Talk:San Francisco Bay Guardian

message: ===POV Template - a rebuttal===
7 December 2005 17:00 (PST)  Here we go again.  The editor Griot has a tendency to make unsupported claims on Wiki articles, see Matt Gonzalez for example.  The editor has taken the liberty to re-write Wiki articles about Gonzalez and the Green Party in a negative light and now seeks to do the same to the SF Bay Guardian likely because they supported his candidacy for mayor.  According to this editor, positive recognition must be watered down in order to be neutral; a common reductive fallacy known as the Middle Ground fallacy.  The record will show an ongoing effort by this editor to revise Wiki articles and omit any statements the editor doesn't like about her or his political opponents, while failing to argue on merit.  In my view, the ability to edit carries a responsibility to satsify a reasonable burden of proof that goes beyond the vanity of personal belief and editors should yield when a view isn't supported or without making an attempt to make a case.  The POV template should be removed as Griot's personal opinion doesn't warrant the action.Rasax 01:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A read of this article or the one about Gonzalez will show that this fellow likes to use the wikipedia to propound his political beliefs and that he's a poor writer. The ability to edit carries with it a responsibility to be neutral. I tried in this article and the other to make this fellow understand that terms such as "on the frontlines" and "still fighting" belong in advertisments, not encyclopedias. The frontlines viewed from which side? Fighting for whom or against whom? It's hard to argue against this kind of convoluted thinking even when your opponent has good intentions and is willing to meet you halfway, but this fellow has not shown an ability to budge even an inch in any debate or show my opinions any respect. Arguing with idealogues is a futile endeavor. Hence the POV, which will warn readers to be wary of this article. Griot 01:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for changes discussion

message: 7 December 2005 17:00 (PST)  Here we go again.  The editor Griot has a tendency to make unsupported claims on Wiki articles, see Matt Gonzalez for example.  The editor has taken the liberty to re-write Wiki articles about Gonzalez and the Green Party in a negative light and now seeks to do the same to the SF Bay Guardian likely because they supported his candidacy for mayor.  According to this editor, positive recognition must be watered down in order to be neutral; a common reductive fallacy known as the Middle Ground fallacy.  The record will show an ongoing effort by this editor to revise Wiki articles and omit any statements the editor doesn't like about her or his political opponents, while failing to argue on merit.  In my view, the ability to edit carries a responsibility to satsify a reasonable burden of proof that goes beyond the vanity of personal belief and editors should yield when a view isn't supported or without making an attempt to make a case.  The POV template should be removed as Griot's personal opinion doesn't warrant the action.Rasax 01:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A read of this article or the one about Gonzalez will show that this fellow likes to use the wikipedia to propound his political beliefs and that he's a poor writer. The ability to edit carries with it a responsibility to be neutral. I tried in this article and the other to make this fellow understand that terms such as "on the frontlines" and "still fighting" belong in advertisments, not encyclopedias. The frontlines viewed from which side? Fighting for whom or against whom? It's hard to argue against this kind of convoluted thinking even when your opponent has good intentions and is willing to meet you halfway, but this fellow has not shown an ability to budge even an inch in any debate or show my opinions any respect. Arguing with idealogues is a futile endeavor. Hence the POV, which will warn readers to be wary of this article. Griot 01:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Template - a rebuttal

message: ====Hypocritical applied to belief====
re: "Hypocritically, some believe, because of its anti-union stance (see below), the Guardian often stakes out progressive positions on its editorial pages, advocating populist positions to make government more transparent and accountable to the public."
*Great, tell me why. You must be able to provide sufficient reasons to make it true in all cases because sweeping statements about what other people believe are impossible to support without any.  Why is it hypocrical to believe a paper's editorials can stake out progressive positions on a host of issues and not act in the same good faith at their own company?  Rasax 07:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biases

message: re: "Hypocritically, some believe, because of its anti-union stance (see below), the Guardian often stakes out progressive positions on its editorial pages, advocating populist positions to make government more transparent and accountable to the public."
*Great, tell me why. You must be able to provide sufficient reasons to make it true in all cases because sweeping statements about what other people believe are impossible to support without any.  Why is it hypocrical to believe a paper's editorials can stake out progressive positions on a host of issues and not act in the same good faith at their own company?  Rasax 07:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypocritical applied to belief

message: re: "In spite of its editorial advocacy for the public interest and social justice, the Bay Guardian has a record of being anti-union and paying its staffers less-than-living wages[5]."
*As much as I deplore companies that underpay and underappreciate their employees, the editor who made the insertion must qualify it for readers.  I'm willing to bet the cited link is helpful and will leave it for anyone wanting to do the extra legwork to build from.  Wiki readers should be given enough information about a topic without having to link out to see how true the statement is.  That burden should be on the editor, not the reader.  For now, I will revise and make a general statement to convey the point without a need to qualify it.  I'll leave it to the editor to come back and tell us more about the Guardian's poor business choices and imagine it'll have me ranting for weeks.  Fair enough?  Rasax 04:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Unionism v. Anti-Union policy

message: 6 December 2005 15:00 (PST) Hyperbolic spin put back into proportionality.  "The paper professes" requires supporting proof, whereas "the paper remains..." is a conclusion that follows the previous Wiki article.  New claims and evidence are best inserted into the central text of an article, not its conclusion. Rasax 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Projecting bias

