Talk:Ross Mirkarimi

message: I don't think Mr. Mirkarimi has ever said publically he identifies as gay. As far as I know, the only two openly gay members of the S.F. County Board are Bevan Dufty and Tom Ammiano. Mirkarimi seems to be a vocal supporter of human rights for homosexuals, but that's quite different from being classified in the 'gay and lesbian people' list. Also, membership in the Harvey Milk Democratic Club doesn't make one gay, anymore than membership in NOW makes one a woman. It's just as likely those associations are political moves on his part. 
Until there's documented proof he holds that identity, I think he shouldn't be included in that category. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill. (Unsigned)
* Agreed. There are no Google links suggesting he's gay, apart from membership of Harvey Milk. His official biographies (both on his campaign website and the official city of SF website) make no mention of his sexual orientation. Lincolnite 01:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual Orientation Unclear

message: I went through and cleaned up the Supervisor section quite a bit - parts it were in pretty rough English, and then a lot of it was either untrue, or at least unsourced in its praise of Mr Mirkarimi.  I've got no beef with the man, but comparing the referenced sources with the article's claims left a lot of things unclear.  My two cents is that someone rather close to Mr Mirkarimi has been doing some work on the article.  While that's fine, I would remind my fellow editors that if there aren't sources available, we should be cautious in our claims, and that language like "led the charge" when the source only justifies saying things like "was involved" is not necessarily appropriate. Jordanp (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit friendly? 

message: Mirkarimi's campaign for sheriff web site says he was in the Naval Reserves. This ought to be in the article. Can anyone verify it? Chisme (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Naval Reserves

message: wondering how long this fighting couple has been married.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of marriage? 

message: An image used in this article, File:Ross M.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ross M.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: It is usual practice to put biography and work/achievements before the personal life part. Why is personal life first?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.162.131 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In practice, many articles have an "Early life" section first, discussing the individual's heritage and formative years, then have a "Personal life" section describing personal developments of greater recency after career-related sections. Perhaps that "Personal life" section should be split accordingly. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  arrangement of sections. 

message: Remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The domestic violence section has expanded beyond its due weight, and needs to be pared. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. Mirkarimi's domestic abuse allegations made national and international headlines, and continues to make them. The only other time this obscure San Francisco politician made the national news was when, as a supervisor, he passed legislation banning plastic bags in SF. Now he is embroiled in a fascinating dilemma: the sheriff of a major city grabs his wife's arm, the case is blown out of proportion, he does time (1 day) in the jail he supervises as sheriff, he is relieved of his duty, and he is brought before the city's ethics commission. This fascinating story has been covered in New York, London, and Tokyo newspapers. Anyhow, whether you think a biographical article on Wikipedia should devote itself mostly to what makes the subject notorious or should devote itself to trivialities, please consider restoring the bit about Mirkarimi being suspended to the first paragraph, since he is no longer sheriff, and likewise consider restoring the paragraph in which he describes his ordeal in his own words. I think the subject himself deserves a say in this matter. Chisme (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

text: No comment? I take it then, I can make the changes I suggest? Chisme (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Muboshgu.  Mirkarimi's ban on plastic bags also made national and international headlines but there is not an over-the-top blow by blow account of every allegation on both sides.  Additionally, I'm not sure why his support of marijuana legalization but not his ban on plastic bags, which was internationally recognized, is in the opening paragraph. GreenIn2010 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: His support for the plastic bag ban was awesome. But it didn't generate as much news because, well, it didn't roll out over several months like this new thing is doing and continues to do. Cheers. Chisme (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

text: This page still has the problem of undue weight given to the domestic violence allegation. The page as a whole is 20kb, and the domestic violence section is almost half (9800b). I think parts that I removed have been readded, with no explanations given, and the tag has been wrongfully removed from the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: Is Mirkarimi's birth name Rostam? The Iranian-American press refers to him by that name. 71.139.13.130 (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Rostam. I'll update accordingly. Chisme (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Rostam Mirkarimi?

