Talk:Patrick Brown (Canadian politician)

Old dispute over article changes

Why is it that bad stuff about Patrick has mysteriously been replaced with good?

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Brown_%28politician%29&diff=83871168&oldid=83129377

Neither have listed any sources, so I'm not inclined to put a lot of faith in either, except that the whole sign thing was actually a real issue. Heck, I'm pretty sure it was common knowledge. Yeah, no source, but if that warrants deletion, then all the praise for Patrick there now should be cleared out as well.

69.157.72.230 06:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

2008 election performance

"Brown was re-elected to parliament in the 2008 election by a massive margin. He easily defeated the Liberal candidate by 15,000 votes, achieving the larger margins in the province. Brown has gained wide spread support in Barrie for his work recruiting doctors, fundraising for the cancer care expansion, frequent passport clinics, the return of the GO Train to Barrie, and a surprisingly steady stream of federal projects being announced by Brown throughout his term in office."

I find this last paragraph somewhat questionable. It makes it sound like Brown's strong showing was directly a result of his supposed support but this says nothing of Stéphane Dion's very low support as Liberal leader, not to mention the relatively unknown status of Rick Jones, Brown's challenger.

I also would question the GO Train as a source of support for Patrick, since it was approved under the previous MP, Aileen Carroll. The bit about the "surprisingly steady stream of federal projects" just sounds like it came out of a campaign brochure.

Any thoughts? I'll admit I'm not a fan of Brown to make clear my bias but I think the article should be neutral and I've seen in the past that it's been curiously edited for the positive, as mentioned in the above discussion section.

MatttK (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an edit to the article, since nobody has read the discussion in a week. What I did was I sourced the election results and then included some information and a source about Dion's effect on the election. I also removed the bit about the GO Train (find me an unbiased source on that one - you won't because it was approved under the previous MP - Patrick takes credit for this for political games) and the "steady stream of federal projects" bit that sounds like it came out of his campaign brochure. Elaborate and source it if you think it is true. MatttK (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Warning to those with nefarious intent

I am periodically checking this article, as it has a history of people coming to delete any potentially negative information about MP Brown, while adding in more positive information. If you want to do this, know that your changes are quite clearly saved in the history and are going to get reverted, if you're just deleting things without cause. Like or dislike Patrick Brown but let's try to keep this article neutral. Feel free to debate in this talk section if you don't agree with information in the article. MatttK (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This time, the vandalism was done by 192.197.82.155, which reads as parl155.parl.gc.ca. So that's nice that someone in government is trying to censor this article. MatttK (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone at the Parliament did it again. Same IP. MatttK (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

don't you know that you're never far away from the prying eyes of the harpoon and his goons? 184.145.95.157 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think childish name-calling makes you any better than the worst of the mud-slingers in the Conservative Party. :) MatttK (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Bias

Guys, let's all try to do a better job with the bias on both sides. Don't add information that sounds like it came out of a campaign booklet. On the other side, don't add paragraphs of negative-toned information. Nobody should be trying to prove a point, only provide information.

To give an example, I think we could improve the Hockey Night section. The bit that was added about Patrick not being the originator is actually very interesting; I didn't know that. But I feel like it has been written without regard for the work he has put into it, even though he apparently didn't come up with the idea and has claimed it for his own. I think it could be more neutral, while still conveying the same information. Maybe I will take a stab at it later.

And another note to those working for the Conservatives... all your changes are tracked here (we can see when you edit the article from Parliament), so don't bother warping the article for campaign purposes. It won't last long. Same goes to the anti-Brown people. :)

MatttK (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Guys, this is absurd. In the last month, the article has had a lot of anti-Brown bias crammed into every paragraph people can find. Check my history and you'll see that I've been trying to get rid of any bias, including the pro-Brown stuff that his people keep adding. Let's try to make this article neutral and better.

