Talk:Jerry Brown/Archive 1

Old comments
IMHO, Wilson's defeat of Kathleen belongs on Wilson's page, or Kathleen's if she gets one, not on Moonbeam's. Gentgeen 11:43, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Jerry Brown hasn't changed his party affiliation, but the election laws in California prohibit local politicians, like mayors, from running as members of a political party; therefore, it is inapproapate to refer to them as Democrat Mayor of Foo, or Republican Bar County Supervisor. Brown recenlty (earlier this month) filed the paperwork to run in the Democratic Party Primary for State Attorney General in 2006. Gentgeen 10:40, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of jurisdictions that provide for "nonpartisan" elections. All it means is that the ballot does not list the party name. State or local law can't prevent you from being a member of a party or from saying that you are a member of a party (it would violate the First Amendment). Even though officials might be elected on "birdless" (nonpartisan) ballots, it's never incorrect to refer to their party affiliation, if they have one. In fact, officially nonpartisan elections at the city level are often the most partisan races. Acsenray 20:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Added in some more of J.B.'s academic credentials and included the fact that he had spent time training to be a Jesuit. Synthesis

What's with the gossipy gay innuendos
I mean you got Edgar J. Hoover a major misses getting an expurgated page and jerry gets all the slander and a whole 4 line sentence of gossip about his sexual preference...shhhh..

There is no information to substantiate the "15 year relationship" of JB and Anne Gust yet presented. i just ask for the truth. Hank chapot 02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotations
The list of quotations is getting rathre long, so we should problably move it over to Wikiquotes, leaving just a few here for flavor. -Will Beback 06:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I took the entire quotation section from just before your revert of 24 October 2006 to create Jerry Brown at Wikiquote. Argyriou (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: I reposted some of the Brown quotes that are most interesting to the quotes section. It looks like they are better cited and more verifiable than some of the quotes on the page right now. The quotes that were not as well cited have been moved over to wikiquotes.

RE: Referring to comments made by User: Will Bebeck

1st of all, you moved my quotes that I put there in the first place which were all cited. 2nd, it isn't plagiarism if it is all in quotation marks and is cited correctly, unlike many of the quotes that were up there. It didn't come from the any campaign site. 3rd, I left up Jerry Brown quotes that were not negative and ones where he said items. It's wrong to remove content on your basis. If it is cited, it should be allowed to stay. You can try dispute the quote on the page but you shouldn't delete it if it is all factual. What you are doing is censoring information. Topps2010 00:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Topps2010


 * You first removed the quotations from Jerry Brown, then replaced then with a set of uniformly negative quotations from other people. That isn't acceptable. NPOV applies. -Will Beback 00:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke?
After law school, Brown worked as a law clerk for Mathew Tobriner, a justice for the Supreme Court of California, and studied in Mexico and Latin America

Where do you think Mexico is located?
 * Fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.52.87 (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Reason for deleting citations
To explain this revision:

The Fox News piece is about Brown blogging, and doesn't even mention '92. Brown is barely even mentioned in the Forward article The Cnet piece does mention Brown in the context of calling Dean's use of the Internet 'hardly new', but it doesn't say anything about Brown being 'able to tap a populist streak... the precursor to the (Dean campaign)'. Dlabtot 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

he moved
I'm on a committee with the property manger for the sears building, and she said he no longer lives there. I think he is still in Oakland though because I saw him outside oakland city hall the other day on his cell phone, and I understand he is running the AG's office out of Oaktown rather than Sactown. 68.238.129.24 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There was an article on the San Francisco Chronicle website this morning about GB's Prius having its tires stolen while parked outside his home in the Oakland hills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.234.160 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Surplus?
"Brown was blamed for amassing, as Governor, a huge surplus in state coffers"

How is this a bad thing? Was there some ancient time where not having a gigantic deficit was considered a negative? 69.86.206.142 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Those lines have had a -fact- tag on them for four months, therefore, I'm removing them. Dlabtot (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture
We should find a photo of him for the article, an abstract painting should never be used as someone's identifying picture.Scook2 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. That picture is horrible to have in the infobox.--Jersey Devil (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And I disagree 100%. It's a great picture. By the way, it is not an 'abstract' painting. As his official portrait as governor, it's obviously a representation that he approves of, so he, at least, does not believe it is unflattering or portrays him in a bad light. I say keep it.  my 2 cents  Dlabtot (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about a man who was alive in the 20TH CENTURY which means PHOTOS of him should exist somewhere. Regardless of your comment on the quality of the painting, it doesn't belong at the top of an encyclopedia article. We need to replace it with a real picture. If you like the painting so much move it elsewhere. 71.76.205.168 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There used to be a photo of Brown somewhere; if it is usable, it should replace this. However, the painting is representational enough that one could recognize Brown after seeing the painting. Argyriou (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge your passion about this subject even though I do not share it; I simply expressed my opinion about the picture. I do like your suggestion though, if it is replaced with a photo it would be nice for the portrait to still appear in the article, or at least a link to it. Dlabtot (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

if the painting was his official portrait, it seems that it deserves to be in the article, even if a photo is the main picture. no wonder people thought he was bizarre. 24.98.225.16 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not his official portrait, which is indeed available. Proxy User (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The portrait is indeed his official state governor's portrait, which hangs in the California State Capitol. See his official state biography on the gubernatorial history page. Whether or not we replace it in the infobox with a photo (which I assume would be available from the Office of the Attorney General Web site), we should definitely keep the portrait in the article somewhere - it's really a great example of what set him apart as a governor. FCYTravis (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, a quick check of the state Attorney General's Web site finds no high-resolution photography of Jerry Brown. FCYTravis (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of Jerry Brown however... PLEASE SOMEBODY LOOSE THAT AWFUL PICTURE. Mr Brown deserves a photo fitting of a former Governor of California, not some crazy arty-farty avant-guard rendition which gives the appearance of a frowning, manic depressive, ala Van Gough or Silvia Plath! The picture is in very poor taste, and does a diservice to the Wikipedia subject. It doesn't matter what Mr Brown thought of the portrait. It's crap, and inappropriate and everybody knows it. Please, does anybody else feel this way? I see that the subject has been brought up before. So the vote is now 2 to 2?? Anybody care to add, either way? td27 July 7, 2008
 * No, I'm sorry, but we're not going to remove it because you don't like it. That is his official state portrait which hangs in the California State Capitol. I think it honors Jerry - yes, it's avant-garde, so was his governing of the state. I hope he runs for governor of California again, to be perfectly honest. Here is his official state biography hosted by the State of California. What do they use to illustrate it? Gee, that's right - his official state portrait. End of story. FCYTravis (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Six Months later: To FCYTravis: I should have clarified that my objection to the "avant guard" portrait was only applicable to the portrait's position in the bio box at the top of the article only. I did not mean to imply that the portrait should be stricken from the article all together. So I appologize for upsetting your cause. But I see that somebody has apparantly moved it anyway. I think it is fine where it is now.

References needed
Most of the article lacks sources and citations so I added the references needed tag.User:calbear22 (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.92.10 (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Claim-Jumpin' Jerry"
Where'd he get the nickname "Claim-jumpin' Jerry Brown?" Is that from his dad's days? What does that have to do with Jerry Brown? He was young when Folsom Dam was built; if his father and his predecessors used questionable tactics in gaining property holdings for dam construction, then that doesn't reflect upon Jerry Brown's political career. Unless they're talking about post-dam construction in and around Sacramento County.

