Talk:Matt Gonzalez/Archive 2

message: ==Reply from rasax about Griot's proposed article==
===§1.0, Claims and Evidence===
*28 November 15:15 (PST) Okay, Griot.  I'll begin here w/ intro/open paragraph I and work down per issue.  What can you use to support your beliefs with about the following claims for: 1. believing Gonzalez's biography is too long?   2. The article is weighted down. How so?, 3. The article is too laudatory when there are supporting source citations to show his accomplishments?  4.  The article is a "puff" piece?  5.  The article does not paint an accurate picture?  6.  A biography cannot include descriptive subjectivity when describing the individual's accomplishments?  The article isn't concise?  These are very loaded claims and you must be able to show why they're true and provide some evidence to show whether or not your claims have merit.  I'll wait for your response.  Rasax 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody who cares to wade through Rasax's bloviating can see she's just not a good person.
*9 December 19:00 (PST)
*Given an absence of reasonable explanation to warrant the POV template on the current article and an absence of reasonable proof that the current article is factually inaccurate, a template has been added to the discussion table.  The proposed article has been shown to not be what it's author has claimed.  Rasax 02:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DISCUSSION

message: ===§1.0, Claims and Evidence===
*28 November 15:15 (PST) Okay, Griot.  I'll begin here w/ intro/open paragraph I and work down per issue.  What can you use to support your beliefs with about the following claims for: 1. believing Gonzalez's biography is too long?   2. The article is weighted down. How so?, 3. The article is too laudatory when there are supporting source citations to show his accomplishments?  4.  The article is a "puff" piece?  5.  The article does not paint an accurate picture?  6.  A biography cannot include descriptive subjectivity when describing the individual's accomplishments?  The article isn't concise?  These are very loaded claims and you must be able to show why they're true and provide some evidence to show whether or not your claims have merit.  I'll wait for your response.  Rasax 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody who cares to wade through Rasax's bloviating can see she's just not a good person.
*9 December 19:00 (PST)
*Given an absence of reasonable explanation to warrant the POV template on the current article and an absence of reasonable proof that the current article is factually inaccurate, a template has been added to the discussion table.  The proposed article has been shown to not be what it's author has claimed.  Rasax 02:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply from rasax about Griot's proposed article

message: *28 November 15:15 (PST) Okay, Griot.  I'll begin here w/ intro/open paragraph I and work down per issue.  What can you use to support your beliefs with about the following claims for: 1. believing Gonzalez's biography is too long?   2. The article is weighted down. How so?, 3. The article is too laudatory when there are supporting source citations to show his accomplishments?  4.  The article is a "puff" piece?  5.  The article does not paint an accurate picture?  6.  A biography cannot include descriptive subjectivity when describing the individual's accomplishments?  The article isn't concise?  These are very loaded claims and you must be able to show why they're true and provide some evidence to show whether or not your claims have merit.  I'll wait for your response.  Rasax 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody who cares to wade through Rasax's bloviating can see she's just not a good person.
*9 December 19:00 (PST)
*Given an absence of reasonable explanation to warrant the POV template on the current article and an absence of reasonable proof that the current article is factually inaccurate, a template has been added to the discussion table.  The proposed article has been shown to not be what it's author has claimed.  Rasax 02:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: §1.0, Claims and Evidence

message: *28 November 19:30 (PST)  In your words, Griot, what does your intro improve?  How?  In looking at the first few sentences, I'd like to know what you use for evaluating a good intro and how yours meets that objective.  What key information does your suggestion tell a reader about the article's general tone that's missing from the first?  How does it relate to the overall theme?  Which one tells a reader more about the subject's biography?  Why? (Why? How? There is not point in arguing with an screaming idealogue.)
 
Note the differences:
1. From the suggested article: "Matt Gonzalez (born June 1965) is a former supervisor and president of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, California. He lost the 2003 mayor's election to Democrat Gavin Newsom. He is considered the first Green Party member elected to public office in San Francisco. Today, he heads the law firm Gonzalez & Leigh in San Francisco."
*  A. The editor clearly chooses to set the article's tone as a competition between Gonzalez and Newsom, emphasizing Newsom's anemic victory of a whopping 14,217 votes. The editor claims the current article does too much editorializing, and toots his own horn to claim this doesn't .
*  B.  The editor's uses weasel words to imply Gonzalez may not be the first elected Green, yet takes the liberty to state the existing article is unbalanced .
*  C.  It takes some degree of audacity to criticize the current article as poorly written, question its accuracy, and offer the following: "[Gonzalez] is considered the first Green Party member..." , and later state "He became the second Green Party member elected..." .  The editor can't seem to decide which one, leaving the reader to wonder if he was the first or not and the issue was settled long ago .
*  D.  Clearly, the editor intends to use an axe for political hackery 101.  I'll leave the current article's intro to speak for itself. Rasax 07:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: §1.1, Intro

