Talk:Chris Daly/Archive 1

message: In the 2006 election, Daly's principal opponent was Rob Black, an attorney who was supported by many conservative organizations including the SF Police Officers Association and the Golden Gate Restaurateurs Association. Black was also endorsed by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. Independent expenditure committees spent an unprecedented amount of money for a local campaign, mostly on circulars attacking Chris Daly and pointing voters to a web site - DumpDaly.org. Some of the flyers seemed to break San Francisco election law and were referred to the city Elections Board, causing the board to lift the spending cap on the District 6 election. Despite this, Daly had a 10% lead in first-round voting, nearly reaching the 50% needed to avoid the allocation of second choice votes. (San Francisco uses Ranked Choice Voting for city elections.)
:Your point? Griot 21:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 Election

message: Does this really demonstrate Chris' controversial demeanor?  Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 15:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It most definitely does. She's his wife. If first lady Laura Bush for example behaved like this, would it make the news? Would it be mentioned in the Bush article. I think so. 71.139.27.85 16:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might make the news and it might be in Bush's article, but I don't see how it really demonstrates anything about Chris' demeanor.  Is there a more appropriate place for it? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarah Daly quote

message: I have semi-protected the article for the time being, due to edit warring, disruption, and content removal. If you want to make major changes to the article, please discuss proposed changes here on the Talk page. --MCB 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: It may be impossible for there to be a "balanced" wiki entry for Daly.  Maligning Daly is good business for many in the press -- it is easy enough to source lies about his record.  One could source a Matt Smith or Ken Garcia to disparage Daly and then easily be countered on the same subject by sourcing Steven T. Jones or Paul Hogarth.
Further, while there is no way to tell for sure, it seems as if partisans are using this Wiki page to push back and forth on San Francisco politics.  This hardly seems fair in an individual's biography, which is broader than the internecine local politics. -- SFProg on 6/18/07
:I think this entry is pretty well balanced. It doesn't "malign" Daly, as all information here is sourced. Rather than blank the article as SFProg has done, I suggest he find quotes from people more sympathetic to Daly and weave them into the existing article. Griot 18:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectivity

message: I'm not a registered user.  Could someone please put in some notes on Daly's Proposition H,
which banned nearly all handguns in SF, although was never enforced because it was
struck down by the California courts?  This was an important issue he got behind,
and it got nation-wide coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.104.117 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 June 2007
:Done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Daly#Proposition_to_ban_firearms --BillyTFried 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it wasn't "Daly's gun ban." Daly was a co-author of the proposition. Griot 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, the gun ban was very controversial, the media coverage alone was indicative of that. The fact that Mr. Daly was a co-author of this measure ties him irrevocably with the measure regardless of whether or not you agree with it. The section is well sourced and not worded improperly. This section should undoubtedly be included. --Ian Struan 20:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Daly was one of four supervisors who put Prop H on the ballot. Is Prop H mentioned in the articles about the other three supervisors? It is not. If the Prop H isn't mentioned in the other supervisors' articles, it doesn't belong here either. Also bear in mind that the measure was not controversial in liberal SF. It became a national bugaboo to gun nuts across America, but in Daly's own backyward, where he resides and where he is a supervisor, it hardly amounted to a drop in the bucket. Griot 05:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gun control

message: I was going to just let this issue drop, but after thinking about it further decided that no, it's not OK to let the language of this article ("went ballistic") to stand. Why? Well, to those who keep insisting that we must preserve this language since it is in a "quote", let me remind all here that this is not a public official being quoted, nor even a well-known political figure: it's a couple of newspaper columnists who, after all, are basically paid to dish dirt and to do so in colorful language that will grab their shrinking readership's attention. Not exactly what I would call encyclopedic. In fact, downright misleading, as if some kind of overarching mediating authority is being quoted. If someone like Willie Brown (or, more to the point, Aaron Peskin) were quoted saying such things, then it might be worth repeating here.
Now, there are times when it is useful, even compelling, to use such language, such as when an event or incident rises to such heights of outrageousness that to not use the original language would be tantamount to censorship or using weasel words, but such is not the case here. Besides, the original quote is only a couple of clicks away for those who bother to read the reference, and there's plenty of other red meat for Daly-bashers to feast on here, which seems to be the underlying agenda of those who doggedly (woof! woof!) insist on retaining M&R's exact words. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we attribute it to Matier and Ross in the article? That will make it clear that the words are coming from a third-party. There is nothing wrong with quoting newspaper columnists. It's done all the time on wikipedia. As for your argument about "encyclopedia-like" language, that doesn't mean articles should be droll. In fact, enlivening them is a good idea if you can do it with quotes, as is the case here. Obviously Matier and Ross and their editors believed that the description is accurate. It belongs in this article. Griot 18:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict over direct use of M&R S.F. Chron article language 

message: Do we now have consensus on including the image? Or do we need a vote? Eiler7 12:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus does not require that everyone agree.  It looks to me like there is a consensus. Dlabtot 04:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; no consensus seen from this corner. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask you to review what I wrote above in the discussion with Chris and respond? It appears to me that there are good arguments for inclusion and I would like your feedback. Eiler7 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  It's important when determining consensus to ignore the repetitive comments of the very few editors who have attempted to dominate the discussion through sheer volume.  One editor saying one thing 200 times should not be given more weight than one editor who says one thing one time. Dlabtot 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  There was no response from ILike. I think there is now consensus that the image can be added. BillyTFried, I suggest you go ahead, Eiler7 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. BillyTFried 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have closed the RFC. Eiler7 18:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus question 

message: I just want to ask if you guys think that the caption "Daly speaking with a member of the SFPD" fits the description of the image? Chris! my talk 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was suggested to me by a friend that the text I wrote seems purposefully understated. And that because of that it may make the viewer read it and then look at the pic and say to themselves, "He's not speaking. He's shouting", and so in that sense I am affecting the readers point of view, which was not my intention. I just didn't want to use words like arguing, quarrelling, yelling, debating, or shouting, so I went with speaking. But I have been thinking about it too and maybe it should just say "Daly with a member of the SFPD" or "Daly and a member of the SFPD". BillyTFried 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Daly is "either a hothead or a passionate advocate would be a balance way of helping people unstnd the use of an image of that nature. Benjiboi 14:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. BillyTFried 07:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remove the "either a hothead or a passionate advocate" part. I just don't think that is necessary. Keep it simple. Chris! ct 00:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption of the image 

message: Could someone add this to the page, below references but above the SFSupervisors box? (code found by clicking "edit")




Currently, all the current (and some former) supervisors have this box with the exception of Chris Daly, due to the semiprotection of the article. Thanks! --71.141.117.207 03:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. For your information, place code after a  tag, and before a  tag;  any place you need to have an HTML tag - replace the openning < with < - and then the code should appear properly without needing to click "edit". Od Mishehu 08:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition