Talk:Corrine Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Capitol Blue Link[edit]

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)

Soroity Affiliation[edit]

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 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Youtube clip / Florida Gators[edit]

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. (

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
And if that's how you use Google, you're bound to get a distorted result. If you use the isolated terms, when you get beyond the first 250 or so hits, the majority of the rest are nothing to do with this topic. For instance, stuff like:
16 Oct 2008 ... "It's tough to climb out of a 2-0 hole," said Atholton coach Jim Brown. .... The Hawks forced the Gators into five turnovers. ... Corinne Zahlis was the top server and hitter with six aces and 9 kills, Brandone Roberts
That's why the search needs to be more specific: "Corinne Brown" Gators
It's probably being fought so hard because generally it's a matter for suspicion when single-purpose accounts home in on a biographical article to introduce hostile information. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Put the video link back in (or any other video, for that matter - doesn't have to be the infamous orange robe speech). It characterizes the subject of the article very accurately. Blcklbl (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe NBC counts as a reliable source. This writer confronts the grammar issue directly. Relgif (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


The majority of this article is poorly sourced negative material. Virtually all of the "Complaints and investigations" section, which purports to demonstrate that "Controversy has followed Brown since the start of her national political career...", is sourced to the same two newspaper articles. These are probably fine for some details, but to devote a large section entirely to claims attributed only to news articles is absurd. There was even more negative material in the section that wasn't sourced at all; I just removed it on sight. The section then goes off into two more subsections pushing yet more negative material. Even the "political activities" section largely consists of negative material. This needs to be remedied immediately.--Cúchullain t/c 13:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC) has removed the sections I mentioned above, after a month with no comments and no improvement. This is surely the way to go. I have reverted to his or her removal.--Cúchullain t/c 17:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I understand now. I was a little concerned with the edit summary of "not being convicted", as that's not exactly convincing rationale to remove criticism, etc., but your explanation is better. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Those were all references that were not inline citations, so I am moving them here. I think most of the stuff has been covered in the page already, but it looked messy. I'll come circle back later but I wanted to give someone a chance if they are here first. Kingtwist (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Federal indictment[edit]

I see no reasoning behind CB federal felony indictment on 24 counts in which she faces up to 350 years in prison should be listed under "Political controversy" In fact, a federal indictment is not controversial or anything similar to a controversy. The federal indictment is a career ender in her regard with very little likelihood that she will ever overcome it.

Disagree? opinion?

Now, if it was Ryan Lochte and his "controversy" it would have maligned him badly over that "controversy". in fact, it would have its very own article and a BLP that violates all Wikipedia rules for a small mistake. 2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This Talk page is for discussion of article improvement of this article, not for idle speculation and opinions about the subject. An indictment is just a formal allegation. If the living person should actually be convicted of crimes of significant relevance and encyclopedic importance, our article can reflect that, and then we can consider whether the matter rises to the level of requiring its own section header, etc. Until then, it's just an allegation. The controversy is noted with other political controversies because it involves her political chief of staff, the documents reference political donations, and reliable sources convey it as a political-related controversy (for example, see the cited CNN source, in the "Politics" section). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I see you believe you are the judge and chief decider on this one having reverted my edit. However, I must commend you for your response on the talk page as a positive step toward opening the matter for discussion. However, your edit has merely inflamed the situation allowing no one else to weigh in on the matter insisting on edit warring and I object! I do not agree with your reverting my edit and being a mere IP address I don't matter to you. There has been no discussion nor consensus. My mention of Ryan Lochte was an observation and not mere speculation as you contend. There is no fairness in dealing with BLP's. They are maligning of one person and bend over backwards for others of a specific gender, political affiliation or ethnicity. This BLP is racist in tone and skewed toward a specific viewpoint of which others must object as well. Where is the fairness in that?
I have reviewed other Congress members who have been indicted and viewed the history of edits made during the time of the allegations. I have AGAIN edited the article to show UNIFORMITY with them. It seems there is a bias that is used when the indicted CM is a Republican and when they are a Democrat. (See Michael Grimm). I have edited the wording and formatting to correct this unfair bias and to maintain uniformity while being fair to both sides. Any allegation against a member of Congress is a very serious matter and it deserves to be recognized (for very obvious reasons to all). We must always be informative to Wikipedia's readers while balancing the protection of the accused having not YET been convicted. However, to bury a federal indictment of a CM in a section titled "Political controversy" seems dishonest, ill-informed and disingenuous at best and blatantly bias at worse. Wikipedia seeks to inform their readers and display fairness to all regardless of the individuals leanings. I again invite you to offer a recent wiki policy that specifically states what I contend here is wrong. I also would request an administrator ruling on this and allow others to participate in order to reach a CONSENSUS in order to avoid edit warring. We should all promote cooperation among all Wikipedia editors. Please do NOT revert the edit without acknowledging there are two sides to every coin. Thank you and have a blessed day 2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Your bold edit to give this paragraph its own dedicated header was reverted per WP:BRD, as was noted in the previous edit summary.
I never mentioned your IP address or Ryan Lochte, so I have no idea what you are going on about with those.
"(See Michael Grimm.)"
I did: here. I note that his article didn't have an undue header when he was being investigated either, unless someone later mistakenly inserted one, which only shows that "Other Shit Exists" in other articles as well. There is likely no problem with giving that content a header after the issue moves from mere indictments to actual convictions.
" bury a federal indictment of a CM in a section titled "Political controversy" seems dishonest, ill-informed and disingenuous..."
Well, if you feel so strongly about that, you should contact CNN and the other sources which put this story in their Politics section and get them to recategorize it. Then we editors of Wikipedia can reflect that. As for your bold proposal to put this content in its very own highlighted section with its own header, that places undue emphasis on it against Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:STRUCTURE for more information regarding this. If you wish to receive wider input on this issue, please raise your concerns at the NPOV Noticeboard. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
We can debate where the corruption allegations belong, but can we all at least agree that not mentioning them at all in the article is doing a disservice? Why has any mention been removed? --Omgitsfletch (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain why a tax fraud conviction is listed under "political controversies"? It is neither political nor controversial, from what I can tell. I must be misapprehending something about Wikipedia? By way of comparison, Messrs. Fattah, Hastert, and Grimm all have a separate heading for their criminal endeavors. Is there a reason that Mrs. Brown is treated differently? My apologies if I screwed up the talk page formatting. Editor for truth (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Political controversy is perfect. From [Sentencing Memorandum]:
"Leaders of American democracy owe a duty to the public to act within the law, uphold the highest ethical standards, and conduct themselves beyond reproach. Corrine Brown failed in those areas. She became corrupt. Society expects courts to punish convicted and corrupt politicians." Mitch3000 20:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corrine 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Significant gerrymandering of districts[edit]

