Talk:Matt Gonzalez

message: There is a lot of emphasis in this article on Gonzalez's Green Party membership and the fact that he was one of the most successful Green politicians in the country.  While I don't want to minimize this fact, I do think that something totally unmentioned in the article needs to be made clear: that California city elections are non-partisan, in that nobody's party affiliation appears on the ballot.  Everyone from all parties competes in what is essentially a primary, and if nobody gets 50 percent, then the top two go to a runoff.  This in essence makes the election much more about individuals than parties.  I used to live in the Bay Area (Oakland, as it happens, where elections are run the same way) -- the difference in dynamics with my current home, Baltimore, where candidates participate in traditional party primaries before heading to the general -- is marked.
Anyway, I am trying to figure out the best way to put this in the article to explain how this dynamic works without minimizing the genuine point of interest: that a Green Party candidate almost was elected mayor of a major American city. --Jfruh (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonpartisan nature of elections 

message: All the references should be properly formatted including the accessdate. Ths will greatly help resolve content issues. Benjiboi 03:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference clean-up 

message: The external links should be cleaned up and if Gonzalez's writings are notable they should be converted to a bibliography section instead. Benjiboi 03:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links clean-up 

message: In an article about Matt Gonzalez, the only image is a picture of Gavin Newsom.  Makes no sense to me -- any objections to deleting the image? --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. Better to simply add a photo of Gonzalez. Benjiboi 20:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, it would be better, but if no image of Matt Gonzalez is immediately available, I still think that no image would be better than the current state. --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've emailed a contact at the old campaign website for Matt Gonzalez in the hopes of obtaining a free use image. --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I will delete the Newsom image until this can be resolved.  Now that Matt is a VP candidate there should be an image of him posted asap. bov (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Lots of images to choose from are here.bov (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on Wikipedia's image licensing restrictions, I don't think we can just pull an image off his old website, as they might not pass muster as fair use.  There used to be an image on this article but it was deleted, presumably because it didn't have proper fair use justification or license information.  Note that some of the images on his old site bear copyright notices of the photographer.  The "info@mattgonzalez.com" email address bounced as full, the press contact listed there also bounced. I suggest we wait, perhaps, until a free-use image is posted, perhaps on the Nader campaign site? --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's image guidelines are  here. Editor Wikidemo  has contacted the Nader campaign's Flickr account holder, which has some fine images released for limited media usage, to confirm that the stated license would extend to usage on Wikipedia. So my suggestion is to please hang tight, no sense in inserting images that will have to be deleted later by the copyright police. --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks to Bay Area photographer and activist Robert B. Livingston for posting a photo he took of Matt for the page.  It's a good one. bov (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks.  I haven't heard back on the Nader image so I guess we can let this one rest....Wikidemo (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Thank you for the compliments-- but my photo was only posted as a temporary measure.  I tried to post better photos made available by the Gonzalez campaign with the assurance that they were suitable-- however they were removed because they were obviously not considered within the Wikipedia's guidelines, although I thought they were. I am still hoping that a better, more suitable photograph will replace mine-- which has since been reinstated by another Wikipedia contributor-- replaced, by the way, by an image that is not completely true to the original image which I had posted (mine had a shadow on the border).  As my photo was contributed as public domain-- there is arguably nothing wrong with this-- but the Matt Gonzalez article deserves better-- and more iconographic photos.  Let's see if it happens-- meantime-- I do not wholly endorse the image that I contributed-- certainly not as a permanent image.--Robert B. Livingston (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  only image -- of Newsom? 

message: Perhaps I'm nitpicking here, but public defenders (and criminal defense lawyers in general) are not commonly referred to as "trial lawyers".  In its common usage, the term "trial lawyer" refers to a plaintiff's lawyer in civil trial. 68.53.88.198 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial lawyer? 

