Talk:Matt Gonzalez/Archive 6

Accuracy
2. Section 2.1.1, Policy Positions.
 * Re: "Gonzalez also supported a $70,000 annual pay raise for Supervisors."
 * False statement. This has been discussed ad nauseum with Griot, who at one time agreed the amount of a supervisor's raise was determined by the civil service commission and Gonzalez would've had no way of knowing what the outcome of their decision would be.  The statement falsely attributes support for one position with another using Guilt By Association and Slippery Slope fallacies, and injects its author's bias. Rasax 19:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ideology section
3. Section 2.1.2, Ideology.
 * Editorializes. Section attempts to speak for an entire audience with weasel words and Wikipedia recommends avoiding them.  Their policy states: "Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed."
 * Please review the following recommendations from Wikipedia. It should help with the section cleanup.  Thanks.  Rasax 15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Campaign Section
6a. Section 2.2, Campaign For Mayor.
 * Re: Second paragraph, section framing.
 * Asserting the Democratic Party's interest or concerns begs the question of relevance. What is it?  A topical revision should be moved further down and used as supporting info after the reader is provided with more information about Campaign for Mayor as the subsection suggests.  Thanks.  Rasax 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is highly relevant. There was nationwide interest in the SF mayor's race, precisely because (as the multiple sources indicate) of the implications for the Democratic Party if they were to lose control of the SF mayor's office from a challenger to the Left.  The fact that national political figures became involved on behalf of the Democrats is a notable part of MG's run for office, not to mention a part of why he lost the race.  Kaisershatner 18:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Relevant for whom, Kaisershatner? The re-write is all over the place and topicality is lost.  This is Gonzalez's bio, not a platform for the Democratic Party.  Rasax 18:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Dem-Rep "campaign alliance"
8. Intentional omission of previous section(s) mentioning the Democratic-Republican campaign alliance, Owen's campaign claims about Gonzalez, and school board member Mark Sanchez's defection from the Democratic Party following Gonzalez's; a result of his visibility.
 * Wikipedia offers some helpful tips 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." This editor went to great lengths to include credible and verifiable sources to support what was written. Section censors, however, have relied on nothing more than their expert opinions to justify removing it, stating: "Rasax is very stubborn and can't see the subject objectively (Expert opinion number one). On the Discussion page, you agreed with me to replace what is currently in the article with the 'Childhood and Youth' section from the proposed article (Expert opinion number two). You also agreed with me that the 'Claims of a Democratic-Republican alliance' section should be cut (Therefore...)."  Parenthetical comments mine.  Translation: Share my view and we can do as we please because popular trumps reason or discussion. Verifiability not required.
 * Eds Griot and Moncrief : Throughout our discussions, I've tried to demonstrate good faith and work with each of you to arrive at a consensus. The experience is lost when gouging my eyes out has more appeal than crafting a response, and dealing with your personal views as a supporting rationale has become extremely unpleasant. I can only hope it's not common for folks who've taken the time and effort to make contributions; otherwise, this will be my last.  I've asked for and generally not received supporting reasons for your edits, and have spent considerable time providing mine.  I'm not under the impression the spirit of Wikipedia is based on popular views or that good faith is a one-sided deal.  In fact, I've often referenced their help pages in order to prevent a stand-off based on personal beliefs alone.  I've expressed doubts on occasion and stated when I've felt the dialogue became disingenuous, and it is when agendas run roughshod over discussions. Looking for a resolution is an obvious waste of my time when your minds are already made up, and it would be better spent elsewhere.  Rasax 18:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

10. At the very least, revision proponents should offer an explanation why Willie Brown and Newsom's pictures are included on Gonzalez's biographical page, giving it an infotainment or gossipy column feel. Rasax 18:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see, they are mentioned in the article and were an important component of the election being described. I don't see how two photographs of formally-dressed politicians, both of whom were integral to the topic being discussed, gives the article an infotainment or gossipy feel.  Perhaps you could clarify.  Moncrief 22:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure your reasons make it clear why readers would need to see Newsom's pic or Willie's mug on Gonzalez's biographical page when each has his own. It strikes me as a little schadenfreude and I hope I'm wrong.  Rasax 16:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