It can definitely be better than the current revision but that's not going to happen by following your own agendas. Please think about what you're adding and please try to make it worthy of an encyclopaedia. Some of the stuff added in the last month looked like it was added by a 5th grader.

I think we can also find some better way to display the information about the hockey article, other than that strangely-placed picture of the flyer. Maybe somebody has an idea there. I'm not sure it's even a valid source, to be honest, but I need to do some more looking into Wikipedia rules, etc.

MatttK (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why has the pro-Brown material regarding the Hockey Night in Barrie fundraiser been kept in it's own section while the rest has been relegated to the 'Controvery' section? The pro-Brown material includes a single citation to an editorial by Brown himself. The material relegated to the 'Controvery' section includes citations to three newspaper articles and a photograph.

Robert viera (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this material is fair and I don't see it as "pro-Brown". The section describes a major event in Barrie and in Patrick Brown's career, which he is indisputably involved in. The main point of the article should not be to detail controversy, which is why the controversy is not featured prominently in that section. Just the facts are there. You can then read further in the article to read into the controversial elements. I would agree that it is "pro-Brown" if the section attempted to state that Patrick is directly responsible for the event and its successes but it doesn't do that.

As for the source, I completely agree: the source is no good at all. You cannot use an opinion column by the subject of the article as a source for anything, unless it's a source for his own opinion maybe. I will search around for a new source but if somebody else finds one, please feel free to replace the current one.

MatttK (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I found another Examiner article from 2014, which included updated statistics, so I updated the text and changed the source. One could argue that the source clearly states that Patrick *presents* the event, which is a stronger word than *involved*, so I think "the other side" could even make the argument that this current text is "unfair" to Patrick Brown. I think there are two sides to the coin here.

MatttK (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@MatttK In regards to your comments above; if you're seriously worried about the flyer, you should go to the Barrie Public Library to obtain a better article or picture from the newspaper archives to use instead of this one; in the meantime, regardless of the fanciness of the flyer, he still wrote that, so it shouldn't be deleted. If you look at the history, about half of the things in the Controversy section were just conglomerated from other sections. In some cases there were more things like this than other content related to the Heading. It makes sense for a Controversy section, as the volume of his history of controversial actions shows this.

If you feel like he should have more information on his work for Hockey Night, add it, don't just talk about it.

I added back the content and tried to revise it to make it more neutral. The points are valid, they just need to be articulated in a more desirable fashion. Also, regardless of a person's age or writing capabilities, they should be able to contribute regardless. Consider using more constructive, inclusive language when commenting on fellow contributors work. No need to put someone down.

Thank you for your efforts to this page over the years.

129.97.125.198 (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The stuff that was added back in is still heavily biased.

During the 2008 Federal Election, he was quoted saying "I brought the GO train back to Barrie" in an attempt to take the credit for the project, when in reality the first phase was equally funded by all 3 levels of government, and was already in motion before he was elected in 2006 from the previous MP, Aileen Carroll.

This was a very valid point during the 2008 election but I don't see how it is particularly relevant by now. The paragraph is also filled with loaded words, which are meant to paint Patrick clearly as a bad guy.

Ever since 2008, when Brown sent out a flyer, he has claimed that the Hockey Night in Barrie fundraiser for the RVH was his idea & effort, even though the event had been running since 2004, under the original name "Go For The Goal", 2 years before he became an MP.[11] In a 2010 article about the fundraiser, one of the people who actually helped come up with it...

I don't see how this improved the original information, other than to make it less professional-looking and more accusatory. The information already existed 1 month ago.

On September 26, 2012, Brown voted in favour of Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth's private member's bill to create a special committee to examine the legal definition of when a fetus becomes a human being, suggesting that he does not support women's rights to have an abortion. Brown did so despite the fact that Prime Minister Stephen Harper specifically advised his caucus to vote against the bill.

