Talk:Matt Gonzalez/Archive 5

Notation style

 * Re: "Double-dates" The dates indicated are MLA style notation, used to indicate when a link was last tested.  I'm not sure what the problem is. The editor Griot may wish to familiarize himself with MLA style online notation before calling something an error. Rasax 22:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)Wikipedia does not use MLA styles. If you can find a single article in the Wikipedia that uses the MLA double-date notation, I'd like to know about it. 2)If you want to use this MLA style, you are oblilged to apply it to all the references in "External links." An editorial style has to apply to all text, not some of it. I think because you are the only person who uses this MLA style in all of the Wikipedia, you are obliged to remove these double dates and confirm with the Wikipedia style. Please clean up your article, Rasax; I'm frankly tired of arguing for a basic level of scholarshiop here. Griot 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Find me one article on Wiki besides yours that has the MLA citation style. Find just one. I dare ya. I double dare ya. Griot 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you might explain what producing an article in MLA format achieves when you've already been provided with a link to acceptable notation styles for Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is the notation style used in humanities, including historical biographies.  I wouldn't expect articles relating to the natural sciences to use anything other than what is used for each discipline, likely CBE style notation.  That means there isn't, nor should there be, a universal notation style for all articles. Rasax 22:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Find me one article -- just one -- on Wiki besides yours that has the MLA citation style. Find just one. I double dare ya. I triple dare ya. Griot 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Making an effort to show what's already permitted is an obvious waste of both of our time and effort. Rasax 23:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Find me one article -- just one itty-bitty teensy-weensy article -- on Wiki besides yours that has the MLA citation style. Find just one. I triple dare ya. I quadruple dare ya. (It's okay to be wrong now and then.) Griot 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Griot, please review Wikipedia's policy for source citations. MLA is an acceptable style.  My interest is limited to what is acceptable, not popular  Rasax 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

=Total Puff Piece= From my perspective, criticism of this article is totally justified. It is simply a puff-piece that glorifies someone who actually was more of a beneficiary of District Elections than a "signal" of a change in SF politics.

Why include his whole Mayoral campaign platform? Just link to his website.


 * It's plain to me, too. But good luck trying to get her to fix it or even acknowledge any criticism. Griot 16:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: " It is simply a puff-piece that glorifies someone who actually was more of a beneficiary of District Elections than a 'signal' of a change in SF politics." Opportunity didn't knock softly, and San Franciscans didn't feel adequately represented when the majority voted for district representation over the quid pro quo model. If that isn't change, then change has been re-defined in Orwellian terms. Rasax 18:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Orwellian terms? Kind of melodramatic, don't you think? The guy has a very legitimate criticism and you ignore it. And Ras, you broke the mould this time! "He described his father's employment with Brown & Williamson in the late '50s and early '60s as a salesman who sold 'cigarettes from the back of his car in south[ern] Texas.'" Putting aside grammar and style errors, why do you persist in denying that his father was a business executive? The family lived in Puerto Rico, Maryland, Kentucky, and New Orleans until Gonzalez was age 11. Are you suggesting that he sold cigarettes from the back of a car in those locations? Griot 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What I think shouldn't matter as much as what can be shown by verifiable, secondary sources of information to support the centrality of any Wiki article. If you have a claim about his family's history, the burden of proof is yours to meet.  Not mine.  Rasax 20:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The man could not have been selling cigarettes out of his car in Kentucky, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and New Orelans. It's that simple. This article explains where the Gonzalez family lived. It also states, "His father, Mateo Gonzalez, was a division chief for tobacco giant Brown & Williamson." Division chiefs do not sell cigarettes from the back of cars. Am I suggesting that Gonzalez may have mischaracterized his father's past in his interview to the Chronicle editorial board? Am I suggesting -- egads! -- that a politician may have equivocated with the truth? I am. And as a scholar, your job is to root out the truth behind the static. Please don't persist in this car cigarette selling hoo-hah nonsense. Griot 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "The man could not have been selling cigarettes out of his car in..." According to Gonzalez, his father began selling cigarettes from the back of his car in the late '50s or early '60s.  The Guthrie article neither supports, contradicts, nor refutes what Gonzalez said.  It's certainly possible for a corporate division chief to have begun her or his employment by selling a company's product, and you've produced nothing to suggest otherwise.  To claim Gonzalez's portrayal was a "mischaracterization" without any further proof to support it is a hasty attribution error on your part.  What seems clear enough is division chief wasn't lucrative or fulfilling enough or to dissuade him from later attempting his own import/export business. Either way, career choices his father made seem to have little relevance in an article about him. Rasax 23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Total. Puff. Piece. Griot 00:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Griot, keeping my immediate response(s) expressionless is a bit of a challenge each time you try to point out any grammatical errors or attempt to offer explanations about your endless criticism. Not only are your responses often vague enough to avoid specifics, this is coming from someone who didn't have the foggiest idea about MLA style source citations.  I'm often more than willing to offer specifics about my feedback.  Cheers.  Rasax 01:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As I already explaned to you at some length, you are the only person on Wikipedia who uses the MLA citation style. That style makes absolutely no sense in the context of live links. You external links are useless to anyone who wants to learn more about Gonzalez. You have delivered a poorly written puffpiece that is of no use to anyone. Nobody reads your article. Have you noticed that? Griot 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it seems you're struggling to convey a basic disapproval when you feel a need to clarify "puffpiece" with a link. Nonetheless, you're entitled to your view and I have no intention of taking it away from you.  It must've taken an enormous amount of time to review each and every article in Wikipedia in order to declare with any degree of certainty that absolutely no one else here uses MLA citations when, in fact, it is indicated on the reference page I provided for your convenience.  I hope to never find myself concerned with trying to force anyone to do anything they wouldn't normally want to.  If the day comes when I'm anxious about the number of people who read my written word, I hope I'll recognize it as a sign to put my keyboard down for a while and return to the world of the living.  Life's much too short in my opinion.  Rasax 20:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It's puff-piece crap like this in Wikipedia that gives it a bad name. Gonzo actually had a more privledged upbringing than Gavin Newsom, and yet Gonzo's groupies persist in drinking the kool-aid (which is a pointed attack for San Francisco, if you know what I mean). Either Gonzo is paying this character (or they share more than this person wishes to explain). And I take back what I said earlier -- he is a signal, because he personifies the decline of San Francisco and its relevance. Why do people continue to follow this jack-ass?
 * Why do you? This entire section is an unsupported POV and offers no value for talk page discussion.  Rasax 00:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

=Article edits= Intro clean up. Previous Early Years section changed to Background, and smaller subsections combined. Rasax 14:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * §1.0
 * Scare quotes removed from course. Rasax 18:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Scare quotes removed from machine politics. Rasax 03:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