11. Cleanup, see talk pages section for additional comments. Rasax 13:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

length
1. Article length.
 * Article is now 35 kilobytes long - longer than preferable. It was previously 31 kilobytes and said more with less in my humble opinion.  Rasax 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a specious criticism. There are hundreds of longer articles.  Kaisershatner 18:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Longer than preferable?" LOL. Preferable to whom?  This is just silly, and 35 kilobytes being too long is not at all supported by Wikipedia consensus.  Moncrief 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. In other words, when this same criticism was used as a basis to edit the previous article, it was justifiable.  When I raise it about the revision, it isn't.  That's a double-standard.  Rasax 18:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll have to point me to the comment in which someone criticized the previous length of the article. It wasn't me who did so, so there's no double standard. I'm not accountable for someone else's opinion.  Moncrief 20:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro- "supporters"
2. Weasel words.
 * Intro attempts to speak for supporters with "Regarded by supporters..." This sentence needn't require qualification.  It is either true or false, meaning Gonzalez was either a progressive reformer or not.  Internal links were included for curious readers to learn more about progressives and reform.  The article's content reasonably supports the statement an it needn't be diluted to imply Gonzalez's record can only be interpreted through the eyes of his supporters and opponents; a false dilemma fallacy. Rasax 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Whether or not he was a progressive reformer is a matter of where one stands, and what definitions one is using.  You're implying there are objective standards for progressiveness and reform.  I doubt it very much. Kaisershatner 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Reform is defined by Merriam-Webster as "to put or change into an improved form or condition," clearly supported by Gonzalez's record and stated throughout the article.  Progressivism has a historical basis in the U.S. and includes expanding participatory democracy, stratified representation, and making government more transparent to the public.  Internal links were provided to give curious readers additional, supporting info about these meanings.  Gonzalez's record needn't be viewed through lens of his supporters or opponents, a false dilemma fallacy, but evaluated by his actions while in office. Adding "regarded by supporters" is a weasel word substitution for something that has a reasonable basis for stating. Rasax 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

school
3. Clunky wording.
 * Section 1, paragraph 6, second sentence. HS description “from which...”  and requires a transitional statement.  Considering article's length, including HS info begs the question of relevance. Please refer to vacuous truth reasoning.  Rasax 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ...seriously, you're suggesting we shouldn't list where he went to school? Kaisershatner 18:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I'm making a suggestion to prioritize what is written in an individual's biography and how what is shared relates to the overall theme.  When an article's length goes beyond what is recommended, asking for consideration about what is included and requries additional transition statements versus what isn't doesn't seem all that unreasonable.  Rasax 18:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "When an article's length goes beyond what is recommended". You're using a passive construction here.  Could you clarify: Who is recommending that this article be shorter, or that it is longer than it should be?  Are you pointing to any objective Wikipedia guideline?  How does where he went to school not "fit in to the overall theme" of a biographical article?  Moncrief 20:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

chronology
4. Confusing chronological account.
 * Section 2.1, Election to the BOS, re: "In December 2000, Gonzalez ran for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in District 5, which includes the Haight-Ashbury, Mid-Lower Haight, Hayes Valley, Western Addition, Alamo Square, and Inner Sunset neighborhoods." The re-write begs the question of quality: how is it an improvement over the previous article?  Two points:
 * A. The district election was held in November and the run-off vote was in December 2000. As re-written, readers are now led to believe these events all happened within a month and incorrect. Rasax 16:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So fix the chronology. Surely we can all agree on what date the election took place?  Kaisershatner 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was disregarded if you'll refer back to the previous discussions. Rasax 18:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * B. Section previously listed as district election and changed when Moncrief stated there were no such things as a district election. City supervisors are elected by district not citywide, meaning there are indeed such things as district elections.  The previous article gave readers a clear idea about districts, the significance of Gonzalez's candidacy, and upcoming changes, but the re-write does not.  The article is now re-written in a confusing manner and incorrectly assumes only one vote occurred.  Readers were previously given some idea about the process, part of which was later reformed by Gonzalez and voters with IRV, but the re-write disconnects it.  Rasax 16:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

electoral context
5. Topicality
 * Section 2.1, bottom of first paragraph.


 * The re-write trails off-topic with: “He was elected on a slate of candidates who wanted to change the direction of city policy, in opposition to the 'Brown machine,' a Democratic Party political machine that had dominated local politics for over thirty years behind Mayor Willie Brown, the Pelosi family, and other Democrats.[12] His supporters saw his election as a turning point that broke the Democratic Party's dominance of local politics.[13][14] According to San Francisco State University political science professor Richard DeLeon,”


 * How are the supporting statements relevant to the section? The article is about Gonzalez, not SF politics, district elections or who ran what for how many years. Supporting statements attempt to speak for supporters and embed the biases of its author. My suggestion is to trim it back to the first sentence, end after its first clause, and synchronize the content with the intro.  And, scare quotes should be removed. Rasax 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Relevant due to the context of MG's election. Are you suggesting that the political climate of SF that enabled MG to be elected is not relevant to his biography?  Kaisershatner 18:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Topicality requries consistency with an article's central theme. This isn't consistent, but all over the map subject-wise.  The re-write fails to acknowledge the significance of Gonzalez's campaign and makes it about the Democratic Party.  It was the Democratic Party, not Gonzalez, who made party affiliation an issue, and the central topic is Gonzalez. Rasax 18:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "The re-write fails to acknowledge the significance of Gonzalez's campaign." How SPECIFICALLY does it fail to do so?  The article notes that the campaign attracted international media attention. It notes that if Gonzalez had won that he would have become the first Green Party mayor of a major U.S. city, a rather significant accomplishment.  I'm not sure that we need to beat the reader over the head by telling her or him "This campaign was significant!" (or something similar) when facts such as those above (international media attention, very nearly becoming the first Green Party mayor a major US city) are already mentioned. Moncrief 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Section 2.2, Intro, Mayoral campaign.
 * NPOV removal an improvement but where this section is going to take a reader isn't very clear from its intro. Good intros must prevent confusion, not create it.  Will it be the race?  The media coverage?  How SF almost became the first major US city with a Green mayor?  See what I mean?  (That last sentence would be stated best after the reader is informed about the outcome.)  Rasax 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As an introductory paragraph, I think it does a pretty good job. It offers a broad overview of the election. The section takes readers all the places you mentioned; this is the summary of what to expect. (See inverted pyramid). How SPECIFICALLY would you change this paragraph? What would you keep in?  What would you take out?  Moncrief 21:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

wikilinking

 * Internal links.