Wikipedia isn't a place for suggestions. One might assume that Patrick Brown is against abortion by the way he voted by without an actual quote or otherwise documented position, it is not fair to put this assumption into writing. Moreover, the fact that Harper told his caucus to vote against the bill is not relevant, unless you are trying to forward the view that being against abortion is wrong.

Brown has been criticized for not resigning his Federal seat during his Provincial PC Leadership campaign, with Ontario PC leadership frontrunner Christine Elliott said that "If he really wants to show his commitment to provincial politics then yes, he should (step down as MP). It's not fair to his constituents in Barrie."

Wikipedia isn't normally a collection of quotations. It's all the more inappropriate when all the quotations that have been added seem to be negative.

I reverted the article to an earlier form after carefully examining the edits and finding a massive slant against Patrick Brown having been added. Again, check my contributions or the history of this article and you will see that I have been following this article for years, trying to keep it in line as best I can. Most of the time, I have been removing propaganda added by the Conservatives, so I don't think it is fair to say that I reverted the article because I disagree with it. I reverted it because the quality has decreased massively.

MatttK (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made several edits to the article today. Each one has been done separately. I have included the reasoning in the edit summary. I apologise for reverting the entire article earlier but the end effect has been somewhat similar. Please consider the edits individually and discuss here if you have an issue with any of them.

Let's try to avoid adding in loaded words, making assumptions without proper information, or outright misrepresenting the included sources. This article is not a place to forward an agenda or present one's own viewpoint on anyone, nor is it an election battleground. Let's try to provide the facts in as neutral a way as possible.

In the past, when making edits, I have stopped to consider my own bias and if I am being fair or unfair in the changes I am making. Please, everyone, try to do the same!

MatttK (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ontario PC Leadership Race

I suggest we move this to a subsection under Politics and then try to make it more neutral. The old version was pretty much just a Patrick Brown complaints list. The new version is an all hail Patrick Brown campaign flyer. When I get time later, I will compare the two and try to find something meaningful from both.

Let's discuss it here, rather than engaging in any revert wars. I will try my best to come up with a good version.

MatttK (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. Both versions are promoting different agendas, in my opinion, but the newer version was much worse, clearly having been written by someone on his campaign team. I moved the section to politics and tried to keep the valid points of the new version. However, these points are not currently sourced and needs sources. Because I still don't feel comfortable with the section as a whole, I left the POV tag there.

If anybody wants to help who doesn't work on any PC Party leadership campaign team, please do input your two cents.

MatttK (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop reverting to this paragraph about Patrick Brown's criminal actions, etc. Besides not being formatted correctly, the paragraph is poor written, very biased, and contains no credible source. Wikipedia is not a place for wild accusations but you can add this information to the controversy section, if you have some proper sources for it. MatttK (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

So I removed the line about Christine Elliott's voting record. While it put the paragraph into maybe a more balanced perspective, I can find no source to actually back this information up. For all I know, it is completely fabricated. If somebody has a source, we can add it back.

A low participation in voting is, however, not uncommon in this race, as competitor Christine Elliott participated in only 18% of the votes in the Ontario Legislature, in the same time period.

MatttK (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your claims of neutrality but the fact remains that far too much of the language in this article is stilted in a negative fashion. For example, it is contrary to the Wikipedia posting rules to say "Brown has been criticized for not resigning his seat" without attribution. You don't get to offer negative "spin" any more than the positive spin you criticize from others. In that case, for example, the most public quotes are the ones attributable to his opponent, Christine Elliott, "If Mr. Brown wants to make a commitment to Ontario politics, I would suggest that he might want to show that now.", Toronto Star, March 6, 2015. It is NOT news that someone's political opponent offers criticisms, hence, it is unworthy of commentary in Wikipedia. If you continue to post comments that simply parrot the message track of her opponent, it will be necessary to ask the Editor to referee this nonsense and, potentially, prevent further posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.168.224 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You make a fair point. In fact, there is a source right after this sentence but upon examining the provided source, I can find nothing to back up the sentence. That said, Patrick Brown's refusal to step down has been widely criticised and the following paragraph actually backs this point up, with appropriate sources (see the Ottawa Citizen article). I also think Christine Elliott's points have been made by many people, as I have seen these points made in various articles.