Maybe it's Citrus Heights. Maybe there's more than one piece of land there that was taken from the owners rather forcefully. That's probably it.


 * Do you have any reliable sources that reference this? Does he actually have such a nickname? I don't think so. Dlabtot (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Governor's Mansion
The link in this section is wrong. Brown eschewed the Reagan mansion in Carmichael, which was subsequently sold by the state, it is true. The link, though, is to the mansion on Ninth Street in downtown Sacramento (which Reagan had disdained, making Pat Brown the last governor to live there), and which is still owned by the State of California, which operates it as a museum. Altgeld (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The article on Jerry Brown states that he sold the Governor's Mansion, but then why would Mrs. Reagan have toured the Mansion in Sacramento and rejected it as a home for her family? This is a serious error of fact, as the link to the Governor's Mansion page states that it was sold later. Georgia 654 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I corrected the text to clarify that the residence Brown eschewed and sold was not the Sacramento mansion but the Carmichael one built by Reagan. Dlabtot (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should the content of this article accurately reflect the cited source?
Should the article reflect what the sources say, or should it reflect what one editor believes is 'more appropriate'?

This dispute centers around the characterization of this source, which states: " the Clintons deeply resented Brown for being the first political figure to attack them on what later became known as Whitewater.  "

KevinOKeeffe is insisting that it is not 'appropriate' to use the word 'attack'. See this edit and this edit. Should the article reflect what the source says, or what KevinOKeeffe believes is 'appropriate'? Dlabtot (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate to describe a political attack as an attack? Dlabtot (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Because political criticism isn't "an attack." That is a tiresome formulation that politicians use to delegitimize what would otherwise be characterized as valid criticism ie., "Oh, you can ignore what my opponent is saying, because he's being a bad person by engaging in lowlife political attacks."  Political criticism should be characterized as that (in keeping with a NPOV), not as a form of verbal assault that carries with it a stigma of impropriety.  Objectively, there exists no such thing as "a political attack." KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty funny. Luckily, your opinion about what 'objectively exists' is irrelevant. We rely on what sources say, not the opinions of editors, no matter how bizarre or strongly held they may be. Dlabtot (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be implying that all cited sources must translate into verbatim quotations within the article, but obviously that is not the case. There is no rule against the writing at Wikipedia being of a higher caliber than that found in some daily newspaper being cited in an article, for example. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not implying anything of the sort. Rather, I said precisely what I meant, no more, no less.  Again, I think it is irrelevant an doesn't belong in the article at all. Dlabtot (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thus apparently indicating you are unaware of the enormous extent to which it was considered relevant at the time it occurred, and was mentioned throughout the course the 1992 election, as well as during the myriad Clinton administration scandals. Perhaps you are simply too young? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you arguing? The text you want in the article is in the article. Do you have any comment to make about the article? Your comments about me, besides being wrong, are inappropriate for this article talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but a common solution to this sort of thing is to attribute a quote to a particular named source, and so avoid saying controversial things in an editorial voice. Rd232 talk 14:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Huffington Post is a blog, and use of its columns has been controversial in many articles. OTOH, the writer, William Bradley, appears to have some credentials though his bio is a bit vague. At a minimum, opinion pieces like this should be attributed. Something like "Columnist William Bradley has written that..." But it'd be better to find an additional source for this assertion. With two or more reliable sources we could be more sure that it's a conventional view and wouldn't need to attribute it.   Will Beback    talk    17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well personally I don't really see why this columnist's off-hand comment merits mention in the article at all. But if so, it should be accurately reported. Dlabtot (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * btw, Huffington Post is a website that includes blogs, linked articles from other sources, opinion columns, original reporting, and user commentary. Simply calling it "a blog" is inaccurate. Dlabtot (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IndyMac Bank Failure
There are many citizen complaints less spurious than this one, that the AG's office does not investigate. What makes this one important enough in the biography of Jerry Brown that it should be included in this article? Dlabtot (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I had mentioned, the large number of layoffs and the huge amount of uninsured deposits. Coasting (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with Jerry Brown? Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The layoffs and the uninsured deposits were a result of the failure of Indymac Bank, of which Brown was asked to investigate the cause of.Coasting (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Brown was asked to investigate whether comments by Charles Schumer violated California state law. It's clear from the source you provided that they didn't. Dlabtot (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As is fully noted in the article.Coasting (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be additionally noted that the citation for this states: ''The former IndyMac employees had an ally in their efforts to have Brown investigate Schumer. Their letter was publicized by Alexandria, Va.-based CRC Public Relations, whose clients have included the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.'' .... so essentially what we have here, is our Wikipedia encyclopedia article serving as a conduit for a partisan political attack. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to make this issue political, then why did a Democratic AG refuse to investigate a Democratic Senator? Besides, "CRC and Jennifer Seely, the author of the letter to Brown, deny any political motivations."   Coasting (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm simply referencing what the source says. And it doesn't say anything about a refusal to investigate. Your desire to debate the issue notwithstanding, this is not a debating society nor a discussion board. Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this page is for discussion. Whether it was Jerry Brown or his office who decided not to investigate, Jerry Brown stood by the decision. If you would rather have the article read, "Brown's office determined...," then so be it.Coasting (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided a reason why spurious partisan political attack against Charles Schumer belongs in Jerry Brown's Wikipedia article.  Dlabtot (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted, with a source, there were no political motivations on the parts of CRC and Jennifer Seely.Coasting (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Words?
Someone seems to have gone through and deleted a bunch of key words in the article. This needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.227.253 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? Dlabtot (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to have been resolved now. I think it was all the linked text that wasn't appearing in the article when I was looking at it. Perhaps it was just a brief technical glitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.227.253 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Car tax
This material is uncited. I checked a newspaper archive and what I did find is an appearance by Brown and Hahn at a press conference. Schwarzenegger had rescinded the tripling of the registration fee and that left local governments short on funds. The governor declared an emergency to cut spending in order to provide funds to meet the shortfalls in city budgets. That action is what Brown was praising, not the rescinding of the car tax increase itself: So I think the existing text misstates what appears in the sources I can find. There's certainly no implication in Brown's statements of criticism of Davis. Overall, I'm not sure that a comment at a press conference is worth an entire section. Therefore I'm going to delete it.  Will Beback   talk    22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In 2003, Brown and fellow Democratic Mayor Jim Hahn of Los Angeles praised Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for his decisive actions regarding the suppression of the reinstatement of portions of the vehicle registration fee, labeled by opponents as the "car tax," and some restoration of state funding for city governments, implying that Gray Davis, who had been Governor Brown's Chief of Staff in the 1970s, had acted poorly in this regard.
 * ''Schwarzenegger upset Republicans by giving up too much on the March ballot. But he pressed for something he wanted now: Immediate cuts in current-year spending, so money could be freed to repay cities and counties that lost out when Schwarzenegger reversed the tripling of the car tax. ... Schwarzenegger reinstituted $2.65 billion to local governments. His Dec. 18 press conference was as riveting as things get in Sacramento. Democratic Mayor of Oakland Jerry Brown charged to the dais and boomed: "The governor exercised executive power to the max! That's the only way you get anything done around here!"
 * "MIND GAMES ARNOLD'S BRINKMANSHIP SET TONE TO CLOSE OUT 2003;" [VALLEY Edition] JILL STEWART\ Capitol Punishment. Daily News. Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 28, 2003. pg. V.1
 * D'accord. Dlabtot (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Better disambiguation is needed
I just added another dab link to the page. And I doubt that there are less than a dozen other notable persons whose names or nicknames include the words Jerry Brown. The individual who is the subject of the present article is in fact not named Jerry Brown, so, out of respect to him his article needs to be moved to a page with his correct name and the page listed as Jerry Brown should become a dab page. My 2 cents.Trilobitealive (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Americathon
A user has repeatedly added the assertion that the character of the US President, named "Chet Roosevelt", in the movie Americathon is based on Brown. That may well be, but we need a reliable secondary source for it. An IMDB user review does not count, and neither do blogs. Further, the source should make that specific assertion, not just say that Brown was a liberal, or that the movie is based on real figures.  Will Beback   talk    00:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As that "user" I have presented multiple independent opinions that this lead character in this movie are based on Jerry Brown. The first reference was from IMDB, which some here on Wikipedia wish to cast aspersions against.  I assert that IMDB is extremely reliable in every case I have sub-referenced and that includes a high number of these situations.  So, the source was questioned.  Fine, I found five other people saying the same thing.  OK, you want print references, add The New Yorker, August 27, 1979, P.76.  How many references does this take?  This connection to the movie has been here for a long time, because it is a factual statement.


