Talk:Matt Gonzalez/Archive 5

message: *Re: "Double-dates"  The dates indicated are MLA style notation, used to indicate when a link was last tested.  I'm not sure what the problem is. The editor Griot may wish to familiarize himself with MLA style online notation before calling something an error. Rasax 22:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)Wikipedia does not use MLA styles. If you can find a single article in the Wikipedia that uses the MLA double-date notation, I'd like to know about it. 2)If you want to use this MLA style, you are oblilged to apply it to all the references in "External links." An editorial style has to apply to all text, not some of it. I think because you are the only person who uses this MLA style in all of the Wikipedia, you are obliged to remove these double dates and confirm with the Wikipedia style. Please clean up your article, Rasax; I'm frankly tired of arguing for a basic level of scholarshiop here. Griot 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Find me one article on Wiki besides yours that has the MLA citation style. Find just one. I dare ya. I double dare ya. Griot 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Find me one article -- just one -- on Wiki besides yours that has the MLA citation style. Find just one. I double dare ya. I triple dare ya. Griot 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Find me one article -- just one itty-bitty teensy-weensy article -- on Wiki besides yours that has the MLA citation style. Find just one. I triple dare ya. I quadruple dare ya. (It's okay to be wrong now and then.) Griot 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notation style

message: 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.
:It's plain to me, too. But good luck trying to get her to fix it or even acknowledge any criticism. Griot 16:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Orwellian terms? Kind of melodramatic, don't you think? The guy has a very legitimate criticism and you ignore it. And Ras, you broke the mould this time! "He described his father's employment with Brown & Williamson in the late '50s and early '60s as a salesman who sold 'cigarettes from the back of his car in south[ern] Texas.'" Putting aside grammar and style errors, why do you persist in denying that his father was a business executive? The family lived in Puerto Rico, Maryland, Kentucky, and New Orleans until Gonzalez was age 11. Are you suggesting that he sold cigarettes from the back of a car in those locations? Griot 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The man could not have been selling cigarettes out of his car in Kentucky, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and New Orelans. It's that simple. This article explains where the Gonzalez family lived. It also states, "His father, Mateo Gonzalez, was a division chief for tobacco giant Brown & Williamson." Division chiefs do not sell cigarettes from the back of cars. Am I suggesting that Gonzalez may have mischaracterized his father's past in his interview to the Chronicle editorial board? Am I suggesting -- egads! -- that a politician may have equivocated with the truth? I am. And as a scholar, your job is to root out the truth behind the static. Please don't persist in this car cigarette selling hoo-hah nonsense. Griot 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Total. Puff. Piece. Griot 00:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As I already explaned to you at some length, you are the only person on Wikipedia who uses the MLA citation style. That style makes absolutely no sense in the context of live links. You external links are useless to anyone who wants to learn more about Gonzalez. You have delivered a poorly written puffpiece that is of no use to anyone. Nobody reads your article. Have you noticed that? Griot 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Total Puff Piece

message: *§1.0 
Intro clean up.  Previous Early Years section changed to Background, and smaller subsections combined. Rasax 14:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scare quotes removed from course. Rasax 18:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Scare quotes removed from machine politics.  Rasax 03:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Editor revised sentence structure to state "Municipal elections are nonpartisan but had been dominated for decades by Democrats, and the election of a Green candidate effectively broke the Democratic Party's monopoly on local politics."  This is overstated when subject-verb is understood in the sentence construction given in the first clause. Rasax 17:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Section revision is confusing and loses the topicality of the article.  Sanchez praises the Green party for its diversity and expanding its diversity with Gonzalez's rise in the first article cited.  Cause and effect should be properly attributed when support is provided, and it is.  The re-write clouds it and needn't.  Rasax 03:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Paragraph one, second sentence.  I have no problem with mentioning the writer's biases and am fine with the addition.  However, I find the need to include campaign with supporters jumping the gun a bit since local reaction was a preface to the campaign. Rasax 02:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paragraph three, second sentence.  "Gonzalez was endorsed by several key local Democrats and local Democratic organizations.."  Comma added and local needn't be mentioned twice.  Readers are already given the idea fom the sentence construction.  Rasax 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article edits

