This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
At some point--I don't feel like looking up the diffs at the moment--Kate Brown, being social media savvy, had some staffers edit her article. As I recall it all worked out OK, but just something to watch out for so anyone with a
conflict of interest can be shown how to
manage that.
Valfontis (
talk)
05:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Hmm. Yes, I had that feeling already, though I didn't look at the article history. The best way to counter that is to not just watch but also improve the article. I'll ping
Rosiestep, who's been asked to keep an eye on the article with her big, bad admin tool. Thanks Kudzu.
Drmies (
talk)
05:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I saw that, thanks folks. As a side note, under Brown's leadership, the SoS-produced Oregon Blue Book includes links to all the Wikipedia Oregon city articles on its
web version, so there may be more State of Oregon interaction with Wikipedia when she becomes governor. Hopefully we can have a productive collaboration.
Valfontis (
talk)
05:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I invite you all to have a look at the article history and the "Controversy" section, which I will keep removing as a BLP violation unless a. it is rewritten to be more than a piece of innuendo and properly incorporated in the article and b. there is consensus on the talk page that it needs to be in. IPs 98.248.145.87 and 12.201.116.58, who I have no doubt are the same person, will be blocked if they persist in re-inserting it, and the article semi-protected if it needs to be.
Drmies (
talk)
20:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I am the editor who created the "Controversy" section and have been fighting with you to keep it posted. The section is cited properly as is given a completely neutral tone. Your assertion that it is some how "innuendo" and "suggestive" is incorrect. My citations link to source material. The Verge article was referenced by today's NYTimes article on Brown. I think the onus is on you to explicitly state what violations are present in the section. Your inability to do so along with your threats to ban be due to "vandalism" have me question your partiality on the subject. --K — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
12.201.116.58 (
talk)
21:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you for responding. First, no "controversy" sections; incorporate the material into the main text. Second, what is the controversy? Third, get consensus here on the talk page. Fourth, the suggestion of my partiality--bullshit.
Drmies (
talk)
21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree with Drmies, the controversy section as inserted, even though it seems neutral is not a controversy. Taking only $10,000 from Comcast over a number of years does not seem out of the ordinarily, nor is sending a specific letter given by a donor. The Times did publish this
fact but I don't see why such taking a donation and then doing a small favor in return is a controversy.
Frmorrison (
talk)
22:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I am starting to agree with the IP editor on further reflection. Taking 10k for her campaign is not bad, but then signing a letter written for her by Comcast, a contributor, in support of its business interests does seem like a controversy. If she had rewritten the letter I would let it slide, but mostly just signing a letter may be
impropriety. I am considering adding the content back with editing. It would be something like: In January 2015, Brown submitted a letter to the
Federal Communications Commission in support of the
Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger that had been written almost entirely by
Comcast, a company that has made over $10,000 in donations to her election campaigns.
Frmorrison (
talk)
23:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Frmorrison, I don't have a problem with that, I think, if...well, I suppose I made myself clear/played my authoritay card. I would like to see some more/better sourcing; after all, if this is supposed to be a controversy, it should be easy to prove that it is. And the best thing to do is to use language that stays close to what those sources have. But considering that this is a BLP on a high-profile case, I am (I hope you don't mind) pinging
Rosiestep, since it's important we get it right. A note on BLPN might be a good idea as well.
Since nobody else has said it: the proper way to get something into an article when you are reverted isn't to keep "fighting" by
edit warring. It's to come to the Talk page and do what
Frmorrison is doing: explain the proposed change and work toward
consensus. -
Kudzu1 (
talk)
02:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Things seem to be going in the right direction with this discussion -- just one additional point, thought I generally agree with the point
Frmorrison is coming to, it's not our opinions that matter, in whether or not the amount of money, etc. is significant; it's the editorial judgment of
WP:RS. Speaking as somebody with familiarity with Oregon press, I think it's important to both consider that WW has won Pulitzers, and also that
WW is well aware that WW has won Pulitzers. I don't know so much about the Verge. -
Pete (
talk)
18:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The New York Times re-reported The Verge's news about the Comcast letter. The Times has won 114 Pulizers, but not The Verge.
Peteforsyth, The Verge is a reliable source for technology related matters and Comcast is large part of the technology world.
Frmorrison (
talk)
21:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Gubernatorial tenure
Does Brown serve out the rest of the 4-year term, or only the first 2-years ('til Jan 2017)? In otherwords, is there a Special gubernatorial election needed in 2016?
GoodDay (
talk)
18:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)reply
McGreevey didn't identify publicly as bisexual. He came out as gay (making him, yes, the first openly gay or LGBT governor) and then he resigned. -
Kudzu1 (
talk)
16:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Could a section be developed here on Gov. Brown's clean energy legacy?
Embrace economy of the future
Strategies around carbon pricing to empower the private sector to invest in ways that grow 'clean green jobs' - 'carrot rather than stick' approaches* Oregon clean energy bill
I have just modified one external link on
Kate Brown. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.