message: This is the same woman who wrote issues of the Huntress comic book. Its come out in a KTVU news story this day, presumably will get print coverage. he claims that Madisons charges against him are fiction, driven by her characters style of justice.(mercurywoodrose)99.39.148.212 (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ivory Madison

message: User Muboshgu appears to be adding numerous quotations to favor the mayor while removing similar quotations by Mirkarimi. Muboshgu has also removed the reference to the fact that the Ethics Commission received a bomb threat which caused the hearings to be disrupted and the room cleared and which has been a major event in the proceedings.  I see this as biased and POV editing.  What is the basis for not reporting a bomb threat during the hearings?  Irrelevant?  Why did the news media report it?  Unfortunately it raised many questions about the potential for the mayor to have perjured himself, which is important to the mayor's case against Mirkarimi -- if the Mayor ends up discredited, that will influence the case. GreenIn2010 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not adding anything. I'm trying to cut this down, because the whole domestic violence section is undue weight. A bomb threat to the proceedings is irrelevant to the man. Just because the news media reports it doesn't mean we repeat it. What is it's specific relevance to Mirkarimi? What does the bomb threat have to do with Lee possibly perjuring himself? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A bomb threat is irrelevant to a person in a public building in which it happens? A bomb threat means someone could have been killed -- and the other 900 people, who were in the building -- including Mikarimi and the Mayor of the San Francisco.  This hardly seems minor.  News media reported it because 1) it caused a major and unprecedented disruption in the hearings in which Ed Lee left the room in the middle of his questioning by a Mirkarimi attorney, 2) had a bomb gone off it would be a historic and horrific event, 3) bomb threats are a federal offense and should the source of this threat be exposed, another major news event would emerge, the least of which would be the intent of the threat.  Each of these points could impact the final ruling of the Commission as well as the credibility of the Mayor's case.  If you are going to include the fact that hearings are happening, and details about them, this is a key detail to include.  If you need to edit it down, fine, but it should not be totally removed. GreenIn2010 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

text: "What does the bomb threat have to do with Lee possibly perjuring himself?"  Read the news articles and the descriptions by people who were there -- the decision to clear the room came immediately following the question put to Ed Lee of whether he consulted with any of the city supervisors about his decision to use the Ethics Commission to investigate Mirkarimi, and he said no.  Others claim that he consulted Sup. Olague.  If she were admit that, or if proof emerged, that would be perjury.  Perjury is a felony.  Several newspapers are commenting on the perjury, including SF Chron and SF Examiner.  Read the articles, there is a lot going on which is historical. GreenIn2010 (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, being in a building when a bomb threat is called in is not particularly relevant. If a bomb were to go off, that would be huge news, but obviously that didn't happen. If the bomb threat specifically pertains to Mirkarimi, that's a different story. But there's no proof of that. The sources you provided there don't say anything of the sort. Suggesting that the bomb threat was called in simply to get Lee off the hot seat is synthesis. Possible perjury is worth mentioning. A bomb threat, no. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

text: This was a special type of bomb threat -- the mayor was removed from the room in which he was testifying (some report he went into his office on another floor) but no one else in the building was evacuated. GreenIn2010 (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Special type of bomb threat"? Special how? It sounds like you're insinuating something. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks Chisme. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not insinuating -- I'm asking how many bomb threats have you ever known of where only one person was removed from the threatened area?  That basically says that there was no bomb threat, but they took the mayor away anyway, and no one else.  That response was unprecedented and bizarre. GreenIn2010 (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes by Muboshgu