¶2 - now mentions the changing political landscape when Gonzalez was elected and states campaign goals and effects. Rasax 23:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Second sentence revised to state, " Municipal elections are nonpartisan but had been dominated for decades by Democrats, and the election of a Green candidate effectively broke a the Democratic Party's monopoly on local politics." Revision sentence construction is repetitive (which party?) and left with two articles before overstating the Democratic Party for the second time. I have no problem with substituting monopoly for stranglehold and would like the editor who made the change to, at the very least, provide some explanation for the change. Rasax 17:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * §2.1
 * §2.1.1
 * Editor revised sentence structure to state "Municipal elections are nonpartisan but had been dominated for decades by Democrats, and the election of a Green candidate effectively broke the Democratic Party's monopoly on local politics." This is overstated when subject-verb is understood in the sentence construction given in the first clause. Rasax 17:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Subsection shortened to Policy Positions. Added mention of tax code position and included SF Chron's interest. Shortened some descriptions while trying to balance article length with necessary information. Shortened additional policy positions for same reasons. Simply stating the positions will give readers an idea where Gonzalez stood without having to balance them with each viewpoint. Rasax 23:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Moved Green Party Visibility below Policy Positions subsection. Rasax 23:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * §2.1.2
 * §2.1.3
 * Section revision is confusing and loses the topicality of the article. Sanchez praises the Green party for its diversity and expanding its diversity with Gonzalez's rise in the first article cited.  Cause and effect should be properly attributed when support is provided, and it is.  The re-write clouds it and needn't.  Rasax 03:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph one, first sentence. Revision states: "In 2003, Gonzalez ran for mayor of San Francisco, and lost in a close race." True, but not topical. This revision is weak because neither the section nor paragraph is about Gonzalez losing, but the local reaction, and it was highly publicized as originally stated. Readers know from the article's intro paragraph and from this one's conclusion that Newsom won and by how much. Stating it over and over is unnecessary and repetitive, and comes off as schadenfreude, not objectivity. Rasax 02:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * §2.2
 * Paragraph one, second sentence. I have no problem with mentioning the writer's biases and am fine with the addition.  However, I find the need to include campaign with supporters jumping the gun a bit since local reaction was a preface to the campaign. Rasax 02:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Paragraph three, second sentence. "Gonzalez was endorsed by several key local Democrats and local Democratic organizations.."  Comma added and local needn't be mentioned twice.  Readers are already given the idea fom the sentence construction.  Rasax 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Claims of a Democrat-Republican Alliance section added back. Wikipedia's policy for using online sources cited as support for section inclusion. Rasax 04:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Works Cited section, previously listed as References. Changed to Works cited as per notation style. Also, see Wiki section regarding MLA style.
 * §2.2.1
 * §4.0

=Total Puff Piece (Duplicate section, see talk page §5.0)= From my perspective, criticism of this article is totally justified. It is simply a puff-piece that glorifies someone who actually was more of a beneficiary of District Elections than a "signal" of a change in SF politics.

Why include his whole Mayoral campaign platform? Just link to his website.


 * It's plain to me, too. But good luck trying to get her to fix it or even acknowledge any criticism. Griot 16:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: " It is simply a puff-piece that glorifies someone who actually was more of a beneficiary of District Elections than a 'signal' of a change in SF politics." Opportunity didn't knock softly, and San Franciscans didn't feel adequately represented when the majority voted for district representation over the quid pro quo model. If that isn't change, then change has been re-defined in Orwellian terms. Rasax 18:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Orwellian terms? Kind of melodramatic, don't you think? The guy has a very legitimate criticism and you ignore it. And Ras, you broke the mould this time! "He described his father's employment with Brown & Williamson in the late '50s and early '60s as a salesman who sold 'cigarettes from the back of his car in south[ern] Texas.'" Putting aside grammar and style errors, why do you persist in denying that his father was a business executive? The family lived in Puerto Rico, Maryland, Kentucky, and New Orleans until Gonzalez was age 11. Are you suggesting that he sold cigarettes from the back of a car in those locations? Griot 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What I think shouldn't matter as much as what can be shown by verifiable, secondary sources of information to support the centrality of any Wiki article. If you have a claim about his family's history, the burden of proof is yours to meet.  Not mine.  Rasax 20:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The man could not have been selling cigarettes out of his car in Kentucky, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and New Orelans. It's that simple. This article explains where the Gonzalez family lived. It also states, "His father, Mateo Gonzalez, was a division chief for tobacco giant Brown & Williamson." Division chiefs do not sell cigarettes from the back of cars. Am I suggesting that Gonzalez may have mischaracterized his father's past in his interview to the Chronicle editorial board? Am I suggesting -- egads! -- that a politician may have equivocated with the truth? I am. And as a scholar, your job is to root out the truth behind the static. Please don't persist in this car cigarette selling hoo-hah nonsense. Griot 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "The man could not have been selling cigarettes out of his car in..." According to Gonzalez, his father began selling cigarettes from the back of his car in the late '50s or early '60s [see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?m=/g/av/movies/2003/12/04/gonzalez_segment_06.mp4&f=/g/a/2003/12/04/gonzalezivu.DTL].  The Guthrie article neither supports, contradicts, nor refutes what Gonzalez said.  It's certainly possible for a corporate division chief to have begun her or his employment by selling a company's product, and you've produced nothing to suggest otherwise.  To claim Gonzalez's portrayal was a "mischaracterization" without any further proof to support it is a hasty attribution error on your part.  What seems clear enough is division chief wasn't lucrative or fulfilling enough or to dissuade him from later attempting his own import/export business. Either way, career choices his father made seem to have little relevance in an article about him. Rasax 23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Total. Puff. Piece. Griot 00:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Griot, keeping my immediate response(s) expressionless is a bit of a challenge each time you try to point out any grammatical errors or attempt to offer explanations about your endless criticism. Not only are your responses often vague enough to avoid specifics, this is coming from someone who didn't have the foggiest idea about MLA style source citations.  I'm often more than willing to offer specifics about my feedback.  Cheers.  Rasax 01:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As I already explaned to you at some length, you are the only person on Wikipedia who uses the MLA citation style. That style makes absolutely no sense in the context of live links. You external links are useless to anyone who wants to learn more about Gonzalez. You have delivered a poorly written puffpiece that is of no use to anyone. Nobody reads your article. Have you noticed that? Griot 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it seems you're struggling to convey a basic disapproval when you feel a need to clarify "puffpiece" with a link. Nonetheless, you're entitled to your view and I have no intention of taking it away from you.  It must've taken an enormous amount of time to review each and every article in Wikipedia in order to declare with any degree of certainty that absolutely no one else here uses MLA citations when, in fact, it is indicated on the reference page I provided for your convenience.  I hope to never find myself concerned with trying to force anyone to do anything they wouldn't normally want to.  If the day comes when I'm anxious about the number of people who read my written word, I hope I'll recognize it as a sign to put my keyboard down for a while and return to the world of the living.  Life's much too short in my opinion.  Rasax 20:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Find me one article on Wiki besides yours that has the MLA citation style. Find just one. I dare ya. I double dare ya. Griot 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you might explain what producing an article in MLA format achieves when you've already been provided with a link to acceptable notation styles for Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is the notation style used in humanities, including historical biographies.  I wouldn't expect articles relating to the natural sciences to use anything other than what is used for each discipline, likely CBE style notation.  That means there isn't, nor should there be, a universal notation style for all articles. Rasax 22:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Find me one article -- just one -- on Wiki besides yours that has the MLA citation style. Find just one. I double dare ya. I triple dare ya. Griot 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Making an effort to show what's already permitted is an obvious waste of both of our time and effort. Rasax 23:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Find me one article -- just one itty-bitty teensy-weensy article -- on Wiki besides yours that has the MLA citation style. Find just one. I triple dare ya. I quadruple dare ya. (It's okay to be wrong now and then.) Griot 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It's puff-piece crap like this in Wikipedia that gives it a bad name. Gonzo actually had a more privledged upbringing than Gavin Newsom, and yet Gonzo's groupies persist in drinking the kool-aid (which is a pointed attack for San Francisco, if you know what I mean). Either Gonzo is paying this character (or they share more than this person wishes to explain). And I take back what I said earlier -- he is a signal, because he personifies the decline of San Francisco and its relevance. Why do people continue to follow this jack-ass?