message: Now that he's a VP candidate Gonzalez is no doubt giving his rumpled suit a much needed pressing...we should do the same here because a lot of people will be reading this article.  I'm thinking a little more biographical material, especially his education and career as a lawyer, and his personal life.  Also, I think the article is pretty good and neutral (let's hope it stays that way) for now.  But English-wise it could be spiffed up.  One thing I notice is a lot of contractions (didn't, wasn't, etc) that should be spelled out for formal tone. Ive done enough today and don't want to take over the article but that's my idea.  Also, fixing reference cites as noted above, and googling and adding citations for important facts that aren't yet cited.  I found that most uncited facts in the article are true, they just need us to find a source.  Wikidemo (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving article 

message: Why were the images that Robert Livingston posted of Matt deleted?  I'll write to Robert Livingston and alert him. 67.170.205.8 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deletions 

message: IP address 71.139.23.172 deleted this reference. User has same IP range as User:Griot. Reference checked, confirmed valid. Restored. LandonAdamScott (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Added Reference 

message: Does anybody else think this article needs an overhaul? Nobody has editing it for some time. I think it should be parred down a bit commensurate to the subject. For example, most of the links in the "Articles by Gonzalez" section are dead. How about removing them? Most of them can be gotten at G's blog site anyway. If no one objects, I'd like to take a stab and winnowing this article. Chisme (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see there is no objection to this. I'm going to start by removing the "Articles" section and streamlining the intro. Chisme (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Cut the fluff out of the "Early Life" section today. Chisme (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul of this article?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Matt Gonzalez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050420080545/http://www.cfac.org:80/Attachments/sf_document_destruction.html to http://www.cfac.org/Attachments/sf_document_destruction.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I saw the recent changes.  Some were good.  I broke this up into separate sections in case you wish to comment there.
(1) These two ( ), I reverted (( ).   I do understand your attempt to simply the article into chronological order and move the information about party affiliation there.  However, Gonzalez was a unique politician in San Francisco (and the U.S.) because of his affiliation with the Green Party, it is worthy of a special section as in the original.  (I could probably find RS to support that.  I think there is book by a San Francisco State Univ. Political Sci. author who discusses liberal politics that might discuss this.)  I do not necessarily object to changing the material to be chronological if the emphasis/significance of Green Party affiliation switch is sufficiently highlighted. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wary of the deletion of the other material as it included citations, but it didn't feel important enough to contest. That said, I would probably remove the sentence about other politicians leaving the Green Party at the same time as Gonzalez. If, per the source, it truly is "coincidental" and not causal or cooperative, then I don't know that it really belongs in this article. It becomes speculative. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I deleted it. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to streamline this article. It seems to have a lot of fluff. For example, why all the details about his run for VP? Why a whole paragraph about the October 18, 2008 protest? Why a whole paragraph about third-party VP debate? Also, I don't see why the article needs all the backing and forthing about Gonzalez's party affiliation. Yes, it was a big deal when he joined the Green Party and ran for mayor as a Green, but he soon the left the Green Party. Doesn't that negate all the drama around him being a member of the Greens? Party affiliation doesn't seem to matter much to him, which leads me to think it shouldn't matter much in this article. Chisme (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we report what is in the WP:RS rather than try to be mind readers about what matters to him?  It seems the conclusion that he doesn't care about party affiliation is WP:SYN. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

text: It's a fair conclusion, I think, to assume his party affiliation doesn't matter that much. What about the third-party VP debate and the Oct 18 2008 protest? Clearly those are minor episodes in his life. Why do they get so much space? Chisme (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

text: As I recall, you've been here long enough to understand that we don't draw our own conclusions. I agree with David, that's completely WP:SYN. As for your other points, I don't really care about the third-party VP debate so much. That detail could probably be moved to an article about the election itself. Also, I don't know if the 2008 protest was particularly notable. One sentence might be sufficient for that. However, I would caution you not to let your apparent distaste for Gonzalez pull you away from the pillar of WP:NPOV. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that to mean the third-party VP debate can go. I'm removing it. What about the 2008 protest which we agree isn't notable. Can that be removed? Chisme (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with that. David, what say you? I did a little more digging to see if I could find more resources for the October protest outside the NYSE. I didn't even get a bite from searching Democracy Now. It doesn't seem that notable to me. I think it can probably go. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 19:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes -- Further proposals 