message: 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)
thread_title: Previous article

message: 5. Section 2.2.  Intro
*Opening is contradictory and misleading.  “In 2003, Gonzalez ran for Mayor of San Francisco, in a bid to replace outgoing two-term mayor Willie Brown. Gonzalez challenged Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and another member of the Board of Supervisors.”’  The second makes two erroneous assumptions and misleads readers.  First, Gonzalez exclusively challenged Newsom when, in fact, there were a slew of candidates.  Readers are not given this information until several paragraphs later, and after an initial bias is left unchallenged.  Secondly, mayors in San Francisco are hand-picked by an incumbent, though I’m inclined to agree Emperor Willie probably thought so.  Framing the discussion this way also fails Wikipedia's undue weight policy because it assumes a majority view.  The policy states: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."
:I think "In 2003, Gonzalez ran for Mayor of San Francisco, in a bid to replace outgoing two-term mayor Willie Brown. Gonzalez challenged Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and another member of the Board of Supervisors" is merely a summary sentence to describe the final phase of the mayoral election, on December 9.  Brown couldn't run again so I'm not sure what's wrong with saying "bid to replace" him.  I'm not seeing anything about anyone being "handpicked."  (But I'm glad you are able to keep your POV statements like "Emperor Willie" to the Talk page).  I added a clause clarifying that he faced Newsom in the run-off election on December 9.  Since they were the only two people on the ballot in that election, which determined the winner of the mayoral election, I'll assume this is non-controversial now.  Moncrief 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The re-write clearly ignores the reported effect of Gonzalez's candidacy and shifts the focus to the Democrat Party.  Gonzalez's bio shouldn't have to sacrifice his personal details for an off-topic subject.  Secondly, framing the sentence to state "Gonzalez challenged Newsom" conveys the idea that it was all Newsom's and big, bad Matt tried to take it away from him.  Becoming mayor is earned with voter approval, not nepotism.  And, I m glad you're glad I make no apologies for my views and am not about to.  My points remain valid with and without my biases about Willie's two-term ego trip.  At the very least, I'm honest enough to recognize my biases without feeling compelled to re-write the bio's of people I'm not crazy about and pawn it off as "objectivity."  Then again, life's too short in my opinion and I value my time.  Rasax 17:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just tell us how you'd like the sentence to be instead.  I can't figure it out.  Why not offer your proposed text?  Moncrief 17:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have.  If you'll remember, it was re-written without so-much as a discussion, and my invitation refused.  Beyond suggestions limited in scope to what's been re-written and framed, it isn't clear what I'm expected to offer at this point.  Rasax 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intro re-write now fine as far as NPOV is concerned in my opinion.  Will move from NPOV list to cleanup. Rasax 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How would you like to rephrase it?  What about "Gonzalez's mayoral bid attracted national and international...."?  Good?  Moncrief 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ignore the run-on sentence, omissions, and address my biggest concern at the moment - the framing.  Gonzalez's candidacy wasn't about making SF "the first major city with a Green mayor." That's the author's take and its biased.  One would have to be at the airport when the ship was at the loading dock in order to write-off Gonzalez's entire campaign and make it about his party affiliation. Perhaps that wasn't the intention but it comes across that way when included as part of the section's intro.  If his campaign were truly about advancing the party above the public interest, it's unlikely his campaign would've done as well as it did in a municipality largely comprised of Democrats. Rasax 02:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: May archive

message: 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.”’  
*The sentence makes a statement of fact contradicted by Gonzalez three days earlier in an interview with the paper’s editorial board.  The statement was based entirely on one article without additional support.  Wikipedia policy offers some help for identifying neutral points of view (NPOV) contradictions, stating, “[an] article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts.” Furthermore, it recommends describing the controversy instead of taking sides.  The previous article allowed the reader to draw her or his own conclusion after seeing what the SF Chronicle alluded to in its article, and Gonzalez’s own characterization.  The revision uses the Chron’s POV as a statement of fact, and recycles it in Section 3.
*16 May 2006.  11:45 (PST).  Kaiserhatner, the article source you'd mentioned is linked  here.  I agree - Gonzalez's interview neither confirms nor directly refutes the Guthrie article in the SF Chron but selling cigarettes from a car is a stretch from division chief; an obvious disparity.  The point I was making was related to another claim made by the paper's editorial board about his father owning a maquiladora factory, and Gonzalez attributed the error to one editor not having the Knight-Ridder story right.  I agree the differences are probably best stated as is to keep any potential liability risk to a minimum and a lone burden for the SF Chron to carry until this is shown to be true or false.  Rasax 18:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision article