Previous article
This template states the neutrality and factual accuracy of the main article are in dispute and discussion offered on the talk pages. A dispute over neutrality implies an unreasonable bias, and factual inaccuracies are distortions of events. How the editor believes the main article is either biased or factually incorrect is unclear. The editor responsible for the template offers a list of ambiguous reasons, stating: “As regards the Clean Up notice, the sprawling, poorly written article on the Article page is filled with factual errors and is weighed down with POVs, editorializing, unneeded detail...” Rasax 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy regarding neutrality is stated as follows, "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted." It isn't clear how the editor believes the main article violates this policy. Rasax 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweeping generalizations do not identify a problem and are not helpful. What are the factual errors in the main article? Where is it “weighed down with POVs”? The editor should provide an explanation and cite specific examples for maintaining the template or remove it. Rasax 22:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments relating to cleanup put into appropriate subsection. Rasax 03:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous comments archived for talk page cleanup. Rasax 00:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

May archive
5. Section 2.2. Intro


 * Opening is contradictory and misleading. “In 2003, Gonzalez ran for Mayor of San Francisco, in a bid to replace outgoing two-term mayor Willie Brown. Gonzalez challenged Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and another member of the Board of Supervisors.”’  The second makes two erroneous assumptions and misleads readers.  First, Gonzalez exclusively challenged Newsom when, in fact, there were a slew of candidates.  Readers are not given this information until several paragraphs later, and after an initial bias is left unchallenged.  Secondly, mayors in San Francisco are hand-picked by an incumbent, though I’m inclined to agree Emperor Willie probably thought so.  Framing the discussion this way also fails Wikipedia's undue weight policy because it assumes a majority view.  The policy states: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."


 * I think "In 2003, Gonzalez ran for Mayor of San Francisco, in a bid to replace outgoing two-term mayor Willie Brown. Gonzalez challenged Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and another member of the Board of Supervisors" is merely a summary sentence to describe the final phase of the mayoral election, on December 9. Brown couldn't run again so I'm not sure what's wrong with saying "bid to replace" him.  I'm not seeing anything about anyone being "handpicked."  (But I'm glad you are able to keep your POV statements like "Emperor Willie" to the Talk page).  I added a clause clarifying that he faced Newsom in the run-off election on December 9.  Since they were the only two people on the ballot in that election, which determined the winner of the mayoral election, I'll assume this is non-controversial now.  Moncrief 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The re-write clearly ignores the reported effect of Gonzalez's candidacy and shifts the focus to the Democrat Party. Gonzalez's bio shouldn't have to sacrifice his personal details for an off-topic subject.  Secondly, framing the sentence to state "Gonzalez challenged Newsom" conveys the idea that it was all Newsom's and big, bad Matt tried to take it away from him.  Becoming mayor is earned with voter approval, not nepotism.  And, I m glad you're glad I make no apologies for my views and am not about to.  My points remain valid with and without my biases about Willie's two-term ego trip.  At the very least, I'm honest enough to recognize my biases without feeling compelled to re-write the bio's of people I'm not crazy about and pawn it off as "objectivity."  Then again, life's too short in my opinion and I value my time.  Rasax 17:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just tell us how you'd like the sentence to be instead. I can't figure it out.  Why not offer your proposed text?  Moncrief 17:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have. If you'll remember, it was re-written without so-much as a discussion, and my invitation refused.  Beyond suggestions limited in scope to what's been re-written and framed, it isn't clear what I'm expected to offer at this point.  Rasax 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Intro re-write now fine as far as NPOV is concerned in my opinion. Will move from NPOV list to cleanup. Rasax 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

6. Section 2.2, third sentence. “Gonzalez's bid to make San Francisco the first major American city with a Green Party mayor attracted national and international media coverage.”
 * Gonzalez’s candidacy wasn’t a bid to “make San Francisco the first major American city with a Green Party mayor.” The re-write injects a bias that didn’t exist in the previous description and misleads readers by assuming this was his only reason for running.  It wasn’t.  A similar claim was made by Juanita Owens during the run-off campaign for district supervisor (included in the previous article and now omitted), and Gonzalez won.
 * How would you like to rephrase it? What about "Gonzalez's mayoral bid attracted national and international...."?  Good?  Moncrief 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore the run-on sentence, omissions, and address my biggest concern at the moment - the framing. Gonzalez's candidacy wasn't about making SF "the first major city with a Green mayor." That's the author's take and its biased.  One would have to be at the airport when the ship was at the loading dock in order to write-off Gonzalez's entire campaign and make it about his party affiliation. Perhaps that wasn't the intention but it comes across that way when included as part of the section's intro.  If his campaign were truly about advancing the party above the public interest, it's unlikely his campaign would've done as well as it did in a municipality largely comprised of Democrats. Rasax 02:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision article
15 May 2005. Article is a whitewash. Key facts and opinions are omitted or re-written with systematic biases. 1. Section 1, paragraph 5, second sentence: “His father was a division chief for the international tobacco company Brown & Williamson.”’ (See below Talk:Matt_Gonzalez) Kaisershatner 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The sentence makes a statement of fact contradicted by Gonzalez three days earlier in an interview with the paper’s editorial board. The statement was based entirely on one article without additional support.  Wikipedia policy offers some help for identifying neutral points of view (NPOV) contradictions, stating, “[an] article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts.” Furthermore, it recommends describing the controversy instead of taking sides.  The previous article allowed the reader to draw her or his own conclusion after seeing what the SF Chronicle alluded to in its article, and Gonzalez’s own characterization.  The revision uses the Chron’s POV as a statement of fact, and recycles it in Section 3.
 * 16 May 2006. 11:45 (PST).  Kaiserhatner, the article source you'd mentioned is linked here.  I agree - Gonzalez's interview neither confirms nor directly refutes the Guthrie article in the SF Chron but selling cigarettes from a car is a stretch from division chief; an obvious disparity.  The point I was making was related to another claim made by the paper's editorial board about his father owning a maquiladora factory, and Gonzalez attributed the error to one editor not having the Knight-Ridder story right.  I agree the differences are probably best stated as is to keep any potential liability risk to a minimum and a lone burden for the SF Chron to carry until this is shown to be true or false.  Rasax 18:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Previous article
This template suggests a cleanup may be required when a rationale is offered on the talk page. A laundry list of the editor’s own POVs isn’t a rationale, but an opinion. The editor should provide a rationale and cite specific examples to support it or remove the template. Rasax 22:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Where to start? How about if you begin by fixing the numerous dead links? And spell Hallinan's name correctly? You could wiki him while you're at it.


