Talk:Willie Brown (politician)

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Hi.  I really hope to leave this article better than I found it, so can we agree on what we need to overcome any NPOV concerns brought about by my edits.  I don't think User:TalkAbout and I have any deep disagreement so let's have a go at it, okay?  Thanks much, Wikidemo 12:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I get some feedback on this I'm going to remove the NPOV tag within a few daysWikidemo 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No feedback or defense of NPOV tag, so removed. Wikidemo 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overcoming [[WP:NPOV]] concerns 

message: The article was recently edited to add "rapists" to the list of criminal defendants Brown represented.  I'm removing that because it's not supported by the source material, and even if it is true, the fact is salacious without being notable or germane.  The quote from the source material is "He took cases defending pimps, prostitutes, petty thieves and gamblers the ones high-powered attorneys would not take." -- no mention of rapists.  It's not notable that Brown represented bad people.  That's what criminal defense attorneys do, part of our system.  The quote is there to show he was representing small time criminals, unglamorous cases, people of the street.  That is interesting in two ways.  First, Brown built a near political empire one block at a time, starting small.  Second, it's part of the sweep of his career from the bottom to the top.Wikidemo 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pimps, prostitutes and rapists 

message: I'm moving this over from the article page.  Though true - and quite amusing - it didn't belong in the main section about his political career and I don't think it's significant enough to mention given the overall size of the article.  I would have put it in the "criticisms" section and modified the header a little, but the citation isn't done properly and it's not to a legitimate source (the news article is a legit source but not a copyright-violating talk thread repost post of the news article) ~~ Wikidemo 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  biotic pie incident 