 * The problem is, now that Brown is running for governor again, and some of his opponents have picked up on the old (1979) reference. Now that the movie is being used as political fodder, some people would like to alter the facts.  That certainly goes against the neutrality our WP articles aim for.  I'm adding the additional reference and reverting again.Trackinfo (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that "assume good faith" is a policy. You are apparently the only editor to have added this. The first time you did so, last June, I deleted it for exactly the same reason. Please don't make accusations of bias or bad motives regarding other editors.    Will Beback    talk    08:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless the writer of the movie says he was inspired by Brown, then this would tend to be more of an opinion than a fact. Opinions are OK too, but they should be handled differently. As for how many sources it takes, it depends on what is being asserted. At least one reliable source is needed, and the material didn't have that. The IMDB material is not from their own material but from a reader review. Blogs are not reliable sources either. What is the New Yorker article? Is it available online or can you quote the relevant text? Please don't restore this until there's a resolution. This is a BLP and we don't want to make unsupported assertions.    Will Beback    talk    01:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.   Will Beback    talk    01:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've placed an unfairly narrow requirement on this particular statement, but I have contacted the writers. I'm going to add that the Citing IMDb proposal failed to reach consensus and is, in fact, a failed proposal.  The addition of multiple other sources AS BACK UP of what is essentially an opinion certainly confirms such a statement.  I'll add this to the other discussion.Trackinfo (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you're so adamant about this. While IMDB's credit listings may be accurate, this is a different kind of material. It's not factual, like saying that John Doe appeared Movie X as the 3rd thug. It's an opinion in a reader-posted review. Further, since the character in the movie is a politician overseeing a bankrupt country, it may be seen as a negative comment. That triggers WP:BLP requirement that such statements have the best possible sources, not just the opinion of an IMDB reader.     Will Beback    talk    07:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't restore this until there is a strong source.   Will Beback    talk    07:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've found two reviews of Americathon that mention Brown. One says the character is "a Jerry Brown-like President" and another says the character "looks like Jerry Brown". Based on those, we could say something like "The 1979 political satire Americathon included a lead character who was called "Jerry Brown-like" by reviewers." How does that sound?    Will Beback    talk    07:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is weak and wishy washy claims with no notable value at all, IMO Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, a couple of movie critics had an opinion that a comedy character created 31 years ago resembled a real-life politician (who is still trying to do serious work today). I think including the statement would diminish the quality this Jerry Brown article.  It might improve Americathon, but be careful to balance it with other personalities mentioned by critics as possible character inspirations.  Thundermaker (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Jacques Barzaghi
why are references to Jacques Barzaghi removed from this page? He spent a lot more time as Jerry's companion than Linda Ronstadt. I think there is ample evidence that they were quite clost for at least two decades, but people keep editing the reference out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.227.78 (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The references to Barzaghi are being deleted because, I assume, your source is misleading and dependent on innuendo, not verifiable fact. Just because a hack writes a book doesn't make it true. Barzaghi did live in the warehouse Brown owned, but Barzaghis' wife lived there, too. I don't see that mentioned anywhere. Barzaghi was a paid political aide de camp and confidante. That's why his career lasted so long. Not an uncommon arrangement for a US politician. Pres. Grant had a friend on staff whose main job was to keep him from getting drunk. Does that make Grant suspect? Plus, Jacques was fired because he sexually harrassed a female coworker. So, until the Sac'to Bee runs a story that Brown has been busted for DUI while driving away from a gay bar.... PS: I am not nor have I ever been a paid political staffer for Brown. Heck, not even a volunteer. I just like to know something about the people I have the option of voting for.

California Uber Alles
Shouldn't the famous Dead Kennedys song be mentioned here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.127.213.240 (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Is yer fingers broked or sumthin? &mdash; X S  G  05:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha Naw I'm just not good with Wikipedia. lol Brian951378246 23:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Twelve lines are devoted to "California Über Alles" by the band the Dead Kennedys. Is this supposed to be an important addition to the article? From what is said in the article, the song seems to be junk and garbage. I really don't want to read about such trash in a Wikipedia article about Jerry Brown. Lestrade 01:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, and what you consider "trash", others consider important cultural commentary. The length of the discussion of the song is perhaps an example of placing undue weight on the song's critique of Brown's style and politics, especially since the song has its own article, but the song does deserve mention in this article. Argyriou (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that it does. It's really informative to read about "&hellip;a bizarre hippie-fascist vision for America, in which his 'suede denim secret police' kill un-cool people with 'organic poison gas' chambers." You don't have to be thirteen years old to appreciate such visionary writing. "&hellip;[T]he line 'Now it is 1984' could refer to George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four where the totalitarian regime suppresses the citizens' freedom, thus portraying Jerry Brown as Big Brother, i.e., a totalitarian leader. It may also refer to the year in which Brown is to be elected." Now that is deeply profound as well as being encyclopedic.Lestrade 00:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Yes! About twice the space is devoted to what Jello Biafra and the Dead Kennedys say about Brown than is devoted to the entire section "Radio Show Host". If this must be included, it should be trimmed back - way back. In keeping with the Era of Limits of the 21st Century, let us not waste space and computer storage on trivia. Writtenright 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

I went ahead and removed all superfluous material that already is referenced in the songs own page. A link is sufficient. Dlabtot 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For a very large number of people familiar with the song it is just about the only thing they know about him, aside from the fact that he was a governor of California. Considering the popularity of the song it seems appropriate to at least mention it even if greater detail is contained within it's own page. 69.181.55.239 (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think a link to the song's article is appropriate. Not sure when it was taken out. Dlabtot (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Did the song really not come about during his election campaign? I've always interpreted it as a satire of just that!