 * A good start is the confusing nature of the criticism offered. As a test, the article's first ten links are working as intended.  The double r in Hallinan's first name is a minor error anyone can correct and doesn't warrant the need for a cleanup template. Rasax 00:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One need only look at the article to see how sloppy and unworthy of the Wikipedia it is. Text is underlined for no reason. Eighty percent of the citations are to one place -- the SF Bay Guardian. Grammatical errors are legion. Please clean it up.


 * Would you mind being more specific about the article and less editorial? Thanks.  Rasax 20:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * More specific? I've been quite specific. Please fix these errors. Griot 20:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, more specific. It's unclear which links you believe don't work or what "errors" exist in the text .  Emphasis added.  Rasax 00:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "One need only look at the article to see how sloppy and unworthy of the Wikipedia it is." This is your own POV and you have not offered any grounds to support it.  Either support your claim or remove the template.  Rasax 00:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I found 21 dead links. Please fix them. The misspelling of Hallinan's name is typical of the numerous misspellings. Please fix them.


 * Previous comments archived. Please see Archive 3 under the cleanup section.  Links have been tested, results noted, and indicated in article's notation.  Likewise, Hallinan's name was fixed and noted.  Numerous misspellings?  Would you be more specific?  Unless you can cite reasons for the cleanup template, it should be removed.  My request is noted.  Rasax 00:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 24 April 2006, 14:00 PST. Cleanup template removed.  All concerns about the main article's quality have been addressed and cited on the talk pages clean up section and archives.  No additional concerns have been raised since February 2006.  Rasax 20:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I believe that the numerous spelling errors, grammar errors, and style inconsistencies still warrant a "Clean Up" notice. I would work on a cleanup, but my suggestions are always dismissed outright. I am hoping that a third person comes along to critizque this article and clean it up without prejudice. Griot

The editor must be able to answer these questions and show what factual errors exist and where the article is weighed down with POVs. Templates cannot be arbitrarily placed and must offer a supporting rationale or be removed. I will offer the editor the duration of the week to provide a supporting rationale. If none is offered, the template will be removed on Friday, April 28. Rasax 21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Beliefs aside, please list these "numerous" spelling, grammar, and style errors to warrant the template. According to wikipedia's help pages, these templates cannot be arbitrarily placed without offering an explanation on the article's talk pages.  You've neither cited any specific issues nor offered any comment about the article's cleanup since February.  Simply stating you believe x, y, and z exist without qualifying it is an unsupported opinion.  Templates require more than weasel words and fallacious reasoning to support them.  Unless you can support your claims, the template(s) should be removed. Rasax 21:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 24 April 2006, 14:30 PST. I will offer the editor the durartion of the week to provide specific reasons to warrant the template.  If no reasons are offered, I see no reason for it to remain and will remove it on Friday, April 28. Rasax 21:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro, paragraph I
For the cleanup, let's start with paragraph 1 and work our way down. What does "As a visible Green, Gonzalez helped expand the party's local base and elect other Green Party candidates to public office" mean. What is a visible Green? Are some Greens invisible? Griot 23:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 1: "The editor must be able to answer..."? Am I your editor now? Have you so successfully excluded me from the main article that I can now only act in the capacity of editor? Usually I charge for my editing services, but I'm going to do you a favor. I've noticed with pleasure that you've pulled material from the article on the Discussion page and folded it into the article on the main page. You strenuously objected to some of this material in months past, but now you're using it. That's splendid. For the cleanup, let's start with paragraph 1 and work our way down. What does "As a visible Green, Gonzalez helped expand the party's local base and elect other Green Party candidates to public office" mean. What is a visible Green? Are some Greens invisible? Griot 23:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course not. Public figures tend to be more visible.  This part of the intro is qualified in the text and shouldn't be confusing for anyone who follows it.  An article's opening paragraph is required to give a reader a brief idea or summary of what it's about as long as it's qualified at some point, and it is. Rasax 20:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 27 April 2006, 6:30 PST.  Perhaps the following change is more to your liking, Griot.  From: "As a visible Green, Gonzalez helped expand the party's local base and elect other Green Party candidates to public office", To: "...who helped expand the party's local base and candidates get elected." Rasax 13:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

More Paragaph 1: Thanks for cleaning up the "visible Green" in paragraph 1. There's another grammatical error in paragraph 1 that I must call your attention to as regards the Clean Up notice. The parallel construction is lost in this sentence: "He was the first Green Party candidate elected to local public office, and regarded as a progressive reformer who helped expand the party's local base and candidates get elected." To understand why this sentence is not grammatically correct, try breaking it into three: "He was the first Green Party candidate elected to public office." "(He was) regarded as a progressive reformer who helped expand the party's local base." "(He was) a progressive reformer who helped expand the party's local base and (who helped) candidates get elected." The parallel construction is lost in the sentence, most notably when the implied "who helped" appears in the third part. Please fix this sentence. I also think you should reconsider "who helped candidates get elected," since many people won't assume you are referring to Green Party candidates, and "helping candidates get elected" is no great feat, unless of course they are Green, as that party's candidates don't get elected very often." Griot 04:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 30 April 2006, 6:00 PST. Griot, I re-structured the intro and perhaps you'll find the changes more preferable.  Rasax 13:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * More Paragraph 1: This sentence still needs work: "His legislative record includes campaign and election reforms, increased government transparency, environmental advocacy, and defending disenfranchised populations." "Legislative" refers to the making of laws, and you can't pass a law that advocates anything. Laws do; they don't advocate. Therefore, "His legislative record includes...environmental advocacy" doesn't make sense. You should rewrite this. Also, you misspelled "alternative." And I think you should get away from the adjective "visible" and the noun "visibility." These are buzz words among political consultants, but are not known to the general reader. One last thing: The implied "was" in the second sentence is a little awkward: "He was the first Green Party candidate elected to local public office and (was) regarded as a progressive reformer." Maybe you should include the word "was" and not rely on the reader to supply it. Griot 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

2 May 2006, 7:00 PST. Griot, it looks as if you’ve raised four concerns about the first paragraph and I will address each one separately. I have reservations about getting into pedantic discussions over grammar or defintions and generally don’t. In my experience, it turns into endless caterwauling over differences of opinion when checking with a reputable, authoritative source is a more efficient use of time. Authoritative sources help filter out suspected errors from actual ones. I’ve noticed resolve tends to happen more quickly when problems are clearly identified and the chest beating kept to a minimum. And, it’s not as if getting to the heart of factual discussions isn’t time consuming enough.