message: I've reverted one of Wikidemo's deletions in regards to Brown's implications that cyclists do not vote. It caused much resentment in the crowd and was seen as symbolic of his views of cyclists.  Why do you believe it is irrelevant to Brown's Crackdown and the Bike Politics that emerged from the incident Wikidemo?Critical Chris (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is pertinent at all about it?  As you say it's symbolic.  Best state the facts and let them speak for themselves rather than selectively repeating each side's rhetoric.  You've added a bunch of POV material; I and some other editors have challenged you on it.  I'm removing it agan.  Per WP:BRD you're going to have to get a WP:consensus for all this content you keep trying to add.  You're going to have to slow down with all this.  Wikidemo (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already deleted much of the content I added as per the discussion above on my sources and your challenges to them, and others complaints about length.  What is your problem with the sources on Brown's implication that cyclists don't vote.  I'll assume for now that you have no objections to the sources since you haven't criticized them, but could you please explain why you feel Brown's implication is irrelevant.  Symbolism is always important for any politician, it strongly affects their approval/neg. ratings.  I believe that looking at the context, it reflected poorly on his public image and lent credence to his perceptions as being plutocratic and insensitive to bicycling issues.  Now comes your additions: You then added "blocking traffic."  I find that to be inherent POV material and your remarks here against "repeating each side's rhetoric" ...that's exactly what you're doing by claiming that Critical Mass is blocking traffic and I take issue with that characterization as per WP:NPOV.  I will attempt to carefully review any sources you've added on this.Critical Chris (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: RE: Wikidemo's statement that Critical Mass is "blocking traffic" don't you find this to be POV?  From one guys's point of view inside the glass of his car, a group of bikes is "blocking (car) traffic" from another guy's point of view on his bike    with other cyclists, he rides into, and becomes a part of the traffic.  I believe you a have a rather car-centric point of view, not the only transportation mode in SF, if you think that bicycles aren't part of traffic on our streets.  Besides, you don't even provide a decent reference for your "blocking traffic" line.  If you are  talking about specific hings like massers or motorcyle cops "corking" intersections or doing "chicago hold-ups" thats one thing, but if you are monolithically labeling Critical mass rides consisting of thousands of cyclists who have a right to the streets...just like thousands of cars who take to the streets at that hour, leaving the financial district to go to the Bay Bridge that's another thing.  If you feel I'm wrong, let's keep the nuetrality dispute POV tag flying high for now.Critical Chris (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What part about blocking traffic during Friday rush hours is POV?  That's a very simple factual claim, supported by most every source on the subject, and stated quite plainly in the critical mass article and statements from the Critical Mass people themselves.  "Corking" to prevent drivers from going through intersections has always been an integral part of the critical mass rides and it's absurd to argue otherwise.  What cars do has nothing to do with this but no, car drivers do not engage in a protest on Friday rush hours in which they sit in the middle of intersections on purpose to deliberately block traffic.  I don't have a car, if you must know.  I take the bus.  By the way, may I infer from your "Critical Chris" wiki name that you are somehow connected with the Critical Mass rides? Wikidemo (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I missed something in my understanding of Critical Mass but the cornerstone CM slogan to me has always been, "we don't block traffic, we are traffic."  If "most every source on the subject" supports that claim, then find one and toss it in for the purpose of good article construction.  I sincerely beleive, if properly sourced, that it could add substance to the section.  Also, I'd be quite amazed if you've found "Critical Mass people themselves" who make statements to the effect that they "block traffic."  Let's move on to your other points: "...car drivers do not engage in a protest on Friday rush hours..." no drivers take to the streets en masse and "block traffic" behind them on the rush hour of every workday of the month. Unlike Critical Mass, which occurs once per month, if it's not a protest, a "critical mass of cars"  is not protected by the Assembly Clause of the 1st Amendment, which means it will one day be strictly regulated through congestion pricing, once California's population swells to 50 million and more.  I'd argure you certainly don't have an understanding of Critical Mass if you believe that massers "sit in the middle of intersections on purpose to deliberately block traffic."  Most masses try to keep moving, sometimes though, the traffic is just so thick with thousands of cyclists that you get gridlock for blocks.  You should try riding a mass sometime, if for no other reason than to understand it better for whatever purpose that might serve you.  Corking does happen from time to time for safety reasons, sometimes the SFPD motorcycle cops do it.  You certainly have a strongly-biased POV if you characterize CM in that fashion.  Oh, one more thing, if you're curious the "Critical" in "Critical Chris" refers to critical thinking, not Critical Mass.  We all have a point of view, kind of like the view of a vineyard and tasting room from "the bus." :) I hope you find the "civil" inside humor in that stupid knee-slapper.Critical Chris (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange rhetoric.  For goodness sake.  The bikers block off traffic at intersections on Friday rush hours, that's an open and shut issue.  You're arguing that black is white here.  It's not "from time to time" for "safety reasons", it's an integral, inevitable part of the ride.  All the sources say that and the bikers themselves advocate it, only a few of them repeat some weird political rhetoric that they have a justification.  I've ridden in a couple critical masses and observed a couple dozen.  The bikers sit in the middle of intersections for light after light and deliberately prevent cars from going through.  This article is about an incident in 1997 and they were certainly doing it in 1997 without police help.  All the sources say this.  At this point you're arguing from a fringe political position and repeating partisan rhetoric.  If you want to take the whole section out, fine.  But if you're going to bring up an incident where the mayor of the city confronted bikers over bikers' increasingly confrontational blocking of rush hour traffic, we either tell it like it is or we shouldn't tell it.Wikidemo (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange rhetoric to you, because everyone has a point of view right?  Perhaps yours is car-centric, I can't speak for you though, only the circumstances of your own rhetoric.  There are other points of view on CM and the use of public space in the streets such as those of pedestrian walkers, transit-first advocates, free MUNI advocates.  If you believe the idea of applying a market-based user-fee system such as congestion pricing is "a fringe political position" and "partisan rhetoric," you're sadly out of touch with modern transportation planning policy issuues.  Congestion pricing has been successfully implemented in London, there are advocates here in the US, such as Michael Bloomberg and George W. Bush's Transportation Secretary Mary Peters see: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec07/infrastructure_08-15.html   Among other objectives, we have to be careful to give the article a balance not too heavily weighted in one direction or another.  I've lived all over the country over the years, and I'm on the streets of SF and Oakland daily and see car drivers deliberately and selfishly "block the box" Mon-Fri in gridlocked rush hour traffic, for light cycle after light cycle.  And all it takes is one or two drivers (even in a hybrid "compact car" with a footprint of 80 sq. ft.) (not thousands of cyclists passing by) doing this to snarl traffic for blocks on a nightly basis.  If you can stand the smog, go to the foot of the Bay Bridge, or into the Financial District, on any given weekday at 5:30 and watch the daily selfish, behavior of a "fringe" of drivers.  It gets so bad at times that SF DPT sends out parking officers to cut tickets on drivers that do this.  It's been a major problem, or else SF DPT wouldn't commit the labor time on the problem.  If you go to NYC they've pressed big street signs that say "Don't Block the Box."  Think I'm looking at drivers monolithically? ...so too are your edits about Critical Mass "blocking traffic" which to me is not in the spirit of Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV. I'm taking a few days off from edits to the article to review some sources and wikipedia policies in more depth.Critical Chris (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Break

