Talk:Jeff Brower

Lack of WP:NPOV in recent edits

Recent edits to this article are a clear violation of NPOV. Words like "alarming" should not be used in WP articles unless someone else from a reliable source is being quoted. In addition, many of the sources cited are unreliable — the information in this article before its recent edits came from reliable sources like the Daytona Beach News-Journal. @ZebulonMorn: please address these concerns and those on your talk page before continuining to edit this and other articles about local officials. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed some NPOV content and the entire "Controversies" section for now. Hopefully there can be discussion here about re-adding only the content that's reliably sourced and relevant to an encyclopedia. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 19:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Eyer: Thanks. For the record, the editor also deleted some information which I have since re-added to the article, such as the mention of Brower and Chitwood's pro-Israel demonstration in 2023 and details of Brower's 2020 campaign. In addition, the user re-added the controversies section in the last few days, which I have removed. Where possible, I have tried to rewrite the editor's additions to reflect due weight to sides of the article.

For the record, I have no bias for or against Brower or any other elected candidate. However, I am aware that many of the claims added to this article by the editor in question come directly from the campaigns of opposition candidates. My goal is to remain as neutral as possible per WP:NPOV. In most cases this can be done simply by pointing out the claims made by both sides of a controversy. A good example of addressing both sides is the mention of the bill changing living requirements for sex offenders. This bill, passed last year, was a technical dispute that divided law enforcement officers and legal experts, but it has become politically charged due to the county chair and sherriff elections last month. The article's source in the News-Journal goes into further detail. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The "controversies" portion should be included. All work is sourced and notable to his political career. The reason cited in "view history" also included other information that was left in the article. "For now" was understandable, but what reason do we have now for not including properly sourced information relevant to his notability as a politician? ZebulonMorn (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You have improved your sourcing, but wording is still important. For example, you cited a letter submitted in a newspaper. I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on that, but that isn't the same as comments made by a journalist or even an editorial board. If any politician is criticized by a newspaper or official, it is important to state who did the criticizing and clarify why their opinion is important (who are they? who do they represent?), and good sources should provide this information.

Again, I would have to stress the importance of neutrality. However, the current state of the article with your recent edits does look much improved, particularly with regard to sourcing for details of his early career. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Quoting him specifically as "anti-growth" is exactly as described by the paper. Wiki policy requires wording to be as close to source as possible. Wiki does differentiate between journalism and commentary, however, Sheldon Gardner is a journalist, not a commentary editor, and her work is represented as fact, not opinion. For those descriptions, it should be worded as "described/characterized as....", without the need for the author if they're sourced and a journalist. Many other wiki pages describe political actions/personalities based on the wording of journalists, e.g. Donald Trump, JD Vance, Hillary Clinton. ZebulonMorn (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you're conflating two separate points. I guess I should've linked to the letter in the West Volusia Beacon, which is what I was addressing in my comment above.

As for my edit to the article regarding Gardner, I haven't removed anything. The quote is still included. I've only clarified the source of the quote. "Characterized as" begs the question "by whom?" as the term hasn't been used by a wide range of journalists. As far as I can tell, Gardner is the only person who has used the term. When that language is applied to someone like Trump, it's because there is a broad consensus across a multitude of sources to use the term, such as the following sentence:

"Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic."

Whether you agree with this personally or not, almost countless sources have characterized Trump this way, and it would be virtually impossible to list all the sources making this claim. On the other hand, the label "anti-growth" was used by one journalist in one newspaper. That doesn't mean it can't be mentioned (although there could be an WP:UNDUE argument), but if it is mentioned, the source of the claim needs to be considered. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I do feel like we definitely got off on the wrong foot and I'll say that's mostly on me. I am attempting to edit this page to genuinely contribute good and relevant information. Of course, for personal and early history, the sources are scarce, but a few sources have most of the information. After finding them, citing them wasn't hard, and you were right to question the edits. I do think it's important to include everything that's properly sourced, good or bad, and, unfortunately, mostly bad news is covered by the press. Brower is obviously a notable figure and should be included on wiki, but most of the articles written about him are negative. The Daytona Beach News Journal is the largest reliable source in Volusia County, Florida and I can provide a second source about the topic of "anti-growth": WATCH: Volusia County Chair urges more controls on growth to assuage an concerns of partiality.

As far as the Beacon article, you're right. I was mistaken. I actually think we both were, though. After further research, I found James R. Clayton is the retired Chief Jude of the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida and was contributing his opinion and endorsement. Clayton I agree, it should be rewritten as such.

Also, the edit I was referring to was the "feud", but it seems we're both fine with its current language, now? ZebulonMorn (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is another source for "anti-growth" Can Jeff Brower overcome Randy Dye's stunning cash advantage and win in November? ZebulonMorn (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

His "official title" is "Chairman", technically. [1] ZebulonMorn (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Notability

I see that a notability tag has been added to this article. I'm biased (as I created this article originally) but I do believe that the subject is notable per WP:NPOLITICIAN. Although Brower is merely a local official, that page notes that "The following are presumed to be notable: ... Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. 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 general notability guideline." However, looking at Jeff Brower#References, he has received significant press coverage. I believe that Mike Chitwood mets the notability requirement for the same reason. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)