Talk:Stephen Broden

Notability
Broden needs a WIKI page given that he is the challenger for a congressional seat. This is especially true with all the news articles about the incumbent. I just don't know how to use HTML so I thought the community could fix this.
 * Can you explain how the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN or another notability guideline? VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

From the WP:Politician guideline


 * 1) Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7]  Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
 * 2) Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

If you look on Google, he has received significant press coverage, and has received even more coverage since the incumbent has been in a scandal involving scholarship dollars. See http://www.google.com/search?q=stephen+broden&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=stephen%20broden&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&fp=70bfc538efc94ade —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwleu (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Broden has also been featured numerous times on national news - FOX News Channel. http://www.google.com/search?q=broad+conception&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Ens&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=stephen+broden+fox+news&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=8f5a46f34d07f133 --Michiejm (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I removed the notability tag. VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! We are still trying to make it not seem like an advertisement. I could do it more easily if I knew more about html. --Michiejm (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mind me asking, who is "we"? VQuakr (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This definitely does not fit wikipedia criteria for notability. 129.119.12.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

POV Check
I have nominated this article for POV verification; at a glance it still appears too biased in favor of the topic. In particular, the non-primary sources appear to be from conservative publications that themselves likely carry POV issues. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I toned down some of the sentences. Could you let me know which of the citations need to be replaced? When the assertion is that Broden co-founded an organization or graduated from a college, I would think that any objectively verifiable site is sufficient. I see your point if the citation goes to something more qualitative. (JWLEU)

This was not a conservative publication that I referenced when discussing his press release regarding Eddie Bernice Johnson. It was the Dallas Morning News. The only info I included was that he released a press release and then what the press released pertained to. I don't see how that is not neutral, as it pertains to his political life. (Michiejm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michiejm (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It pertains to his opponent's political life, not Broden's. Putting it in the article on Broden risks making the page look like a campaign spiel rather than an encyclopedia entry. VQuakr (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, linking to conservative websites to reference his biography to me is not biased. These websites are where most of his biography appear at this point. I am only linking to them to reference unbiased facts about his education, political history, and work background, which is what his Wiki page consists of. (Michiejm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michiejm (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

VQuakr - thank you by the way for making his picture into an info box. I was not sure how to do that. I was lucky enough to be able to figure out how to insert a picture. So, thanks, that is appreciated! (Michiejm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michiejm (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am attempting to find a new article that references him being a commentator for FOX News and Glenn Beck, instead of linking to videos as proof (which is all I could find earlier). I suppose I could link again to just a bio I've already linked to, if you'd prefer. I was only trying to use new sources. Is this one of the references you think is blatantly biased? --Michiejm (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure which bio you are talking about. In general, self published material is not a useful reference, unless written by Broden (then it is a primary source). Material published by a political action committee (or similar organization) should be used with caution, since it is likely to contain a bias. Fox News has a pretty widely accepted conservative viewpoint, but it is usually viewed as reliable though I think it would be better for the article if the source news organizations were diversified. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

VQuakr: Please let me know which citations need to be changed/what you find objectionable. I'd like to get the neutrality tag removed ASAP. Jwleu

Article much too short. He had caused controversy.
It was circulated in the news that he said the government should be overthrown. In a NPOV way, we should throw that in here. Of course, he has caused controversy. J390 (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Broden did not say that he supported a violent overthrow of the U.S. Government. If you watch the undedited interview, Brad Watson, the interviewer, repeatedly asked him what "revolution" means. He was trying to get Broden to openly advocate violence. When Broden said that the government should be changed via the ballot box, Watson edited the 15 min. interview down to 30 seconds and made it appear Broden was advocating violence. Please do not distort the facts, that's Brad Watson's job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruBlueTXn (talk • contribs) 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. It made the news. It caused lots of controversy. It's basically what he's known for. J390 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * TruBlueTXn, right now we have reliable sources that include the word "violent." Rather than just attempting to remove the paragraph, please discuss what you believe would be a neutral version here and include uninvolved, reliable sources. We want the article to be balanced, not censored. VQuakr (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

VQuakr's right. There are reliable sources use the word "violent". It's impossible to get around. The article should be NPOV, but it should not be censored. J390 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the most reliable source of all ... the raw, unedited interview. This man is not advocating violent overthrow of the government. Check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOoYq5NqQnI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.22.72 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The youtube video linked above is clearly not a "raw, unedited interview" - there are cuts. Even if the video was 10 minutes without edits, this would say nothing about Broden's statements anywhere other than in those 10 minutes. This is a reason that we rely on secondary sources for contentious material. VQuakr (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing Controversy
Broden has hooked up with Randy Short for an organization called Gone 2 Far which is spectacularly homophobic, Mr. Short is a Holocaust denier who has visited Iran and participated in anti-Semitic events. David Cary Hart (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources
A note to all editors - Wikipedia has clear rules about what are acceptable sources. For example, linking to a YouTube video as a cite for text in an article is unacceptable - Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That also rules out blogs except those published by newspapers and acknowledged experts in a particular field. (A person is an expert because of credentials, scholarly publications, etc., not because he/she is widely known or his/her website has a lot of readers.)

I've not gone through the article to remove unreliable sources - and the text that the sources support - but I strongly recommend that someone else do this. I also note that the footnotes are grossly incomplete - they should include a date and a publisher/source, as well as a url and title. (If they were complete, it might be fairly obvious which are in fact unacceptable.)

I also note that WP:BLP requires contentious information in a biography of a living person to be properly sourced, and if it is not, to be removed. This is non-negotiable; text should not be kept in the hopes that a reliable source will eventually turn up. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

African-American Alumni Association Executive Committee
There is no citation or link as to what this is. A quoted google search yields this article as the first result, his resume as the second result, and a variety of PR references to his achievements. What is the African-American Alumni Association Executive Committee? There are only 1.5 pages of google results regarding this term, and not a single one of them concerns anything but Broden's public image. Does the "African-American Alumni Association Executive Committee" exist outside of Broden's PR materials? 50.147.26.108 (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it. If can always be added back in if someone produces a reliable source for the information. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

501(c)3 data
I was the CEO of a large nonprofit (now retired). I maintain a local database of the IRS "Business Master File" which is ordinarily updated monthly (due to the shutdown it was last updated on December 10, 2018). There is no way to cite a reference for an entity that is not a 501(c)3. The other entity, having revenues under $50,000, is based on the filing requirement which, in this case, is a 990N (EPostcard) which is only available if revenues are less than $50,000. David Cary Hart (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hate crime?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umbna_0r7Cs&t=172s

"What shall we do with the homosexuals?"

I'm not sure if this is Wikipedia business or where one would build consensus to recognize and root out this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.251.16.16 (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)