This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
17 February 2005 17:30 (PST) The proposed article is not an improvement in quality or style. Its proponent offers heavy-handed criticism of the existing article and little support. Without clear or specific reasons, criticism mostly relies on sweeping, ambiguous statements about the main article’s topicality, factual support, centrality, grammar, citations, and neutrality. Reasons for removing/replacing an entire wiki article should require more than speculation and full replacements must demonstrate a higher degree of quality for serious consideration. It doesn’t, and numerous concerns about the editor’s quality in the proposed article have been raised and included on the talk page. Rasax 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The Point of View (POV) Template was placed erroneously and should be removed unless the issuer can warrant the grounds to support each claim. ["I'm afraid this piece will have to be a POV," §3.6]
What the editor states: "...the article on the Article page is filled with factural errors and is weighed down with too much editorializing, unneeded detail, and too many footnotes. To my mind, it is not objective or balanced, but a puff piece. I propose using the following article instead. It is objective and paints a thorough, concise, accurate picture of the former supervisor and mayoral candidate.this piece will have to be a POV," -- Griot,28 November 2005 Discussion: Matt Gonzalez, §1.0.
(1) Plagiarism is a serious charge and shouldn't be taken lightly. When the editor states, "...much of the material is copied verbatum from Gonzalez campaign Web sites and the SF Bay Guardian," it is an accusation of plagiarism.
People with an academic background will recognize it as grounds for expulsion from numerous institutions and are provided with adequate training to avoid it. Defined as a "presentation of someone else's ideas or words as your own," plagiarism should not be confused with summarizing (Fowler & Aaron). It is not plagiarism to summarize information from verifiable, secondary sources with acknowledgement. Direct quotes are cited as such. Unless the editor can cite specific, concrete examples of deliberate plagiarism, and not accidental, the claim should immediately be withdrawn. The editor cannot reasonably claim to argue "for a basic level of scholarshiop [sic, (Griot 22:50, 19 February 2006)]," and make unsupported claims of plagiarism. Intentional plagiarism is equally deplorable as alleging it without sufficient support. Source: Fowler and Aaron. The Little, Brown Handbook, 8th edition. Rasax 22:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
25 February 2006. 12:30 (PST). The sum of these claims amounted to a misspelling of former SF District Attorney Hallinan's first name being corrected, fixing eight typos, and re-routing of some hyperlinks cited to Beyondchron.org and San Francisco Independent. I'd like to add that links to the San Francisco Independent were submitted and cited by the same editor who has made broken links a centerpiece reason for maintaining the cleanup template, and the context to which either article is used remains unclear. Neither adjustment validates the argument that the current article is: 1. factually incorrect nor unsupported, 2. biased by POV, 3. editorial, 4. "poorly written" and "sprawling," 5. non-topical, 6. unbalanced, 7. contains "numerous grammatical errors," 8. cites sources without using direct quotes, 9. and "a puff piece" (as previous claimed). Unless the editor can support the centrality of the reasons given, and indicated in the templates used, both templates on the main article should be removed immediately or recognized as vandalism. Rasax 20:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
As of yet, the suggested article's author responds by ignoring questions about it (See §2.1 [3]). It's difficult to ignore some similarities between the current and proposed articles, but there's a key difference or two. The proposed article uses a similar organizational style, sentences from the current, and formatting. Where they differ is historical content. The mayoral race trimmed to just four sentences in the proposed version (See §1.1.4 [4]) , and readers wouldn't know it was one of the most competitive local campaigns in years. They're informed about it by the current article [5].
The editor gives a hint about why a change is wanted, starting out with "to my mind" (See history file for November 29). In other words, personal and unsupported. Without more information, this reader was left wondering if the editor intended to suggest personal beliefs are sufficient grounds for removing an entire article. If so, isn't it the same as cherry-picking out what we dislike in any Wiki article and resubmitting it with a "new and improved" label? And, since facts are often reasonable enough to prove or disprove, do factual errors constitute grounds for using a point of view template? It's included among the reasons given. Unless the centrality of each claim is reasonably supported, the POV template should be removed Rasax 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Please! Any objective person can see there's not point in engaging you. Hardened criticism? Implode?