message: 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)
replies: text: Where to start? How about if you begin by fixing the numerous dead links? And spell Hallinan's name correctly? You could wiki him while you're at it.
*A good start is the confusing nature of the criticism offered.  As a test, the article's first ten links are working as intended.  The double r in Hallinan's first name is a minor error anyone can correct and doesn't warrant the need for a cleanup template. Rasax 00:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: One need only look at the article to see how sloppy and unworthy of the Wikipedia it is. Text is underlined for no reason. Eighty percent of the citations are to one place -- the SF Bay Guardian. Grammatical errors are legion. Please clean it up.
*Would you mind being more specific about the article and less editorial?  Thanks.  Rasax 20:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found 21 dead links. Please fix them. The misspelling of Hallinan's name is typical of the numerous misspellings. Please fix them.
*Previous comments archived.  Please see Archive 3 under the cleanup section.  Links have been tested, results noted, and indicated in article's notation.  Likewise, Hallinan's name was fixed and noted.  Numerous misspellings?  Would you be more specific?  Unless you can cite reasons for the cleanup template, it should be removed.  My request is noted.  Rasax 00:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but I believe that the numerous spelling errors, grammar errors, and style inconsistencies still warrant a "Clean Up" notice. I would work on a cleanup, but my suggestions are always dismissed outright. I am hoping that a third person comes along to critizque this article and clean it up without prejudice. Griot
*Beliefs aside, please list these "numerous" spelling, grammar, and style errors to warrant the template.  According to  wikipedia's help pages, these templates cannot be arbitrarily placed without offering an explanation on the article's talk pages.  You've neither cited any specific issues nor offered any comment about the article's cleanup since February.  Simply stating you believe x, y, and z exist without qualifying it is an unsupported opinion.  Templates require more than weasel words and fallacious reasoning to support them.  Unless you can support your claims, the template(s) should be removed. Rasax 21:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Paragraph 1: "The editor must be able to answer..."? Am I your editor now? Have you so successfully excluded me from the main article that I can now only act in the capacity of editor? Usually I charge for my editing services, but I'm going to do you a favor. I've noticed with pleasure that you've pulled material from the article on the Discussion page and folded it into the article on the main page. You strenuously objected to some of this material in months past, but now you're using it. That's splendid. 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)
replies: text: Of course not.  Public figures tend to be more visible.   This part of the intro is qualified in the text and shouldn't be confusing for anyone who follows it.  An article's opening paragraph is required to give a reader a brief idea or summary of what it's about as long as it's qualified at some point, and it is. Rasax 20:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: More Paragraph 1: This sentence still needs work: "His legislative record includes campaign and election reforms, increased government transparency, environmental advocacy, and defending disenfranchised populations." "Legislative" refers to the making of laws, and you can't pass a law that advocates anything. Laws do; they don't advocate. Therefore, "His legislative record includes...environmental advocacy" doesn't make sense. You should rewrite this. Also, you misspelled "alternative." And I think you should get away from the adjective "visible" and the noun "visibility." These are buzz words among political consultants, but are not known to the general reader. One last thing: The implied "was" in the second sentence is a little awkward: "He was the first Green Party candidate elected to local public office and (was) regarded as a progressive reformer." Maybe you should include the word "was" and not rely on the reader to supply it. Griot 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous article

