Talk:Corrine Brown

3rd District is majority African American

According to wikipedia's own page on it, Florida's 3rd Congressional district is a majority (or, rather, plurality African American district (49.3%). On Rep Brown's page, is said she won a "white majority district" in 1996 -- the current white population of fl-3 is 38.4%. It was not, in 1996, nor is it now a "white majority district."

I would change this, but don't have a wiki account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.234.233 (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitol Blue Link

The fact that a link is POV is not, in itself, grounds to remove. If the link contained false information, or were a paid advertisement or something, that would be different. As it is the link appears to contain valuable source information. Ellsworth 03:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely, if the information is valuable, some other source could be found that wasn't so obviously POV?--Cuchullain 06:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, and once that source is found then it can be cited in lieu of the other, perhaps moving the less-POV link to the Talk page for purpose of preserving the article history. Ellsworth 20:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Spy Prank

So when Congresswoman Brown's own hometown newspaper acknowledges that Ms. Brown fell for Spy's well-known Freedonia prank, it isn't good enough resourcing for Wikipedia? Tsk Tsk. That's not editing, that's censorship. How fortunate for Ms. Brown that the Spy article isn't online or you'd have to let her shine in her own glory. 05:02, 14 November 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.145.254.109 (talk • contribs)

WP:RS and WP:V do not require a source to be online in order for it to be used to support text in a wikipedia article. On the other hand, WP:BLP puts special requirements on the inclusion of any negative information about a living person. John Broughton | Talk 17:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The source you gave was not an article, it was an editorial. This is not a particularly reliable source. On top of this, the prank is years old and not particularly encyclopic or important. Including it would give undue weight to a mundane incident. --Cúchullain ^t/c 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but a hometown newspaper IS a reliable source. The existence of the prank is a fact stated within an editorial, not an opinion. You do understand the difference, right? Just like your decision that the prank is "old" is fact, while that it is "not important" is merely your opinion. 01:29, 15 November 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.161.63.27 (talk • contribs)

Soroity Affiliation

I'm confused...Ms Brown is listed as a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., but has a link in the friends of Sigma Gamma Rho page. I'm looking for clarity and confirmation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.150.0.1 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Corrine Brown Congratulates the Florida Gators

The following post was removed by Wikipedia because they considered it "Vandalism"

Corrine Brown Congratulates the Florida Gators!

A popular video clip on youtube shows Congressperson Brown on the floor of the US House of Representatives attempting to read a prepared speech praising the University of Florida’s football team. She seems to have difficulty reading her notes and her grammar, syntax and pronunciation are atrocious. She appears to be functionally illiterate. She states that she wishes to “Gradulate” the Gators and goes on to make a rambling speech that simultaneously confusing, pathetic and unintentionally humorous. In this speech she makes Amos ‘n Andy sound like Sir John Gielgud.

The article is properly referenced and deals with a current topic. Anybody who takes the time to view the cited clip will be able to see this. Perhaps I should have also linked to youtube's clips from the Amos 'n' Andy show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.191.243 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This video is a great characterization of Corrine Brown. If her supporters find it embarrassing, there is no one to blame but Corrine herself. No one is making her do this. Instead of removing the video link from Wikipedia, her supporters should gradulate her.

Additionally, this would be a fine video to add to the University of Florida article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.186.19 (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Youtube

Corrine Brown can be found on Youtube gradulating the Gators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revelsbl (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Youtube clip / Florida Gators

This content is repeatedly added (with commentary) but not once has there been a reliable source. It's original research that violates the policy of biography of living persons. I am trying to resolve this through discussion but if the content keeps on being added, it will go to third-opinion and whereever else. Find a reliable source and it stays. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment via Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. You're right. This commentary on the video is definitely OR if it hasn't been made previously in a reliable source, and I doubt even the notability: only 344 GHits connecting Corinne Brown and the Florida Gators, and the comments on the grammar made only a handful of blogs [1]. Even without the commentary, given it's contentious and weakly-sourced, it's also out per WP:BLP. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gordon. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Several policies speak to why this is not appropriate. First, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As the policy says, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It would be one thing if multiple reliable secondary sources (ie, not a video from CSPAN) discussed the event. However no one has demonstrated that this ever got beyond the blogs. Even if it had, the burden of evidence that this is notable is is on the users trying to include the information.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this page has been repeatedly vandalized, and I do not support that in any way. I in no way want to disparage Ms. Brown. The fact that so many people have felt the need to edit this page, not to mention the widespread attention it has received through blogs, forums and commentaries, are clearly signs that it is relevant and important to acknowledge and properly document what actually happened, and the manner in which Ms. Brown delivered her speech. I did not link to youtube. I cited C-Span as the source, and it is viable. It is not nonsense. It is a matter of public record, and I don't feel that it should be suppressed. Instead of repeatedly taking down a reference to something that happened on the house floor, and that clearly has effected a lot of people, why not help me add citations and refine it so that it does meet all of the Wikipedia criteria, and can properly inform someone who comes here looking for information about it?