Also, almost thirty years ago maybe it should be considered not only criticism, but the way he is referenced in pop culture. 02:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.216.218 (talk)


 * It's sort of silly that it says that Jello changed his mind about Jerry Brown, when if you go to Nardwuar interview, it doesn't really indicate that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.203.212 (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

citations needed
Someone needs to go through and cite all these comments throught the article and soon. Any unsourced negative or overly praising information is going to be removed if it is not sourced within a reasonable time prior to the election. Im seeing alot of weasle word and opinion. Please go through this and try to source/reqord some of this. we have entire sections of the article unsourced on someone who is running for govenor of one of the largest states in the country (sizewize and economy). It needs to be accurate and sourced. thanks -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone should. I nominate you. Dlabtot (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ACORN investigation
Regarding this, while well sourced, it seems irrelevant to me. AG conducted an investigation and found no crime. Isn't this the epitome of a 'non-story'? Dlabtot (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it isn't relevant to Brown's biography. It'd be fine in the ACORN article if it isn't there already.   Will Beback    talk    19:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like thinly veiled campaign literature. It's virtually devoid of negatives that are not couched to seem positive. 76.90.252.162 (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

2008 picture
The second sentence in the Jerry Brown section begins "First indicating his interest in early 2008". It seems likely that this indication came at the March 2008 convention.

But more importantly, this picture adds value to the article. It shows what Brown looks like now (2.5 years isn't much time considering his age) -- when he isn't using makeup and hair color.

Now, would anybody care to explain how the repeated deletions of this picture serve to improve this free encyclopedia? Thundermaker (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be obvious that there is an election at play currently. This unflattering photo looks like an excellent plant by the opposition.  Its the kind of scowl one would put in a negative campaign ad, not an NPOV article.  During this volatile election period, we need to watch articles of participating parties to be sure WP is not altered to corroborate unsubstantiated campaign claims in any direction.  The repeated attempts to place this picture, even in the primary position of the article, suggest ulterior motives. Trackinfo (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Unflattering? I think it's a damn good pic. And I'm pretty sure it was here before the "volatile election period". The other images in the article are much more negative, starting with the "official gubernatorial portrait", then the one showing him in the background shmoozing with Woody Allen and other crazy Hollywood people, a crappy snapshot from 1978 where he hasn't shaved and isn't even looking at the camera, and top it all off with one that makes him look short compared to Gavin Newsome. The only image that is actually a better portrait is the one in the infobox at the top.

So, of all those, you think the one I like is the most negative? I know I have no "ulterior" motives. I've been editing this page since March, and I think my edits show neutrality. You have been told before that AGF is policy, so don't make that innuendo again dammit. Thundermaker (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objection to the more timely picture of him on a television show as opposed to what might even be a scowl look caught between words in a sentence. You were not the only person involved in edit warring trying to paste the poor picture in prominence--IP edits were trying to do the same, which draws suspicion.  And I was not doing the majority of the reverting.  It suggests, I am not unique in my opinion both of the photo and motives behind it being placed in prominence in the article (the AGF issue).  In a political arena, particularly these days, there are WP editors with an agenda, which we don't need.  As for the more historical photos, I take them at face value, though I'd certainly do some editing to them.  As for his official portrait as governor.  It is what it is and should be taken at its merits. Trackinfo (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Because someone (an IP address editor) just tried to replace this same picture in the prominent position, again, I will point out the accuracy of my analysis of the photo and of my prophecy. This picture makes him look so bad, it is currently being used prominently in a negative campaign advertisement against Jerry Brown.  WP:NPOV we should not be using it in this article.  All editors should be watching out for this photo being placed in the article for political purposes. Trackinfo (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to second this opinion, I also find this to be an unusually negative image and thus unusable in the infobox. Thanks to those here for taking care of that. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How hard is it to upload a new picture guys. Come on....it sounds like work.......but it's not...so I did.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Added another to the gallery above (the black and white one where he's staring directly into the camera). A user attempted to place this as the main photo. I reverted to the official CA Attorney General one. --Oakshade (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed back. Bad faith revert also added back false information not backed by citation.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Our opinion of the image as far as good or bad is not relevent. Thinking something looks good or bad is POV, consensus to change image is clear. Constant reverts to the same image editors want changed is bad faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many images not loaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons. If the recent Black and White image is not agreed upon by consensus of editors then additional images can and will be provided. Limiting the discussion by any single editor is not appropriate and will not be tolerated. Clear consensus exists at this time to change the image.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Amadscientist, there is absolutley zero consensus to change the main image to your self-taken image. The consensus to change the image was months ago when it wasn't the official Attorney General image.  Please stop misrepresenting consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on image (10/13/2010)
There are two images up for contention. They are:

The official California Attorney General image of Brown...

And this image taken by User:Amadscientist ...

I strongly believe we should use the official AG image, not a scary black and white one taken by an WP user.--Oakshade (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the black and white photo should remain. The Jerry Brown campaign uses it on its facebook page - they don't mind. I urge that keep the black and white photo, it's fine.98.247.157.218 (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, the above user has been consistently attempting to insert negative POV versions into this article.--Oakshade (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For a living person wiki would prefer a more realistic representation, imo this is clearly the color picture.Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the official AG photo. I do not find the black and white one scary, but just my personal preference that the color one be used as a better representation of the person.  Alanraywiki (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment and unsupported claim against editor is Bad Faith. I did not take the photograph.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Also consensus cannot be directed to one image against one image. Consensus includes all images availbale. On Wiki and off that have available license.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read above. I suggest you also refrain from false statements and accusations on this talk page sir. You are a wikipedia editor. Take the time to research your claims. Simply look at the uploaded image and then my Wikimedia page and you will see I am not the photgrapher or connected to the photographer in any way, other than having used the CC 2.0 image my self off this site.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stand corrected. User Amadscientist is not the photographer, but just the user who uploaded it. --Oakshade (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This may be a none issue. A Wikimedia Reviewbot has flagged the image...however it is the same license as the Meg Whitman image that went through a hefty debate as to the validity of it's license, Since this is still pending a visual review as requested by the uploader I don't object if it is taken of the table for consensus until such time as it is validated or deleted.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems logical to use the official photograph.   Will Beback    talk    23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is what we are concerned with. If consensus is to keep the image that is whatt will be. Not whether it is an official portrait.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, I was giving my opinion. The official picture is a formal portrait. The other is an informal snapshot which appears to distort the subject's features.   Will Beback    talk    00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I am not critisizing you for opinion just reminding you that it is opinion. The image is actualy a portrait taken by a professional photographer. It is not a "Snapshot" in that definition, but conceed it is informal, but that has no real basis to whether or not the image should or shouldn't be used. My reasoning is simple. It is a biographic image. It is one of the highest quality images availbale today as well as the most current. The subject had a hand in it's creation as the photographer took direction from Mr. Brown several times. The image is still up for consensus, but I don't see any need to retain an image due to it's official status.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * After looking at the different images available, I think the color image labeled "Edmund G Brown Jr.jpg" is the most appropriate photo for this WP:BLP.AzureCitizen (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have found the original high quality full version of the color AG picture. I am uploading it to Wikimedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

