Wikipedia articles degenerate into places to argue about politics, which isn't the point. There are plenty of places for that. A good and complete article about a politician would talk about their voting record and support base overall, not picking and choosing issues to complain. But there are already some excellent nonpartisan website sources for that. Maybe we can link to them.

Some recent edits

I significantly modified the biography section to describe Brown's childhood and relationship to race and African-American civil rights issues in his earlier years. I thought the mention of his having a child out of wedlock was pejorative and partisan, given that he was separated from his wife at the time and that it was a complete non-issue with his electorate. So I moved that to the biography section out of the criticism section and added citations. However, he was criticized widely, not for having the kid with the woman but for his favoritism towards her in getting city contracts. I softened and made more encyclopedic the tone of some anti-Brown comments throughout. Please keep notability in mind when writing criticism. The point is not whether or not you agree with the man or he did something wrong. The point in an encyclopedia article is to report any criticism that rises to the point where the criticism itself is part of his legacy. I narrowed that down to three issues, favoritism and patronage, amassing personal power, and being pro-business while mayor.

I removed the discussion and analysis of term limits but merely mentioned that their passage was in part a move to reign in Willie Brown. Remember, this is an article about him, not state politics. Term limits affect many other politicians so if they're worth discussing that should be in some other article on state politics.

One issue I'm trying to convey while keeping editorial comments down is the "teflon politican" aspect -- his style, his dress, his persuasiveness, his ability to charm his way past any scandal. Whether that's good or bad, it is a very strong and important part of his political career.

I think the article is shaping up nicely. I hope these changes are okay with people. If anyone would care to expand on his legislative agenda and key actions in office that would be great. Wikidemo 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo,

I find the removal of the motivation of the California voters coincidental since terms limits are the current discussion and your edits would seem to fit into trying to influence information in favor of anti term limits proponents. One example of his control, which went beyond power in the State Assembly was blocking candidates like Jackie Jackie Speier (for example) and which limited those even thinking of entering elected office. So, the reduction, overly positive portrayal seems more on influencing information that wiki copyediting in my humble opinion.

In addition his legal wife did state to the newspapers that this time he got caught in relation to the birth of his daughter. To say that it was a pro woman decision/support is ludicrous and more of your interpretation and lacking in citation.

You also removed several cited entries without discussion here first. Which doesn't speak well as to your motivations. I will go back and do more research on the matter. The prior editors have been fair and discussed/researched with out pushing their agenda. PEACETalkAbout 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It's odd to respond to someone who calls my edits ludicrous and questions my motivations. I suspect you might be misconstruing the history of this article, which I don't think is any more pro or anti Willie Brown than before. I edited because the article was weak and incomplete for as influential a figure as Brown so I improved relevance, writing quality, and citations. But in response to your points --

• If you are claiming NPOV, exactly how do you believe the article as stands is slanted? This one seems pretty balanced as they go, though still too brief. I'm not going to remove the tag myself but if you can find a rationale for the tag that will give us a roadmap for how to keep the article neutral. If necessary we can ask for a consensus.
• Regarding term limits, as I said it beyond the scope of an article about Willie Brown to discuss how a term limit law affects the state as a whole. That goes in a separate article about term limits or can be put in one about state politics, because it has effects well beyond this article.
• Characterizing the passage of term limits as the will of the people against Willie Brown is a bold claim that needs some authoritative citation if is to stand. Otherwise it's just a partisan claim. It's clear from the material that his opponents originally proposed the term limits to get rid of him, but I don't see anything showing it's the will of the people in approving them to get rid of Brown.
• It is quite clear that the column I referenced supports the statement that willie used the occasion of being interviewed regarding his girlfriend's pregnancy as a way to try to spin it as a pro-woman, pro-parenting, etc., message, and to show that his estranged wife supports him. The article is not written to back him up, but rather to describe an instance of his using spin to deflect a potential controversy. That is all in the text of the article. Simply mentioning that he had a child out of wedlock is not a valid "criticism" -- that is just a personal disparagement. The whole subject should be deleted from the criticism section but for its illustrating his slick ways of avoiding controversy, because he was not criticized among his electorate for that. He was, however, criticized for steering business to his girlfriend. Wikidemo 17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo,

Forgive me, I should have been more specific. What I find ludicrous is placing his amorous activities as some spin on women's issues. Which I find offensive! Was the bold print validation for your edits proceeding them as follows: "demonstration of his virility("This was something certainly not planned, and to be honest, it's something that I never in my life expected to happen at (this) age,"[5]), parenting skills("But I guess I'm pretty lucky. I've raised three great kids, and now I'm going to help raise a fourth."[6]), support for women to choose keeping a child over abortion("There is nothing unseemly about this at all," Brown said of his relationship with Carpeneti. "She's a great friend."[7]), and goodwill("She laughed and said something like, 'You finally got caught,' " Brown said. "Then she said, 'You better treat that kid just like you treated your other kids.' "[8]) from his estranged wife."(Brown -- who has three grown children, two grandchildren and has been separated from his wife, Blanche, for 20 years -- said he has no plans to either divorce or get remarried.[9])

I imagine this part is the support for women citation (Campaign records show that Brown's re-election committee paid Carpeneti $380,000 for fund-raising services in the mayoral race.)[10]

Did I miss any thing here? That is quite a spin on the fact from my perspective. So, spin away but not everyone if so quick to believe and I am sure some truly neutral editor will come along and see the edits for what they are. PEACE TalkAbout 20:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement, User:TalkAbout. I wasn't trying to say he's right, just mentioning that he said it. And I think his statement is offensive and ludicrous too, or at least really slick and glib. I'm not married (excuse the unintended pun) to my exact description of what he was trying to say, only pointing out that it's an example of how he had the nerve to spin a really PR mistake -- or worse, a really bad personal and political blunder -- into something positive. I think that "teflon Mayor" aspect is an important part of his career. It allowed him to be personally popular with a lot of people even though they hated his political methods and often his positions. We could choose just about any example to illustrate this one, he did it all the time and some of the other citations showed it. I just liked this example because it was extreme, and because it put the whole illegitimate child thing in proper context as a demonstration of his slickness, not an incident that actually hurt his credibility with his voters. Because it didn't. They kept supporting him. Feel free to edit and change. Just please, don't claim that a man who has been separated for 25 years and has a child out of wedlock is some kind of notable controversy if it isn't. It just wasn't, not in San Francisco.

The other thing I didn't address is the claim that he was extremely popular in SF and less so elsewhere in the state. I don't have support for that but I think it's true. I don't really care, that statement was already in the article before I touched it, only it read that he was unpopular elsewhere. Which may not be true. If there's a concern about NPOV and you're going to claim a politician is popular or not you should link to an article or a poll.

Thanks for the civility and the thoughtful response. Wikidemo 01:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Overcoming WP:NPOV concerns

Hi. I really hope to leave this article better than I found it, so can we agree on what we need to overcome any NPOV concerns brought about by my edits. I don't think User:TalkAbout and I have any deep disagreement so let's have a go at it, okay? Thanks much, Wikidemo 12:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless I get some feedback on this I'm going to remove the NPOV tag within a few daysWikidemo 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No feedback or defense of NPOV tag, so removed. Wikidemo 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

pimps, prostitutes and rapists

The article was recently edited to add "rapists" to the list of criminal defendants Brown represented. I'm removing that because it's not supported by the source material, and even if it is true, the fact is salacious without being notable or germane. The quote from the source material is "He took cases defending pimps, prostitutes, petty thieves and gamblers the ones high-powered attorneys would not take." -- no mention of rapists. It's not notable that Brown represented bad people. That's what criminal defense attorneys do, part of our system. The quote is there to show he was representing small time criminals, unglamorous cases, people of the street. That is interesting in two ways. First, Brown built a near political empire one block at a time, starting small. Second, it's part of the sweep of his career from the bottom to the top.Wikidemo 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr.

my appologies for not taking this route at the outset, i honestly didn't think it would be that controversial. my argument is for the use of 'wlbj' over 'wb':

1. it is his actual name
2. it is the name he uses officially [11]
3. it is the name he uses in publication [12]
4. with regard to 'commonly known', a google search on 'wlbj' nets 2,580,000; 'wlb' nets 2,610,000. i'm perfectly aware that both of these numbers are polluted hits unrelated articles, however, i would argue that search for 'wlbj' would have far fewer.
5. the first line in WP:NAMEPEOPLE reads "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". obviously, since 'wb' conflicts, the next most common, and obvious solution is 'wlbj'.
6. with regard to qualifiers, WP:NAMEPEOPLE further reads: don't add qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation.

since using the subject's actual, official, and also commonly used name, 'wlbj', is 'available without disambiguation,' that is the name that should be used for naming this article. --emerson7 | Talk 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Google comparison doesn't bear out. If you quote the name, here's what you get:

• "Willie Lewis Brown, Jr." - 617 ghits
• "Willie Brown" - 444,000 ghits
• Mayor "Willie Brown" - 198,000 ghits

So, although Google is not a canonical measure of whether something is "common" or not, even by the most conservative measure "Willie Brown" is more than 300 times more common than "Willie Lewis Brown, Jr." (617 v. 198,000) and possibly as much as 700 times as common (since most of the "Willie Brown" hits are for the mayor). Another instructive fact is that nearly all of the links to this article have "Willie Brown" as the link text.