Because you tagged the article with a cleanup template, I’m assuming in good faith your objections are genuine, limited to syntax (not to be confused with sin tax), and you value your time as much as I do mine. In return, I ask that you first confirm future grammar or definition concerns before stating them. I believe owning the weight of our comments and criticism is a reasonable burden to ask from other participants. It requires us to remain mindful of the effort it takes to contribute to an article and prevents frivolous claims from usurping genuine efforts at improvement. Your efforts and cooperation will be offered in return. Thanks. Rasax 14:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Re: legislative record, opening paragraph

To best respond to your comments, I’ll focus two key areas: definition and use.

Leislative does indeed refer to making law. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary takes it a step further and defines it in broader terms with “having the power or performing the function of legislating.” Voting is an action or verb, and how one votes is a description or adjective. The “ive” after legislate makes it an adjective. As an adjective, legislative desribes the noun record and gives readers a clear idea about which record is being written about; a vital distinction in the intro.

Assuming you’re fine with Webster’s definition and on board with the grammar, I’ll offer an explanation about its use.

A legislator’s voting record is a testament of her or his policy positions, and the actions of a bill can and often do reflect the values of its author(s). Having the power to legislate certainly doesn’t mean all legislation will be passed, and a voting record can still be described as legislative without it.. For example, a legislator can advocate for a cleaner environment and vote against a bill lowering fuel effiency standards. A vote is the resulting action described by the process. Gonzalez voted to reduce the number of gas-powered Muni busses, supported public power in part to bring municipal control over the Bayview power plant and close it down, and sought to restrict the number of cars in Golden Gate park on weekends; all of which could reasonably be considered in favor of the environment. Given the definitions and subsequent explanation, including environmental advocacy would be a true statement. Perhaps substituting environmental protections for advocacy would be preferable. I'll try it. Let me know what you think.

Typo corrected. Alteratively, Rasax.
 * 2. Re: alternative, opening paragraph

You state visible and visibilty are “buzz words among political consultants, but are not known to the general reader.” It’s unclear what your disagreement with the statement is about. The word visibility is neither an acronym, code word, nor figure of speech. It is found in Merriam-Webster and the definition fits the introduction. “Political figures are visible” is a true statement, and claiming they are more visible than the average citizen is reasonable with support. The intro’s statement describes how Gonzalez used his and supported by the article’s content. I’m inclined to agree with a need for removing confusing words and sweeping statements but the context visibility was used in isn’t ambiguous or over generalized.
 * 3. Re: visibility, opening paragraph


 * 4. Re: was, opening paragraph

You’d mentioned the sentence in question was akward because not including “was” a second time relies “on the reader to supply it,” right? What’s the basis for your view? It was written using the past tense, starting with “he was.” As a general rule, sentences written in the past tense needn’t state it each time because the subject-verb agreement is understood from the structure. Overstating a tense is unnecessary and tends to make sentences choppy, faulty, and confusing.

"According to the Chronicle, his father was...."
I removed this unnecessary qualifier. The San Francisco Chronicle is a high-circulation newspaper, read by hundreds of thousands of people, and it did not issue a retraction at any time for its assertion that Mateo Gonzalez was a division chief for B&W. I think it's reasonable to note that if that information was erroneous in any way, Gonzalez or those who know him would have contacted the Chronicle, which would have issued a retraction. It was published in an article before a highly-publicized election. If we are meant to take the information from the various websites referenced here on faith as being accurate, I believe Rasax will agree that the Chronicle had its facts correct in this case and that adding "According to the Chron," as if somehow it might not be objectively true, is unnecessary. Unless of course we want to add "According to" in front of every sourced statement here. Note that Gonzalez, in his discussion with the editorial board, did not deny that his father was a division chief. He simply said that his father sold cigarettes from the back of a car in the 50s or 60s (Gonzalez was born in 1965), which of course does not preclude his father from later rising to the position of B&W division chief. Moncrief 23:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi, I drifted in from Peer review. To me it seems like the first step in major improvements to this article is to make factually verifiable statements supported by appropriate references. I would also recommend converting to footnote style as this enables "unpacking" of the citation. Rather than seeing [8] and having to go to the external link, readers can click the fn and see the detailed source information (eg, Frank J. Liberal, The Chronicle, 2003). This will also help with neutrality as it will be more clear who is making each particular "factual" claim. As it stands, many of the references don't actually pertain to the sentences they purport to explain. I will try to fix this, slowly and clearly, if that's ok. Kaisershatner 16:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. Thanks for your help in this article. Griot 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fantastic. Thank you so much. Moncrief 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Superb edits, Kaisershatner. Thank you again.  What do you think about the "Works Cited" section?  Curious for your thoughts.  Moncrief 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow! What an improvement a few days of work makes!  This article is in pretty great shape now, other than the sourcing issues that are still being worked on.  I think we can consider removing the clean-up notice.  Maybe not right away, but soon.  Moncrief 21:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for your feedback. The "Works Cited" section: in my view the articles that are already cited in the footnotes should be removed from this section if any are in there.  The other articles, if notable, should be moved into an "External Links" section, and we should make an effort to decrease the hyperlinked text.  Something like this is really rather a lot of text in blue especially as a list of 50 articles, but if instead you use the style "something like this is rather a lot to make all blue San Francisco Chronicle October 11, 1763." it looks better IMO.  Kaisershatner 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, who is disputing NPOV and why? or can we strike that template too? Kaisershatner 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Griot can speak to that better than I can perhaps because he's(right? Sorry if it's she) spent longer on here than I have, but there have been pervasive POV issues, many of which were debated (and debated) above. A lot of it has been moderated in the last days' edits though - including a disputed section on an "alliance" that's since been removed.  Well, I'll let Griot (or whomever added that template) speak to this matter.  Moncrief

Just superb work. Thank you so much, Kaisershatner. One quick thing: I noticed the reference for this quote in the Background section "Matthew Eduardo Gonzalez was born in the border town of McAllen, Texas, in the Rio Grande Valley, but spent his first five years in San Juan, Puerto Rico. His father was a division chief for the international tobacco company Brown & Williamson. Besides San Juan, job transfers took the Gonzalezes to New Orleans, Maryland, and Kentucky, before the family returned to McAllen when Gonzalez was eleven years old" was removed. It was from the SF Chronicle article from December 2003, found on sfgate.com. I can locate it again and reinsert if you don't have time, but I'm not a pro with the new-and-improved citations (though I have to learn how to do them at some point).