Your proposed text speaks for itself. Overarching reductionism, unsupported claims, editorializing, and verbosity are destructive for any article. Objectivity requires an absence of bias, something I've missed in your attempts to engage me. You're certainly welcome to engage the grounds to any argument I've submitted in support to the existing text or in opposition to your request for change. Rasax 22:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
16 February 2006 19:15 (PST) The template used suggests a cleanup may be required when a rationale is offered on the talk page. Criticism alone isn't reasonable proof and haste doesn't warrant it. Unless the editor can offer something more of substance, unsupported beliefs shouldn't be enough reason to saddle an article with a cleanup template. Rasax 04:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Sensationalism from Guthrie article headline recognized and put into an appropriate context with secondary, veryifiable sources for information. Rasax 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Prev §4.0, "Affinity for the Arts," incorporated into intro. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Background info more organized, separate, and with links. Rasax 18:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section now just states "Office of the Public Defender" and the years. "...in nine years" re-edited out since readers are given the length of time in the subsection header, and it's redundant. D.A. race info moved to §2.0, Politics and Public Service, where subject is pertinent. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section prevously "Career as a Public Defender, 1991-2000", now as is. 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section created, and Gonzalez's political experience is organized into subsections. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Moved intro from §2.2 to support opening statement in this section. POV comments left in text removed. The opening supported by actual events should adequately support the significance and any POV questions about it. "Registered" trivializes the significance of the candidacy and public sentiment in the district. Re-stated to simply remark that the candidate went Green and the district followed. Rasax 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Subsection incorporated at the beginning of Gonzalez's BOS experence and the reader given the significance of his candidacy. Since it originated from me, I felt okay with the edit. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"Candidate and District Go Green" (incorporated in section) Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §2.0, now listed as §2.1. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Positions summarized. Rasax 04:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously listed as §2.4, now indicated as §2.2.1. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section added, sources cited. Rasax 04:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Moved intro, "Municipal elections are nonpartisan but had been dominated for decades..." to previous paragraph to support the intro and remove the POV comment left in the text. Rasax 03:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Subsection moved to follow BOS experince. See §2.2.2 Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Previously listed as §2.2, now §2.2.2. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Paragraph 5, sources cited, added to list. Rasax 04:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Some adjectives removed, leaving a more neutral account of the event. Rasax 07:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §3.0. Previous §3.2, Central Platform Themes, Incorporated into section. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) and Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section moved to follow section about campaign. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) and Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §3.3, "Campaign Video Interview." Rasax 18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section removed and incorporated into article as needed. Rasax 06:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Section added and source citations included. Rasax 04:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §3.1, now §2.3.2. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §2.3.2, now §2.3.1 with removal of campaign interview section. Rasax 06:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §5.0, now §3.0. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments about Mirkarimi's role not relevant to article topic, and catty. Re-worded to maintain article focus on topicality. Rasax 18:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Subsection added 7 December, details added, sources cited. Rasax 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Suit's dismissal included when source cited, added to works referenced. Rasax 21:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
One could only hope local Greens were empowered enough to run Ackerman out of town. I'd guess they would've done it sooner to save the district money and put someone who isn't autocratic in charge. Since you're an activist for brevity, I suggest saving the background info for an article where Matt Gonzalez isn't the main subject. Rasax 03:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §5.1, now §3.1. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section re-worded to direct focus back to article's topicality. Rasax 18:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Changed from "External links." Sources cited in chronological order. Rasax 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC) From "Works cited" to "References" Rasax 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §6.0, now §4.0. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Unverifiable links removed. Source citations given uniform notation style. Rasax 04:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §7.0, now §5.0. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt
1. Repair all dead hyperlinks (2/18/06).
2. Remove "double dates" in "External links" (2/18/06).
Refuses to do it: "Since not all of the links included are mine, it is neither my obligation nor responsibility to update them."
3. Fix spelling errors (2/18/06)
4. Arrange "External links" by date order or by alphabetical order by author name (2/19/06)
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.
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)
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?
