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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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?
Intro clean up. Previous Early Years section changed to Background, and smaller subsections combined. Rasax 14:11, 2 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)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
5. Section 2.2. Intro
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.”
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#Tobacco redux) Kaisershatner 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
9. Revision article proponents have not offered any reasonable evidence that the previous article needed changing.
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)
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)
>>>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].
Moncrief 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
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].
>>>>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].
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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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?
Intro clean up. Previous Early Years section changed to Background, and smaller subsections combined. Rasax 14:11, 2 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)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
5. Section 2.2. Intro
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.”
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#Tobacco redux) Kaisershatner 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
9. Revision article proponents have not offered any reasonable evidence that the previous article needed changing.
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)
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)
>>>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].
Moncrief 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
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].
>>>>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].