People aren't going to start using "Willie Lewis Brown, Jr." for link text, so this will be a piped link either way and there is no benefit to this move. On the contrary, the piped link trick provides a benefit to keeping the parenthetical form. Mike Dillon 05:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree complete with Mike. "Willie Lewis Brown, Jr." is relatively uncommon and is awkward and unintuitive to use for links (at least those who edit without the benefit of helper scripts). And while emerson7| uses point #6 as an argument against the parenthetical disambiguation, I see it as clearly supporting it in preference to a relatively unfamiliar form. older ≠ wiser 11:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty clear, by any measure, that "Willie Brown" is by far the popular usage. What he uses on official documents is not relevant. Read any news story, and it's clear that pretty much every single one uses "Willie Brown," not "Willie Lewis Brown, Jr." -Chunky Rice 17:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Stick with Willie Brown (politician), if for no other reason that the pipe trick. The shorter version is better for navigation boxes in which Brown appears, for assemblyman, speaker, mayor, etc. If the American football player was a little less notable, I would suggest changing this to "Willie Brown" and putting a link to "Willie Brown (disambiguation)" at the top.--Hjal 15:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

biotic pie incident

I'm moving this over from the article page. Though true - and quite amusing - it didn't belong in the main section about his political career and I don't think it's significant enough to mention given the overall size of the article. I would have put it in the "criticisms" section and modified the header a little, but the citation isn't done properly and it's not to a legitimate source (the news article is a legit source but not a copyright-violating talk thread repost post of the news article) ~~ Wikidemo 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In 1998, Brown was the victim of a pie-throwing orchestrated by the [[Biotic Baking Brigade]]. <ref> http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9901/msg00029.html (Retrieved [[July 10]], [[2007]])</ref>

Critical Mass Crackdown of 1997/San Francisco Bicycle Politics

>>>>Brown's 'declaration of war' on the monthly Critical Mass bike rides in July, 1997, is absolutely historically significant to his mayoral administration, and made news headlines for weeks afterwards. His crackdown has a lasting political legacy in the city and resulted in exponential growth in the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition's membership rolls, which in turn has led to sweeping changes in transportation engineering throughout SF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.118.217 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems more like a flash in the plan to me but if you can find some reliable sources to support the claim and put it in context, that's fine. I don't find a reliable source saying Brown made the decision after a limo ride, but even if he did that's not a fair comment because it implies without any proof that the decision was made out of personal annoyance rather than policy. That does sound like his style, and if you could really prove that's why he made the decision that would be very interesting as an illustration of his management style, but if you're going to make a derogatory claim about a biographical subject on Wikipedia you need more than an innuendo to prove it. The obvious explanation is that as Mayor he's keeping order in the city, and the critical mass rides were getting more and more anarchic, disrupting traffic and provoking violence. There was considerable support then, as now, for cracking down. So suggesting that he was making decisions over being unhappy over being late for dinner, and omitting the relevant fact that the bikers were arrested after some had blocked the bay bridge on ramps, is slanting the story. Wikidemo (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

---Hey Wikidemo, you make a fair point, that things need to be cited, so I'll leave it out until I can find a seaworthy citation. For similar reasons, unless YOU can provide a citation for "blocking" (do you mean "corking" see critical mass article) the Bay Bridge on ramps, I've removed that claim. It makes it sound as though the cyclists barricaded off the on-ramps, and unless you can cite that, its gone with the wind. I did refer to San Francisco Deputy Police Chief Rich Holder's quotation in the 7/27/97 SFE article that some of the cyclists "stormed" the San Francisco Bay Bridge, which currently lacks bicycle lanes on it's Western suspension span. I believe there is a semantic difference between critical mass "corking" off traffic and "blocking traffic" if what you mean by "blocking traffic" is bicyclists riding slower than car drivers, that's not blocking traffic, that "is traffic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.118.217 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicle article you cited for the story mentions in the first paragraph that the bicyclists blocked the Bay Bridge on ramps during rush hour. That's obviously what happened. I'm restoring that comment. Please note that you're at WP:3RR so you'd better slow down. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for promoting bicycle riding or bashing Willie Brown. Wikidemo (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

---Wikimedo, the SFC article makes no mention that the unlawful assembly arrests occurred near 1-80. That is my criticism, you have written the article in a way that implies the arrests occurred in response to the riders storming the bridge. According to Howard Bessler's sucessful lawsuit against the city, the arrests occurred near Montgomery and Sansome, not at I-80, unless you can cite a source than I belive it's fair game for good editing. I will try to provide citations for the location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.118.217 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Stepping back from sources and getting to what actually happened (which I assume will be sourceable, if true)...if memory serves me the critical mass people stopped traffic going onto the bay bridge but the police, rather than dealing with the situation there, cordoned off a city block and basically arrested everyone who happened to be in the block. I might be conflating this with a few other demonstrations from the era, where the cops beat up on photographers, bicyclists, office workers, students, etc. The police at the time had some very odd notions of crowd control. I doubt Brown intended that, he just gave a get tough order and the cops made a sloppy show of getting tough. That's a fascinating (and telling) subject, and probably merits its own coverage, maybe even its own article. I agree that unless we can find a source saying why the arrests were made we shouldn't imply that the arrests were a direct reaction to blocking the bay bridge. However for balance sake I think it's important to point out that order to crack down on critical mass was in the context of widespread frustration over their disrupting traffic. I don't think the possible police misconduct, incompetence, false arrests, etc., is a balanced part of Willie Brown's biography unless you can show that it somehow involves him. What turned a lot of people against the city and for the bikers wasn't the underlying issue of bicycle safety and transportation but the overreaction by the cops, and probably a spirit of rebellion. As he always did, Brown managed to deflect attempts to blame him personally through a mixture of charm, bravado, etc. If you dig around there were a number of articles about this at the time in strong sources - you don't have to go to statements by the people involved. We should probably both take the rest of the day off to regroup, maybe find some more sources. I think I agree with you 95% about the description of events, I just question how we should present this and how much of this is tied to Willie Brown personally. Wikidemo (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up. I just did a copy-edit, which I hope you don't mind. For the record I don't think we're in an edit war despite having both made quite a few edits because we're both constructively editing and refining rather than reverting. In fact, I think the current version is pretty much fine... Wikidemo (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Wikimedo, It's my belief the police misconduct and false arrests, and impounding of bicycles during the famous Critical Mass Crackdowns of 1997 is hisorically relevant to Brown's political legacy and his regard for civil rights as mayor, inasmuch as he is famously quoted as wanting to "confiscate their bicycles." Accordingly, I believe the confiscation, and crackdown generally, merits mention in this article on some level. Does it need 4 paragraphs, no, but it does deserve mention, as Brown was criticized from the left for his civil rights posture in a city with a decidedly liberal body politic. While I'm at it, I could mention that incidents like this helped to give rise to formidable opposition to the Willie Brown political machine in the form of Matt Gonzalez's Green party mayoral challenge to Willie Brown prodigal son Gavin Newsom, who narrowly won the mayor's race in a run-off election with Gonzalez. I will save that topic for another day. The current article is pretty much fine also, not to worry, I won't sic a gang of critical mass cyclists on the article...not at least until "Basic Brown" hits the bookstores next week!  : )

Ooh, that's likely to trigger some interesting edits to the article. I agree with your analysis, but I think the anti-Brown sentiment, the advent of district elections, etc., comes from a lot of different sources, among other things the nepotism and perception of corruption, the pro-development stance, the sense of the city being run by a political machine, the amassing of power in the city as a whole and big interests as opposed to the neighborhoods and special interest groups, and quite a few other things. That story is bigger than just Willie Brown, and only intersected one episode of many in his public life. This article is short on stories of his years in the State Legislature, which from what I understand is where he left his greatest mark on the world, and involved scandals and power plays of much greater magnitude. It would be interesting on the one hand to cover Brown's political machine in Sacramento in more detail, and also to cover the Brown era of city politics in an encyclopedic way. I'm wondering if that might be the answer, to break out a new article about the Brown era of San Francisco politics or the Brown administration, where all the major events could get their due. Wikidemo (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Wikimedo, yes sir, get ready for that book! It's realease date is February 5th, the same day as the CA democratic presidential primary. Look's like your doing your spadework, getting things spruced up here. I'll be keeping an eye out for any obvious vandalism from knuckledraggers. I'm sure Willie will be hitting the air on some of the local radio talk shows also, and he may make a surprise endorsement of Barack Obama also. (just giving you other ideas for topics) You ask some worthy questions about whether the events of this article should be broken out into a political era, tough call. It's my sentiment that any policy 'stuff' in regards his mayoral administration or his time in Sacramento ought to stay --right here-- in this article, as both historians and the layman tend to hold big city mayors generally responsible for the successes and failures, policies, and scandals associated with, or occurring in relation to their time in office.Critical Chris (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

...Wikidemo, would you please explain to me what is point of view or "poorly sourced" about my latest critical mass crackdown edits on the Willie Brown article? If you believe that...the San Francisco Chronicle, respected investigative reporters (not editorialists) Phil Matier and Andrew Ross, PBS' MacNeil Lehrer New Hour/Jim Lerhrer (who has moderated major presidential debates just before general elections) and Time Magazine...are "poor" sources that could you please explain to me what your idea of an objective, respected, "good" news source is? Besides, those are about the only news sources out there with an historical record of Brown's 1997 crackdown, besides those in Critical Mass related books, 'zines, Police chat board sites, and other more POV sources on both sides of the fray. Brown --was-- criticized in a --national-- news sources, unless you consider Time Magazine to be the SF Weekly. On Brown's "threats" to jail the riders and impound their bikes, that has multiple sources and my wording is directly from the Time article...I will try to clean it up a bit to address your POV concerns, but please explain your claims that this article is poorly sourced.

Also, Wikidemo, you seem to be strongly concerned about the length of this article, why so much concern? Willie Brown was no small town dog catcher, he was a big city mayor and Assembly speaker of the most populous US State. He's no small potatoes. He's also an eclectic, complex politician who's world view cut across several ideological directions. he at least deserves an article on par with Byron Rumford and maybe one as long as a prominent US Senator, or State Governor, or Presidential Cabinet offical, maybe not as long as President. Yet I digress.Critical Chris (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

...Wikidemo, I've copied some of my "poor sources" here to simplify the discussion. Can you please explain to me how the following are "poor sources:"

1)MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour (29 August 1997). MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour Transcript. PBS Public Televison.