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
17 February 2005 17:30 (PST) The proposed article is not an improvement in quality or style. Its proponent offers heavy-handed criticism of the existing article and little support. Without clear or specific reasons, criticism mostly relies on sweeping, ambiguous statements about the main article’s topicality, factual support, centrality, grammar, citations, and neutrality. Reasons for removing/replacing an entire wiki article should require more than speculation and full replacements must demonstrate a higher degree of quality for serious consideration. It doesn’t, and numerous concerns about the editor’s quality in the proposed article have been raised and included on the talk page. Rasax 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The Point of View (POV) Template was placed erroneously and should be removed unless the issuer can warrant the grounds to support each claim. ["I'm afraid this piece will have to be a POV," §3.6]
What the editor states: "...the article on the Article page is filled with factural errors and is weighed down with too much editorializing, unneeded detail, and too many footnotes. To my mind, it is not objective or balanced, but a puff piece. I propose using the following article instead. It is objective and paints a thorough, concise, accurate picture of the former supervisor and mayoral candidate.this piece will have to be a POV," -- Griot,28 November 2005 Discussion: Matt Gonzalez, §1.0.
(1) Plagiarism is a serious charge and shouldn't be taken lightly. When the editor states, "...much of the material is copied verbatum from Gonzalez campaign Web sites and the SF Bay Guardian," it is an accusation of plagiarism.
People with an academic background will recognize it as grounds for expulsion from numerous institutions and are provided with adequate training to avoid it. Defined as a "presentation of someone else's ideas or words as your own," plagiarism should not be confused with summarizing (Fowler & Aaron). It is not plagiarism to summarize information from verifiable, secondary sources with acknowledgement. Direct quotes are cited as such. Unless the editor can cite specific, concrete examples of deliberate plagiarism, and not accidental, the claim should immediately be withdrawn. The editor cannot reasonably claim to argue "for a basic level of scholarshiop [sic, (Griot 22:50, 19 February 2006)]," and make unsupported claims of plagiarism. Intentional plagiarism is equally deplorable as alleging it without sufficient support. Source: Fowler and Aaron. The Little, Brown Handbook, 8th edition. Rasax 22:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
25 February 2006. 12:30 (PST). The sum of these claims amounted to a misspelling of former SF District Attorney Hallinan's first name being corrected, fixing eight typos, and re-routing of some hyperlinks cited to Beyondchron.org and San Francisco Independent. I'd like to add that links to the San Francisco Independent were submitted and cited by the same editor who has made broken links a centerpiece reason for maintaining the cleanup template, and the context to which either article is used remains unclear. Neither adjustment validates the argument that the current article is: 1. factually incorrect nor unsupported, 2. biased by POV, 3. editorial, 4. "poorly written" and "sprawling," 5. non-topical, 6. unbalanced, 7. contains "numerous grammatical errors," 8. cites sources without using direct quotes, 9. and "a puff piece" (as previous claimed). Unless the editor can support the centrality of the reasons given, and indicated in the templates used, both templates on the main article should be removed immediately or recognized as vandalism. Rasax 20:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
As of yet, the suggested article's author responds by ignoring questions about it (See §2.1 [3]). It's difficult to ignore some similarities between the current and proposed articles, but there's a key difference or two. The proposed article uses a similar organizational style, sentences from the current, and formatting. Where they differ is historical content. The mayoral race trimmed to just four sentences in the proposed version (See §1.1.4 [4]) , and readers wouldn't know it was one of the most competitive local campaigns in years. They're informed about it by the current article [5].
The editor gives a hint about why a change is wanted, starting out with "to my mind" (See history file for November 29). In other words, personal and unsupported. Without more information, this reader was left wondering if the editor intended to suggest personal beliefs are sufficient grounds for removing an entire article. If so, isn't it the same as cherry-picking out what we dislike in any Wiki article and resubmitting it with a "new and improved" label? And, since facts are often reasonable enough to prove or disprove, do factual errors constitute grounds for using a point of view template? It's included among the reasons given. Unless the centrality of each claim is reasonably supported, the POV template should be removed Rasax 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Please! Any objective person can see there's not point in engaging you. Hardened criticism? Implode?