message: 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)
replies: text: Paragraph 1: "The editor must be able to answer..."? Am I your editor now? Have you so successfully excluded me from the main article that I can now only act in the capacity of editor? Usually I charge for my editing services, but I'm going to do you a favor. I've noticed with pleasure that you've pulled material from the article on the Discussion page and folded it into the article on the main page. You strenuously objected to some of this material in months past, but now you're using it. That's splendid. 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)
replies: text: Of course not.  Public figures tend to be more visible.   This part of the intro is qualified in the text and shouldn't be confusing for anyone who follows it.  An article's opening paragraph is required to give a reader a brief idea or summary of what it's about as long as it's qualified at some point, and it is. Rasax 20:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: More Paragraph 1: This sentence still needs work: "His legislative record includes campaign and election reforms, increased government transparency, environmental advocacy, and defending disenfranchised populations." "Legislative" refers to the making of laws, and you can't pass a law that advocates anything. Laws do; they don't advocate. Therefore, "His legislative record includes...environmental advocacy" doesn't make sense. You should rewrite this. Also, you misspelled "alternative." And I think you should get away from the adjective "visible" and the noun "visibility." These are buzz words among political consultants, but are not known to the general reader. One last thing: The implied "was" in the second sentence is a little awkward: "He was the first Green Party candidate elected to local public office and (was) regarded as a progressive reformer." Maybe you should include the word "was" and not rely on the reader to supply it. Griot 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro, paragraph I

message: 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)
thread_title: "According to the Chronicle, his father was...."

message: 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)
replies: text: Excellent idea. Thanks for your help in this article. Griot 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's fantastic. Thank you so much.  Moncrief 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Superb edits, Kaisershatner.  Thank you again.  What do you think about the "Works Cited" section?  Curious for your thoughts.  Moncrief 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow!  What an improvement a few days of work makes!  This article is in pretty great shape now, other than the sourcing issues that are still being worked on.  I think we can consider removing the clean-up notice.  Maybe not right away, but soon.  Moncrief 21:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to both of you for your feedback.  The "Works Cited" section: in my view the articles that are already cited in the footnotes should be removed from this section if any are in there.  The other articles, if notable, should be moved into an "External Links" section, and we should make an effort to decrease the hyperlinked text.  Something like this is really rather a lot of text in blue especially as a list of 50 articles, but if instead you use the style "something like this is rather a lot to make all blue San Francisco Chronicle October 11, 1763." it looks better IMO.  Kaisershatner 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, who is disputing NPOV and why? or can we strike that template too?  Kaisershatner 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Griot can speak to that better than I can perhaps because he's(right? Sorry if it's she) spent longer on here than I have, but there have been pervasive POV issues, many of which were debated (and debated) above.  A lot of it has been moderated in the last days' edits though - including a disputed section on an "alliance" that's since been removed.  Well, I'll let Griot (or whomever added that template) speak to this matter.  Moncrief
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)
thread_title: Peer review