Anyway, thank you!! Moncrief 17:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Tobacco redux
Hi, User:Rasax left a note on my user page and I have a new view of this tobacco exec claim. I don't think it's impossible that the SF Chron got it wrong (although I doubt it). I can't find other sources that corroborate this. I also agree w/the above comments, however, that if they had libelled him in this way, he would have objected to it forcefully (also noting that sometimes in politics it's better to ignore rather than respond to this kind of thing). The Gonzalez bio sources don't actually contradict the Brown & Williamson claim, and in his interview he doesn't either - he has his own story. Until corroborating sources are found, though, I think it's reasonable to include a qualifier such as "the SFC reported his father was an exec..." etc. Kaisershatner 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with the "selling cigarettes out of his car" scenario is that he obviously wasn't doing that if his job took him to Kentucky, New Orleans, Puerto Rico, etc. Moving around this way is typical of executives. Gonzalez calls his father a "tobacco salesman" in this interview: Interviewer: If you had never dropped into politics and never had anything to do with law, what would you have gone into? Gonzalez: I’d have been a tobacco salesman like my father, maybe. I don’t know. Griot 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Gonzalez has never denied his father being a salesman, and sales is a stretch to division chief. In fact, in the video interview with the SF Chron's editorial board he states: "My father, um, when I was growing up, worked for a tobacco company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco.  He started in the late '50s or early '60s selling cigarettes out of his car in south Texas.  Um, he did that for a long time and then later...started a sort of retail business, uh, and also kind of doing imports/exports with medical and dental supplies..."  No where does his statement support your contention, Griot. Even adding the quote you've provided doesn't make the jump from sales to division chief.  The Guthrie article may meet your satisfaction but the dubious nature of the source may not be enough to prevent liability problems with Wikipedia later on.  Rasax 19:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kaiserhatner. I just saw your comments down here after having responded to an earlier msg above. My apologies for any confusion. Rasax 18:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you both have valid points here that are basically irreconcilable. To me it seems likely that the moving around, the Chronicle's assertion, and Gonzalez's failure to contradict this claim, and Gonzalez's vested interest in not appearing to be the scion of a tobacco company exec all point to the claim being valid.  But right now the Chronicle is the only source, and Gonzalez is on record stating his own (not incompatible) view of his father's work.  To me the solution is to state (1) the family moved around - which is not disputed, (2) Gonzalez says his father sold cigs out of the car - which we can prove he said, and (3) the SF Chron stated Gonzalez pere was an exec with B&W - which they did state.  That's all indisputably true, and leaves the reader to interpret these facts however they want.  If later on someone can find a source that either proves the Chronicle is right or proves they were wrong, that would be wonderful.  Until then, I just don't see enough objective evidence to make a more forceful claim. That's just my view. Kaisershatner 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and calling him a "division chief" is a pretty specific claim. I really doubt they would make that up without some evidence somewhere, but let's find it, ok?Kaisershatner 19:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It may seem so, Kaiserhatner, but the SF Chron isn't above question and the threshold for liability varies from region to region. The problem centers around satisfying the claim that his father was a division chief when there is only brief mention in one article around election time.  Perhaps Gonzalez will challenge it later if he makes a political come back, and perhaps not.  We know from several verifiable, secondary sources who his father worked for.  We know he did sales.  What remains is making the SF Chron's claims true, and I don't see that as Wikipedia's burden to satisfy, and without knowing for sure, it creates a liability problem.  Rasax 19:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kaiserhatner and I like the way it's written now. Readers can decide for themselves whether to go with the Chronicle's characterization of Gonzaalez's father's work, or Gonzalez's own "selling cigarettes out of a car trunk" description. There is no question that he worked for Brown & Williamson, so that name should remain. Until we can find out in exactly what capacity he worked for B&W, we should leave it as written. The Chronicle is a major American newspaper with journalistic standards, and I see no reason to doubt its claim. Griot 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This was all included in the previous article, and how your re-write improves the article isn't clear. Secondly, there isn't a need to qualify a decade like the '50s with 19--, particularly if it's a direct quote, and it is.  Rasax 20:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as journalistic standards are concerned, writers must remain mindful that biases exist. The SF Chron's parent company had a financial interest for opposing Gonzalez, who challenged their lawsuit against SF.  Rasax 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a separate issue. The article is where it is now, and I was one of the rewriters.  Let's keep discussing any major changes please.  And I would add that there is absolutely no legal issue at all in citing the SFC's statement in the Guthrie column.  It's a fact that they printed it, and that's all we're claiming. Kaisershatner 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see the main article's been changed from “His father was a division chief for the international tobacco company Brown & Williamson," which was one of the issues I raised when I cited my NPOV concerns. Rasax 20:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If his father hadn't been a division chief for B&W, I can absolutely guarantee you that, just before the mayoral election, when that article ran, that someone -- either Gonzalez or his family or his staff -- would have notified the Chronicle that they had it wrong, and that the Chronicle would have had to run a retraction, which would still be placed on the article today. Why is it so offensive that his dad was a bigshot at B&W?  Whatever his dad did doesn't reflect on the son.  There are lots of noble people whose fathers did freakier stuff than working as a tobacco executive.  Throughout this article, we are asked to take at face value information that is sourced from minor websites that don't even pretend to be non-partisan or objective, and I think it's frankly hilarious that all that is presented as NPOV truth but we aren't supposed to take at face value a non-retracted assertion in a Top 20 newspaper.  The compromise is fine with me though (though it is expressely not a "column" in the SFC. It's a full-length article/profile).  This silliness is more funny at this point than anything else -- the extent to which someone wants to go to ensure Gonzalez isn't seen as the son of a tobacco executive, for whatever reason.  Moncrief 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot reasonably guarantee what anyone else would do or advance your discussion by attempting to speak for other people. I'll agree what someone's parents do or don't do isn't necessarily a reflection of an individual and it has little to do with this discussion.  Wikipedia has made very clear their expectation about the accuracy of biographical information [about living individuals], stating "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references — particularly about details of personal lives. All unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page."  That means biographical information isn't up for negotiation as it is verification.  Please review the policy.  Rasax 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

9. Revision article proponents have not offered any reasonable evidence that the previous article needed changing.
 * Again, Wikipedia policy requires third-party sources to avoid the perception of malicious editing, stating "Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing a point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Rasax 18:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Point made. Let's see where this goes, and I'll reserve my judgement as a show of good faith.  Rasax 15:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
This article is just horribly written. I won't even get much into its POV political biases, which are manifold, but rather I'll stick with pointing out that it appears to be written at about a tenth-grade level. There is very little sentence combining, almost no sense of style or fluidity of voice. The chronology of events is unclear. Years in which events occurred are omitted.