message: I took the liberty of reverting to a previous version of this article.  I'm not HTML expert, but it seems Calbear22's latest reference addition was not properly formatted, and it jumbled the refence list.  I did keep Calbear22's edit at the end of the Critical Mass section.  I have no problem with Calbear's reference, but please get it right, as it --apparently-- affected the entire refenece list.Critical Chris (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just a forgotten /.  That's what you get for editing sections I guess.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing it, and for wading through your hay to find that digital needle.Critical Chris (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Citations don't need to be online.  LA Times is a pay site. Wikidemo (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, didn't realize it was a pay site, I get free access through my academic connections.Critical Chris (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jumbled reference list

message: I've dramatically expanded article size.  In doing so, I've also addressed many POV issues, and if not completely, have changed the article so much that POV needs to be accessed again.  I also removed the tag from the talk page, which was really misplaced.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all the effort.  I haven't read it in detail but lots of good stuff.  Wikidemo (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's going to be some petty spelling and grammar errors I'm sure.  I really tried to take all the POV out in the previous stuff.  Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Calbear22, I'd like to convey my sincere thanks for all of the new material, and more importantly, well sourced new material.  There are alot of new leads to chase down for the book I'm currently writing.  In regards to the removal of the POV tag, I concur.  I placed the tag up last week regarding the Critical Mass section. I feel at this point, after all of the intense editing and discussion with Wikidemo, you and a few others, that we have, relatively speaking, a concise, balanced, properly weighted, well-sourced section on the Critical Mass conflicts during the Summer of '97.  Absent any response, I'll assume you concur also, at least in regards to the Critical Mass section and have thus removed the POV tag. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.Critical Chris (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article expansion, removal of POV tags