message: 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)
replies: text: The problem with the "selling cigarettes out of his car" scenario is that he obviously wasn't doing that if his job took him to Kentucky, New Orleans, Puerto Rico, etc. Moving around this way is typical of executives. Gonzalez calls his father a "tobacco salesman" in this interview: Interviewer: If you had never dropped into politics and never had anything to do with law, what would you have gone into? Gonzalez: I’d have been a tobacco salesman like my father, maybe. I don’t know. Griot 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gonzalez has never denied his father being a salesman, and sales is a stretch to division chief.  In fact, in the video interview with the SF Chron's editorial board he states: "My father , um, when I was growing up, worked for a tobacco company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco.  He started in the late '50s or early '60s selling cigarettes out of his car in south Texas.  Um, he did that for a long time and then later...started a sort of retail business, uh, and also kind of doing imports/exports with medical and dental supplies..."  No where does his statement support your contention, Griot. Even adding the quote you've provided doesn't make the jump from sales to division chief.  The Guthrie article may meet your satisfaction but the dubious nature of the source may not be enough to prevent liability problems with Wikipedia later on.  Rasax 19:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you both have valid points here that are basically irreconcilable.  To me it seems likely that the moving around, the Chronicle's assertion, and Gonzalez's failure to contradict this claim, and Gonzalez's vested interest in not appearing to be the scion of a tobacco company exec all point to the claim being valid.  But right now the Chronicle is the only source, and Gonzalez is on record stating his own (not incompatible) view of his father's work.  To me the solution is to state (1) the family moved around - which is not disputed, (2) Gonzalez says his father sold cigs out of the car - which we can prove he said, and (3) the SF Chron stated Gonzalez pere was an exec with B&W - which they did state.  That's all indisputably true, and leaves the reader to interpret these facts however they want.  If later on someone can find a source that either proves the Chronicle is right or proves they were wrong, that would be wonderful.  Until then, I just don't see enough objective evidence to make a more forceful claim. That's just my view. Kaisershatner 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and calling him a "division chief" is a pretty specific claim.  I really doubt they would make that up without some evidence somewhere, but let's find it, ok?Kaisershatner 19:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may seem so, Kaiserhatner, but the SF Chron isn't above question and the threshold for liability varies from region to region.  The problem centers around satisfying the claim that his father was a division chief when there is only brief mention in one article around election time.  Perhaps Gonzalez will challenge it later if he makes a political come back, and perhaps not.  We know from several verifiable, secondary sources who his father worked for.  We know he did sales.  What remains is making the SF Chron's claims true, and I don't see that as Wikipedia's burden to satisfy, and without knowing for sure, it creates a liability problem.  Rasax 19:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Kaiserhatner and I like the way it's written now. Readers can decide for themselves whether to go with the Chronicle's characterization of Gonzaalez's father's work, or Gonzalez's own "selling cigarettes out of a car trunk" description. There is no question that he worked for Brown & Williamson, so that name should remain. Until we can find out in exactly what capacity he worked for B&W, we should leave it as written. The Chronicle is a major American newspaper with journalistic standards, and I see no reason to doubt its claim. Griot 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was all included in the previous article, and how your re-write improves the article isn't clear.  Secondly, there isn't a need to qualify a decade like the '50s with 19--, particularly if it's a direct quote, and it is.  Rasax 20:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as journalistic standards are concerned, writers must remain mindful that biases exist.  The SF Chron's parent company had a financial interest for opposing Gonzalez, who challenged their lawsuit against SF.  Rasax 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that's a separate issue.  The article is where it is now, and I was one of the rewriters.  Let's keep discussing any major changes please.  And I would add that there is absolutely no legal issue at all in citing the SFC's statement in the Guthrie column.  It's a fact that they printed it, and that's all we're claiming. Kaisershatner 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I see the main article's been changed from “His father was a division chief for the international tobacco company Brown & Williamson," which was one of the issues I raised when I cited my NPOV concerns. Rasax 20:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If his father hadn't been a division chief for B&W, I can absolutely guarantee you that, just before the mayoral election, when that article ran, that someone -- either Gonzalez or his family or his staff -- would have notified the Chronicle that they had it wrong, and that the Chronicle would have had to run a retraction, which would still be placed on the article today.  Why is it so offensive that his dad was a bigshot at B&W?  Whatever his dad did doesn't reflect on the son.  There are lots of noble people whose fathers did freakier stuff than working as a tobacco executive.  Throughout this article, we are asked to take at face value information that is sourced from minor websites that don't even pretend to be non-partisan or objective, and I think it's frankly hilarious that all that is presented as NPOV truth but we aren't supposed to take at face value a non-retracted assertion in a Top 20 newspaper.  The compromise is fine with me though (though it is expressely not a "column" in the SFC. It's a full-length article/profile).  This silliness is more funny at this point than anything else -- the extent to which someone wants to go to ensure Gonzalez isn't seen as the son of a tobacco executive, for whatever reason.  Moncrief 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot reasonably guarantee what anyone else would do or advance your discussion by attempting to speak for other people.  I'll agree what someone's parents do or don't do isn't necessarily a reflection of an individual and it has little to do with this discussion.  Wikipedia has made very clear their expectation about the accuracy of biographical information [about living individuals], stating "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references — particularly about details of personal lives. All unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page."  That means biographical information isn't up for negotiation as it is verification.  Please review the policy.  Rasax 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Point made.  Let's see where this goes, and I'll reserve my judgement as a show of good faith.  Rasax 15:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tobacco redux