At this time the full size image of the color AG pic cannot be transfered from Flickr as it retains a full copyright claim by the Brown2010 campaign. The origin of the image is linked directly to the AG website that also claims copyright. This image may or may not be in the public domain and I have requested that it be confirmed before I upload the full version here.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The link of the source, G Brown Jr.jpg (see main page at ), is an official State of California webpage. Per California Proposition 59 (2004) and the California Public Records Act, it is in the public domain. --Oakshade (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably but not certain. If I can't upload the image from flickr or confirm the PD status from the source, then I just want to know that it has veen confirmed.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The California laws make it certain and clear. If an admin incorrectly deletes it, I will immediately open a DRV and have it restored. --Oakshade (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the official AG photo, it looks nice (and it's used on Jerry Brown for Governor buttons so the campaign must like it too). Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated, it may well be public domain, however simply being used by the state does not make it property of the state. That's all I refer to. If the image is Public Domain I am prepared to upload the full size un-altered version. However it was in researching the larger file that I discovered the "Claims" of copyright. This same problem occured with Meg Whitman's image and is probably the same issue...simply not altering the copyright on the uploaded image at flickr. Clearly consensus is for the color image if it is a valid PD photo, so assumming bad faith on the part of admin before they weigh in... if they even have anything to add, is not neccesary.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Update - The black and white photo has been deleted.--Oakshade (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Holden photograph was a Creative Commons license, but was a "No Deriveratives" or "=", which was not apparent with the flickr account. Wikimedia's policy is to not allow works that cannot be used for deriveratives. Wkimedia provides a special tool for uploading images from flickr and suggests using it, as it can confirm the proper license before upload.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A bit lopsided
The term of Governor section sure seems lopsided to the good. You'd think he was a saint by reading it. No mention of Rose Bird, death penalty, medflies, etc... and I don't mean there should be balance, but something of the problems created under his governorship should be mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an entire section in this article devoted to Brown's treatment of the death penalty as AG. Perhaps the appointment of Rose Bird and her later removal by voters over the death penalty issue should be added to the governorship section.
 * The medfly article is pretty hard on Brown and 100% unreferenced wrt the 1981 crisis, and it is already linked in the "Defeat and return" section here which is also 100% unreferenced. I can't find any 1980s articles on the subject, but here are some modern RSS articles   which are less critical of Brown's actions than the apparent WP:OR already here. Thundermaker (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence about Rose Bird and her 1986 recall. Could use a reference or two. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I changed it to actualy match the reference being used. There was a reason Rose Bird was not mentioned in the article. It is not really notable to Brown's biography if it's being used as political battering ram. Nuetrality has been disputed but if referenced and accurately written it can remain. Be careful with this. There are policies for Biographies of Living persons. I advise keeping Bird to a minimum as most mentions end up as POV and Original research. If the claim of the reference is disputed do NOT shop for one to match your own POV. Discuss here before further changing this.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the appointment of a controversial Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court is very relevant to Brown's biography, whether it's used as a "political battering ram" of not. Please assume good faith.  I can't speak for all editors, but everything I type in this article, whether it be praising or critical of this person (my edits have been attacked by supporters and opponents) has been 100% supported by references and there's never been "shopping" for ones that suit some alleged POV. --Oakshade (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing about bad faith on any editor part.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oakland crime rate paragraph
This paragraph was deleted with an IP and then restored because the IP gave no explanation. I'm going to split it up into numbered bullets and point out some of the problems with the statements, although I am not that IP.


 * 1) In 2006, the murder rate in Oakland in the first two months was triple the same period in 2005,
 * 2) leading some critics to suggest that Brown had failed to make the city safer.
 * 3) His campaigns to fix the schools, fill downtown with residents, create an "arts" city and curb crime have had mixed success.

The claim made in (1) is highly selective based on a single 2-month crime spike. Why not use the murder rates for the entire years of 2005-2006? Or better yet, all 10 years he was Oakland mayor? They would provide a better picture of the overall success of government anti-crime efforts. My guess is that the whole-year numbers would not show a big problem.

The citation for (2) is an article from 2002. Chip Johnson's 2002 column could not possibly have been criticizing Brown's 2006 performance as a crime-fighting mayor unless he had the ability to see into the future.

(3) is completely uncited. The "mixed success" conclusion seems like it's deliberately worded to be non-controversial; almost all efforts come out better than worst-case and worse than best-case, making the result "mixed". But did those efforts even exist? Is our wording an accurate description of what they were? Thundermaker (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Article needs work
Some POV, Original Research, run on sentences, and a slant in the prose that is somewhat negative. Needs to be neutral and encyclopedic--Amadscientist (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Early life and education" section has no inline citations and desperately needs expansion. Should be easy enough with the amount of published information. Also there are far too many Internet references and need to be replaced with more permanent citations where possible. I will endeavor to tackle that later tonight if no one else gets to it.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lede is too short and needs to summarize what is in the body of the article with no references.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ALL CLAIMS MUST HAVE A CITATION AND MUST MATCH INFORMATION.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Order of facts in the lead
Several people have been changing the order of the facts in the lead lately. Here's my suggestion.


 * 1) Current office (AG)
 * 2) Current candidacy
 * 3) Past offices, highest first (governor)
 * 4) Past failed candidacies (president)

What do you guys think? Agree/disagree? Let's work it out here once so we can nail it down in the article. Thundermaker (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the most logical order and is consistent with all other politician articles. Actually, as far as I can tell, only one anon user,, has been consistently trying to lead this article with past failed candidacies and even removing all the elected offices this person held.--Oakshade (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought that removing #4 was a good improvement to the article (too bad somebody added it back again). -SusanLesch (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone placed that in the lead sometime today. I copy edited it to remove the repetetive use of a word but the information is intact. I think there may have been a reference removed from the lede as they don't go there...but i can't remember if it was that part or not. Were there more candidacies he did not win?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The general practice is the most prominent office ever held goes first (regardless of whether it was past or present). Then the next most prominent office.

For example, you wouldn't say "Barak Obama, community organizer, lawyer and President", that would be ridiculous. Similarly, Brown should have 'Governor' listed first, even though it was years ago. (Although he may soon be Governor again).

98.245.170.157 (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Very disturbing attempt to remove fully sourced content from Governor section.
A user came along and removed the bold content from the paragraph below.
 * He was both in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment and opposed to Proposition 13, the latter of which would decrease property taxes and greatly reduce revenue to cities and counties. When Proposition 13 passed, he heavily cut state spending and used much of the surplus his government had built up, roughly $5 billion, to meet the proposition's requirements and help offset the revenue losses.   His actions in response to the proposition earned him praise from Proposition 13 author Howard Jarvis who went as far to campaign for Brown's successful reelection bid in 1978.

The edit summary was the bizarre "Removed entire claim. Not what the citations say. HEAVY POV."

The two citations are the American Conservative and the Los Angeles Times. The American Conservative citation states:.
 * "He wasn’t always so restrained in the rest of his reign, but he was thriftier than his predecessor, accumulating one of the biggest budget surpluses in California history...
 * ...Brown also favored a balanced budget amendment and, though he opposed the tax-cutting Proposition 13 while it was on the ballot, he slashed spending merrily to meet its requirements once the initiative became law.”

