Talk:Scott Brown (politician)

Nude centerfold pics

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

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

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

For the record, he was nude. The magazine itself says so: "Long before he was a politician, the Republican candidate vying for Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat posed nude for the centerfold of Cosmo." [1] The magazine re-ran the photo, with that description, last September, so you can look at the photo yourself. If you can spot one piece of clothing that he's wearing, please point it out to me. Lying on a towel doesn't turn a nude photo into a semi-nude one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nudity redux

Here we go again. The magazine in which the photo appeared describes it as a nude photo (saying that he "posed nude for the centerfold").[2] Furthermore, anyone who troubles to look at the photo (in the previous citation) can see that Brown is "without clothing", which is the definition of nudity.

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

I'm editing the passage to include the undeniable incontestable fact that Cosmo called it a nude photo. I'm using a verbatim quotation from Cosmo. Boromir has managed to dig up a publication ([3]) that asserts (without explanation) that it was semi-nude. Perhaps that writer wanted to make clear that his genitals weren't exposed, but as I pointed out, our previous language does so. I don't think this clear error is worth including in our article just because it was published, but if Brown's supporters insist on adding it, I can live with that, as long as the accurate information from the verbatim quotation from the source remains in the text. JamesMLane t c 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Candidate to replace Ted Kennedy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why no pic yet?

[4]

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

Tea Party moneybomb

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

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

Military Service

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

Uncontesable picture

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

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

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

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

Removed some trivia

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

Position on bank tax

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

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

Page move

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

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

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

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

Current events tag or something?

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

Brown's family life

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

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

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

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

Picture

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

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

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

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

New editors

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

"Qualifing/labeling" columists

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation page?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contraceptive discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating C

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

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

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

do not violate WP:CRYSTAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotation

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

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

I have found some citations needed for article

I am a newbie to Wikipedia.

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

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

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

Two links verify this to be true.

They are:

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

And:

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

[6]

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

Thanks for any assistance.

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

Cardozo Law School Alumnus

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

typographical error

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

First Paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early Life and Non-Political Career

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

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

Shor's name is misspelled

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

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

Moderate Republican?

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

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

Concern about recentism and US-centric bias regarding disambiguation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Positions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mandatory Retirement

In the article there is the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Is he, or isn't he?

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

1) He's completely nude:

2) He's semi-nude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Content by Malke 2010

Malke 2010 recently removed important content from this page with this edit [10] with the strange explanation that it was redundant. I checked the edit and it was quite clear that the information was in no way redundant so I undid the edit [11]. The information explained Brown's position on gay marraige that he was against it, but that he wouldn't attempt to overturn it. Malke 2010 removed the part about him being against it and left only the part stating that he wouldn't try to overturn it with the edit summary claiming that this was redundant. Its in no way redundant however as it provides additional information about Brown's position and puts into context why he said he wouldn't try to overturn his states gay marraige law. Malke 2010 then subsequently undid my undue edit [12]. This edit by Malke 2010 doesn't make any sense.Chhe (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)