2)Jim Herron Zamora, Chuck Finnie and Emily Gurnon, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF Examiner wire services contributed to this report.. Brown: Take bikes of busted cyclists. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 1997-07-27.

3)Steve Lopez (11 August 1997). The Scariest Biker Gang Of Them All. Time Magazine.

4)Glen Martin, Henry K. Lee, Torri Minton, Manny Fernandez, Chronicle Staff Writers. S.F. Bike Chaos -- 250 Arrests: 5,000 bikers snarl commute. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 1997-07-26.

5)Matier, Phillip and Ross, Andrew (18 July 1997). CRITICAL CHUCKLE: Lots of chuckles down at the Hall of Justice over San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown's demand that Critical Mass cyclists start obeying traffic laws.. San Francisco Chronicle.

6)Anastasia Hendrix and Rachel Gordon, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF (1 August 1997). Mayor again criticizes Critical Mass bicycle riders. San Francisco Examiner.

7)Paul Krassner (24 August 1997). YOU CAN'T GET A PERMIT FOR THE REVOLUTION. San Francisco Examiner. (OP/ED)

The last source, I do mention in the article that Krassner is an "editorialist." All the others are hard news sources that you can try to chop away at if you think your axe is sharp enough, but have you actually checked the sources before calling them poor. I've spent quite a bit of time on my documentation here, ferreting out POV horse poo from mainstream news sources and I'm quite frankly offended by your characterization of these as "poor sources."Critical Chris (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

...Oh yeah, something else, the Critical Mass Crackdown is in a ----"criticisms"---- section. Let's not forget that. This criticism section attempts to relate one of many sections of historic public political sentiment, a dischord and backlash against Brown that led to the exponential growth of the SF Bike coalition, a force to be reckoned with today in SF politics. I'm not in any way saying there shouldn't be balance to the article overall, but I believe the article would best be served by adding balance, "praise", call it what you want, either side by side in the criticism section or elsewhere, especially if you can find good sources to back up your edits, as I believe I have.Critical Chris (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, thanks for the kind note on my talk page: "You've chosen to insert the material to which I was objecting a third time rather than taking my invitation to discuss it on the talk page. I don't want to edit war over this, so I've filed a report at WP:BLP/N#Willie Brown (politician) to invite a wider review. This is a courtesy notice. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)" Critical Chris (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

...Do actually take the time to read the sourced articles and where is your discussion of your reversions to my edits and sources? I'm waiting.Critical Chris (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I read these sources from the beginning - I respond below in the section I started to discuss this. Wikidemo (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with recent material

A single editor recently made a series of additions[13], all of which tend to cast the subject in a more negative light. I removed the part that I believe to be inappropriate material, and the user simply restored the material in toto[14] calling it "decently sourced."

I believe the correct procedure per WP:CONSENSUS is to leave the material out now that it has been challenged until and unless a consensus is built for including it. Inasmuch as this is a living person WP:BLP applies, and as a controversial former mayor of a liberal and politically active city there are always concerns over neutrality, balance, POV, etc.

Nevertheless, I'll go first and explain the reasons behind each of the deletions.

1)"Brown was also criticized widely in the local and national news media for.... There is no citation to support that the criticism was widespread. In fact, it's not clear that there was widespread criticism at all. The single source for the proposition that there was criticism at all is a McNeal Lehrer News Hour transcript[15] that neither contains, nor reports on, criticism of the mayor. Every mayor is controversial and there are people on both sides of every important issue. For "criticism" to be notable and to be called "widespread" or "national" it has to rise above the normal din of partisan politics.

Agreed and corrected, I have removed widespread, but kept national in reference to Time magazine article and PBS News Hour program.Critical Chris (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(And a New York Times Story also)Critical Chris (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any criticism of any sort, much less nationwide criticism, in the M-N piece. Perhaps you can point this out. I sincerely question whether there was any such criticism, as opposed to national coverage as a local story of interest. I suppose this simply wasn't that important to people. Wikidemo (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added some national news stories from PBS' MacNeill/Lehrer NewsHour, Time Magazine, and from the The New York Times , a story that made that paper months after the incident, when it was still topical to SF politics.Critical Chris (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

2)He threatened to keep both the bikes and the riders locked up, because "a little jail time" would teach Critical Mass riders a lesson. There is no reliable source for this statement. It is sourced to an anti-Brown op-ed piece[16] written by a well-known activist. The piece ascribes various motives to Brown without support, so even if one believes that Brown uttered the words "a little jail time", the statement that it was to teach a lesson, that he wanted to keep the bikes and riders locked up, etc., are all not properly sourced. The quote is an attempt to show that the mayor was vindictive or unreasonable, which needs to have a reliable source given this is a BLP.

The "a little jail time" is directly from the Time magazine article and the author whom you call a "well-known activist" ... actually Lopez was a noted Editor-at-large for Time magazine, and the LA Times for several years, and I'll have to do some digging, but I wouldn't exactly characterize Lopez as a "well known activist." If you wish to educate me otherwise I'm listening.Critical Chris (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Time piece speaks for itself. It is written in editorial rather than journalistic form and is advocating an argument, not facts. Lopez is well known, that's what I meant to say. I did not mean to imply that there is anything sinister about advocacy - but he's clearly a journalist. When someone is in advocacy mode it does not matter how good their credentials, they are voicing opinions rather than sourceable factual information. The fact standards are a lot lower in an op-ed piece. The claims about teaching a lesson, desire to keep bikes and riders locked up, etc., are all from Lopez, not Brown. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the quote, but for the interpretation is using a common rhetorical style where one makes up motivations and attributes them to people in order to stake out a position rather than to report on something he knows. Wikidemo (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"...I was wrong about Lopez being an activist but the Time piece is clearly an op-ed from its tone, and the method of supporting the claims is not a journalist one. Looking through his history he seems to do about 80% straight journalism and 20% editorials and commentary, which is not unusual." -Wikidemo

I've added your comment from below here, for readability and critical discussion. "The claims about teaching a lesson, desire to keep bikes and riders locked up, etc., are all from Lopez, not Brown." Really Wikidemo? Lopez puts "a little jail time" in quotation marks, attributing the remark to a direct quotation from Brown, probably from the 31 July 1997 press conference. Lopez also placed the quote in direct context of teaching a lesson. Do you really think that a respected national periodical such as Time magazine would go to press interpreting a quotation out of context, "making up" motivations such as that? I think not, Time magazine is not exactly the American Socialist Workers Party newspaper, or the John Birch Society newsletter. Time is a respected, reliable, fact-checked, mainstream news publication of record. Time actually is considered by many to have a conservative angle, as opposed to Newsweek.Critical Chris (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

3)cordoned off by lines of riot-helmeted San Francisco police officers. The source[17] does not state that the police were in riot helmets or lines. Even if sourced, the evocative detail serves no purpose other than to make the event seem more ominous. It is not relevant to the outcome that the police were in lines or wore riot helmets. Given that this is politically charged, better to tell the story straight.

I'll try to "properly source" the riot helmet line, but it's true, I saw the events that year with my own two eyes, yet I digress. Look at it this way: there's nothing controversial or unethical about police officers putting on riot helmets to protect themselves from personal injury and can you fault a cop for doing so? I certainly can't. I believe the line is balanced in the overall context of the police crackdown description inasmuch as it could paint the Critical Mass Protestors as violent, rock-throwing, "black-block" anarchists, requiring a different police response from your average non-violent pro-life march, etc.Critical Chris (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The colorful detail is not untrustworthy, it's just slanted. For balance why not mention the traffic problems the bicyclers were causing or the threats and incidence of violence by them? The police conduct at the time was clearly out of hand I just don't see the relevance of that detail to covering the mayor.Wikidemo (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree somewhat and will mention "the traffic problems" for balance as per your reccommendation here. In regards to the police conduct, I believe I've demonstrated through reliable sources that Brown called for the crackdown. So it's part of his executive-guided civil rights legacy and it worthy of documentation here under a "criticisms" section, as other criticisms also warrant documentation, as do successes, minor and major policy, and the margins by which he was re-elected as a politically popular mayor, etc.

Wikidemo: your balance reccommendation...Done sir. See the article for line about traffic congestion concerns.Critical Chris (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Riot helmet line is gone bro.Critical Chris (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

4)Brown was seen by many as hypocritical and lacking credibility on the issue of enforcing traffic laws against Critical Mass bicyclists since Brown gained a noted reputation for flying through town with a motorcycle escort just to make his meetings on time. Calling a former politician "hypocritical" and "lacking credibility" is best left to the partisans, not Wikipedia. The source[18] simply does not support this. It does not call the mayor non-credible or hypocritical, though it hints at such. However, it is in a very brief section called "critical chuckle" that is obviously supposed to be ironical and humorous. This is a well known scandal column that takes potshots at everyone. It doesn't work to say that a derogatory opinion of a person is widespread because a single editorial comment is made in a newspaper. Repeating a rhetorical political argument disparaging a politicain for the sake of Wikipedia is POV and impermissible per BLP

I agree in part and have changed the section to "ONE news source." Though humorous, to sell newspapers, Matier and Ross still report responsibly and factually. I'd love to see you try to attack their credibility. I'd consider further editing after reading BLP source policy in greater detail.Critical Chris (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As with the time piece it's not a news source. Mattier and Ross are beloved fixtures in San Francisco. Their accuracy rate is far from 100% due to the nature of their column, and to their credit you can clearly tell when they're cutting jokes, spreading innuendo, speculating or reporting something they are confident about. This is clearly a "heard on the street and thought we would make a joke about it" comment, utterly not relevant or supported to stand for a claim that the mayor is hypocritical or not credible (if the claim is that there was a minor column reference to that effect, not that it was true, it is not encyclopedic).Wikidemo (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, until I can find a harder news source for this, it's on the chopping block.Critical Chris (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GoneCritical Chris (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

5)At a July 31st, 1997 press conference, Brown antagonistically referred to Critical Mass cyclists as "little weenies," and implied that bicyclists do not vote or comprise a significant portion of his constituency. The quote is sourced but "antagonistically" is editorializing. The matter is trivial. It is a WP:WEIGHT problem to selectively take a single juvenile sounding quote as something representative of a politician for the article here. If one wants to cover the subject encyclopedia and make a claim that he was prone to off-the-cuff insults, better to find a more significant example or better yet find a secondary source.