message: *Definition (essay format): “...the controlling idea, the main point, the conclusion you have drawn about the evidence you have accumulated.” -- Fowler and Aaron. The Little, Brown Handbook , 8th ed., p. 30, New York: Longman.
E.g. Lead: “Matt Gonzalez was a district supervisor and former president of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, California.”
*Functions of a thesis: “1. It narrows your subject to a single, central idea that you want readers to gain from your essay 2. It names the topic and asserts something specific and significant about it 3. It conveys your reason for writing, your purpose, 4. It often provides a concise preview of how you will arrange you ideas in the essay.” (ibid, p.31)
*Basis: Emphasizing Newsom's win at Gonzalez's expense does not develop the thesis.  The statement was debated as being non-topical and Griot continues to re-insert it as the article’s main idea when it isn't anything more than a gloating reminder that the editor doesn't think highly about the individual whose biography s/he monopolizes.  Rasax 23:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsom doesn't belong in the intro:

message: In the intro?  Why?  Exactly how is it topical to the article's overall theme?  It's not; therefore, it doesn't belong in the intro. I seem to notice that any effort to obfuscate Gonzalez's party affiliation and successes is taking a front seat to what the article is supposed to be about - Matt Gonzalez.  If you want it in an intro, then I suggest another article all about elections in San Francisco. You could even use it as the article's intro because it's topical in that context.  Rasax 17:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At the national Green Party web site, it says only one Green has won a nonpartisan election, a guy from Maine. I deduced from that fact that no Green in California has won a nonpartisan election. 
Well, you’d be wrong - again.  The BOS are nonpartisan positions, as is the mayor.  I think you mean to say partisan.  In case you haven’t noticed, Mark Sanchez, Ross Mirkarimi, Sarah Lipson, etc... are all elected to nonpartisan positions.  But let’s assume you and your myopic righteousness meant partisan.  You’d still be wrong.  Now go look up Audie Bock.  Not a proud moment, but never means not have ever happened, and you were wrong. Issue resolved  Of course, why make that the opening statement for an article about someone you don't like?   22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant. Some would think he won against a Democrat or Republican in a partisan election, but he didn't.
*Perhaps, if someone were lazy enough to be bothered with reading the article.  Rasax 00:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (municipal elections are officially nonpartisan)

message: Matt.  Supported by the following:
Sources: Matt's own website , Boalt Hall School of Law at U.C. Berkeley .  
The next article  can be linked from the CA Green Party webpages.  The article's timing is supported by another souce - an interview with Mark Sanchez by none other than Matt himself.  Here's what Sanchez says, "I was elected to the Board of Education in November 2000 and joined the Green Party before I took office. Ive always been progressive and I felt that the Greens more closely reflected my politics."
At the California Green Party webpages, Sanchez is credited as one of the "Greens [who] captured seats on two schools boards Nov. 2 - Mark Sanchez, who became the first Green to be re-elected in San Francisco to the Board of Education."
http://www.cagreens.org/press/pr041129.htm
What does it all mean? Sanchez was elected before Gonzalez in November, but as a Democrat.  He didn't switch his party affiliation until after Gonzalez won the run-off campaign, but before he was sworn into office in January, just as it stated in the SF Bay Guardian and now correctly credits him in his biographical info.  
Matt was elected in December 2000 after D5 voters Dumped the Democrats and kicked Owens to the curb on election day.  It's not asking too much to have your tall-tales in order if you're going to make up stuff.  Get a life, Griot. Matt is the first elected Green in San Francisco. [Edit to include in current section] Rasax 08:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Who was the first elected Green in SF?'''

message: 1. Matt Gonzalez should be recognized and credited in his Wiki article as the first Green elected to public office in San Francisco.
2.  The description I submitted about Gonzalez’s campaign for Supervisor is more accurate.   The article should revert back to my previous submission because the following revisions are less concise and contain factual errors:
*	a.  Between the general election and the run-off campaign against Juanita Owens...
:Gonzalez switched parties between the general election and the run-off election. Why is this being disputed?
*Because you can't get your "facts" straight.
*	b. Between the general election and the run-off campaign against Juanita Owens, Gonzalez left the Democratic Party and registered with the Green Party. 
*	c.  In an attempt to capitalize on anger against the Green Party in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election, Owens attempted to use Gonzalez's Green Party affiliation to her advantage in the campaign...
*	d.  "...but Gonzalez won the run-off election to become the second elected Green Party official in San Francisco (after school board member Larry Sanchez)." 	
3.  Newsom’s mayoral win should be removed from the introduction.
4.  Criticism should be cleaned up and refined or removed.
5.  Changing "Dump" to "Leave" offers no compelling reason and should be changed back.   Rasax 02:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeking corrections on the following