It is also unclear why there are dates in April 2006 at the end of the "Works cited" section (a template outdated even for academic papers, and completely unseen elsewhere in Wikipedia) at the end. Are these meant to be the dates the websites were accessed? Did it occur to the person who included that list of references to maybe add the word "Accessed" so that people know why there are seemingly random dates (written, inexplicably, in British date format) at the end of each reference?

That terms like "stranglehold on politics" (in reference to the Democratic Party, instead of a less POV and more neutrally descriptive term like "monopoly") have been allowed to survive in an article that appears to have been contentious and widely-looked-at gives a sense, I suppose, of the adamance of certain editors here. Has this article been submitted for peer review? I think I will do so. It is so ripe for some outside review. The article is just awful, one of Wikipedia's worst. Moncrief 13:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for your comments. I find it ironic when constructive criticism is well-intended but incorrect, and suspicious when it's destructive. Your edits have now made the main article appear written at the tenth grade level you say it is. Please see the appropriate talk pages section for the notation style used, discussion about grammar, and edits made.

And, if monopoly seems less contentious than stranglehold it is no less aggressive when absolute control comes at all cost. Rasax 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are going to have to be more specific. How did my changes weaken the article?  Please point to one or more examples.  Most of my changes were stylistic.  I couldn't even begin to stomach fixing the article on a more substantive level at this point.


 * Your comments about "absolute control" indicate to me that you are not committed to the spirit of NPOV at Wikipedia, and instead have an agenda to push with this article. I hope I'm wrong about that, and I hope you understand the importance of NPOV and neutrality here.


 * "Stranglehold" has a much different and more negative connotation than "monopoly." Certainly there are contexts when "monopoly" is negative, but it is much less so than the very POV word "stranglehold."  Also, would you be willing to use colons (each : takes the response one space out) to make it clear to which comment you're responding?  Thanks.Moncrief 16:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read Wikipedia's NPOV policy and cited it on these talk pages. It would've been clear if you'd bothered to review the discussion before making changes to the article. Rasax 16:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That isn't an answer to my invitation to tell me how I've weakend the article with my edits. Here is a list of my edits. Which ones weakened the article and, if possible, how did they do so?  That's a specific invitation to you to point out ways in which my edits have made the article worse.  Directing me to the NPOV page and a very vague accusation aren't really a response.  Moncrief 16:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your invitation. In return, I offer mine.  Please feel free to contribute your comments and concerns about the article's content and style in the appropriate sections already provided on the talk pages.  I'd prefer to discuss any future edits point by point and encourage your contributions rather than begin our introduction with me telling you what's wrong with them.  Rasax 16:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the criticisms Montcrief made are ones I have been making on this Talk page for months. Rasax, I hope you will cease taking this criticism personally and understand that others are trying to improve this article. It really does need a lot of work. Griot 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Griot, so far you both have made sweeping claims about the article without providing specific information. Ambiguous criticism is too vague to be helpful and that is why I took the time to address each point by section and subsection on these talk pages.  Rasax 17:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the number of problems with this article are too numerous to mention at the moment, but I'll give you a list once I have a bit more time. You didn't address my question above asking why there are seemingly random dates at the end of the external links in the "Works cited" section.  I am assuming those are dates those URLs were accessed, but that information is not provided so I'm not entirely sure.  Also, why are they in UK date format or, if you prefer, why are they non-standard with the other dates in each of the links? ?  Why are there two dates within each link?


 * Other questions off the top of my head: Why is there a "Works cited" section in this article at all when there are already references in the article text? Why is the chronology so backwards, where the campaign for the Supervisor's seat is provided after information about Gonzalez's term in office?  Why is the year ommitted (as I noted one my edit summaries) in an important place?  Why is information in the San Francisco Chronicle about Gonzalez written about as if it is from an unreliable source?  Moncrief 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Another question: Why are there so many references within the article? Are six references (40-46) really required to back up one claim?  Such an abundance of numbered links is distracting to the reader. Moncrief 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Moncrief, your feedback is too vague to be helpful. You cite a number of problems. Well, what are they?  Taking the time to contribute to an ongoing discussion about the article is just as valuable if not more than edits.  Please see the appropriate talk pages sections already provided for discussions about the article and its content.  Notation style dates are standard and accepted in the US, sources cited in the appropriate talk pages section.  I appreciate your questions and will gladly provide an answer for any of my contributions.  You may find that I've already provided one by taking the time to review these talk pages.  Again, I invite you to participate in the discussion and hope you'll accept my offer.  Regards, Rasax 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm getting a sense that this is a game with you, that you see this article as your own personal fiefdom, and that no matter how specific a complaint I make that you will, as you've done with Griot, say it isn't specific enough to be able to answer. I'm not sure how to be more specific than "Why is there a "Works cited" section in this article at all when there are already references in the article text?" or "Why is the chronology so backwards, where the campaign for the Supervisor's seat is provided after information about Gonzalez's term in office?" or "Why are there six references to back up one claim?"  I'm looking forward to the peer review of this article.  You do not "own" this article, and I hope you will begin to acknoweldge that it can be improved.  Moncrief 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a very specific question. In which year did the following event occur?  It is not referenced in the article.  Please add the year.