It's not an insult, he was genuinely annoyed and in that press conference, he was seen as speaking for many other drivers also annoyed by Critical Mass. Nonetheless , I agree and will remove "antagonistically."Critical Chris (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing ought to go. Reporting trivial details to make a person seem unreasonable isn't the way to go. Wikidemo (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This too is on the chopping block, though perhaps it makes more sense to include the context of comments that (Brown) "said he was standing at Franklin and Geary streets during last Friday's Critical Mass ride when he saw a bicyclist block an intersection and harass motorists." "It's a good thing it wasn't some of the people I used to know because there would have been an incident," he said of the motorists. "They would have gotten out of their cars, taken those bicycles, cut the tires, or broken them, and dared those little weenies to do anything about it. But they didn't. It was incredible restraint." When asked later by reporters about the "little weenies" remark, Brown responded: "I don't even remember making the comment, I'm sure I did ... I'm sure it was in a moment of evidence of my annoyance." He also used the forum to describe the cyclists' behavior as arrogant and disgusting. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1997/08/01/NEWS2247.dtl&hw=critical+mass&sn=020&sc=505http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1997/08/01/NEWS2247.dtl&hw=critical+mass&sn=020&sc=505

Critical Chris (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Weenie remark is gone, Brown's implication that the shouting cyclists don't vote remains and I have sourced it out with an additional reliable mainstream news source with a direct quote from BrownCritical Chris (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

6)San Francicso Examiner editorialist Paul Krassner once compared Brown's description of bicyclists as "little weenies" to Richard Nixon's dubbing students at Kent State "a bunch of bums." Impermissible non-reliable source material per BLP. It is not useful to reprint editorial criticisms of a politician.

I will read up on BLP policies and further detail and will remove this for now until further clarification.Critical Chris (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed, doneCritical Chris (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason some people are determined to insert derogatory material about this politician over an 10+ year old controversy between him and a partisan political group of bicycle advocates. Although the incident is marginally relevant and important enough to report, Wikipedia is the wrong place to rehash old political battles. The section on criticism is already longer than the entire section on his political career. This is an encyclopedia, not a political debate. The article already reports the incident rather fully and neutrally. What we need here is a more full account of the person's political life and work, which is tremendously important to the history of the city and state. The last thing we need here is to become another POV edit war and BLP issue over a very minor part of the person's career.Wikidemo (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"10+ year old controversy"...that's because he was first elected mayor "12+ years ago" and this occurred during his 1st year in office, and hasn't been in office for over 3 years. Do the math. It was exectutive-guided public policy with not inconsequential civil rights ramifications for hundreds of people and was all over the news. The Critical mass crackdown certainly is relevant and important enough to warrant at least an entire substantial paragraph, in my opinion.Critical Chris (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was irrelevant, just out of proportion. The policy itself isn't a civil rights violation, it's keeping public order and safety. The civil rights violation was to arrest innocent people. There's no evidence so far that Brown had anything at all to do with that, and it seems quite unlikely that he did. Wikidemo (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"There's no evidence so far that Brown had anything at all to do with that, and it seems quite unlikely that he did." Ahh, incorrect again sir, Brown is well-sourced as saying in a press conference, "I think we ought to confiscate their bicycles," and what about the "a little jail time" remark also...if you think he didn't guide policy as an executive, then I believe you need to review the details again. His guidance was detrimental to civil rights inasmuch as it had a chilling effect on exercise of freedom of assembly for some. Look at what Minneapolis PD has been trying to do with Critical Mass in preparation for the upcoming RNC convention this summer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critical Chris (talk • contribs) 00:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(to avoid having things in multiple places, I am responding here to the new comments in the Critical Mass crackdown in 1997, which also appear more-or-less verbatim on my talk page, below)

After there seemed to be a truce of some sort, you (I'm assuming from the edit history that the "Critical Chris" account and some of the anonymous IP addresses are all you) went ahead and added a bunch more stuff that further slanted the article in favor of Critical Mass and the Bicycle Coalition and against the former mayor. Matier and Ross were clearly in op ed mode with the editorial comment you cite, that's facially obvious from the text and it's silly to argue otherwise. Reporters do not humorously accuse politicians of hypocrisy with funny but logically falacious rhetoric. There are two aspects to sourcing information. One is to find a reliable source and the definitions are there and in WP:V. The other is to actually make sure that the source supports the contention. The material I object to all fails one or other other - see the new section I have already started below for a more complete discussion. The Time piece was a highly slanted op-ed, and the fact of a single editorial criticizing a large city mayor does not support the contention that a person is widely criticized for something. It's just an unreliable source.

To be specific, regarding your list of sources:

1. Source does not support claim
2. I did not challenge this source
3. Op-ed piece written by activist, not reliable source
4. I did not challenge this source
5. Humorous editorial comment in scandal column reported as fact; source does not support claim
6. Weight problems - selectively reporting "weenie" comment is simply taking a potshot at the person
7. Not reliable source - should not reprint partisan editorial attack on a living person

I won't go into more detail here - I already do in the section above.

The nature of POV concern is apparent when you consider the other side of the story, which is simply not reported here. Many people, including the mayor, the police, and most of the citizens of San Francisco (according to some recent unscientific polling) consider Critical Mass to be a bunch of violent anarchist hooligans, and support a crackdown. A section on the event could just as easily begin "in 1997 a disorganized group of rowdy bycicle riders known as 'Critical Mass' began to provoke confrontations with citizens and law enforcement officers by blocking roadways throughout the city once a month during Friday afternoon rush hour. The Mayor, with strong support from the citizens..." Not that I believe this account either, but it is widely believed too and there are plenty of news sources for it.

Wikipedia is in the business of creating an encyclopedia, not importing partisan political disagreements from the outside world. This is an article about Willie Brown the politician, not Critical Mass the wrongfully arrested protestors. Yet this section seems to be the only section anyone is expanding, certainly the only part you have worked on. Regarding length, if every controversy (and achievement, program, biographical detail) of equal importance to an understanding of Willie Brown got the same several-hundred-word treatment as this one the article would not be a normal article, it would have to be a 20,000+ word treatise. Rather than battle over POV slants it is best to simply report what happened, and if the reader wants to hear the rhetoric they can read the sources for themselves. To make this a decent article would imply actually covering more of the person's personal and political life, this time without so much slant. Wikidemo (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"the only section anyone is expanding." The whole article ought to be expanding right? I agree, this guy was, and still is, a --major-- power player in the Golden State, and deserves an article on par with the length and significance of his career, so let's get to work! :) Critical Chris (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"certainly the only part you have worked on" Incorrect sir, I'm the one who added the title and release date for Willie's autobiography last week and have changed the tenses also. I've also added the sections and references on Willie's "Aesthetic Style" and "Basic Brown." When I finish that book and go through some radio interview transcripts, if can get my hands on them, I will have more to work with also, straight from Willie's typewriter. Critical Chris (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see you're working on that. Willie on willie. Thanks for the courteous reply. Wikidemo (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added some additional, "fair game" public policy-related quotations from Basic Brown with an external link to an SF Weekly piece listing them on the web, I'm trying to find them in the actual pages of the Basic Brown book. If anyone comes up with page numbers and believes they should be cited that way, please jump in here and add page numbers and paragraphs.Critical Chris (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To give a second opinion on this dispute, I agree Wikidemo on his comments. I do think the bicycle part needs to be mentioned though with NPOV and in accordance to other Wikipedia policies.User:calbear22 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough to this extent, I will agree, and will be supportive of "well sourced" additions to the Critical Mass Crackdown section....But wait a minute, isn't it a "criticisms" section? ...which is a natural disclaimer to the reader??? To address POV concerns, Wikedemo, or anyone else, go ahead and frame the context of the crackdown as you alluded to: ----"The Mayor, with strong support from the citizens...there are plenty of news sources for it."---- I agree that if you added these sources, the paragraph could be seen as more "balanced" as per Wikipedia policy. So go ahead and add them. If they are op/ed columns and not hard news sources as I've added with my citations, I may take issue with that however. Please note, Calbear22 and Wikidemo, that in order to frame additional balance, I proactively already added that Brown was "praised by still others" for his crackdown.Critical Chris (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The intent is to delete, not add, based on the material being a mixture of POV, not properly sourced, in violation of BLP, not relevant, and/or not supported by the sources. The answer to a content objection is usually not to add countervailing content. Even if it were sourceable, a "criticisms" section is not supposed to be a dumping ground for every possible disagreement someone has with a politician. Per WP:consensus, other editors are free to reject a proposed edit such as yours, and if no consensus emerges for adding it, it stays out. I would do that and may, but as I mentioned I'm not in a mood to edit war, and I'm going to see how people feel about this.Wikidemo (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the criticisms section is somewhat balanced in the context of the overall article. I believe it is relevant inasmuch as when you ask many San Franciscans and Bay Area residents about their --criticisms-- of Willie Brown as --mayor--,(NOT as Assembely speaker), many will recall the Critical Mass crackdowns of 97, his "fix MUNI in the first 100 days" promises, not seriously dealing with MUNI issues until his 2nd term, cronyism, his ineffectiveness in dealing with the homeless issue, etc. I believe the material is factual and properly sourced by hard news articles from major mainstream news publications of record, and direct quotations from Brown himself such as "I think we ought to confiscate their bicycles," and the "A little jail time" remark. I would counter that unless no consensus emerges for deleting it, it stays in. This section should not be a "dumping ground" for every possible disagreement, I agree. I also believe my edits are not dumping, they are a part of the factual and truthful record of his administration and they made front page and front section news for several weeks during his first term, unlike other aspects of his policy and record, which were buried on page 22 of the Examiner and Chronicle. You may wish to gloss over the summer of 1997 as an irrelevant and isolated chapter of Browns administration, but I would counter that his tactics have a lasting legacy on the transportation policy and politics of San Francisco today. Following the Critcal Mass Crackdown of 1997, the San Franciso Bicycle Coalition grew exponentially in membership following the Press Conference that SFBC's Dave Snyder offered that summer. Today, the SFBC in 2007 has a dues-paying membership of over 7,500 and is considered in 2007 to be one of the most influential membership-based advocacy organizations in San Francisco. Consider that the SFBC endorsement is highly sought after by SF Mayoral and Board of Supervisor Candidates.Critical Chris (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