Moved here for discussion.

Please explain why you reverted my edits removing the subjective language from the BLP. The cited source does not use the terms included in the BLP. Why do you continue to include such language when a BLP should be factual and reflect the tone and fairness of the cited source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The language isn't "subjective" as it correctly conveys the shift of "heavily" black populated areas to form "extreme" partisan districts. The wording in our article is actually less subjective and more moderate than that used by some sources. If it will help to address your concerns, I'll add a source which explicitly conveys that it is "significantly" different. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017[edit]

Add: Corrine Brown was convicted of 18 of 22 charges in Jacksonville, Florida, on May 11, 2017. Candrew1958 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017[edit]

On May 11th 2017, she was found guilty on 18 of the 22 counts that she was charged with. (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Already done Seems to already be in the article Cannolis (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Fairness of BLP articles[edit]

I feel this article needs to be edited to properly reflect the unfairness of this former politician's article when comparing to other befallen politician articles on Wikipedia. I realize that she has only just been convicted. However, other politicians convicted for far less have been thrown to the wolves (as written in their BLP on Wiki) for their transgressions. So, why the blatant bias handling of this "criminal" and her BLP? To be more specific, I am referring to the titling of her indictment, charges and conviction listed under a smaller font with a title of "political controversies" when comparing it to other less known criminals, previously responsible politicians. See Michael Grimm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B8C:29A0:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't edit articles "to properly reflect the unfairness of this former politician's article when comparing to other befallen politician articles". We edit our articles to encyclopedically convey facts about the article subjects, not "throw them to the wolves". If you are complaining that the Michael Grimm article is written unfairly, you might consider proposing changes to it, but keep in mind that the subject of that article has barely a few dozen months in political office before facing serious corruption convictions - compared to the nearly four decades of political activity for the subject of this article - so the article structures are likely to be quite different. In both articles, their convictions are mentioned in the lead, with further details on the misconduct given in the body of the articles, as is appropriate. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Well if you don't mind I would prefer more discussion from other editors and maybe an administrator or two. The fact that this is an encyclopedia is all the more reason that they be uniform in layout and breadth while being fair and unbiased. Now, the reasoning of her length in Congress as being important in being un-uniform is a poor excuse. The level of her crimes and the possible sentence is extremely more serious than that of Michael Grimm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B8C:29A0:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
the reasoning of her length in Congress as being important in being un-uniform is a poor excuse.
You've misunderstood; an argument was not made against uniformity. Consistency across articles is a good thing, but the structure of articles about subjects with many decades of public notability will still look considerably different than the structure of articles about subjects with limited notability, as in the comparison you made. Regarding sentencing, re-trials or appeals, etc., that is all in the future, so I'll reserve comment about article structure based on those factors until after they occur. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the fraud/tax indictment/trial/conviction section should be umbrellaed under "US House of Representatives," since the trial didn't occur during her House tenure, even if the events that led to it did. I'd suggest either having the fraud section as its own main section, OR having the entire "Political controversies" subsection as its own main section. This seems to be a more reader-friendly and widely used structure, looking at similar pages like Ray Nagin (where "Controversies" is a main section with a subsection on "Incarceration"), Greg Davis ("Expense abuse investigation" as a main section), Rod Blagojevich (both "Contoversies" and "Impeachment trial and removal from office" are main sections), Michael Brown ("Federal prosecution and conviction" main section). Starrfruit (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The illegal activity, the charges, the indictment all happened while she held political office, and were alleged to have been