And the Los Angeles Times citations states:
 * "And he quickly began leading the implementation of Prop. 13, which turned California government on its head by making cities, counties and schools financially dependent on Sacramento and more subservient to the state. Sacramento emptied its savings -- roughly $5 billion -- to bail out the locals, a bailout that has never really ceased."

This removal of content because of " Not what the citations say. HEAVY POV" is not only not based on reality, but very much POV. Please keep an eye on this.--Oakshade (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot add your own OR to a reference by claiming the subject did something not supported by the refernces. You have altered the references but they still do not support your claim the "He" "used much of the surplus his government had built up".--Amadscientist (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have altered the references? How is that even possible?  Actually, it was his government.  But here's what I'll do:  As the San Francisco Chronicle states,
 * "His tightfistedness during his governorship did not make him popular within the Capitol and helped build the $5 billion surplus that led to the tax revolt by Californians who didn't like the state holding onto more money than it needed."
 * Let's change it to "he helped his government build up." Happy? --Oakshade (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy if you worked in a nuetral and encyclopedic manner, did not make false claims on the talk page and attempt to direct or confine consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What false claims? And the San Jose Mercury News states,
 * "During the early years of his first term as governor, from 1975 to 1979, he built a $5 billion surplus and preached a message of fiscal restraint." (emphasis mine)
 * Where's the false claims?--Oakshade (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no reference in any of the citations used to validate the claim that Brown as the individual subject of this Biography spent the budget. You may add quotes from a publication but may or may not be notable for the article. I urge you to step back and try to see this a more disinterested manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well let's see. The American Conservative states "he slashed spending merrily to meet its requirements once the initiative became law.”  The Wall Street Journal stated in 1978, "Gov Brown signed a bill over the weekend that allocates $5 billion of the state's $5.8 billion budget surplus to schools... ". (summary here).  Now you're just making up claims that another editor is making up claims. Sorry, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not what a single user wishes they or they not say.--Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're arguing around my point. The above has nothing to do with a copy edit to credit Brown for spending unless you are claiming that signing a bill is your reference that "He spent". No. that still would constitute original research. Reference claims as they are cited as closely to what is published.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're getting really confusing. You have been consistantly removing sourced content that he helped build up the $5 billion surplus while leaving the content that he spent $5 billion intact.    But now your arguing here that he spent the $5 billion surplus when Prop 13 passed is not properly sourced.  As I asked you on your talk page, what is your issue?  Do you not like the content that he helped "build up" the surplus or that "he spent" the surplus? --Oakshade (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can't discuss what the original comment/concern was, there is no further point in discussion. As I read the article right now these portions seem to have been re-wrtten to contain properly sourced and worded prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This entire section was about your original comment/concern, but your comments and edits kept shifting what your comment/concern was. The version now is almost identical to the version you began making removals  of content from.  The only omission from the original version is "his government had built up."   It still states that he helped build a $5 billion surplus and that he spent ("used" has been the term always in the article) the $5 billion surplus after Prop 13.  Are you now fine with this?  You clearly strongly weren't before. --Oakshade (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What you say here is simply untrue and the history is kept for this very reason.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is untrue? And just to make sure, you now believe the sources do support the phrase "he heavily cut state spending and used much of the surplus"?  The sources haven't changed, but you're still okay with them?  --Oakshade (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You may continue if you feel the desire to, but as I have stated the history of the changes are recorded and I have no intention of beating a dead horse.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I copy edited to this section again. I hope the change works. It was as minimal a change as possible but added more information.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

More clarified post-Proposition 13 explanation from source
Just to add what the sources are telling us, the San Jose Mercury News states:
 * "During the early years of his first term as governor, from 1975 to 1979, he built a $5 billion surplus and preached a message of fiscal restraint.
 * He and the Legislature later spent that money to bail out local governments and schools that had their funding cut when voters cut property taxes under Proposition 13 in 1978."

Per the source, it is true that "he," along with the Legislature, did in fact spend the surplus after Prop 13. I don't want to get into edit warring over this, but if another user chooses to clarify that Brown and the Legislature used the surplus instead of the current ambiguous "much of the $5 billion surplus was used," I will defend that edit as we choose content based on reliable sources.

In case anyone feels the San Jose Mercury News has some kind of anti-Brown bent, it should be pointed out that the San Jose Mercury News has in fact endorsed Brown for the November, 2010 election. --Oakshade (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute to stating that both can be attributed along with voters if the inline citation makes the distinction.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Per all the sources, including this one, the "voters" did not spend the surplus. The governor and the legislature did.  The voters simply voted for a proposition that reduced tax revenue to local governments.  The "voters" did not have control over how the void in the revenue was reconciled, whether it be from spending cuts or spending surplus funds.  Those decisions were and are made by elected officials. --Oakshade (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is no source or reference it is considered original research. A reference is need for any claim that may be disputed and I am pretty sure you'd get a dispute on that without citing sources. Unclear how far we should go on the subject of Prop 13 on Browns article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is no source or reference stating the "voters" spent the surplus - impossible under California Constitutional law anyway, unless there was an initiative passed by voters specifying the spending of surplus funds - then stating the "voters" spent the surplus cannot be added as it would be original research, whilst stating the governor and the legislature can per sources policy. --Oakshade (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the way the Biography deals with it is pretty close. Voters passed prop 13. It can be referenced (and it's already in the body of the wiki article) that voters passed prop 13 as a revolt due to the budget surplus. Prop 13 was slashing the state income. It can also be referenced (and again is in the article already) that whether or not voters understood what prop 13 would do, it did and was part responsible for the spending of the surplus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your personal formula is original research. As you stated above Amadscientist,
 * "You cannot add your own OR to a reference by claiming the subject did something not supported by the refernces."
 * There is no source anywhere that the "voters" spent the surplus whether you make an original research connection or not. By the way, Proposition 13 cut county and local revenue, not state revenue that came primarily from income taxes.  --Oakshade (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Oakshade here. The voters do not pass budgets, the governor and legislature do. It is conventional to say that the governor passed a budget and therefore spent funds. Hasta luego (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You can say there is no source and you can claim it is original research but it doesn't make it true. Published opinion is used through out this article and thousands of others.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show any source or "published opinion" that states the "voters" spent the state government surplus. It appears you're alone in this curious re-writing of history and California budgetary procedure opinion.--Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as Jerry Brown did not spend the the budget by himself, the voters are not to blame by themselves. I wouldn't put it that way. Prop 13 was a tax revolt that resulted from a budget surplus becuase it was not spent or refunded. Yes, if I write that that is the fault of the voter, I would be correct, but would be original research without a published claim stating it. That much is very clear. No argument from me there.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa... Prop 13 was a tax revolt that resulted from a budget surplus? I was there and no one I knew voted yes on it because there was a surplus. The surplus made us angrier sure but it's not why all my friends, family and neighbors voted for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was as well, what difference does that make? Anyway, I did find two reference books that I believe say pretty much what I stated, but are not available online. Will go through the state library system or state archives.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It gives a point a reference against the fact that your statement about the surplus being the reason is wrong. It was simply one of many reasons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not relevent to the discussion as the information is both easily referenced and already so in the body of the article. Your claim that it is wrong, is simply not valid at this point. This is not a message board or a political debate.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK...the discussion is about whether or not voters can share spending resonsibilty of the budget surplus on this article and whether the claim or opinion can be referenced. I may have over thought the research of this by not just doing a google search first. My bad for not trying the simplest thing first. Here is one reference that does basicly say the same thing: "According to the Associated Press, “The result was Proposition 13. By a landslide, angry voters statewide gave themselves a $5.3 billion, 50 percent property tax cut and limited future tax increases, placing restrictions in the state constitution that still dominate California's tax structure and policies." http://californiaworkingfamilies.com/release_details.asp?id=38 I believe this is considered a secondary source (regardlass of it being an election website it may still be a reliable source) so it couldn't be used as the reference. However the article gives enough information to use the Associated Press as the reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In the book,"State & local tax revolt: new directions for the '80s" By Dean Tipps, Lee Webb, they state:


