Talk:Gilroy Garlic Festival

Improvement items
Ronbo76 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A photo of the festival, i.e., the annual banner, and the traffic jam it causes would greatly improve this article.
 * An infobox with key festival data would be appropriate.


 * Added photo of the Gilroy Garlic Festival mascot from the 2010 event as the "theme" image of the article. The other photos of various food booths posted to-date lack a central subject and the viewer doesn't know on what to focus.  I've pushed them down into a gallery toward the bottom of the article.&mdash;QuicksilverT @ 08:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The article needs serious revamping: It reads like a juvenile effort from a school newspaper. In fact, it is so poorly written that it is in danger of being marked for speedy deletion. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 08:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Garlic Festivals?
It lists the views of some people being that this festival is "one of the bestgarlic festivals in the world. Isn't it the only garlic festival —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zobango (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't prove it's the only garlic festival, so no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by npapadon (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 Augist 2019 (EDT)

To be objective, when a few people are shot, it should not be called a mass-shooting
Mass-shooting tends to be a sensational propaganda term. If only a few are shot, say a few got shot. IMHO (PeacePeace (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC))


 * The introduction to the article Mass shooting, and it's citations, would seem to indicate that this event fits the description. Zaathras (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources discuss this event as a mass shooting and therefore so will we. Your personal opinion of the term as "propaganda" is not relevant here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There is nothing remotely "objective" about you and your opinions. 15 is not "a few", and even if it were, editors' opinions aren't relevant -- especially editors with blather about "epistemology" on their user page that indicates that they have no intent of adhering to Wikipedia policy, nor have any intellectual honesty: "there are two self-evident axioms which open the door to knowledge: 1) The God of the Bible exists; 2) The Bible is the Word of God" ... yeah, "self-evident". Sure, mate. -- Jibal (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)