message: 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].
:This sentence is phrased very POV.  Does anyone dispute that his father was a division chief for Brown & Williamson?  If not, forget even mentioning the Chronicle here and just provide factual information about Gonzalez's background.  He grew up in McAllen. (Great. Factual).  His father was a division chief for B&W (Great. Factual).  This is a bio section. Whether or not the Chronicle called him "prvileged" is irrelevant here.  We just need a few facts about his background.  Refusing to wear Rolexes as an adult is not necessary in a background section. His childhood and growing-up years is what matters here - not a counterpunch to a Chronicle article.
::Yes.  The paper's assertion is open for debate when they allege one view of Gonzalez's past and he offers another.  The SF Chron's basis for alleging Gonzalez had a privileged upbringing drew its conclusion based from the direct quotes. Rather than challenge the SF Chron's interpretation, describing the differences in viewpoints seems like a more neutral approach because it notes the differences without taking sides.  Rasax 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paper's assertion is absolutely open for debate, but this isn't the place to dispute it.  You are focusing this section around that SF Chronicle article rather than around his childhood. If you don't mention the article, or use it just as one linked reference, it isn't an issue.  Moreover, it's ambigious what it is he disputed in his discussion with the Chron's editorial board.  All the information in the previous sentence?  Some of it?  Again, this section is about his background - not about his not wearing Rolexes as an adult and not about the Chronicle's interpretation of his childhood.  Please have a look at the Proposed Change section above.  Do you have issues with it?  Moncrief 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Specifically, which assertions (or "assumptions" as it was initially phrased) didn't he agree with?  The Rolex bit?  The part about his dad working for B&W?  You can still sell cigarettes from your car in the 1950s, start up an import/export business, and then end up a division chief.  It's unclear what he's disputing and it's unfair to make readers wade through your three references to get the full story.  Just stick with the known facts about his family and early background here.  That's what this section is for.  Rasax asks how this article is POV and I ask you to see that this whole paragraph is set up in a POV way.  It's more about countering one SF Chronicle article than trying to sort out the facts about his life.  Don't want to call him privileged? Then don't.  Avoid those adjectives but give us the wheres and whens.  Moncrief 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue of privilege was raised in an earlier discussion on these talk pages and included in the article from another editor.  Rather than taking it upon myself to omit it and be accused of whitewashing, I left it in the main article and presented the differences in interpretation. Rasax 20:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Time to move beyond it then.  Moncrief 21:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not up to me or you to exclude content submitted by other editors.  Rasax 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's up to both of us to make the article the best it can be.  People "exclude" (delete or modify) information from other editors every second of every day on Wikipedia.  Moncrief 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why an article cannot be improved while including the contributions made by other editors.  I don't believe either of us have the right to remove another point simply because we don't see the value in it, and I've tried to honor that when making my contributions.  Rasax 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Childhood and Youth" section in the Proposed Article above  seems superb to me.  I don't know that you could improve on it.  It is factual and relevant and supported by evidence.  Moncrief 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Let's use the "Childhood and Youth" section from the proposed article. It covers all the facts. Moreover, I like the quote from Gonzalez about his childhood. It's always better to let the subject speak for him- or herself. Griot 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Moncrief 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay with it, Rasax? Griot 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not.  In my opinion, you haven't met any burden of proof that says your proposed article is better.  In fact, I would go as far to say it fails the POV test because you rely on weak sources and editorialize, which prevents you from developing and synthesizing anything more than your biases.  Rasax 03:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Montcrief thought it was "superb." It explains his childhood in great detail, explains how he managed to live in all those different places as a child, and allows him to speak in his own words about his childhood. I really think it belongs in the article. Griot 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And?  Am I supposed to swoon because someone else did?  It only begs the question of your relationship with this editor.  Rasax 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no "relationship" with Montcrief. Why can't you accept criticism? We have an objective third-party opinion here. It should help settle matters. Everyone except you agrees that this article needs an awful lot of work. Please accept criticism in good spirit and try to make this a better article. It's just awful now. Griot 00:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say.  I have no problem with criticism when it is genuine and constructive.  There is no rule that says I'm supposed to agree with it when it isn't convincing.  Objectivity requires neutrality, and biased criticism isn't sincere or objective.  Perhaps if you relied less on personal attributions about me and spent more time clarifying your disagreements, they might make more sense.  Just a thought.  Rasax 02:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific improvements (and welcome Peer Review folks)