Talk:Mike Brown (American football executive)

Vandalism

I have reverted every edit since October 28 due to massive vandalism and unsourced assertions. If you find your edits gone, please re-edit, but use reliable sources. Corvus cornix 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed a lot that was opinion and/or reporting events that happened to the team without any connection to Mr. Brown. Steve Dufour 03:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make any more edits to this page. There has been vandalism but the two users above erased opinion and cited fact. I put the fact back in along with the subject's editorial commenting on his own controversy. Nothing should be erased from this baseline. It is football season and many fans are emotional and will vandalize this page. The last edit left nothing on the page, you should have erased the page altogether. Steve and Corvus, your edits were poorly done and if you wish to make future edits you should first discuss them through this medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.173.186 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that they were discussed here and at WP:BLPN. Please explain how all of those personal attacks are biographic. Corvus cornix 22:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Due to the nature of this person's reclusive behavior. I have contacted the Cincinnati Bengals organization for an official biography to add to the personal information side. Everything is currently cited. The controversy list mainly refers to Mr. Brown's running of this organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerva717 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

An official biography is not a reliable source. If you want to rewrite it in your own words, then please do. But don't just revert all of those personal attacks which have little to do with a biography of this individual and more to do with the history of the team. Corvus cornix 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of Mr. Brown before; and, in fact, am not much of a football fan. However you can not tell the whole history of the team and the problems of the players in this article. It makes it look like you are saying that it is all Brown's fault. This might be partly true, but it is against WP policy concerning living persons. You can say that some people have blamed him for the team's problems, if that is cited. But you can not detail the problems themselves as has been done here. If anyone should leave the article it should be his fans and his detractors, and let those of us who are not emotionaly involved clean it up. Steve Dufour 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

An official biography can and will be used. 'Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself.Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

- The controversy articles are completely fact with no opinions except from Mike Brown himself. Mr. Brown's organization is relevant to the subject's notability. If it was not relevant the title would not be Mike Brown (Football Team Owner).

If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

- Stadium Deal: I have cited legal documents and have provided no opinion (except of the court). I provided the official complaint and court findings for this important event. This clears up any rumor on the true nature and finding from the Stadium Deal Controversy.

- Official National Football League statistics (Ownership Time line) were provided because they are relevant to the Subject's notability. As the General Manager(GM), President, Owner of a professional sports organization, Mr. Brown has an effect on the statistics produced by the team on the field, as does Marvin Lewis and the GM or Owner of any team. No Opinion is in the statistics.

- The Loyalty Clause: Much has been written concerning this clause in the contracts. So much that Mr. Brown felt it necessary to write a guest editorial piece to explain why he invented the clause and how he came to the point. I included the article to explain the Subject's point of view to help explain this controversial issue in a logical manner. It may appear to be a bias for Mr. Brown, but his logical explanation of the loyalty clause is cause for inclusion in the Subject's page not censorship.

- The players legal troubles is relevant to the Mr. Brown's, Roger Goodell's, Marvin Lewis's, and Gene Upshaw's notability, as represented on their pages. Sports media wrote on the subject and is a notable event in his time as owner, GM, and President. The way he dealt with each situation is listed next to player. No opinion was presented. I presented the facts about the event as it has and will continue to unfold as each judgment is made in court.

- The Family Run Team article should be excluded until it is further developed and provides an explanation of the issue.

Everything related to his management of the team has an effect on his notability. If being an owner, GM, and president had no relevance the hall of fame would not exist or remember owners and GMs.

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution.

NO Original Research Verifiability Neutral point of view

You are making accusations of bias but you do not argue why you believe there is bias and where it is. You are not editing this article you are censoring the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerva717 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't plan on reading a diatribe. Condense it to one or two paragraphs. However, I have re-removed all of the edits you just added because most of it belongs in the Bengals article (I have no problem with that), and the legal document is a primary source and as such is not reliable, if you can find a book, a magazine article, or a newspaper aricle which discusses the legal document, you can use that. Corvus cornix 18:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncertain if I am replying properly on the talk page, but nevertheless...I disagree that the page is "overrun with bias" but rather feel like it would probably be best served as its own page, titled "criticism of Mike Brown" or "Mike Brown controversies" in a similar vein to "Fox News Channel controversies" or "criticism of Wikipedia." Mike Brown is a newsworthy figure (I don't think that's to be disputed) and what usually keeps him in the news is criticism of his ownership. It's hard to write anything about him without touching upon that because his bio prior to assuming Bengals' ownership is scant. The "Responses to Criticism" page is meant to provide some balance, but it's hard to find defenses of the man (that's not from a cynical critic's perspective but from the perspective of someone who's gone looking for it). But if you could locate more info on his life before owning the Bengals, you could make it a shorter bio-style page with a "Mike Brown controversies" link, etc. Bmncaper (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Not to be an antagonist, but you seem to be the one adding all of the controversy to a biography page of a living person. Your edits have included removal of neutral statements and replaced by a more biased representation, even on factual information. The "response to criticism" section is full of even more criticism. The article is full of Cincinnati Bengals statistics, player problems, fan (and non-fan) opinions of the team. While all of this may or may not be attributable to Mike Brown as he is the owner and acts as the GM, is really not relevant to a biographical, neutral representation

of him. Mike Brown without the controversies may be dull subject matter, but the life of a bee may be dull also without hashing and rehashing every sting it has made. This is an encyclopedia, not an extension of a whodey revolution website used for the purpose of reaching a broader audience.

