Talk:Christopher X. Brodeur
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
i think the npov should return. his multiple comparisons on winning x% of vote in certain districts compared to better funded candidates, and the several, for lack of a better word, brags about how little he spent, are clearly pov.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.189.175.99 (talk • contribs).
- You have a point. For a while there, keeping the POV out of this article was practically a full time job. Riding herd on whoppers made it easier for the little stuff to sneak through. - Richfife 06:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I took a shot at it. The article could probably use a fresh set of eyes, though. If there's another article that doesn't have enough superlative adjectives, I pulled a ton out of this one and we can recycle. - Richfife 06:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Political Campaigns
There are few details and cited links to the campaign info. Perhaps a little research could be done to help explain more about the specifics and the history of this candidate.--Screwball23 17:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
--Richfife 05:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC) "was a sore in Mayor Rudy Giuliani's backside" should probably be replaced with something more, well, stuffy. Can't think of a good phrase, though.
Richfife 08:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC) Added NPOV tag. The Biography section in particular is WAY too Rah-Rah.
- I must agree with the NPOV added to the article. The page is biased and will need some clean-up to make it more presentable for an encyclopedia. It has become more biased now than it was when I started it and I am surprised at the additions made the the article. Something must be done to fix this article's political spin.--Screwball23 talk 21:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing "most interesting or most unusual candidate on the ballot in 2005" because there's no reference for it and a couple of google searches turn up nothing. It's likely that someone said something LIKE that, but I can't look up every possible wording they may have used.
I'm changing "Brodeur proved each arrest false in court" to "None of the arrests resulted in a conviction" even though they aren't necessarily the same thing. Someone who knows the circumstances better may need to change that. I guess the big question is "Has Brodeur ever been convicted?" The article implies no, but doesn't go right out and say it. ```Research Needed``` Richfife 21:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is based only on mass media articles than how the hell is going to be accurate? Media is exactly as accurate as that kid's game "telephone", ie, NOT AT ALL.
To say CXB proved each arrest false is irrefutable fact. It wasn't like any of his cases ended with a jury saying "the govt didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt". The govt arrested him for the same bogus charge ("harassment") on over 20 occasions and lost 100% of the time. On 6 occasions the govt dropped the charges completely though CXB didn't want them to. (They couldn't let it get to a jury, because juries WERE quoted in the mass media saying CXB was a hero and "very honest, very intelligent, and very nice".) The govt's own witnesses admitted that CXB was falsely charged as political payback and Bloomberg paid CXB $35,000 in 2003 to settle just one of his false arrest lawsuits. Just because the newspapers covered up this last fact--which they all knew about---doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's public record. -- Anon post from IP 165.247.24.19
Being acquitted is not the same as proving that the arrest was false. You can be legally arrested and acquitted, and you can be falsely arrested and convicted. They are just totally different things altogether.--Cortes0505 16:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia ISN'T based only on mass media articles. It tends to lean that way because searches are easier, but that's not Wikipedia's fault. You make certain statements. They're probably true. I don't know. You state they're not on the MSM. Then where are they? Let's see the non-MSM sources. Just saying "It's public record" holds no more weight than saying "People say" or "Everybody knows that..." Be Bold. Post your sources. And remember there are three sides to every story. Wikipedia is looking for the third one. -- Richfife 02:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The New York Press strikes me as a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia source and they probably have lots of info on Brodeur. Use it. -- Richfife 05:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pull NPOV?
Any objections to pulling the NPOV tag? Seems like the article is fairly presentable right now - Richfife 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The word "Gadfly"?
What do you think? POV or NPOV? - Richfife 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- If that word describes anyone it's Brodeur.
- I don't have a problem with the description of the charges against Brodeur-even his more vociferous critics would admit that most of them were frivolous in nature-but the article is still too biased, IMO.
- Notwithstanding the legal saga he was involved in during the Giuliani era, there are still many people who find this individual extremely objectionable, annoying, choose your less than laudatory adjective.
- The fact that this criticism is not even alluded to disturbs me. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I actually know hardly anything about Brodeur that I didn't get from the article (I live on the wrong coast). I've been editing any additions that people make down for POV as best I can, but I haven't added any opposing views. My current impression is that he's a not particularly sincere guy who chooses targets based on what his perceived audience wants. All part of the "professional wrestlingization" of politics. Anyway, if you want to be bold and add a different voice to the article, it would be great! - Richfife 19:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Touching You and Liquid Tapedeck
Brodeur was also a member of Liquid Tapedeck. He performed under the name of Touching You. None of that is this article.
Liquid Tapedeck released a song entitled "May I Have Your Hand Rachel Trachtenburg?", an ode to Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players drummer Rachel Trachtenburg. However, on the family's DVD release, the song is titled "Rachel Trachtenburg" by Touching You. Also, the Trachtenburgs seem to be very supportive of Brodeur; Tina is friends with Brodeur's girlfriend, singer Jessica Delfino and Rachel has performed onstage with him. 4:30 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Go for it. I don't own the article. - Richfife 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think the fact that he actually has a girlfriend is more notable than the band you describe, but as another user said, "go for it."
- Any attempt to improve articles is smiled upon here. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy
- The "harrassment" section needs to be cleaned up.
- That conviction-and the six month prison sentence-was due to threats he made against his landlord-including death threats-and had nothing to do with Mayor Giuliani or Mayor Bloomberg.
- http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/?p=5217 Ruthfulbarbarity 05:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Illegally barred from debates"
This article is such a pain in the ass. If someone can come up with a reliable (shouting doesn't count) source as to why Brodeur's non-inclusion in the debates broke a law, the claim can stay. That's going to need to include a law number and un-adulterated quote. Otherwise I'll pull it in a week or two. - Richfife 04:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