message: *On the effects of gentrification and homelessness: "If you want to understand why there are so many homeless people in San Francisco, and so many working people in poverty, you need to look at a key statistic that rarely gets discussed in policy debates. It's what longtime housing activist Calvin Welch calls a "sociopathological imbalance": the gap between the income people get from minimum-wage jobs and government programs and the cost of housing in this city."  Brahinsky, R., and Tim Redmond. "Poverty amid plenty: why are there so many poor people in such a rich city? Start with the cost of housing," San Francisco Bay Guardian on the web, 22 October 2003. 8 December 2005
*On public power: "SOMEWHERE IN THE massive California Public Utilities Commission offices on Van Ness Avenue there's a roomful of documents several feet high that most people will never see. Wading through the stack is a mind-numbing task, and few ever do it. That's why a request buried deep in the pile to create a new Pacific Gas and Electric Co. program to fight public power – funded by your electric bills – hasn't gotten much attention so far." Brahinsky, R. "PG & E's sneak attack: The private utility wants to make you pay for its sleazy campaigns against public power," San Francisco Bay Guardian on the web, 19 February 2003. 8 December 2005
*Against privatization and sweetheart deals: "The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a plan Nov. 5 that could end Bechtel Infrastructure Corp.'s contract with the Public Utilities Commission – a contract that critics said was a step toward privatizing the city's water system...The contract, approved last summer by a Board of Supervisors dominated by allies of Mayor Willie Brown, was supposed to last four years and cost $45 million. It called for Bechtel and several other private companies, working under the name San Francisco Water Alliance, to manage a huge project: the overhaul of much of the city's aging water infrastructure system, which stretches some 150 miles and provides drinking water to San Francisco as well as more than a million additional customers in the Bay Area."  Blackwell, S. "Bye-bye Bechtel: Supes OK deal to end water privatization contract," San Francisco Bay Guardian on the web, 7 November 2001. 8 December 2005
*On cleaning up the elections process from special interest influence: "With fall elections out of the way, the San Francisco Ethics Commission is moving quickly to tighten campaign finance laws ahead of the five supervisorial races slated for next year's ballot and Mayor Gavin Newsom's reelection campaign in 2007. The most significant change would extend public campaign financing from the Board of Supervisors to other local races, including the one for mayor." Hirsch, M. "Money rules: Public financing for mayoral candidates tops the list of electoral reforms the Ethics Commission is pursuing," San Francisco Bay Guardian on the web, 16 - 22 November 2005. 8 December 2005
*On media censorship: "Here's what you didn't read while the papers were full of blow jobs and fluff: Genetic engineering is threatening the world's food supply and might be contributing to a dramatic outbreak of infectious diseases. Your government trained death squads in Mexico and sold weapons to Saddam Hussein; money you spent at a gas station helped soldiers kill nonviolent protesters in Nigeria. Your eyeglasses, silverware, and contraceptive devices might be made of "cleaned" radioactive metal -- and that's the way the Department of Energy wants it.  And the governments of the world's richest countries spent 1998 discussing the idea of turning the planet over to multinational companies." Roth, G. "Not fit to print? Project Censored uncovers the stories that didn't make the news in 1998," San Francisco Bay Guardian on the web, 24 March 1999.  8 December 2005 
Any questions?  Rasax 22:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and contribute. You're probably in a good position to do so. But remember: No tooting the Guardian's horn. This is an objective encyclopedia (or it's suppose to be). GriotGriot
*See Middle-ground fallacy.  "This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position ."  In other words, an article should be based on verifiable facts, not a balancing act between favorable and unfavorable outcomes or your belief about them. Rasax 22:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As if that sloppily written and poorly researched "another wiki article" isn't anything but you. 
**Bombast not a substitute for substance  "When no evidence or reasoning is available, advocates [for certain views] may sometimes attempt to suport their argument by sheer noise and histrionics." -- Freeley & Steinberg, "Argumentation and Debate," 10th ed, p. 175, Wadsworth: Belmont. Rasax 22:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Guardian positions about the local community & public interest

message: This is a terrible article.  It says almost nothing about the SFBG, it uses slanted language to describe the paper, and it spends more time discussing labor issues than the paper itself.  There's nothing about the history, and such important issues as its feud with the Weekly and occasionally, the Chronicle.  I personally happen to agree that the Guardian is a muckracking paper with an agenda, but I really don't think it's the point of Wikipedia to repeat opinions like that, particularly not without some backup.  The labor section is okay for what it is, only that two paragraphs about labor is about right for a paper with a two page article, not such a short stub.  I'm going to spend a few minutes cleaning up the tone but it would be great if someone could spend the time to expand the article.  The SF Weekly article needs help too.  Wikidemo 08:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still biased and with serious POV problems 

message: :Image:Guardianlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Guardianlogo.jpg

message: Per BLP, and per adequate sourcing requirements, i removed the section on anti union activities. if someone wants to find a mainstream source for this information, or even with sources from the paper and from the union involved, i have no problem. article referenced is an online, edited reposting of an article originally published in Processed World magazine, a very cool independent mag but NOT a valid source for a WP article about the guardian. im surprised no one else has taken this action before, considering the discussion here. we dont have to decide whos right or wrong, just whether we have adequate sourcing to include controversial (or truly ANY) material in WP. i have no doubt a better article could be written that lays out the guardians issues, hypocracies, etc, as any organization of its size and nature would have. im not gonna do it, and until someone can research it properly, this article will unfortunately be less sexy. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section on anti union activities as not adequately sourced 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on San Francisco Bay Guardian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423163239/http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/2012/04/19/breaking-san-francisco-examiner-just-bought-the-san-francisco-bay-guardian to http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/2012/04/19/breaking-san-francisco-examiner-just-bought-the-san-francisco-bay-guardian
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112024626/http://www.voicemediagroup.com/releases/2013-01-09a.html to http://www.voicemediagroup.com/releases/2013-01-09a.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131063338/http://sfist.com/2015/12/01/former_sf_bay_guardian_publisher_ma.php to http://sfist.com/2015/12/01/former_sf_bay_guardian_publisher_ma.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified