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.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Christopher X. Brodeur, has edited Wikipedia as
69.22.244.175 (talk · contribs)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Christopher X. Brodeur, has edited Wikipedia as
208.120.96.244 (talk · contribs)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

THIS IS CHRISTOPHER X. BRODEUR himself writing, to say that, when I found this entry, I was (not really) shocked by all the factual inaccuracies. I was even more upset to come in here and see some people have a POLITICAL agenda to twist facts. (ex: Ruth belies her corruption with some comment about me having a girlfriend! Real mature.)

It is unethical to use media as a source for all things, as they admit they've gotten the facts wrong millions of times. (I agree with them.)

I'm going to clean up some brazen errors, but I know some dishonest people will try to change them back (hello Team Giuliani!), so, if you have any doubts SEND ME A PERSONAL EMAIL: mayorcxb@yahoo.com. Thanks for showing some courtesy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.96.244 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussions of Wikipedia articles should take place on Wikipedia talk pages, not personal email. Everything should remain in the open. - Richfife (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2008 (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)

SEE? This RUTH person has no regard for details or facts.

EX: I did TWO jail terms of 6 months each for SPEECH---one year in jail for not even shoving someone (acc to the govt's own charges).

EX: it's a fact that the judges broke laws when they "convicted" and jailed me, and that they were both appointees of the alleged victims, which alone invalidates the jail sentences by flagrantly violating my right to an IMPARTIAL judge (who doesn't owe his job to one of the two arguing parties, duh). Ruth says she's a Republican yet says she trusts govt to do the right thing? Wow!

ONE six-month sentence (I was facing community service if I'd been guilty!) was allegedly for threatening my crooked landlord (who got caught perjuring himself thruout the trial. Want to see the transcripts? I've got them right here.) THE FACT IS that my landlord---a very rich developer caught breaking hundreds of laws----had me arrested DAYS AFTER I'd written a brutal expose of his crimes in a cover story for NYPress. The arrest before that for allegedly "threatening" mayor bloombag? It came a few days after a cover story I wrote for NYPress which was the most damaging expose ever written about Bloombag. Ruth and others who believe govt never lies thinks this is coincidence.

RUTH! IF YOU NEED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, CONTACT ME: mayorcxb@yahoo.com.

I'm not saying I'm a good person. I break the law everyday! I've just never been arrested for breaking the law. I've only been arrested for exposing the crimes of the rich and powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.96.244 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2008 (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)

FACT: I was allowed in major debates in 2001 when I was a marginal candidate on the GREEN PARTY ballot. (Note that some evil person switched it to "write-in" candidate to make me seem less legit.) But since I won those debates easily (it was easy b/c I'm not an empty suit saying dumb things like "we must improve education" with no details) they made sure I wasn't allowed back in 2005. (ASK ME FOR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IF YOU DOUBT WHAT I SAY: mayorcxb@yahoo.com.)

FACT: most debates are sponsored by NON-PROFIT groups who are NOT ALLOWED to discriminate for or against candidates on the ballot in exchange for taxbreaks. However, most of these groups get monies from... CITY HALL (whom I was destroying with many exposes of Mayor Bloomberg's criminal acts)... and anyone with an IQ over 4 knows you can't really bite the hand that feeds, so I was banned from most debates.

FACT: some groups used the LIE that a 5% threshold of public support must be met to get in the debates, yet Tom Ognibene and Steve S_____ were both polling under 5% and were allowed in most debates, instantly proving this was all a sham. (Also, after 3 false arrests, an official media blacklist on my popular campaign, and being blocked from all debates I STILL got 4% said the NYTimes and so on, PROVING I was ILLEGALLY blocked to subvert a democratic election. (Also, my name was blocked from polls, and this was proven too!) (Also, we went out with a camera crew and proved I was polling higher than all the major candidates combined---when allowed in the poll. ASK FOR DETAILS: Mayorcxb@yahoo.com)

I CAN GO ON WITH DETAILS IF YOU STILL DOUBT ME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.96.244 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • As I mentioned above, illegal means "breaks a law that is on the books". If you want this included, then you need to find the law which is broken. What is the exact text of the law? What is its index number? Hysterics aren't helping your case. - Richfife (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, and Wikipedia needs to have a record of the court case that decided that the law in question was broken as well. Forgot to point that out. If the judge in question is corrupted by their connection to RG, then a record of their corruption conviction in a U.S. court of law will do as well. - Richfife (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Any objections to removing the NPOV tag from this version: [1]. I think it's fairly level. - Richfife (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)