message: I made several changes to this section for several reasons.  Firstly, the "wording praised by some and criticized by others" is weak wording and adds little to the article.  We can list a few groups on one side or the other if you like, but the current wording isn't very encyclopedic.  If it were allowed, that line would be used in almost every section of this article.  The article focuses on Brown, not Critical Mass being praised or criticized by others.  Now if we talk about criticism or praise for Brown's crackdown plan, that's a different story.  Secondly, "declaring war" is just the fancy words of a few journalist and we're not trying to report what the journalist are saying.  Further, a goal of NPOV is to allow Facts to Speak for themselves, and that includes grabbing a journalists quote to speak for the facts.  It is really more of a scare quote which is not very NPOV.  Thirdly, having excessive pull quotes from Brown detracts from the content and adds little.  We only need one quoted segment to conclude Brown's view.  Fourthly, word choice "blessing" is not a neutral wording of the matter.  Fifthly, the anger by thousands is not what the source really says, its more of an interview of a few people from what I saw from skimming over it.  If there was a poll in the article, then it's results might be relevant.  We can talk further about all this if you like and get other editors opinions.  I'm okay with you adding more facts to this section to make it a little longer, instead of the quotes that were removed.  I know you had to cut it down quite a bit.User:calbear22 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes sir, I didn't have to, but I proactively cut it down quite a bit to accommodate the concerns of other editors that it was "out of proportion" to the rest of the article.  Now there is much more material about other aspects of Brown's career (thank you for the recent additions) and you still feel it's out of proportion?  Why did you remove the quotes from Brown's own mouth that the rides are a "terrible demonstration of intolerance" and "an incredible display of ignorance?"  Those are well sourced quotes without any journalist's POV and I'm reverting them.  The source links will provide further leads for those interested in this aspect of Brown's executive-guided police policy.   I will leave out the "decalaring war" quotes for now given your concerns that those are "the fancy words of a few journalist(s)." Critical Chris (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Calbear22, I'm reading your remarks from above and giving them some more thought and I sense the "pull quotes," which the source journalists and reporters felt highly newsworthy, will be of some contention to you here perhaps.  Yet I continue to feel they are quite encyclopedic, and give a good firsthand, primary source glimpse into Brown's thought process.  Furthermore, I believe these quotes are important in terms of adding balance to this section, to balance off the bike confiscations and arrests...i.e. there was a strong motivation to crackdown.  They really enshrine and encapsulate what a significant portion of the San Francisco populace felt at the time (and still do I might add) about the CM rides...and these quotes are much more pithy and encyclopedic, and better sourced than my original "praised by others" line.  I'm not sure if you were around SF at the time but Brown was under some pressure (especially from the hotel, restaurant, convention&tourism, and business interests)  to crack down on the rides.  There were fears that they could mushroom out of control and become a real disruption to commerce and economic development, that they could affect jobs, that folks would choose to take their dining business to neighboring cities.  I can only imagine the phone calls and letters that came into Brown's office, supes offices.  Only thing is, I've reviewed sources and newspapers online and at libraries for hours and hours, and I can't find anything referencing the political pressure on Brown from his constituency to crack down on the CM rides.  I can't even find allusions to political pressure or communications from any of the supes even.  I know there's no equivalent of a Presidential Library to find this level of detail on the other hand, so we have to work with what quotations we have from reliable, fact checked, mainstream news sources.   There are references to Supe Michael Yaki working out an accord with some of the cyclists, (as if rhizomal Critical Mass has leaders!)   Details of the political pressure on Brown might be helpful to lend context to why Brown felt so strongly about cracking down on the CM ride...of course this begs the question... There are some conspiracy theorists that believe...there was no real pressure...that Brown had a chip on his shoulder against the CM rides, and a score to settle following his June 97 caravan of limos for his convention of mayors, which coincided with the CM ride. I've talked to some longtime CM riders and the word is this caravan got held up in the Marina District that June night.  I can only imagine the executive advice Brown received around the dinner table that evening when they finally arrived at their destination restaurant, makes ya' wonder if Giuliani was sitting across from Brown.Critical Chris (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can leave in what's there now, unless anyone else objects.  By adding that new first sentence to the paragraph, it reads much better now.User:calbear22 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical Mass section revisited

message: The article should note that Willie Brown is visually impaired to the point that he cannot read and cannot identify a person standing in front of him.  http://www.blindness.org/coping/story.asp?id=22   Randall Bart    Talk   22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Critical Chris (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blind 