 * "Instead of asking voters to choose between approaches to reducing property taxes, the "NO" campaign asked them to choose between the risk of reduced public services or the certainty of a substantial property tax reduction. For obvious reasons, voters chose the latter. The cloice was made easier by the state surplus." "People simply did not believe that a $6.1 billion reduction in property tax levies would have the devestating impact on essential services....."--Amadscientist (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In order for that to be an accurate source for voters sharing the blame wouldn't Prop 13 have to have said that The State MUST spend the money to make up for any local shortcomings? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your attempt to argue sematics is again not the issue. It's the reference. The second reference is certainly a much more round about way of saying what I stated but does have the basics. You cannot argue the accuracy of the source without references that counter the specific claims made in these references...and even then as long as the citation is reliable the information can be used. Point and counterpoints to the issue can and are used in an encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm your what is and what is not an issue is very confusing. Are you attempting to say that those two sources above are valid sources for the phrase "voters can share spending responsibility of the budget surplus?" I'm not sure I read it the same if that's what you are writing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fyunck. Neither of those sources indicated "voters" were responsible for spending the $5 billion surplus, but only that they knew about the surplus.  As a matter of fact, that source indicates the primary reason they voted for Proposition 13 was for " the certainty of a substantial property tax reduction." Knowing about a surplus and spending a surplus are two totally different things and you are employing original research to attempt to piecemeal fragments of an article to create a result that doesn't exist.  You have yet to supply any source that "voters" actually spent the $5 billion surplus.  So far all sources we have that indicate the $5 billion surplus was spent by either the Legislator (your own AP source!), the Governor and the Legislator, or Sacramento .  None, including your own source, say it was the "voters." --Oakshade (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not attempting to validate a phrase that I wrote here on the talk page. The discussion is about the post prop 13 clarification. Originaly, as it was written the passage in the article gave full "credit" to spending the budget surplus to Brown in the prose. The reference did not give exclusive responsibility to just Brown but to the legislature as well.....directly, BUT it also says "that had their funding cut when voters cut property taxes". I suggested that one could also reference the fact that Brown, the legislature and voters were responsible for the surplus drain. Oakshade has stated in a post above that he didn't believe any reference or source existed and when posed with the suggestion that there were and some were opinion, he asked me to produce something. I have to say that I very much appreciate his discussion on these article issues, as I know there are several different variations of what Proposition 13's purpose was, what it did, what achieved, how it effected the state etc. But the botom line is....it was an expensive tax cut approved by voters, close to the sum of 6 billion dollars in just that first intial year. That is undeniable. Tax cut cost money. Property taxes are a part of the State income. It's not a leap or original research. The suggestion that voter approval was just as responsible for the surplus drain is not new. One need only look to the reasons the SUBJECT OF THIS BIOGRAPHY was faced with and what he believed the voters wanted. Again...not original research, not a stretch and can be referenced. With all due respect to both of you but, there are other resources...other than a newspaper article from this past year.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A good deal of the sources point to the surplus as the overriding factor for Prop 13. The first source point blank says angry voters statewide gave themselves a $5.3 billion, 50 percent property tax cut. It's not a matter of agreeing with me. You don't have to, but there is clearly enough indication from the references and mentions in the article to give some responsibility to voters. Not all, not in the way it was presented back to me in my own words here, but because it's in nearly all references and I am very confused to why the two of your are figtining this. It's a fact. It can be and has been referenced. I am not narrowing down what I said to ""voters" actually spent the $5 billion surplus"....you did Oak.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * GQ: The Once-And Future?-Governor Moonbeam


 * "In an infamous 1978 referendum known as Proposition 13, voters slashed their property taxes, obliterating state revenue and emptying Brown's coffers overnight." --Amadscientist (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By the California Constitution law, the budget is drawn up and allocated by the governor, legislature and the Department of Finance. There's a very detailed description of the Ca budget process at http://www.dof.ca.gov/fisa/bag/process.htm.  Voters are not part of this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.4 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Summation of Constitutional law and legislative procedures aside...there is always another side to every issue. You cannot drop a document down, then just summerize it. But...this isn't even the point. All the documentation in the world cannot be used to shut out other valid opinions that have been around. It is valid to summarize an actual reference as closely to the text without copying it, to cite claims of varying opinion. This is not cut and dry. It is not as simple at wikipedia as "I'm right and your wrong". If someone tries to slip in bogus information it will tell in their references by the wiki standard, such as self published books and online blogs etc.. One cannot simply keep information they object to out of an article based on opinion. And that's all this amounts to. You may not like the idea, but as long as it has the proper references and correctly written nuetral prose, the only way to counter it is with the same. That is encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Amadscientist, we are fighting this because you are reading something into those sources that isn't there and we don't understand why you can't see that. First off NONE of your last three sources says anything about the surplus being the overriding factor. Source number one isn't any kind of a source, it's a Brown campaign ad, and even if it was a source it says angry voters... it doesn't say what they are angry about. Source number two sounds like a legitimate source but says nothing about the surplus being an overriding factor or that the voters are partially to blame. It says nothing about Brown's choices. Maybe they were cut the fat... no. Raise fees... no. cut services... no. Cut surplus... yes. We don't know from that source so we can't blame the voters from that source. In fact it specifically says voters were told their services would be cut drastically if they voted for prop 13 not that the surplus would be used. Your last source isn't a source either. A preface is given by Wil S. Hylton of GQ magazine just before he interviews Mr Brown. He gives no sources just his own opinion. Well who is he? He is not any kind of reliable source. Heck the tone of the interview itself from Jerry Brown says the voters were angry about being thrown out of their homes, not the surplus. In all of this I'm not saying you aren't correct. There may very well be sources that say specifically that the surplus was THE major factor (even if I believe differently), and that voters are partially to blame for the surplus evaporating. But what you have given so far are not those sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I doubt that I will be taking advise from the person who believes I should also use his personal knowledge of a situation as a point of reference for wikipedia. I also don't think you should attempt to speak in the "We". I find it telling when individuals speak as the masses in their post.