message: I see you are making a number of WP:BOLD changes without discussing on the talk page, and that you have not responded to anything I posted above from a year ago.  I do think some of your edits are improvements, but not all.   I would appreciate if you engage more here and that you propose big changes on the talk page first so we have time to consider them.  Thanks.  I am pinging , ,  who have also participated this month for any thoughts on these overall changes.  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wary of the deletion of the other material as it included citations, but it didn't feel important enough to contest. That said, I would probably remove the sentence about other politicians leaving the Green Party at the same time as Gonzalez. If, per the source, it truly is "coincidental" and not causal or cooperative, then I don't know that it really belongs in this article. It becomes speculative. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I deleted it. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to streamline this article. It seems to have a lot of fluff. For example, why all the details about his run for VP? Why a whole paragraph about the October 18, 2008 protest? Why a whole paragraph about third-party VP debate? Also, I don't see why the article needs all the backing and forthing about Gonzalez's party affiliation. Yes, it was a big deal when he joined the Green Party and ran for mayor as a Green, but he soon the left the Green Party. Doesn't that negate all the drama around him being a member of the Greens? Party affiliation doesn't seem to matter much to him, which leads me to think it shouldn't matter much in this article. Chisme (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we report what is in the WP:RS rather than try to be mind readers about what matters to him?  It seems the conclusion that he doesn't care about party affiliation is WP:SYN. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

text: It's a fair conclusion, I think, to assume his party affiliation doesn't matter that much. What about the third-party VP debate and the Oct 18 2008 protest? Clearly those are minor episodes in his life. Why do they get so much space? Chisme (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

text: As I recall, you've been here long enough to understand that we don't draw our own conclusions. I agree with David, that's completely WP:SYN. As for your other points, I don't really care about the third-party VP debate so much. That detail could probably be moved to an article about the election itself. Also, I don't know if the 2008 protest was particularly notable. One sentence might be sufficient for that. However, I would caution you not to let your apparent distaste for Gonzalez pull you away from the pillar of WP:NPOV. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that to mean the third-party VP debate can go. I'm removing it. What about the 2008 protest which we agree isn't notable. Can that be removed? Chisme (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with that. David, what say you? I did a little more digging to see if I could find more resources for the October protest outside the NYSE. I didn't even get a bite from searching Democracy Now. It doesn't seem that notable to me. I think it can probably go. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 19:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: More Changes

message: I see this page has quite a bit of RS within it:
* SF Chronicle, 04/13/03  (re minimum wage) 
* SF Chronicle, 02/28/02  (re minimum wage) 
* SF Chronicle, 01/04/06  (re mimimum wage) 
...
That's just for that one section.  --David Tornheim (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More RS 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Gonzalez. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lvrj.com/news/33740169.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219011551/http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?id=70720 to http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?id=70720
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) 20:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Gonzalez. 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/20110417153319/http://sfpublicdefender.org/about/leadership/ to http://sfpublicdefender.org/about/leadership/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170914221545/http://sfist.com/2012/02/01/matt_gonzalez_is_suing_the_city_tha.php to http://sfist.com/2012/02/01/matt_gonzalez_is_suing_the_city_tha.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) 12:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Matt Gonzalez. 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/20060225151041/http://www.cagreens.org/greenfocus/gonzalez.html to http://www.cagreens.org/greenfocus/gonzalez.html
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) 11:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Gonzalez. 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/20151108020131/http://sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=1681 to http://sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=1681
*Added  tag to http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/?monthRecording=Nov&yearRecording=2003
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218053210/http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-02-13/news/wikipedia-idiots-the-edit-wars-of-san-francisco/print to http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-02-13/news/wikipedia-idiots-the-edit-wars-of-san-francisco/print
*Added  tag to http://www.naderexplore08.org/index.html
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) 19:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)