References

You might believe this connection is a stretch, but let me tell you, the Critical Mass Crackdown of 1997 really kick-started the SFBC organization with a cash dues infusion, resulting in paid staff and a political will momentum that has changed the landscape of San Francisco's streets with an aggressive bike master plan, bike lanes, bike racks, and car exclusion curbs such as the one at the Southwest corner of Octavia and Market, the one that was creating a real hazard for drivers cutting off cyclists with "right hook" turns onto the central skyway from Market. The city now has 126 miles of designated bike lanes and paths, and commercial developers are required to provide secure bike parking. Muni buses are equipped with bike racks. Valet bicycle parking is now commonplace at major events in town, including Giants games, street fairs and rock concerts, and the city set as a goal boosting the number of people who primarily use bikes to get around. I could go on and on, but the era of "bike politics" in San Francisco really began it's meteoric rise during the Brown Administration and I don't believe I am alone in my opinion that you really can look back at July 1997 as a watershed tipping point in SF transportation planning. Now this all may sound like original research, but I'm not writing this into the article, it's focused on Browns comments and the facts of the July 97 Mass ride. Also, a serious student or journalist deserves to at least see a record of criticisms about Brown, with links to the decent news stories of the era that lay out the facts. Don't you want to see this article evolve in a "Good Article" class article with good sources? So should we go back through the sources? Two of them you have not challenged, one of them (The Paul Krassner piece) I already removed as it was an op/ed. Do you still maintain that the Time Magazine article is an "Op-ed piece written by activist, not reliable source" and that Steven Lopez, of the Time magazine editorial board, is an "activist?"Critical Chris (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, since you have objected to my reliable, verifiable mainstream news peroidical sources as being "a mixture of POV," I have added a neutrality NPOV tag to the top of the body of the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critical Chris (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No need - and I won't object if you remove it. I was wrong about Lopez being an activist but the Time piece is clearly an op-ed from its tone, and the method of supporting the claims is not a journalist one. Looking through his history he seems to do about 80% straight journalism and 20% editorials and commentary, which is not unusual. Long-term, we should have an article we all like because a dispute tag takes away from the strength of the article. But thanks for being so sporting. Actually, despite my complaints this article (including your contributions) is one of the better written and sourced, and more neutral, articles about a person of this stature and controversy. The fact that he was so controversial and generated so much ire, even if from several vocal minorities in town, is important to understanding his administration. Although I still don't agree with all the things about the critical mass ride, sourcing them more thoroughly and mentioning the sources in the text where they were editorial in nature is a considerable improvement. I also do appreciate your diligent efforts to add good content here. Wikidemo (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We could remove the NPOV tag, I wouldn't lose sleep over that, however it may be useful at this point, given the feverish level of editing that (mostly due to me) this article has experienced, to let some other editors lay eyes on the article and sources and weigh in, especially given the BLP policy listing you layed down a few days ago. So far one other person has weighed in...and agreed with you! so let's give it a few days/weeks to let others take a look and be bold in their edits or reverts, etc. I really do believe it will elevate the overall rigor and quality of the article in the long view. Thanks for the compliment, and I will continue to try to add more properly sourced content here about other aspects of his mayoral administration. I've already added what I consider to be a somewhat balanced few sentences about land planning and land development issues, "live/work lofts" and what not...in the "criticisms" section.Critical Chris (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave the article or more complete look, and I've come to the same conclusion. I think the current criticism should be reduce to no more than 3 lines. Any other information should be moved to the article on Critical Mass. This is in accordance to the wikipedia idea of providing summaries of articles in other articles. In the case of both the Critical Mass page and the Willie Brown page, the reason why NPOV is failed is because Brown's reasoning for opposing Critical Mass is not included. Instead, colorful quotes are placed in the article as a stand in for Brown's view in the place of any rational reasoning by Brown. A line or two needs to be included as to why Brown was against Critical Mass. And Critical Chris, please be careful. Your response to 70.6.234.147 was not in the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"And Critical Chris, please be careful. Your response to 70.6.234.147 was not in the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)" ...sir, please see the "length of article" section as I'd love for you to explain how my response to 70.6.234.147 is uncivil, I'm really scrating my head on this one, I thought I was quite polite with him, while critically addressing his points.Critical Chris (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now included a sentence that Brown was concerned about traffic congestion occurring when thousands of drivers and cyclists try to take to the streets at 6 pm on a Friday.Critical Chris (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Sorry but 3 lines doesn't cut it, and wouldn't give an account of the context of the incident or Brown's executive-guided policy in regards to the incident. Perhaps I'll shorten the paragraph, but 3 lines is a bit of a shrink to relate the facts of the case.Critical Chris (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical Chris, that was the contributor's first edit to Wikipidia and you broad sided him. You ridiculed him with a rhetorical questions and quoted words, while criticizing him for having not made a contribution. We're trying to encourage people to help with wikipedia. It did violate civility. We can work at cutting the section size down without setting an arbitrary line amount, but it needs to be shorter.User:calbear22 (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the ip address guy's original comment was further up this talk page in the "length of this article section" I'm responding to your criticism up there.Critical Chris (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to ongoing complaints about weight and length, I have cut the Critical Mass section down to 8 sentences, which comprise what I feel is a concise, well sourced, balanced paragraph that relates the basic facts of the incident and controversy, Brown's motivations, and an intelligent criticism of an aspect of his executive-guided policy during the summer of 1997. If no one objects, I think it's now appropriate to remove the NPOV tag, having addressed Wikidemo's, calbear22's, and IP address guy's concerns. Hopefully we can move on to planning and development and fleching out other aspects of the article, which need expansion and sourcing.Critical Chris (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks better to me. I would suggest that the criticism section be pared back now by starting corresponding policy sections under the Mayor section, moving the text from each of the criticism subsections there, and modifying each to address his initiatives and related successes, failures, and criticism. His other efforts could be treated the same, even if not subject to intense controversy. BTW, I'm putting "declared war" in quotes, since it is journalistic hyperbole by the author of the source article, and not a quote from either Brown or one of his critics. It should, perhaps, go back if there was such a quote or if his actions were widely described that way by multiple commentators.--Hjal (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It may well indeed be a quote from Brown, but I have read literally hundreds of news articles on Brown from the summer of 97 in the SFC, the SFE, the Trib, the Merc, the CoCo Times, the Marin Indy, the Weekly, the Guardian, I'm not just talking about a Google news search, I'm talking microfiche at the library of papers without onlinew archives,(as a footnote, those reporters really must have hated this Willie Brown guy) and I can't find anything to source that and I'm just guessing it's a quote from his KGO radio appearance with Bernie Ward on July 2, 1997. I may just go ahead and order a Burrell transcript of that show if I can find it but as of right now I can't find any direct quote saying "we have declared war on Critical Mass" or anything such as that...such as the direct quote of him being an understanding apologist for people who "get out of their cars" and "slash the tires" and "break the bicycles" of those "little weenies."Critical Chris (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Section Break