message: Please stop arbitrarily deleting entire sections of the article.  Willie Brown's involvement with Jones and the Temple were HEAVILY scrutinized in 1978 and 1979, while the Jonestown tragedy was like the Bay Area's 9-11.  It should not be deleted. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the harsh tone of this.  After I was suprirsed to find that no such section existed in the articles for both Brown and Moscone (Jones two big supporters with which he was heavily involved), I spent a lot of time putting together the section going through some books and other info I have lying around.  I was annoyed it was moved, which effectively deleted it in its entirety. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Per my note in the George Moscone article, that's fine.  Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Its been written about pretty extensively in a lot of books after the tragedy went down in 1978 and people went back to examine things closely.  The Temple kept extensive records and also recorded phone calls that were damning to A LOT of people.  On election day 1975, the Temple was able to produce several hundred volunteers at the last second that worked on election day driving people to the polls in favorable districts, as well as having all of its members vote in bloc for Moscone.  Note that it is suspected that many of them actually were from North of the Bay and likely voted illegally in the election.  Moscone's opponent went crazy after looking at the individual precinct returns (something was WAY off, you could tell where the Jones people had shown up in mass).   But a fraud investigation was blunted thereafter, in part, because one of the Temple members either worked in or with the DA (Tim Stoen -- I forgot the detail there), and he later in 1977 turned against the Temple. Mosedschurte (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Far more troubling was that Moscone actually put out a press release saying he would NOT investigate the Temple after the August 1, 1977 New West article with numerous allegations of beatings, death threats and extortion.  Jones had actually fled to Guayan in the middle of the night after editor Rosalie Wright read him the article over the phone to get his comments (and she stated on the tape she did so only because of pressure from Jones supporters such as Governor Brown).  Even though Moscone immediately announced he wouldn't investigate, Jones never returned, in part, because of worries regarding civil litigation from Temple defectors. By the way, Willie Brown was the rally at the Peoples Temple after Jones dramatic middle-of-the-night flee to Guyana, and said a lot of trulyembarrassing things. Mosedschurte (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I should also add that Willie Brown wrote several letters to President Carter and Guyana officials as late as 1978 (the year of the suicides) supporting Jones and attacking the Temple defectors pressing for an investigation  (much like Harvey Milk's 2/19/78 letters).  Brown also spoke at the Temple pulpit numerous times.  Humorously, Brown didn't know it, but Jones flipped him off once behind his back while he was speaking (they though Willie was capitalist sellout or something like that, can't remember the exact language from one of Jones tapes), the crowd snickered and Brown didn't know what was going on. I didn't include those in the summary info.  Mosedschurte (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Finally, worse than Brown in some ways was Lt. Gov. Dymally.  He didn't do much speech making, but he actually flew to Jonestown to visit and gave the place huge thumbs up, along with writing support letters for Jones.  Dymally was a good friend of the Temple, and there are documents in their files indicating they actually helped him write an editorial Dymally published after he came under attack for non-Temple related reasons.  Mosedschurte (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of that suggests that the material is best centralized in a section of the article, or in a new article, rather than spreading it out among all of the people who were involved.  Whenever a prominent person, group, or institution active in politics turns out to be problematic - a business that turns out to be a fraud, a religion that turns out to be a cult, a person who is really a criminal, etc. - they have supporters and detractors.  Politicians take sides (and money, and votes), often without looking too deep into the integrity of their allies.  Nobody thinks Moscone, Brown, or anyone else was a cult member or wanted to promote the cult's aims or cover it up.  They simply made their alliances with the wrong people.  Perhaps it says something about a politician that they are careless in this way, or perhaps it just says something about luck.  In any event, judging politicians against the  standard of whether they are connected to a scandal is something that happens in elections and attack politics.  I think we as an encyclopedia have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture - who they are, what they accomplished, what their legacy is, and so on.  People's Temple is a significant event in the history of San Francisco and even the nation, and in cults, and it does have something to say about politics.  I don't think it is nearly that much a part of the legacy of the individuals involved.  If you were to weight the total amount of media coverage, writing, etc., about Brown and Moscone, the People's Temple episode is going to be a very tiny part of their notability.  It is not on most people's minds as a defining issue about them, or an issue at all.  We get significant weight problems if we make it one.  Wikidemo (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having edited this article extensively myself and being familiar with it's ins, outs, nooks, crannies and nuances, it is well balanced and evenly weighted to the point where a short, concise paragraph about Brown's policy and association with Jones would not knock it out of balance.  The same might not be able to be said about several paragraphs.Critical Chris (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I noticed that Brown's quote at the PT's post-flee to Guyana rally for Jones was cut.  I added back that Brown spoke there, which seems like one of the more important points, but didn't add back the quote itself. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, I noticed a post-tragedy quote was added.  I had actually NOT included Willie's most famous post-tragedy quote, that he had no regrets and thought the other politicians distancing themselves were bullshit.  That drew media articles by itself in 1978.  But when an obscure post-tragedy quote was just added today to the article, the far more famous and controversial one had to be added to give the complete picture. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jones Peoples Temple Section 