I have no problem with statement of fact, but I do question whether opinion columns of sports writers really justify inclusion as statements of fact. The fact that they said it, published it as an opinion piece, does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic page on the subject of that opinion. Seems you already know that you should have created a different page, so why don't you? Why would you expect someone else do all the work to clean up the mess? Amishlliason —Preceding undated comment was added on 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC).

Fair enough, but I'm not sure you read my point in its entirety. My point is: a) Mike Brown is a newsworthy figure, hence it makes sense to have a Wiki article for him, but b) information on him is scant besides c) all of the criticism that has come down upon him for the job he's done. The criticism is what makes him newsworthy. Do you think a Wikipedia article on Steve Bartman is going to be 2% about his involvement with a foul ball and then 98% about his life outside the foul ball that no one wants a Wiki on?

If you think my idea for making a separate section on the criticism of Mike Brown is a good one, then take it upon yourself to write the full script for the Wiki you want and I can move the content over to "Criticisms/controversies" page. Bmncaper (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I have re-written and omitted much of the entry to try to better meet the neutrality standards, in particular removing references to sportwriters since this what you cite as the most troublesome quality. Hopefully this reads cleaner. Bmncaper (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, I will eventually go through and run a complete verification on all references and remove irrelevant entries. Stadium Deal needs to be on the Bengals wiki page, not here, just as the rising costs of McDonald's french fries belongs on the McDonald's page and not the owner or CEO. Scouting does not need to be here, just as team performance is out of place here, both belong on a Bengals page. This entire article is a thinly veiled attempt at blaming Mike Brown for everything Bengals when the Bengals are a business that is headed and owned by him. His perceived ultimate say in a lot of matters is not encyclopedic on him as an idividual, but merely indicative of the operation and tendencies of the organization. There are 4 or 5 other NFL owners that act as their own GM but you don't see every move they have made sorted and presented in a persecutorial fashion on any of their wiki pages. This is the only owner page that is presented in this fashion.Amishlliason (talk) 19 February 2009

Sounds good. I will wait for the next clean-up and then I can start a separate "Controversies" and/or "Criticisms" page and link to the shorter main entry. You can provide some guidance on that when it transpires so that it reads even. Bmncaper (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the claim that talking about Brown as a general manager is not encyclopedic to him as an individual is completely debunked by court findings that he draws general manager bonuses. This implies that part of what he DOES is act as a general manager, ergo said activities are encyclopedic to him. Bmncaper (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

POV?

If this has POV issues, I sure don't see 'em. My guess is that it was fixed up and the tag just stayed behind. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC) to whom it may concern: I have long watched the under the losing coach. I am hoping you would have gotten rid him after the atrocious play off losses. Getting a new off coord will not fix this. How that coach has kept his job is beyond me other than the fact that he is black. If this guy would be white he would have gone a long time ago. I am hoping the owner Mike Brown has the B-lls to do the job , man up and get a real coach with a winning record in the playoffs. God help you to be strong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.5.110 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What does a reference to Todd Portune/picture have to do with a Biography of Mike Brown? Similarly, why is there reference to any groups opposing Bengals football management appear on his biography page? You don't see healthy food advocates detailed in a Ray Kroc biography. There's also a significant lack of judgment trying to glean facts from comments made by a football agent made during a negotiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.136.5 (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

POV issues

Hey people, I think this article unduly focuses on the negative aspects of Brown's ownership. For example, the entire philosophy section is a series of criticisms on how he has run the team. As this is a BLP, special care has to be taken to ensure neutrality, so I've nominated it to be checked for POV. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's basically the result of people depending on news media, which naturally like to complain about the guy because his teams haven't been winning. Get the article dependent on secondary sources, and we should be much better off. The section above this one suggests that it was NPOV-tagged until someone removed it; I've put the tag back. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mike Brown (American football executive)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The comment "Brown has been stubborn and slow to make changes that would seemingly make the team a winner." Appears fairly biased, certainly it is obvious that Brown has had little success, but perhaps he hasn't made the best decisions and has also been perceived as too loyal to coaches in the past. It might be worth noting that Brown was one of 2 owners that voting 'no' on the current labor agreement...which many owners are now complaining was a horrible deal.

Substituted at 01:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)