I don't have the time now but maybe a better version of the two paragraphs can be worked out, one which does not include anything from fellow competitors in the race. Let's try to work together on this, rather than against each other. In the past, there have also been many comments added that "simply parrot the message track" of Patrick Brown, so it does go both ways. We can all do better.

MatttK (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look at the newest version. I hope it is better but let's discuss if it can be improved or if anybody thinks I removed something important. MatttK (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ontario PC leadership election latest changes

I removed the new paragraph because the 308 article in question actually specifically states that the poll is highly suspect and of questionable value.

Even though Brown has sold about 40,000 of the 90,000 memberships in the party, in terms of who party members would vote for, as of March 31, 2015 he was trailing behind Elliot (51%) & McNaughton (13%), at 10% according to a poll conducted by Forum.

I replaced it with a new version of the old, deleted paragraph:

In March Brown, emerged as the potential front-runner in the race, having sold over 40,000 of the 70,000 memberships in the party. By votes alone, this could see Brown elected on the first ballot come May. Brown's success thus far has been attributed to a highly effective campaign, through which he has brought many new members to the party. The past four leadership contests were won by those who sold the most memberships.

Compare to:

Brown has recently emerged as the apparent front-runner in the race, having sold over 40,000 of the 70,000 memberships in the party. This could see Brown elected on the first ballot come May. Brown's success has been attributed to a highly effective campaign, through which he has brought many new members to the party. The past four leadership contests were won by those who sold the most memberships.

I have modified the wording to address the concerns in the revision history, I hope. However, I do not agree that the paragraph didn't contain anything from the article. In fact, the paragraph's content was 100% from the article. If you disagree, let's discuss here what went wrong in the wording to give you this impression.

Edit: Forgot to sign yesterday. :) MatttK (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Front-runner?

Every news article I read clearly lists Patrick Brown as the front-runner in this race. The article used to designate him as such but it was removed as "misleading". I'm not sure how this can be said to be misleading, given that he's sold the most seats and has the most buzz in the media, given his rise from a nobody to a somebody. Take a look at the following articles:

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/03/01/patrick-brown-sells-more-than-40000-ontario-pc-memberships.html http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/2015/03/29/patrick-brown-promises-to-reset-pc-party http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/14/patrick-brown-christine-elliott-ontario-pc-leadership_n_7065484.html http://www.simcoe.com/news-story/5569250-patrick-brown-from-long-shot-to-front-runner/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/browns-hustle-attracts-eclectic-donor-group-in-ontario-pc-leadership-race/article24124468/

This is just a small sample of articles, which define Brown as the front-runner for multiple reasons. I realize that there are editors here who are openly not supporters of Brown but I don't think this should colour our presentation of the facts. Unless somebody can show me evidence to the contrary, I will re-add the front-runner wording to the article. In my opinion, it is certainly noteworthy that a nobody from Barrie managed to overtake much stronger candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatttK (talk • contribs) 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

On May 9, 2015, Brown was elected leader of the Ontario PC Party defeating Christine Elliott and announced that he will be resigning from the federal parliament.

Let's discuss the intro paragraph a little. It was added and re-added that Brown defeated Christine Elliott. The reader at this point has no idea who Christine Elliott is. It also isn't very relevant. I have looked at the articles of several other leaders and have not found mention in the opening paragraph of who they defeated. This info does appear later in the article, so the user can still find it, when it is relevant later on.

Let's also remember to source the stuff that is added. There is no source for Patrick's announcement to resign. I will look for one now. (I didn't actually read that he had done that already but it makes sense that he would)

MatttK (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)