message: Is the purpose of this an ambigous way of inserting a link to 9/11 being an inside job? It might be interesting enough but even the source does not give it too much weight. If this belongs in another article so be it. It does not seem appropriate for this article unless all mayors are receiving a sentance or two regarding their 9/11 response. Also, there is clearly an agenda witht he second paragraph of this section.Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to ask the inserting editor if he's engaged in original research or synthesis, if these sound familiar from the BART Police Shooting of Oscar Grant article and talk page discussion that you are also editing/reading.  I think the obvious point of the Matier and Ross source piece , as I read it at least, is to point out, oh how should we say, -- inconsistencies -- on Brown's part in a rather embarrassing manner that has a remarkably light, practically humorous tone considering it went to press less than 24 hours after the south tower collapsed. Interestingly, the source seems to allude to Nixonian-style telephone recording/transcripts from Hallinan's office ("'You know, you're the first call I've gotten on this,' Brown said to Hallinan, as they were signing off.") and a telephone deck in a DA's office wouldn't surprise me in the least either for a number of reasons.  Also, look at the Mike McCarron quotation; and if he was waiting for an 8am pacific(11am eastern) flight to JFK/LGA, his flight was a total no-go by just after 6 am pacific, which would have left plenty of time for some happy motoring down 101 in time to catch a "mayor's flight."  Look, if you're fascinated by MK ULTRA and other conspiracies, you might enjoy this comment from the online edition of the original SFC article - .  Of course, if you can find a "reliable" source that investigates this theory, that's an entirely different conversation.CriticalChris 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

text: On a somewhat unrelated note, tell me in what way do you believe the second paragraph from this section of the article on fajitagate is worded with an "agenda?CriticalChris 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the heading because it seemed to give undue weight to a single minor incident that was only one of two things covered under the section.  If we need to break up the long section on his tenure as Mayor, we should find a more logical way to divide things.  I also tried to remove POV-ish language that either credited or blamed Brown for things involving other people (e.g. "presided" over a decrease in crime, "feared" to describe his concern over potential terrorism - who knows if he was afraid or not?, and then all the "alleged" and lack of evidence stuff regarding fajitagate.  We know the cops beat up the guy, we just don't know that the DA could have prosecuted that as a crime, and either way that part of the event has little to do with Brown).  Wikidemon (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidemon, I'd like to convey my thanks for this most recent edit.  I like the way it flows a bit better now.  Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.  Good to see you've hung in here with this article this long.  After some heated editing, I think the article has come a long way in the last year, and is now a piece that we can all be proud of here.  You think this sucker is ready for a GA nomination?CriticalChris 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call on removing the heading. In answer to your question regarding the fajitagate paragraph, when combined with he 9/11 info seemed like a dig at Willie Brown for being involved in evil conspiracies. It is better now.Cptnono (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 11th and police 

message: I just reverted this unsourced edit made at 13:20, November 6, 2009 by 96.19.240.102 "I think most white politicians do not understand that the race pride we all have trumps everything else."  The quotation, if properly sourced, has a notable and significant political context that might be essential to fully understanding San Francisco's late 90's/early 2000's gentrification-era class and race politics, or another dimension of Brown's lengthy, and still unfinished, poltical career (I read Willie is considering throwing his hat in the ring for the upcoming mayoral race here in 'the Town.')  Yet, this quotation needs good sourcing if it's to be included in this potential featured article candidate. CriticalChris 20:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Race Pride" 

message: Brown was originally one of White's targets in the Moscone–Milk assassinations. Section: Moscone–Milk assassinations#Trial and its aftermath. May be worth a mention. czar · · 05:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan White 

message: As a perusal of this article suggests, Brown was a shoeshiner at a young age.  The article on shoeshiners shows many other prominent people have been shoeshiners.  So, why remove the category?  It isn't an insult.  He was literally a shoeshiner.  Hoktiwe (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is trivia and not a defining characteristic of this subject, nor of other subjects where you have been adding the category.  See :WP:CATDEF (as I indicated in my edit summary when I reverted your edit). General Ization Talk   15:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  He was a shoeshiner, so why remove the category? 

message: Saw someone had edited the page to past tense following the death of Raiders hall of famer Willie Brown. The football player and the former Mayor of San Francisco are not the same person. The politician Willie Brown is still very much alive (at the time of this edit, at least).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyvalian (talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not dead yet 

message: Date of Mayor Brown’s Graduation from SF State should be 1955, not 1995. PTJ333 (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graduation date