Your proposed text speaks for itself. Overarching reductionism, unsupported claims, editorializing, and verbosity are destructive for any article. Objectivity requires an absence of bias, something I've missed in your attempts to engage me. You're certainly welcome to engage the grounds to any argument I've submitted in support to the existing text or in opposition to your request for change. Rasax 22:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
16 February 2006 19:15 (PST) The template used suggests a cleanup may be required when a rationale is offered on the talk page. Criticism alone isn't reasonable proof and haste doesn't warrant it. Unless the editor can offer something more of substance, unsupported beliefs shouldn't be enough reason to saddle an article with a cleanup template. Rasax 04:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Sensationalism from Guthrie article headline recognized and put into an appropriate context with secondary, veryifiable sources for information. Rasax 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Prev §4.0, "Affinity for the Arts," incorporated into intro. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Background info more organized, separate, and with links. Rasax 18:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section now just states "Office of the Public Defender" and the years. "...in nine years" re-edited out since readers are given the length of time in the subsection header, and it's redundant. D.A. race info moved to §2.0, Politics and Public Service, where subject is pertinent. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section prevously "Career as a Public Defender, 1991-2000", now as is. 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section created, and Gonzalez's political experience is organized into subsections. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Moved intro from §2.2 to support opening statement in this section. POV comments left in text removed. The opening supported by actual events should adequately support the significance and any POV questions about it. "Registered" trivializes the significance of the candidacy and public sentiment in the district. Re-stated to simply remark that the candidate went Green and the district followed. Rasax 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Subsection incorporated at the beginning of Gonzalez's BOS experence and the reader given the significance of his candidacy. Since it originated from me, I felt okay with the edit. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"Candidate and District Go Green" (incorporated in section) Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §2.0, now listed as §2.1. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Positions summarized. Rasax 04:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously listed as §2.4, now indicated as §2.2.1. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section added, sources cited. Rasax 04:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Moved intro, "Municipal elections are nonpartisan but had been dominated for decades..." to previous paragraph to support the intro and remove the POV comment left in the text. Rasax 03:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Subsection moved to follow BOS experince. See §2.2.2 Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Previously listed as §2.2, now §2.2.2. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Paragraph 5, sources cited, added to list. Rasax 04:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Some adjectives removed, leaving a more neutral account of the event. Rasax 07:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §3.0. Previous §3.2, Central Platform Themes, Incorporated into section. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) and Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section moved to follow section about campaign. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) and Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §3.3, "Campaign Video Interview." Rasax 18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section removed and incorporated into article as needed. Rasax 06:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Section added and source citations included. Rasax 04:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §3.1, now §2.3.2. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §2.3.2, now §2.3.1 with removal of campaign interview section. Rasax 06:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §5.0, now §3.0. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments about Mirkarimi's role not relevant to article topic, and catty. Re-worded to maintain article focus on topicality. Rasax 18:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Subsection added 7 December, details added, sources cited. Rasax 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Suit's dismissal included when source cited, added to works referenced. Rasax 21:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
One could only hope local Greens were empowered enough to run Ackerman out of town. I'd guess they would've done it sooner to save the district money and put someone who isn't autocratic in charge. Since you're an activist for brevity, I suggest saving the background info for an article where Matt Gonzalez isn't the main subject. Rasax 03:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §5.1, now §3.1. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Section re-worded to direct focus back to article's topicality. Rasax 18:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Changed from "External links." Sources cited in chronological order. Rasax 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC) From "Works cited" to "References" Rasax 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §6.0, now §4.0. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Unverifiable links removed. Source citations given uniform notation style. Rasax 04:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Previously indicated as §7.0, now §5.0. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt
1. Repair all dead hyperlinks (2/18/06).
2. Remove "double dates" in "External links" (2/18/06).
Refuses to do it: "Since not all of the links included are mine, it is neither my obligation nor responsibility to update them."
3. Fix spelling errors (2/18/06)
4. Arrange "External links" by date order or by alphabetical order by author name (2/19/06)
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.
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)
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?