I've reverted one of Wikidemo's deletions in regards to Brown's implications that cyclists do not vote. It caused much resentment in the crowd and was seen as symbolic of his views of cyclists. Why do you believe it is irrelevant to Brown's Crackdown and the Bike Politics that emerged from the incident Wikidemo?Critical Chris (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is pertinent at all about it? As you say it's symbolic. Best state the facts and let them speak for themselves rather than selectively repeating each side's rhetoric. You've added a bunch of POV material; I and some other editors have challenged you on it. I'm removing it agan. Per WP:BRD you're going to have to get a WP:consensus for all this content you keep trying to add. You're going to have to slow down with all this. Wikidemo (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already deleted much of the content I added as per the discussion above on my sources and your challenges to them, and others complaints about length. What is your problem with the sources on Brown's implication that cyclists don't vote. I'll assume for now that you have no objections to the sources since you haven't criticized them, but could you please explain why you feel Brown's implication is irrelevant. Symbolism is always important for any politician, it strongly affects their approval/neg. ratings. I believe that looking at the context, it reflected poorly on his public image and lent credence to his perceptions as being plutocratic and insensitive to bicycling issues. Now comes your additions: You then added "blocking traffic." I find that to be inherent POV material and your remarks here against "repeating each side's rhetoric" ...that's exactly what you're doing by claiming that Critical Mass is blocking traffic and I take issue with that characterization as per WP:NPOV. I will attempt to carefully review any sources you've added on this.Critical Chris (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikidemo's statement that Critical Mass is "blocking traffic" don't you find this to be POV? From one guys's point of view inside the glass of his car, a group of bikes is "blocking (car) traffic" from another guy's point of view on his bike with other cyclists, he rides into, and becomes a part of the traffic. I believe you a have a rather car-centric point of view, not the only transportation mode in SF, if you think that bicycles aren't part of traffic on our streets. Besides, you don't even provide a decent reference for your "blocking traffic" line. If you are talking about specific hings like massers or motorcyle cops "corking" intersections or doing "chicago hold-ups" thats one thing, but if you are monolithically labeling Critical mass rides consisting of thousands of cyclists who have a right to the streets...just like thousands of cars who take to the streets at that hour, leaving the financial district to go to the Bay Bridge that's another thing. If you feel I'm wrong, let's keep the nuetrality dispute POV tag flying high for now.Critical Chris (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What part about blocking traffic during Friday rush hours is POV? That's a very simple factual claim, supported by most every source on the subject, and stated quite plainly in the critical mass article and statements from the Critical Mass people themselves. "Corking" to prevent drivers from going through intersections has always been an integral part of the critical mass rides and it's absurd to argue otherwise. What cars do has nothing to do with this but no, car drivers do not engage in a protest on Friday rush hours in which they sit in the middle of intersections on purpose to deliberately block traffic. I don't have a car, if you must know. I take the bus. By the way, may I infer from your "Critical Chris" wiki name that you are somehow connected with the Critical Mass rides? Wikidemo (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something in my understanding of Critical Mass but the cornerstone CM slogan to me has always been, "we don't block traffic, we are traffic." If "most every source on the subject" supports that claim, then find one and toss it in for the purpose of good article construction. I sincerely beleive, if properly sourced, that it could add substance to the section. Also, I'd be quite amazed if you've found "Critical Mass people themselves" who make statements to the effect that they "block traffic." Let's move on to your other points: "...car drivers do not engage in a protest on Friday rush hours..." no drivers take to the streets en masse and "block traffic" behind them on the rush hour of every workday of the month. Unlike Critical Mass, which occurs once per month, if it's not a protest, a "critical mass of cars" is not protected by the Assembly Clause of the 1st Amendment, which means it will one day be strictly regulated through congestion pricing, once California's population swells to 50 million and more. I'd argure you certainly don't have an understanding of Critical Mass if you believe that massers "sit in the middle of intersections on purpose to deliberately block traffic." Most masses try to keep moving, sometimes though, the traffic is just so thick with thousands of cyclists that you get gridlock for blocks. You should try riding a mass sometime, if for no other reason than to understand it better for whatever purpose that might serve you. Corking does happen from time to time for safety reasons, sometimes the SFPD motorcycle cops do it. You certainly have a strongly-biased POV if you characterize CM in that fashion. Oh, one more thing, if you're curious the "Critical" in "Critical Chris" refers to critical thinking, not Critical Mass. We all have a point of view, kind of like the view of a vineyard and tasting room from "the bus." :) I hope you find the "civil" inside humor in that stupid knee-slapper.Critical Chris (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange rhetoric. For goodness sake. The bikers block off traffic at intersections on Friday rush hours, that's an open and shut issue. You're arguing that black is white here. It's not "from time to time" for "safety reasons", it's an integral, inevitable part of the ride. All the sources say that and the bikers themselves advocate it, only a few of them repeat some weird political rhetoric that they have a justification. I've ridden in a couple critical masses and observed a couple dozen. The bikers sit in the middle of intersections for light after light and deliberately prevent cars from going through. This article is about an incident in 1997 and they were certainly doing it in 1997 without police help. All the sources say this. At this point you're arguing from a fringe political position and repeating partisan rhetoric. If you want to take the whole section out, fine. But if you're going to bring up an incident where the mayor of the city confronted bikers over bikers' increasingly confrontational blocking of rush hour traffic, we either tell it like it is or we shouldn't tell it.Wikidemo (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange rhetoric to you, because everyone has a point of view right? Perhaps yours is car-centric, I can't speak for you though, only the circumstances of your own rhetoric. There are other points of view on CM and the use of public space in the streets such as those of pedestrian walkers, transit-first advocates, free MUNI advocates. If you believe the idea of applying a market-based user-fee system such as congestion pricing is "a fringe political position" and "partisan rhetoric," you're sadly out of touch with modern transportation planning policy issuues. Congestion pricing has been successfully implemented in London, there are advocates here in the US, such as Michael Bloomberg and George W. Bush's Transportation Secretary Mary Peters see: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec07/infrastructure_08-15.html Among other objectives, we have to be careful to give the article a balance not too heavily weighted in one direction or another. I've lived all over the country over the years, and I'm on the streets of SF and Oakland daily and see car drivers deliberately and selfishly "block the box" Mon-Fri in gridlocked rush hour traffic, for light cycle after light cycle. And all it takes is one or two drivers (even in a hybrid "compact car" with a footprint of 80 sq. ft.) (not thousands of cyclists passing by) doing this to snarl traffic for blocks on a nightly basis. If you can stand the smog, go to the foot of the Bay Bridge, or into the Financial District, on any given weekday at 5:30 and watch the daily selfish, behavior of a "fringe" of drivers. It gets so bad at times that SF DPT sends out parking officers to cut tickets on drivers that do this. It's been a major problem, or else SF DPT wouldn't commit the labor time on the problem. If you go to NYC they've pressed big street signs that say "Don't Block the Box." Think I'm looking at drivers monolithically? ...so too are your edits about Critical Mass "blocking traffic" which to me is not in the spirit of Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV. I'm taking a few days off from edits to the article to review some sources and wikipedia policies in more depth.Critical Chris (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced biography/Length of this article

I would say also, don't be afraid if the article expands into a lengthy one, as Brown had a long and noteworthy career as a legislator and assembly speaker of the most populous US state, and two terms as the mayor of one of the most politically progressive, and cutting edge, and biggest US cities. He's no small town dog catcher, or just a city council-member/supe, so don't be afraid to let this article grow into a grand one on par with an article about a NYC mayor, or a US senator, etc....but let's leave the Critical Mass stuff as is for now Critical Chris (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I wa a California resident for many years. This reads like a grudge Biography, it has very little on the man. The Critical Mass stuff is small potatoes, worthy of a sentence or two at most. Take a look at this Biographical page http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bro0bio-1 for a more appropriate read on Willie Brown. Edit the critical mass criticism down to a paragraph at the most and build up the real history. 70.6.234.147 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC) archangelrichard

Sorry to hear that you moved away from California, hope you weren't displaced from a rent-stabilized apartment which once stood where the waste-of-space live/work lofts that were ushered in during the Willie Brown era now stand. Gee, maybe the development issues are also more small potatoes to you huh?

Now to address the more serious of your contribution, the link, Thanks for it. Where are the citations on that article? :) That biography chronicles his early life somewhat and his machine politics in the legislature, but despite the article's subtitle: "Advocate for Urban America," it makes no mention of policy specifics that he brought to bear on Urban America, either to San Francisco as Mayor, or Bakersfield, LA, Oakland, Sac, Fresno, San Diego, etc. as Speaker, good or bad, socialistic or plutocratic. After reading --that-- biography article, I have no clue what Willie Brown's idea of "Urban America" is, whether it is millionaire Joe O'Donoghue and the boys of the San Francisco Residential Builders association, whether it is a veteran living in an SRO with a serious substance problem, a crony he dropped into a cushy job, a single mother of 3 living in the Sunnydale Projects, a cigar-smoking insurance executive with his feet crossed up on his desk at the tip of the Transamerica pyramid, an old chinese woman collecting cans in Chinatown, a middle-class MUNI rider coming down Geary on the 33 from the Outer Richmond. So if you agree with that article, why don't you share with us some of that history of Willie being an advocate for Urban America since you purport to be "a California resident for many years." While you're at it bring in some decent reliable citations as I have. You're so quick to recommend editing down others' contributions, where are your contributions sir? Also, that biography reads more like a publicist-written hero biography or affinity biography, and it lacks critical thinking and balance, a Wikipedia axiom. So I'm still waiting for the "real history" which to you is not a series of incidents and press conferences that triggered multiple local news stories over a period of a few months, and made the national news even...an incident which left a legacy on SF politics: the S.F.B.C. and bike politics. So please bring us more of the real history sir, this article needs expansion as Willie Brown had a broad legacy throughout his 40+ year career in California politics.Critical Chris (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"And Critical Chris, please be careful. Your response to 70.6.234.147 was not in the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)" ...I'd love for you to explain how my response to 70.6.234.147 is uncivil, I'm really scrating my head on this one, I thought I was quite polite with him, while critically addressing his points.Critical Chris (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical Chris, that was the contributor's first edit to Wikipidia and you broad sided him. You ridiculed him with a rhetorical questions and quoted words, while criticizing him for having not made a contribution. We're trying to encourage people to help with wikipedia. It did violate civility. We can work at cutting the section size down without setting an arbitrary line amount, but it needs to be shorter.User:calbear22 (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One man's ridicule is another man's critical thinking. I'll have to review the Wikipedia "civility" guidelines I guess. What makes you so convinced that 70.6.234.147 is a first time contributor, and not a shill or a sock puppet?Critical Chris (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

His contribution record shows it as his first contribution. It's possible he's used other computers, but I go with what the contribution log says.User:calbear22 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2008(UTC)