>>>Another official joined the ranks of the Green Party before Gonzalez was sworn into office. San Francisco school board member Mark Sanchez was re-elected as a Democrat in November but announced in late December that he would also, like Gonzalez, be switching his affiliation to the Green Party. Sanchez stated at the time: "I'm a little disenchanted with the Democratic party...It's not progressive enough, and I agree with the values of the Green Party." Sanchez became the second Green official in San Francisco [30] [31] [32]. Since Sanchez and Gonzalez, other Greens have been elected to local office [and which other Greens? What other local office? The one place that could use a reference and you don't provide one].
 * My first clue would be the part of the intro sentence that states "before Gonzalez was sworn into office." The article tells me Gonzalez was elected in December 2000 and sworn into office January 2001.  Again, I invite your feedback about the article and am willing to discuss any contribution I've made and why.  I've asked for and not gotten the courtesy of a discussion before large changes have been made, which shows little regard for contributions made by other editors.  As far as how I may or may not see the article, it seems fair to say your accusation is an attributional bias being used as a substitute for genuine discussion. Rasax 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You invite my feedback? Are you kidding?  Rasax, this is not your article.  I don't need your invitation.  You don't get to "ask for and get the courtesy" of a discussion about anything here as we're all equal contributors, but what exactly do you think we're having here if not a discussion?  I've made very minor changes thus far.  Again, this is not your article.  Please refer to the Wikipedia maxim to be bold.  Moncrief 20:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Moncrief 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I invite your feedback as a show of good faith. I have never said anything to lead you to believe I own this or any article in Wikipedia.  True, we're all equal contributors and I believe it's fair to say not all contributions are equal.  I'm not impressed when contributions are supported by baseless accusations.  Being bold isn't the same as being arbitrary.  Rasax 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's lovely that you "invite" my feedback, but I don't need your invitation. Which of my assertions have been baseless?  It's ironic that you are baselessly accusing me of making baseless accusations.  Please provide any evidence whatsoever to back up your claim.  Moncrief 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A show of good faith is a genuine attempt at resolve, and unfortunate if it's of little value to you. Your statement, "you see this article as your own personal fiefdom" is a disingenuous attempt to assess my motivation without a basis to support it.  It's easier to attribute motive to other viewpoints and dismiss them than it is to attempt resolution through dialogue.  Rasax 22:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think most people would agree there is lots of lots and lots of dialogue on this page. Moncrief 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither you nor I speak for most people, and I'm not attempting to. In all fairness, all I can assess is my interaction with you.  Rasax 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. There is lots and lots of dialogue on this page. Moncrief 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Stating the obvious doesn't make the demogoguery and disregard for earlier contributions any less noticeable.  Re-writing history requires more than substituting arbitrary intolerance for reasoning.  Rasax 20:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Specific improvements (and welcome Peer Review folks)
Let's discuss this paragraph:

>>>>According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Gonzalez had a privileged upbringing because "his father was a division chief for tobacco giant Brown & Williamson," and "[Matt Gonzalez] chose a lower paying career in public service," went to Ivy League universities, and refuses to wear a Rolex from his father [4]. In an interview with the paper's editorial board; however, Gonzalez didn't agree with these assertions when asked about his background. He described his father as a salesman who sold "cigarettes from the back of his car in south[ern] Texas" in the late 1950s or early 1960s, and later started an import/export business [5] [6] [7] [8].

---

According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Gonzalez had a privileged upbringing because "his father was a division chief for tobacco giant Brown & Williamson," and "[Matt Gonzalez] chose a lower paying career in public service," went to Ivy League universities, and refuses to wear a Rolex from his father [4].


 * This sentence is phrased very POV. Does anyone dispute that his father was a division chief for Brown & Williamson?  If not, forget even mentioning the Chronicle here and just provide factual information about Gonzalez's background.  He grew up in McAllen. (Great. Factual).  His father was a division chief for B&W (Great. Factual).  This is a bio section. Whether or not the Chronicle called him "prvileged" is irrelevant here.  We just need a few facts about his background.  Refusing to wear Rolexes as an adult is not necessary in a background section. His childhood and growing-up years is what matters here - not a counterpunch to a Chronicle article.
 * Yes. The paper's assertion is open for debate when they allege one view of Gonzalez's past and he offers another.  The SF Chron's basis for alleging Gonzalez had a privileged upbringing drew its conclusion based from the direct quotes. Rather than challenge the SF Chron's interpretation, describing the differences in viewpoints seems like a more neutral approach because it notes the differences without taking sides.  Rasax 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The paper's assertion is absolutely open for debate, but this isn't the place to dispute it. You are focusing this section around that SF Chronicle article rather than around his childhood. If you don't mention the article, or use it just as one linked reference, it isn't an issue.  Moreover, it's ambigious what it is he disputed in his discussion with the Chron's editorial board.  All the information in the previous sentence?  Some of it?  Again, this section is about his background - not about his not wearing Rolexes as an adult and not about the Chronicle's interpretation of his childhood.  Please have a look at the Proposed Change section above.  Do you have issues with it?  Moncrief 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

>>>>In an interview with the paper's editorial board; however, Gonzalez didn't agree with these assertions when asked about his background. He described his father as a salesman who sold "cigarettes from the back of his car in south[ern] Texas" in the late 1950s or early 1960s, and later started an import/export business [5] [6] [7] [8].


 * Specifically, which assertions (or "assumptions" as it was initially phrased) didn't he agree with? The Rolex bit?  The part about his dad working for B&W?  You can still sell cigarettes from your car in the 1950s, start up an import/export business, and then end up a division chief.  It's unclear what he's disputing and it's unfair to make readers wade through your three references to get the full story.  Just stick with the known facts about his family and early background here.  That's what this section is for.  Rasax asks how this article is POV and I ask you to see that this whole paragraph is set up in a POV way.  It's more about countering one SF Chronicle article than trying to sort out the facts about his life.  Don't want to call him privileged? Then don't.  Avoid those adjectives but give us the wheres and whens.  Moncrief 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue of privilege was raised in an earlier discussion on these talk pages and included in the article from another editor. Rather than taking it upon myself to omit it and be accused of whitewashing, I left it in the main article and presented the differences in interpretation. Rasax 20:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Time to move beyond it then. Moncrief 21:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me or you to exclude content submitted by other editors. Rasax 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's up to both of us to make the article the best it can be. People "exclude" (delete or modify) information from other editors every second of every day on Wikipedia.  Moncrief 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why an article cannot be improved while including the contributions made by other editors. I don't believe either of us have the right to remove another point simply because we don't see the value in it, and I've tried to honor that when making my contributions.  Rasax 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Childhood and Youth" section in the Proposed Article above seems superb to me.  I don't know that you could improve on it.  It is factual and relevant and supported by evidence.  Moncrief 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's use the "Childhood and Youth" section from the proposed article. It covers all the facts. Moreover, I like the quote from Gonzalez about his childhood. It's always better to let the subject speak for him- or herself. Griot 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Moncrief 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay with it, Rasax? Griot 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. In my opinion, you haven't met any burden of proof that says your proposed article is better.  In fact, I would go as far to say it fails the POV test because you rely on weak sources and editorialize, which prevents you from developing and synthesizing anything more than your biases.  Rasax 03:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Montcrief thought it was "superb." It explains his childhood in great detail, explains how he managed to live in all those different places as a child, and allows him to speak in his own words about his childhood. I really think it belongs in the article. Griot 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And? Am I supposed to swoon because someone else did?  It only begs the question of your relationship with this editor.  Rasax 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no "relationship" with Montcrief. Why can't you accept criticism? We have an objective third-party opinion here. It should help settle matters. Everyone except you agrees that this article needs an awful lot of work. Please accept criticism in good spirit and try to make this a better article. It's just awful now. Griot 00:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you say. I have no problem with criticism when it is genuine and constructive.  There is no rule that says I'm supposed to agree with it when it isn't convincing.  Objectivity requires neutrality, and biased criticism isn't sincere or objective.  Perhaps if you relied less on personal attributions about me and spent more time clarifying your disagreements, they might make more sense.  Just a thought.  Rasax 02:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)