 * As a general observation, the re-write overdoes it with internal links, known as Over-Wikifying. Is there really need to link readers to remedial descriptions about public transportation? If at all, it's a perfectly good opportunity to inform a curious reader about the local system relating to the discussion? Or tobacco? Chief? Senior class? Elephants?  Bass?  Rock band? Sedan? Instincts?  See what I mean?  Rasax 16:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your opinion. My opinion is that it is not overlinked. Kaisershatner 18:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? Interesting since Wikipedia defines Over-Wikifying as using "links [not] relevant to the context."  Tobacco, chief, senior class, elephants, bass, rock band, sedan, Mercedes, instincts aren't directly topical and how the article isn't overlinked isn't clear by Wikipedia's own explanation.  Rasax 18:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party Alliance?
Please refer to Wikipedia's policy for using online sources. It states, "A fact is an actual state of affairs, which can be an historical event, or a social or natural phenomenon. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact. An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion."  This means Camejo's quote can be included with sources alleging a Democrat-Republican alliance. Changes mentioned in article edit section on talk pages. Rasax 04:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And for definition, Merriam-Webster defines alliance as a "state of being allied: the action of allying...an association to further the common interest of the members." This could include a formal alliance by declaration or informal alliance by action, and is appropriate in every sense of the word.  Rasax 20:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which association existed here to "further the common interest of the members"? I didn't realize an association was founded.  That is the only relevant bit you've quoted.  "State of being allied: the action of allying" is a phrase which is not a definition of "alliance" because it contains no further information about what the word or forms of the word mean.  The only relevant bit you've quoted is an "association" and there was no association here.  You're grasping at straws.  Time to compromise.  P.S. I also like how you left out this bit of the M-W definition you quoted - yes, from the same part of the definition you quoted: "specifically : a confederation of nations by treaty."  Moncrief 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refer back to the NYTs quote from the local Republican who explained it perfectly. By definition an alliance can be formal or informal, and if you have any question about what the root ally means, Merriam-Webster's defines it as "to unite."  Local Dems and Republican institutions united to prevent the Green candidate from winning office, and it's more than reasonable to include whether you like it or not.  At the very least, Gonzalez's candidacy having national Democrats organizing in order to defeat him increases the significance when they seem to struggle challenging Republicans, and it should be included. Rasax 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "P.S. I also like how you left out this bit of the M-W definition you quoted - yes, from the same part of the definition you quoted: 'specifically : a confederation of nations by treaty.'" Perhaps you're not aware of how definitions are used.  Definitions are given with the number of acceptable uses, beginning with the most common in U.S. dictionaries and the reverse in British.  That means, all are recognized and accepted but not necessarily applicable.  Order is sometimes used to settle disputes regarding frequency but isn't relevant in this discussion.  Because it's a direct quote from a recognized, authoratative source, the defintion I've provided is both supported and accurate.  Rasax 05:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the funny attempt at condescension; I never would have known otherwise how a dictionary works! You should look again at the specific numbered definition you quoted because you omitted half of that specific numbered definition.  You can certainly pick a particular definition of a word, but you should then provide the entire specific numbered definition as written in the dictionary.   Moncrief 18:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Condescension wasn't my intention, but to genuinely point out that the definition I provided is accurate, supported, and correct in the context it was given. In order for your counterargument to stand on solid ground, there'd have to be a conflict with the word's root and there isn't.   Rasax 18:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You've made using lots of words in order to say nothing into a kind of art form, Rasax. You quoted part of a dictionary definition of the word "alliance," leaving out a relevant part of a specific definition of the word.  That's all there is to it.  Moncrief 20:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's now turn to this section:

>>>>>Claims of a Democratic-Republican alliance Green Party gubernatorial candidate, Peter Camejo, described the outcome as being decided by local Republicans, stating: "[Newsom] gave money to George Bush. He didn't endorse him, [but] gave money to George Bush in the year 2000...He was on George Bush's voter slate in the year 2000. He won last night because the Republicans voted for him in a block. We couldn't overcome that. We won among the registered Democrats. We won among registered Independents. We carried all of the Greens [55]." Camejo's claim was supported by post-election analyses in the Berkeley Daily Planet, San Francisco Bay Guardian, and the New York Times [56] [57].