He could be using the same computer, and unless he has a static IP address, there's a good chance he's a sock puppet. But if he's a genuine 1st time contributor, and if I was out of order, my apologies. Please note I've added his publicist-written biography link to the list of external links on this here Willie Brown article.Critical Chris (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Brown was the dominant politician in California for more than a decade, but there is nothing about his legislative career here except the fact that he held office and the final efforts to hold on with Republican front men. His early life and legal career should be filled in some and his Speakership should have as much depth as his Mayorality. The Critial Mass part is two or three times as long as it should be given the recommended length for articles here and how much other material still needs to be added.--Hjal (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hjal, could you please educate me as to "the recommended length for articles here" sir?Critical Chris (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The guideline is at Wikipedia:Article size. At some point, perhaps 32KB, the article size will show at the top of the page when you edit the whole article. Right now this article is still less than 29KB, but the coverage of his Assembly career, especially his Speakership and role in Statewide Democratic politics, deserves more space than all of the SF coverage combined. There have been FAs that run quite a bit longer--this could end up being one of them.--Hjal (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If it gets too long but it's all still useful and encyclopedic, I think the answer is to break it up into related articles. It's not a limit on how much you can say about one person, more a stylistic issue to keep the articles manageable and readable. If you look at Bill Clinton (obviously a bigger figure, but just as an example), there are a bunch of articles about him - the campaigns, the administration, the whitewater scandal, the clinton foundation, his foreign policy, etc. It might make sense to create separate articles about Brown as SF Mayor and Brown in the Assembly, with only a very short summary here and a link. Also, perhaps farm out some of the issues (bicycle coalition and critical mass, live-work loft and development, dot com boom, district elections, etc) to subject-related articles if it gets much beyond 30-40K. Personally, I think even if you do that the bicycle issue is too big proportionately, but that could be its own article even (you could make a case that this one series of events was notable in its own right), or part of the critical mass article. Wikidemo (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You make a point but I bet could do an article on Willie Brown's executive-guided civil rights and police policy, including a more detailed analysis of his calls for a crackdown on Critical Mass, his labeling the Fajitagate incident "mutual combat," controversies over his appointments of Lau, Holder, and Earl Saunders, his arguably illegal confiscation of homeless people's shopping carts full of possessions, night-time helecopter searches of Golden Gate Park to drive out homeless encampments, the crackdowns at the Iraq War protests of 02-03...and I'd still get his publicist machine busting down on me with complaints that this and that was "just a flash in the pan," it's too long, there are too many citations, there's not enough weight on this, too much weight on that. And in the end some douchebag would list it for "speedy deletion." Are you telling me that an article on a 40+ year politician in the most populous US State, big-city mayor, colorful, controversial guy...you're purporting that this article --should-- be under 32k? I'm not saying it should expand to Bill Clinton size, but it certainly deserves all the bells and whistles, no?Critical Chris (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for a specific length or putting unrelated stuff in the same bin, just saying that we can deal with length if it comes to it so not to worry about adding content. If we break out one aspect or period into a second article it doesn't downplay the importance of the events, quite the opposite. Fajitagate has its own article, with plenty of room to grow, and could be linked...nobody's going to delete that one. Deletion is easy to avoid. Wikidemo (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the length of the article is the dense number of reference citations: 66 in total. All those references add up to alot of data.Critical Chris (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

New section: Land planning and development

Section is not NPOV. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. See Undue weight, Balance, Fairness of tone, and Let the facts speak for themselves. Criticism section is way too long considering the size of the rest of the article.User:calbear22 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the land planning section has balance to it and mentions both praise and criticism, accomplishments, and detractions. In short I believe it's fairly weighted and addresses different angles of development issues.Critical Chris (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've edited in a way that I believe makes it more neutral and accurate. There is always criticism, so that fact is not always worth covering. So what's relevant?

• aggrandizing power - definitely was an issue, both real and in criticisms. the unified city under the mayoral administration versus neighborhood power centers, district election, etc., happened under his watch and because of him.
• favoring business interests over the city - no, only in the minds of a few anti-business people. He definitely did not favor all business interests, definitely not small businesses, but rather a number of developers and well-connected larger ones. To pit "business" against the "city" is an only-in-San Francisco mentality. I don't think you can support that "the city" excludes those he favored. It's just a matter of one group's interest versus others.
• (I copy-edited and linked the various development projects and eliminated some superlatives)
• Calling the live-work lofts expensive or hastily built as a group is POV. Sourced or not, this is not encyclopedic (and also untrue). Some were, some were not.
• "that displaced working-class residents and small businesses..." - I would put a fact tag on this but I think this too is inherently POV and unprovable. The population density was much higher after building housing than before, and most economists would argue that increasing the housing supply makes housing more affordable. Most also believed that light industry was already moribund and untenable within city limits. We can argue what gentrification is all about indefinitely, and bringing that argument here is unnecessary. Better to simply say it was an anti-gentrification objection and leave it at that.
• "and created a severe housing crisis..." - very POV to say that building new housing caused a housing crisis. Again, most economists would disagree.
• "in a city with one of the largest per capita populations of homeless people in the country" - POV non-sequitur.

Wikidemo (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jumbled reference list

I took the liberty of reverting to a previous version of this article. I'm not HTML expert, but it seems Calbear22's latest reference addition was not properly formatted, and it jumbled the refence list. I did keep Calbear22's edit at the end of the Critical Mass section. I have no problem with Calbear's reference, but please get it right, as it --apparently-- affected the entire refenece list.Critical Chris (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It was just a forgotten /. That's what you get for editing sections I guess.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, and for wading through your hay to find that digital needle.Critical Chris (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, looks like this reference you added has no URL: LA Times article by David Colker, 7 September 1997 "In LA, Movement Lacks Critical Element--Bike Commuters" ...Could you please add one if you wish to include the reference? Many thanks in advanceCritical Chris (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations don't need to be online. LA Times is a pay site. Wikidemo (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, didn't realize it was a pay site, I get free access through my academic connections.Critical Chris (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Article expansion, removal of POV tags

I've dramatically expanded article size. In doing so, I've also addressed many POV issues, and if not completely, have changed the article so much that POV needs to be accessed again. I also removed the tag from the talk page, which was really misplaced.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the effort. I haven't read it in detail but lots of good stuff. Wikidemo (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's going to be some petty spelling and grammar errors I'm sure. I really tried to take all the POV out in the previous stuff. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Calbear22, I'd like to convey my sincere thanks for all of the new material, and more importantly, well sourced new material. There are alot of new leads to chase down for the book I'm currently writing. In regards to the removal of the POV tag, I concur. I placed the tag up last week regarding the Critical Mass section. I feel at this point, after all of the intense editing and discussion with Wikidemo, you and a few others, that we have, relatively speaking, a concise, balanced, properly weighted, well-sourced section on the Critical Mass conflicts during the Summer of '97. Absent any response, I'll assume you concur also, at least in regards to the Critical Mass section and have thus removed the POV tag. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.Critical Chris (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical Mass section revisited

I made several changes to this section for several reasons. Firstly, the "wording praised by some and criticized by others" is weak wording and adds little to the article. We can list a few groups on one side or the other if you like, but the current wording isn't very encyclopedic. If it were allowed, that line would be used in almost every section of this article. The article focuses on Brown, not Critical Mass being praised or criticized by others. Now if we talk about criticism or praise for Brown's crackdown plan, that's a different story. Secondly, "declaring war" is just the fancy words of a few journalist and we're not trying to report what the journalist are saying. Further, a goal of NPOV is to allow Facts to Speak for themselves, and that includes grabbing a journalists quote to speak for the facts. It is really more of a scare quote which is not very NPOV. Thirdly, having excessive pull quotes from Brown detracts from the content and adds little. We only need one quoted segment to conclude Brown's view. Fourthly, word choice "blessing" is not a neutral wording of the matter. Fifthly, the anger by thousands is not what the source really says, its more of an interview of a few people from what I saw from skimming over it. If there was a poll in the article, then it's results might be relevant. We can talk further about all this if you like and get other editors opinions. I'm okay with you adding more facts to this section to make it a little longer, instead of the quotes that were removed. I know you had to cut it down quite a bit.User:calbear22 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes sir, I didn't have to, but I proactively cut it down quite a bit to accommodate the concerns of other editors that it was "out of proportion" to the rest of the article. Now there is much more material about other aspects of Brown's career (thank you for the recent additions) and you still feel it's out of proportion? Why did you remove the quotes from Brown's own mouth that the rides are a "terrible demonstration of intolerance" and "an incredible display of ignorance?" Those are well sourced quotes without any journalist's POV and I'm reverting them. The source links will provide further leads for those interested in this aspect of Brown's executive-guided police policy. I will leave out the "decalaring war" quotes for now given your concerns that those are "the fancy words of a few journalist(s)." Critical Chris (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Calbear22, I'm reading your remarks from above and giving them some more thought and I sense the "pull quotes," which the source journalists and reporters felt highly newsworthy, will be of some contention to you here perhaps. Yet I continue to feel they are quite encyclopedic, and give a good firsthand, primary source glimpse into Brown's thought process. Furthermore, I believe these quotes are important in terms of adding balance to this section, to balance off the bike confiscations and arrests...i.e. there was a strong motivation to crackdown. They really enshrine and encapsulate what a significant portion of the San Francisco populace felt at the time (and still do I might add) about the CM rides...and these quotes are much more pithy and encyclopedic, and better sourced than my original "praised by others" line. I'm not sure if you were around SF at the time but Brown was under some pressure (especially from the hotel, restaurant, convention&tourism, and business interests) to crack down on the rides. There were fears that they could mushroom out of control and become a real disruption to commerce and economic development, that they could affect jobs, that folks would choose to take their dining business to neighboring cities. I can only imagine the phone calls and letters that came into Brown's office, supes offices. Only thing is, I've reviewed sources and newspapers online and at libraries for hours and hours, and I can't find anything referencing the political pressure on Brown from his constituency to crack down on the CM rides. I can't even find allusions to political pressure or communications from any of the supes even. I know there's no equivalent of a Presidential Library to find this level of detail on the other hand, so we have to work with what quotations we have from reliable, fact checked, mainstream news sources. There are references to Supe Michael Yaki working out an accord with some of the cyclists, (as if rhizomal Critical Mass has leaders!) Details of the political pressure on Brown might be helpful to lend context to why Brown felt so strongly about cracking down on the CM ride...of course this begs the question... There are some conspiracy theorists that believe...there was no real pressure...that Brown had a chip on his shoulder against the CM rides, and a score to settle following his June 97 caravan of limos for his convention of mayors, which coincided with the CM ride. I've talked to some longtime CM riders and the word is this caravan got held up in the Marina District that June night. I can only imagine the executive advice Brown received around the dinner table that evening when they finally arrived at their destination restaurant, makes ya' wonder if Giuliani was sitting across from Brown.Critical Chris (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You can leave in what's there now, unless anyone else objects. By adding that new first sentence to the paragraph, it reads much better now.User:calbear22 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Blind

The article should note that Willie Brown is visually impaired to the point that he cannot read and cannot identify a person standing in front of him. http://www.blindness.org/coping/story.asp?id=22  Randall Bart   Talk  22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.Critical Chris (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jones Peoples Temple Section