Thank you all for your time James corn (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)james corn

Read the above comments. The event is not notable or important enough to be in an encylopedia article. Hearing it making the rounds with bloggers and Wikipedia vandals doesn't make something notable. Blogs and forums cannot be used as sources for material about living people, per the biographies of living persons policy. Additionally, primary sources such as this video cannot be used for making any interpretive claims. Now, if you found a book or even a news article discussing the event and indicating that it was important, that would be one thing. But until then the material stays out. --Cúchullain ^t/c 16:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I will do more work on finding sources. Thank you for the advice. For the record, I honestly don't feel that the claims were interpretive, because if you view the video, every word of my statement is proven clearly. What I think is notable about it, as does everyone who has watched the video, is that the grammar of an elected official could be that poor. It is unfortunate that the transcript doesn't accurately convey what happened, and thus those who don't view the video or are hearing impaired will have a skewed impression of the event, which I think is wrong. I understand and agree that the content of blogs and forums are not viable, but it seems like the fact that so many conversations on this subject exist should in itself be worth something in the whole scheme of things, don't you agree? To wholesale reject anything that has to do with blogs or forums, even the fact that they exist seems short sighted to me. Any more advice that you or anyone else familiar with the guidelines can offer to help me with this would be greatly appreciated. James corn (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)james corn

We've already pointed to several policies and guidelines explaining why this information is not usable. Again, "people are talking about it, that means it must be important" is not a sufficient argument. If this were an important piece of information you'd expect to find plenty of reliable sources verifying that it's important enough to go in this biography of a living person. That doesn't appear to be the case here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand all that, but you didn't seem to address my other concerns. I don't mean to be abrasive, but I wonder if the fact that you're from the Jacksonville area has put you too close to this issue to be objective. I would appreciate other viewpoints. I also would like information (or a link) on what Wiki considers a news article - all articles have some degree of bias in them - are columns from the editors of respected news sources admissible? Thanks again, James corn (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)james corn

Two other editors (myself and Gordon) have made the same argument about removing this content. I have nothing to do with Florida. This link was already given but I believe it has the info you're looking for: wp:reliable sources --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying this entry is unimportant is an opinion, and shouldn't have bearing on the entry unless it is a large consensus. I have cited a viable source in C-Span. It is clear that an extremely large number of people think that this significant. Continually removing the article based on opinion and strict adherence to guidelines that were not meant to be strictly adhered to is essentially censorship. (see: "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception") Inclusion of this entry will in no way damage Wikipedia, but will improve it by providing a true, viable record of the speech for those researching the actuality of its existence. Omitting it is basically saying that it didn't happen, and thus Wikipedia would be failing to provide information to those it was created to serve in the first place. If people come here for information on this speech, and it is not included on the site, (and see how many time it has been suppressed) then that indeed damages the credibility/objectivity of the site by ignoring an issue! If there are concerns about the wording of this entry, it should be the wording that is edited or removed, not the actual public domain record of the event. Also, to address Gordon's post, a search on Google will indeed display a great deal more than a handful of blogs discussing it. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=corinne+brown+gators&btnG=Search)

respectfully, James corn (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)james corn

a search on Google will indeed display a great deal more than a handful of blogs discussing it

No, it won't, because you've failed to specify search terms, and you get any results with the words "Corinne", "Brown" and "Gators", which include all kinds of irrelevant hits. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are scads of result pages full of references to this in my search. So what if it has a few irrelevant hits! If that's how you use Google, you're missing out on an awful lot of information! Why is this issue being fought so hard? Go out and ask someone on the street who she is - I guarantee they either won't know, or will say she's the one that gave the UF speech! Why can't you people accept/admit that there is a significant amount of interest in this? James corn (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)james corn