According to the Berkeley Daily Planet, "...the chairman of the San Francisco Republican Party asserted that Republican votes 'saved San Francisco.' The New York Times reported that an informal survey of Republicans found 85 percent of Republicans had voted for Newsom [58]."<<<<<<<

What outcome is referred to in the first paragraph? That it's Newsom's election is clear to you, perhaps, but not to the casual reader.
 * Please refer to the previous paragraph. The election was written about in the previous section and the outcome of Newsom's victory was made clear from the beginning. There shouldn't be any doubt when read in context. Rasax 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That most of this section is made up of two quotes, rather than original writing, is demonstrably POV. What does "saved San Francisco" mean? Is it meant ironically? Is the alliance being referred to supposed to have been formal? Isn't it just that Republicans voted for the more conservative candidate? Why does a quote without much context make up most of the first part of the section? For a NPOV article, aren't claims by major newspapers more relevant than the opinion of a Green Party stalwart? Why is his quote first and the NYT mention last? Moncrief 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a direct quote given with the context in was used in. Injecting my view or yours about what was said is "demonstrably" POV pushing.  As far as I'm aware of, there is no counterpoint to challenge Camejo's claim of a Republican-Democrat alliance, and because it may have affected the outcome of the event, seems relevant to include. Rasax 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this entire section should be cut. The suggestion that there was an alliance between the parties was made in a toss-off comment by Peter Camejo during a five-person, informal interview. For a true alliance, leaders of the parties would have to publicly announce that they are working together. This didn't happen. There was no alliance. Some Republican voters voted for Newsom, but that doesn't make for an allicance, and nowhere is the word "alliance" used by anyone. Again, this is pure specualtion, and it should be removed from the article. Griot 20:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're projecting bias, Griot. Camejo's statement wasn't an off-the-cuff remark but an interview where he took the time to elaborate on his statement.  Rasax 23:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed! I say go for it. Moncrief 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * re: "There was no alliance." How do you know?  Without any proof or sources, you are POV pushing verifiable information.  Camejo's claim is supported and more than one source cited.  Rasax 20:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to be specific then about what kind of "alliance" you are positing.  An alliance is generally some kind of formal or spoken agreement.  Even Canejo's quote doesn't suggest this happen; he's merely saying that San Francisco's Republicans voted for Newsom, which tipped the balance.  This isn't really an "alliance."  It's just Republicans voting for the most conservative candidate.   That doesn't fit with any definition of "alliance" I know of.  Moncrief 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe our objective is to report, not posit. Please see my following comments below.  Rasax 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When a representative from the SF Republican party is quoted in the NYTs as having voted for the Democratic candidate to prevent the Green candidate from winning, that is a systematic collaboration in every sense of the word. Rasax 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a second... one representative from the Republican Party voted for a Democratic candidate and that's "systematic collaboration"? That's one person deciding something, actually, in a city where it's extremely common for Republicans (a small % of the S.F. population) to vote for a Democrat in local elections since there isn't any way Republicans can win an election in San Francisco.  Republicans in S.F. voted for Willie Brown and Art Agnos and whomever else, but no one would call that an "alliance" with Democrats, and certainly not one with sinister, mutually-agreed-upon, or formalized overtones.  Moncrief 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And why do I have the sense that if I described Republicans running pro-Green ads as a "Green-Republican alliance," or, for that matter, to use your exact template, "a Republican having voted for a Green candidate to prevent the Democratic candidate from winning" as a "Green-Republican alliance," that you wouldn't be particularly pleased?  Moreover, doesn't an alliance have to work both ways?  If a Republican decides to vote for a Democrat instead of a Green, are the Democrats included in the "alliance" even if they haven't been informed about it?  Strategically speaking, you could even make the case that many Republicans would prefer to see a Green win because that drives votes away from/splinters the base of their larger opponent party.  Much to consider here.  Moncrief 21:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the term "Democratic-Republican alliance" is very odd when the same quote says that a majority of SF Democrats voted for Gonzalez. Who was in alliance with the Republicans then?  Or, to put it another way, is it fair to call it a "Democratic-Republican" alliance in some kind of formalized way, as if a majority of Democrats subscribed to this "alliance"?  Also, do you have a reference other than a quote from a Green Party candidate about Newsom donating money to Bush?  I've never seen such an assertion proven.  Moncrief 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're obfuscating the differences between institutional choices and those of an individual. When a party representative speaks of an action, it represents the institution.  Rasax 22:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear that there was no alliance. I'm removing this section. Griot 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you're simply pushing your own POV, Griot. Agree or not, there is support for the statement.  Furthermore, the subsection states "Claims of..." which isn't absolute but open to the possibility.  Just because you may not approve of the information included doesn't give you the right to remove it. Rasax 22:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually there isn't any proof given that there was an "alliance" between Democrats and Republicans: not in Canejo's statement or anywhere else in the article. The only assertion offered is that Republicans voted for Newsom, which allowed him to win.  As noted above, repeatedly, this is not the same as an alliance.  You may need to re-frame the term "alliance" and pick another word or term.  Moreover, Wikipedia is not really a place for "claims" of what could be true, but rather it's a repository of factual information.  Should we include every "claim" made by people in a Wikipedia article, whether or not it's verifiable?  That's not really the role of an encyclopedia. Moncrief 22:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Allowed Newsom to win? That's awfully passive when the quote from the SF Republican suggests otherwise.  