Please stop arbitrarily deleting entire sections of the article. Willie Brown's involvement with Jones and the Temple were HEAVILY scrutinized in 1978 and 1979, while the Jonestown tragedy was like the Bay Area's 9-11. It should not be deleted. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the harsh tone of this. After I was suprirsed to find that no such section existed in the articles for both Brown and Moscone (Jones two big supporters with which he was heavily involved), I spent a lot of time putting together the section going through some books and other info I have lying around. I was annoyed it was moved, which effectively deleted it in its entirety. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I added back a cut down section and even made it a subsection of the Assembly section to address "weight" concerns. And believe me, the section is considerably shorter than it could be. For example, Brown wrote several support letters for the Temple blasting those wanting to investigate it to President Carter, members of Guyana's government and others that I don't even mention. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Per my note in the George Moscone article, that's fine. Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave the section some minor NPOV clean up. I was hoping you could describe how The Temple was "instrumental in delivering a close victory." Did they have a major get out the vote effort, give a lot of money, or make a lot of calls? Also, I think the section is absent Brown's response afterward. He probably voiced regret for supporting the group. Did the public react negatively to Brown supporting the group? Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Its been written about pretty extensively in a lot of books after the tragedy went down in 1978 and people went back to examine things closely. The Temple kept extensive records and also recorded phone calls that were damning to A LOT of people. On election day 1975, the Temple was able to produce several hundred volunteers at the last second that worked on election day driving people to the polls in favorable districts, as well as having all of its members vote in bloc for Moscone. Note that it is suspected that many of them actually were from North of the Bay and likely voted illegally in the election. Moscone's opponent went crazy after looking at the individual precinct returns (something was WAY off, you could tell where the Jones people had shown up in mass). But a fraud investigation was blunted thereafter, in part, because one of the Temple members either worked in or with the DA (Tim Stoen -- I forgot the detail there), and he later in 1977 turned against the Temple. Mosedschurte (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Far more troubling was that Moscone actually put out a press release saying he would NOT investigate the Temple after the August 1, 1977 New West article with numerous allegations of beatings, death threats and extortion. Jones had actually fled to Guayan in the middle of the night after editor Rosalie Wright read him the article over the phone to get his comments (and she stated on the tape she did so only because of pressure from Jones supporters such as Governor Brown). Even though Moscone immediately announced he wouldn't investigate, Jones never returned, in part, because of worries regarding civil litigation from Temple defectors. By the way, Willie Brown was the rally at the Peoples Temple after Jones dramatic middle-of-the-night flee to Guyana, and said a lot of trulyembarrassing things. Mosedschurte (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that Willie Brown wrote several letters to President Carter and Guyana officials as late as 1978 (the year of the suicides) supporting Jones and attacking the Temple defectors pressing for an investigation (much like Harvey Milk's 2/19/78 letters). Brown also spoke at the Temple pulpit numerous times. Humorously, Brown didn't know it, but Jones flipped him off once behind his back while he was speaking (they though Willie was capitalist sellout or something like that, can't remember the exact language from one of Jones tapes), the crowd snickered and Brown didn't know what was going on. I didn't include those in the summary info. Mosedschurte (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally, worse than Brown in some ways was Lt. Gov. Dymally. He didn't do much speech making, but he actually flew to Jonestown to visit and gave the place huge thumbs up, along with writing support letters for Jones. Dymally was a good friend of the Temple, and there are documents in their files indicating they actually helped him write an editorial Dymally published after he came under attack for non-Temple related reasons. Mosedschurte (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

All of that suggests that the material is best centralized in a section of the article, or in a new article, rather than spreading it out among all of the people who were involved. Whenever a prominent person, group, or institution active in politics turns out to be problematic - a business that turns out to be a fraud, a religion that turns out to be a cult, a person who is really a criminal, etc. - they have supporters and detractors. Politicians take sides (and money, and votes), often without looking too deep into the integrity of their allies. Nobody thinks Moscone, Brown, or anyone else was a cult member or wanted to promote the cult's aims or cover it up. They simply made their alliances with the wrong people. Perhaps it says something about a politician that they are careless in this way, or perhaps it just says something about luck. In any event, judging politicians against the standard of whether they are connected to a scandal is something that happens in elections and attack politics. I think we as an encyclopedia have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture - who they are, what they accomplished, what their legacy is, and so on. People's Temple is a significant event in the history of San Francisco and even the nation, and in cults, and it does have something to say about politics. I don't think it is nearly that much a part of the legacy of the individuals involved. If you were to weight the total amount of media coverage, writing, etc., about Brown and Moscone, the People's Temple episode is going to be a very tiny part of their notability. It is not on most people's minds as a defining issue about them, or an issue at all. We get significant weight problems if we make it one. Wikidemo (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Having edited this article extensively myself and being familiar with it's ins, outs, nooks, crannies and nuances, it is well balanced and evenly weighted to the point where a short, concise paragraph about Brown's policy and association with Jones would not knock it out of balance. The same might not be able to be said about several paragraphs.Critical Chris (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that Brown's quote at the PT's post-flee to Guyana rally for Jones was cut. I added back that Brown spoke there, which seems like one of the more important points, but didn't add back the quote itself. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I noticed a post-tragedy quote was added. I had actually NOT included Willie's most famous post-tragedy quote, that he had no regrets and thought the other politicians distancing themselves were bullshit. That drew media articles by itself in 1978. But when an obscure post-tragedy quote was just added today to the article, the far more famous and controversial one had to be added to give the complete picture. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

PR Talk

Does anyone else think this article reads like it was written by PR Staff? The continued emphasis on his supposed Muni funding increases and other bullet points are particularly disconcerting.

September 11th and police

Is the purpose of this an ambigous way of inserting a link to 9/11 being an inside job? It might be interesting enough but even the source does not give it too much weight. If this belongs in another article so be it. It does not seem appropriate for this article unless all mayors are receiving a sentance or two regarding their 9/11 response. Also, there is clearly an agenda witht he second paragraph of this section.Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the inserting editor if he's engaged in original research or synthesis, if these sound familiar from the BART Police Shooting of Oscar Grant article and talk page discussion that you are also editing/reading. I think the obvious point of the Matier and Ross source piece [19], as I read it at least, is to point out, oh how should we say, -- inconsistencies -- on Brown's part in a rather embarrassing manner that has a remarkably light, practically humorous tone considering it went to press less than 24 hours after the south tower collapsed. Interestingly, the source seems to allude to Nixonian-style telephone recording/transcripts from Hallinan's office ("'You know, you're the first call I've gotten on this,' Brown said to Hallinan, as they were signing off.") and a telephone deck in a DA's office wouldn't surprise me in the least either for a number of reasons. Also, look at the Mike McCarron quotation; and if he was waiting for an 8am pacific(11am eastern) flight to JFK/LGA, his flight was a total no-go by just after 6 am pacific, which would have left plenty of time for some happy motoring down 101 in time to catch a "mayor's flight." Look, if you're fascinated by MK ULTRA and other conspiracies, you might enjoy this comment from the online edition of the original SFC article - [20]. Of course, if you can find a "reliable" source that investigates this theory, that's an entirely different conversation.CriticalChris 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On a somewhat unrelated note, tell me in what way do you believe the second paragraph from this section of the article on fajitagate is worded with an "agenda?CriticalChris 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the heading because it seemed to give undue weight to a single minor incident that was only one of two things covered under the section. If we need to break up the long section on his tenure as Mayor, we should find a more logical way to divide things. I also tried to remove POV-ish language that either credited or blamed Brown for things involving other people (e.g. "presided" over a decrease in crime, "feared" to describe his concern over potential terrorism - who knows if he was afraid or not?, and then all the "alleged" and lack of evidence stuff regarding fajitagate. We know the cops beat up the guy, we just don't know that the DA could have prosecuted that as a crime, and either way that part of the event has little to do with Brown). Wikidemon (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I'd like to convey my thanks for this most recent edit. I like the way it flows a bit better now. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. Good to see you've hung in here with this article this long. After some heated editing, I think the article has come a long way in the last year, and is now a piece that we can all be proud of here. You think this sucker is ready for a GA nomination?CriticalChris 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call on removing the heading. In answer to your question regarding the fajitagate paragraph, when combined with he 9/11 info seemed like a dig at Willie Brown for being involved in evil conspiracies. It is better now.Cptnono (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Race Pride"

I just reverted this unsourced edit made at 13:20, November 6, 2009 by 96.19.240.102 "I think most white politicians do not understand that the race pride we all have trumps everything else." The quotation, if properly sourced, has a notable and significant political context that might be essential to fully understanding San Francisco's late 90's/early 2000's gentrification-era class and race politics, or another dimension of Brown's lengthy, and still unfinished, poltical career (I read Willie is considering throwing his hat in the ring for the upcoming mayoral race here in 'the Town.') Yet, this quotation needs good sourcing if it's to be included in this potential featured article candidate. CriticalChris 20:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan White

Brown was originally one of White's targets in the Moscone–Milk assassinations. Section: Moscone–Milk assassinations#Trial and its aftermath. May be worth a mention. czar · · 05:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

He was a shoeshiner, so why remove the category?

As a perusal of this article suggests, Brown was a shoeshiner at a young age. The article on shoeshiners shows many other prominent people have been shoeshiners. So, why remove the category? It isn't an insult. He was literally a shoeshiner. Hoktiwe (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hoktiwe: Because it is trivia and not a defining characteristic of this subject, nor of other subjects where you have been adding the category. See WP:CATDEF (as I indicated in my edit summary when I reverted your edit). General Ization ^Talk 15:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Not dead yet

Saw someone had edited the page to past tense following the death of Raiders hall of famer Willie Brown. The football player and the former Mayor of San Francisco are not the same person. The politician Willie Brown is still very much alive (at the time of this edit, at least). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyvalian (talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Graduation date

Date of Mayor Brown’s Graduation from SF State should be 1955, not 1995. PTJ333 (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)