Talk:Robert Brawley

Article as written could make for decent campaign literature. -- Jonel | Speak 01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

All items on this page are verifiable fact.


 * "Brawley always went beyond his responsibilities as a representative and used his position of leadership to help his community work together for progress." Uhm... -- Jonel | Speak 04:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

One example. In NC, it is not a legislators responsponsibility to get roads widened or paved, it is that of the NCDOT. Because approx. 90% of the roads are owned by the state, legislators are in the ideal position to lobby for their districts. Robert Brawley was responsible for pushing many roads through the system. Another example. It is not a legislators responsibility to act as a mediator between two separate school systems in his district. In the case of Mooresville and Statesville school systems he was asked for help in their disagreements and he helped them work through the problem.

If you don't accept these points, the real issue is the suspension of the entry. What needs to be changed to make it acceptable?

Also, by whose authority have you questioned the content of this entry?

If I remove the aforementioned statement, will that suffice?


 * I question the content of the entry by my own authority as a Wikipedia editor; everyone has that authority.


 * Even beyond the fact that North Carolina seems to have some fairly low expectactions of its legislators, there should definitely be third-party, reliable sources supporting any such contentions as the above. Or that "he got roads paved and widened."  Or that "he won grants..."  The article needs a thorough NPOV check, which I would do simply by removing the entire second paragraph.  However, I think there is information in it that is redeemable, so I'm going to leave it there whilst including the NPOV tag.


 * That someone "always went beyond his responsibilities" is not fact. If you can say "publication XYZ says Brawley always went beyond his responsibilities" and provide a citation for that, that would be a fact.  -- Jonel | Speak 05:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

how's that?