This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
I removed a reference to strike breaking activity, and the content of article referring to it and his love of conspiracies. the reference was not a reliable one (online edited reprint of an article from Processed world, not a major source for news), and the comments on being a conspiracy buff were not sourced. he may be, but we need references to show that. And the SF Weekly will NOT count as a source, as the two papers were involved in a lawsuit, though that could be an interesting article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why SF Weekly can not serve as a source, providing the material was properly documented. Following your logic, the Village Voice could not be a source, since it is the parent company of SF Weekly; the local pubic broadcaster, KQED, cannot be a source, since Brugmann was engaged in a lawsuit with KQED; the SF Chronicle, SF Examiner, and nearly all the smaller newspapers and publications in San Francisco cannot be sources, since the Guardian has clashed with nearly all of them at one time or another; and nearly every person involved in politics, business, and the arts in San Francisco over the last thirty years can not be a source. Tgcnow (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