The significance of the claim would affect the outcome of the race and is supported by more than one source.  You're certainly welcome to contribute an opposing viewpoint, though I haven't come across one that says such an alliance didn't happen.  Removing this section is a whitewashing over a supported claim that might explain the outcome of the election.  What is factual is verified and mentioned in the article without making it anything more or less than what it is.  Rasax 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that we have to debate something that is so patently false -- that there was an alliance between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the 2003 mayoral election -- demonstrates why this article is in shambles. Moncrief and I have clearly shown that there was no alliance by any definition of the word. Yet editors have to continue going around and around this topic. It's just plain ridiculous. I'm removing this section. Don't put it back. Griot 19:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Griot, please review Wikipedia's policy for using online sources. It states, "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." This means Camejo's quote can be included with sources, and you have no right to remove it simply because you disagree or dislike Camejo's opinion. To avoid violating the three-revert rule, I will include the section at a later time and make the appropriate comments in the Article Edit section of the talk pages. And, finally, you've neither proven nor disproven anything with regard to Camejo's opinion.  That requires evidence, and your unsupported opinion isn't evidence.  What you've demonstrated is hostility and intolerance for viewpoints you don't agree with, and a willingness to dismiss them without just cause.  I can't help but wonder if writing the biography of an individual you've admitted to not liking in narrow terms provides a sense of re-writing history, and how naive it would be to believe one article has the power to do that. Rasax 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you account for the fact that Canejo, in his comments, did not himself assert that there was an alliance? If he didn't use that word, isn't it your POV in calling it that?  How is it different from your comment above about the proposed Biography section that you say "fails the POV test because you rely on weak sources and editorialize, which prevents you from developing and synthesizing anything more than your biases" (and odd comment when it includes statements from Gonzalez himself, but that's another matter).  No one but you -- or no one quoted in the section -- has called it an "alliance." Canejo didn't use the term.  Therefore, it's your POV to phrase it thusly.  Moncrief 21:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, I'd like to begin with one observation. Your user page states you have a Spanish-speaking background. It seems more than coincidental you'd refer to Camejo as Canejo several times throughout this discussion. For our non-Spanish speaking guests, canejo is close enough to conejo or rabbit; a slang but crude reference to female genitalia. Secondly, the quote provided by the SF Republican fills in any gaps not provided in Camejo's statement, also supported by the pre-election analysis in the SF Chron. Camejo does attribute Newsom's win to Republican votes and, therefore, "claims of an alliance" is reasonably supported. Rasax 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we stick to this article and not try to impute personal things into the discussion? My userpage says I have a Spanish-speaking background???  Really? It says I can speak Spanish at a basic level, I think - ie., I took some in high school and college. [Edit: It says intermediate level. I must have added that in a moment of some hubris.] The "Camejo" misspelling was a typo; I'm not familiar enough with him to know how to spell his name off the top of my head, but thanks for correcting me. I won't make the mistake again. I wasn't aware it had another meaning in Spanish.  It is not really the duty of the reader to rummage around your links looking for evidence that's not in the article itself.  And, no, Newsom's win being attributed to Republican votes, as we've said over and over again, is not the same as an alliance.    It's as absurd as saying there was a Green-Republican alliance in Florida in 2000 that somehow prevented the Democrat from winning. (Edit: Not a perfect analogy. It's absurd as saying that there is a "Green-Democratic alliance" in districts where Greens vote for Democrats simply because that's their best available option when no Green is running). The Republicans who voted for Newsom did so, one assumes, because, of the candidates running, he was most in line with their political beliefs. Once again, this is not the same as an alliance, which is a formal partnership between parties or states.  Moncrief 21:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Like claiming I see this article as my "own personal fiefdom"? Like that?  Rasax 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If Rasax wants to work with other editors and modify that section, renaming it something like "Mayoral election analysis" (probably not the best title, but it's a start) and is willing to work toward compromise, I'd be okay with that. Camejo's comments are relevant in context, and I don't think anyone disputes that Republicans voted overwhelmingly for Newsom. It's certainly relevant to note that in a section analyzing the mayoral results. It's Rasax's insistence on the word "alliance" that is the sticking point. Moncrief 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Increased Green Visibility?
Is "Increased Green Party visibility" really the best section header? The sections describes the party-switching of a school board member. Is this the same as increased visibility? What does "visibility" mean here exactly? Moncrief 21:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see previous section of the discussion on this talk page. Rasax 22:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Moncrief's objections to the "visibility" question are the same as mine. That ought to mean something to you Rasax. It's time for you to take this criticisms with good spirit and really think about improving this article. Griot 22:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It means you both might benefit by reviewing an authoritative source before making erroneous statements. Rasax 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
I've opened up an RfC for this article, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics. Moncrief 15:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Specific concern: In the "Claims of a Democratic-Republican alliance" section, the bulk of the information is a quote from a Green Party gubernatorial candidate. Assuming we decide to keep this section, is it fair and NPOV to say that Canejo is claiming the existence of an alliance?  He himself does not use that word in the quote, and nothing that I can find in the dictionary  or Wikipedia defintion of the term would indicate that there was an alliance, either from the information in Canejo's statement or through an examination of the evidence presented elsewhere in the section.

