Talk:Sally Boynton Brown
| 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 sourced must 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big Lie in the "Controversy" Subsection
editTbh I don't understand why the following excerpt was even included in the Article, as it's a total lie:
Brown later stated that "I think that this is the issue we see with fake news. These media outlets take something completely out of context and sensationalize it, and now people across the country are sending me hate mail and thinking I'm saying something that's not true."
Brown's comments are widely available for viewing, in their "correct" context. online. I came here to this Article directly after watching Brown deliver those comments. Brown's comments speak for themselves; they do not need to be reinterpreted here in the Article, and spun into a fabricated context. She said what she said and everyone and anyone can watch and listen to what she said, and how she said it, for themselves.
This notion that "media outlets" "take something completely out of context" and "sensationalize it" might have been a viable spin 25 years ago, when mass communications were central, one-way and if you missed the original broadcast you had to wait around until you had another chance, or you had to read about what "media outlets" had to say about it. Back then, things could be "taken out of context" in newsprint, and "sensationalized". Brown's comments are a lie that was crafted for 1995 politics, and it's 25 years later. It's the CURRENT YEAR. Including this ancient artifice of politics of a bygone era only serves to diminish Wikipedia's credibility, and in exchange for that degrade, Brown's credibility is not even artificially elevated. You just browse to Youtube and watch the video. It's literally 3 button clicks away. It's not like "the truth" that Brown's statement pretends to allude to isn't somehow attainable to "just anyone". You can watch her comments, in their correct context, as they really happened, with no "sensationalization" by any invisible and nefarious "media outlets". Brown said what she said afterwards because she had to say something to try to "recover" from the total cringe of her anti-white and patronizing (to black voters) statements. Total cringe, and Brown said them. There right there for anyone and everyone to watch for themselves. Wikipedia does not need to be used as a tool for "damage control" just because some idiot politician said something stupid that had the effect of driving away political support instead of garnering it. Wikipedia is not a tool for politicians to use when they need to rewrite history, and spin it for the electorate to serve their own political ends.2605:6000:6947:AB00:7DC2:6829:634C:762D (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Broken link in infobox
editThe link to http://wethednc.org/ now directs traffic to a placeholder site. This needs to be fixed. Washuchan73 (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Since nobody else seemed interested and since the link to the site is properly dead , I fixed it myself by changing it to an archive of the site when it was active. Washuchan73 (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)