facilitated by her political position, and also involved her political staffer, which is why the content appeared in the section covering her tenure as a political representative. An argument could be made for eventually moving the charges and conviction under a dedicated header, but citing articles with controversy sections severely weakens such an argument, as such articles are not well structured. And for a counter argument, there are many articles (Lester Crawford, James F. Hastings, James G. Watt, Bob Ney, George V. Hansen, etc.) where the crimes and convictions of politicians don't have a main header, or in some instances any header at all. As for this article on Brown, there is a lot of room for improvement (including the incorporation of the content from the "political controversies" section into more appropriate sections of the article). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

As to the argument that because she served in congress for 24 years and therefore she is deserving of a more hidden criminal section, one can make an argument that she was convicted of 18 felonies (and faces hundred of years in jail) should make one more responsible than someone pleading guilty and receiving a six month sentence to a single felony count. Wikipedia should have a uniform format applying to all similar type articles across the forum. I am only a mere IP address (and not a sock puppet). My revisions are nearly always reverted because of this. I chime in for the purpose of creating discussion on the issues I raise in order that Wikipedia seems fair and unbiased to the millions of readers. I may be mistaken, but Michael Grimm's article is considerably longer in many topics and that is due in part because of the breadth and depth covering the indictment and single guilty plea. Not to mention a considerable shorter sentence than Corrine Brown is facing. Moreover, while only being elected to two terms in congress.2602:306:8B8C:29A0:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Corrine 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Asking for a new trial[edit]

I removed the fact that Brown asked for a new trail in both the lede and in the body of the article. Although it is a fact that she did petition the court for a new trail, that petition has been denied. I can see no reason why this petition to the court, or any other motions or petitions, are in anyway important enough to be included in the article. If i am wrong, please revert or discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I can see that Brown's lawyer's claims of seeking a new trail aren't really necessary in the lede. While it does give the reader a picture of the current status, it doesn't add to the overall understanding of the article subject or the case. I'll remove it from the lede, but it seems appropriate to the section on the case. We'd certainly want to retain the NPR source at the very least. As an aside, the section heading "Political controversies" seems pretty light-handed. Once sentencing is complete, we should reexamine the prominence of this in the article. Thanks, Thirdright (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits[edit]

I have (again) reverted this edit, which lacks an edit summary, introduces redundancies into the WP:LEAD (i.e.; "22 counts / charges", "convicted"), introduced non-factual content (i.e.; that Brown and her Chief of Staff "were convicted" in July 2016), and introduced redundant already diffused categories (i.e.; "Category:American politicians convicted of fraud", which is the parent of, and redundant to, the already present and more precise "Category:Politicians convicted of mail and wire fraud"). Xenophrenic (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

All the edits I have done include an edit summary. Though, I shall wait for your semi protection to be approved or more likely NOT. Though I am sure they can see you are less than honest with stating you have opened a talk page discussion and opening it much later than your SP request. Stop edit warring, three reverts in 24 hours is edit warring and you will surely be sanctioned and blocked if it continues. P.S. I do not IP jump, it is my ISP that assigns it and I have no control over it.2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you plan to address your problematic edits? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Since you've edited again since my above request, I'll assume you have no further concerns regarding the above mentioned edits. If additional concerns arise, I look forward to discussing them with you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section[edit]

Corrine Brown is best known for creating a fake charity and going to prison.

According to WP:LEAD

The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read.

The most important information about subject was removed from lead section in yesterday's edit. Please see diff.

Should this edit be reverted?

Otherwise, you must scroll way down the page to find Felony Fraud Conviction.

--Mitch3000 00:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)