Also, the San Francisco Chronicle article referenced in this section states that:

>>>"Just this week, for example, an advertisement paid for by a group backing Gonzalez made an issue of a $500 donation Newsom gave in 2000 to the city's Republican committee to appear on a Republican-backed slate mailer touting his campaign for supervisor. The same slate mailing also endorsed George W. Bush, which Gonzalez has noted during appearances."<<<< (end quote)

Does this fact match up with Canejo's statement that Newsom "gave money to George Bush" in this section? Newsom gave money to a local Republican committee that also endorsed George Bush in 2000. Is this the same as "giving money to George Bush"? Should we clarify this section and Canejo's quote, now standing alone, with this broader bit of information?

Questions: Moncrief 17:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we delete this section from this article?
 * If not, should we use a term other than "alliance" in the section header, or is "alliance" the best and most NPOV term we can use?

Critics and supporters
Joining together two of Rasax's objections from above:
 * Re: "Gonzalez's critics considered..."
 * Editorial. It attempts to speak for Gonzalez's critics and begs an obvious question: how is the re-write an improvement when the previous article clearly conveyed the origin (Hint: a single source) of these criticisms?  Without additional support, the re-write is ambiguous and overgeneralizes one known critic's views, and it fails to satisfy Wikipedia's undue weight policy.  Rasax 17:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "'Gonzo,' as he was affectionately called by his supporters, was an unorthodox politician."
 * Editorializes. It attempts to speak for supporters and characterizes Gonzalez with sweeping generalizations.  Rasax 17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with distributing these sections into the chronology of the article. They should be properly attributed as well. Kaisershatner 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)