 * If you wish to relate your dispute I am all ears, but so far you have only spoken more about how wrong I am in your opinion and that has no basis here. You say a source is not a source, and that references are "invalid" but have no logic to anything we use here at wiki. A citation does not have to meet with your validation, or your opinion as to whether it is a correctly written opinion. It merely has to meet the standards of wikipedia policy and general guidlines. Our opinion as to whether or not the information being spoken of is accurate to our knowledge is not relevent. If there is a published source that can be used to varify the claim it can be used. What I fear you are attempting is to brush aside the idea that voters can be referenced as taking some responsibility for a situation by simply saying..."That is not true, I was there, I know". Wikipedia is filled with editors with that very same confilct of interest editing. You are welcome to contribute as long as you follow the rules and remain civil even against other persistent editors. Your personal experiances, feelings and memory mean little to the article. They actualy appear to stand in your way of editing this one right now, by your persistence that they are more valid then a reliable inline citation from a reputable source with editorial oversight.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow... very interesting insight into how you cherry pick your arguments. You said you can't understand the two of us fighting you. I say "we" are fighting you etc...and you turn the word "we" into me speaking for the "masses." You then bring in something written before the heavy explanations of the last several paragraphs because I believe you are in an untenable position in this argument. You'll note I haven't added anything to the article from my "personal experience" but if you think that any published source can be used at wiki to verify a claim you are going to run into a lot of problems here as you develop as an editor. It will come with time I'm sure. I've been trying to help you understand the faults in your logic, since Oakshade was having problems convincing you, but instead I see this latest post by you which can only be categorized as somewhat strange and obtuse. I think I now understand why you are having trouble understanding the two of us but I don't think anything else I can say will help you bring it into focus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please return to discussing ways to improve the article instead of further "message boarding". Your incivility towards my talk page posts have become nothing more then personal attacks now. Please step back from this situation. Perhaps you need to take a wiki break. Continuing to center your posts on this page around me personaly and attempting to state what I think is innappropriate and unwarrented. There are many editors with much more time at wiki then me, however, I am an established editor who has contributed on this site for several years. I continue to learn from each situation and grow with each contribution.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You can employ original research and piecemeal sources that don't say "voters" had spent the surplus and try to align them to show they do all you want, but the fact is voters did not and can not spend anything. The anon above citing the California Constitution show, the voters have nothing to do with deciding the budget.  The only exception would be though the initiative process.  In this case, there was the initiative Proposition 13.
 * Here is the entire text of Propostion 13.
 * If you can point out anywhere in the entire text that stipulates that surplus funds were to be spent to offset tax and revenue loss, then I'll stop objecting to you wanting to add the "voters" spent the surplus. Otherwise, it's simply factually inaccurate. --Oakshade (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not disputing what I am claiming. As it stands, your silence on the actual subject is consensus. If there is no discussion of the actual claim I am refering to there is no real dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We've been disputing your claim that "voters" (" along with voters " was your stipulation) had spent the surplus from the very beginning. And sorry, one user desiring their version of history be in an article while three established editors and one anon disagree, the one user has failed to build a consensus by any definition of the word. --Oakshade (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You can object all you want and call it original research, but the subject is not PROPOSITION 13. I did not say, nor do I have to prove that "Voters spent the budget". That is your claim. Mine is that voters can be mentioned in the prose of the article as taking some responsebility in the budget surplus being spent. This is not a document search. This is not rewriting history. It can be referenced and it can be cited, therefore it can be added. Nothing you have writen discounts my references in anyway and these are just a few. They are not all.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only do all references regarding the surplus being spent after Prop 13 discount your interpretation of your references, including the actual Proposition 13, including California constitutional law, but even your own reference which states "the Legislature" spent the surplus discounts your "references." --Oakshade (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And one other key point that you have gotten totally wrong. Property taxes are not state income. They are county and local income. That's why you pay property taxes to your county. State revenue comes primarily from state income taxes and sales taxes. When voters approved Proposition 13, they reduced county and local revenue, not state revenue. It was the governor and the legislature that choose to use the surplus to bail out the local governments - and later resulting in local governments being dependent on state funds. That's what all the sources say. --Oakshade (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Heritage
What is his ethnic hertage? Is he Irish?

98.245.170.157 (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice he has a sister named Kathleen. That can only be Irish.

98.245.170.157 (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there has never been a baby girl called Kathleen outside the Island of Irland, that is correct. Though some of us here in Germany tend to guess there may be a North American heritage - we probably will never know for sure. -- 92.231.41.28 (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Brown as California governor-elect 2010
At the time of this post, the California gubernatorial votes have not been fully reported, and as such there is no citation available to support the claim that Brown is the governor-elect. Any such edits will be reverted. Please do not add information about the victor of this election until an appropriate source has been published. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Meg Whitman conceded at 11:35. Sources are now available.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, only 50% of precincts have reported so far and the media is overly enthusiastic about this so-called "victory", same goes for the senate races. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the CA secretary of state website (http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/governor/) Brown won with 53.6% of the vote. So, if the figure it being rounded, shouldn't the wiki page say 54% instead of 53%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.188.218 (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fourth term?
Will Jerry Brown be eligible to run for a fourth term if he decided to do so?173.58.64.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC).


 * My understanding is, yes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, term limits were passed in 1990. Any elective office time before that date doesn't count for anybody, not just Brown.  Its a basic ex-post facto law situation. Trackinfo (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Brown's first two term's as governor don't count toward's the term limits. But this was written into the law because of political concerns and not because of the constitutional provision against ex post facto laws.  The courts have found that the prohibition applies to penal laws and not to administrative laws or regulations.


 * The Supreme Court has upheld retroactive taxes as well as a law banning gun ownership to people that were convicted of domestic violence at *any* time in the past (even before the law was passed).


 * The bottom line: for the most part, ex post facto only applies to *criminal* law. Hoping To Help (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They still likely included a caveat specifying it did not apply to former or current, as they did with the amendment to the costitution limiting presidential terms; they did, after all want the governor to sign it into law. 75.204.100.160 (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See note #74. 75.204.100.160 (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Rick Perry factoid"
This is not a factoid about Perry, it is a factoid about Brown; when Perry leaves office, Brown becomes longest serving, and the best way to catch that when it happens is for it to known. 75.204.100.160 (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I could reasonably see putting it lower in the article, but put it with the only comparable facts. 75.204.100.160 (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
Does this article have the correct infobox for Brown's service as governor? I thought it strange that the infobox lists the Presidents during the governor's term in office, because I did not recall seeing that in articles on other governors. It makes sense that it would not be there, as a governor does not serve "under" a president, just simultaneously. (In contrast to infoboxes for state attorneys general, lieutenant governors, etc. which generally do have the governor under whom the person served, which makes sense.) Just to make sure, I checked the articles for three current governors, Andrew Cuomo, Chris Christie and Ed Rendell and they all have infoboxes that omit any mention of who was (or is) president during their service. If I am correct, maybe it is better if someone else changes the template... I have a tendency to delete the wrong character and then the words go flying off in unscheduled directions... Neutron (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mention of father in lead section.
I agree that it is highly significant and appropriate for inclusion in the lead section. Dlabtot (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree too, but I moved the placement of the location of his birth to where I feel is the proper place.Trackinfo (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

doggerel in Governor section
In the section "Governor of California (2011–present)", the following text is visible FOR USERS WHO AREN'T LOGGED IN: "Jerry Brown likes men. Enough said "

If one is logged in, one can't see this text.

Also, if one tries to view the source text, it is not apparent where this doggerel comes from, so it must be tied to the NY Times link somehow?

Someone more competent than me can figure this out... Magnabonzo (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)  ClueBot NG fixed this. Magnabonzo (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)