message: Why is the majority of this section devoted to Mayor Ed Lee's alleged "perjury." This should describe the hearings as they relate to the subject. I put some Mirkarimi quotes in this section. I also put in a counterbalance to the perjury in charge. 76.14.66.186 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the quotes out. The first problem with this article is the reliance on these quotes. Just say what happened without using the individual's exact words. That being said, the Lee "perjury" thing does seem to be getting undue weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why the quotes were removed. Shouldn't the subject of the article be able to speak in his or her own words? If a Wiki editor "just says what happened," as you suggest he or she do, that editor is interpreting actions and words. Letting the subject speak provides better, unfiltered information. On another topic, I agree, Lee's "perjury" has way too much weight. The hearing is about Mirkarimi, not Lee. I'm editing down the perjury stuff. 76.14.66.186 (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: San Francisco Ethics Commission Hearings

message: Let's not weight this down with weird drama from Mirkrimi's hearing, as follows:
:And during the public comment period of the final Ethics Commission hearing in August, a blonde woman introduced herself as "Jocelyn" and also claimed to be an ex-girlfriend whom Mirkarimi had physically abused, but when probed by the media afterward, admitted that she had lied and was never a former girlfriend of Mirkarimi.
This was an isolated, strange incident and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisme (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I thought it was interesting.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenIn2010 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's be careful not to weigh this down with unneeded stuff

message: We have kept all direct quotes out of this article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and including those pro-Mirkarimi quotes serves only the purpose of furthering Mirkarimi's defense. Furthermore, giving the profession of Mirkarimi's ex-girlfriend to me smacks of an attempt to give her comments more weight than they deserve. That she is a journalist is of no relevance to Mirkarimi's case, only that she is his ex-girlfriend is relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The critical ex gets a quote but the supportive one does not?  Or are you now going to remove the detailed quote of the critical ex that's been up there for months?  GreenIn2010 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a quote from a critical ex, then I didn't notice it and I'll pull it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating that you only notice and must remove what is supportive, and within minutes, but never noticed things up there for MONTHS. I've already removed it.  That was the ex that said "he bruised my arm".  How original.  The Chron published that but refused to publish the piece by Evelyn Nieves as an OpEd, and instead published 2 pieces attacking him today.  How's that for "journalism", just par for the course as far as the Chron goes.  So Debra Saunders, the conservative columnist supportive of Ross at the Chron, republished it on her own blog.  That's the level that this case is at.  That's why you "not noticing" critical comments but needing to edit down each and every supportive comment, seems also, just par for the course. GreenIn2010 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I believe the paragraph about the domestic violence trial belongs in the lede. It made national news when it occurred. It's what he's chiefly known for. It's been there for some time. Chisme (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so too, but the version that's there now is a little too blow-by-blow for the lead, which should be in a summary style. In my opinion it's too long as well, giving the incident undue weight. How about cutting it back in length and amount of detail? Here's my suggestion for a new wording: 
 -- Diannaa (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed it as per your suggestion. I also took out the California Coastal Commission, which wasn't important enough to put in the lede. Chisme (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your version is good. I will watch-list for a while and help keep an eye on things. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestic Violence material in lede

message: Ross did NOT co-found the Green Party of California, he was not even present in the February 1991 GPCA convention at Cal State Sacramento when Kent Smith and Roger Picklum proposed making the California green movement into a formal party, and it was Kent and Roger who then went on to file the petition with the California Elections Division to be registered as "The Green Party" Any assertion that Ross had anything to do with this is inaccurate and should be removed.Pearl2525 (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Green Focus, the newspaper of the CA Green Party, "In 1990 he (Mirkarimi) helped co-found the Green Party of California and played a major role in the successful 1990-1992 ballot drive..." Chisme (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did not co-found Green Pary 

message: Community organizations should not be at the bottom like that. He is a community organizer, his community affiliations are not the last thing people should know about. MoneyHunny  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoneyHunny (talk • contribs) 04:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community organizations 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Ross Mirkarimi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.change.org/petitions/mayor-of-san-francisco-reinstate-sheriff-ross-mirkarimi-to-his-elected-office
*:Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Ross Mirkarimi]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ross Mirkarimi. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110707002423/http://www.rossmirkarimi.com:80/news to http://www.rossmirkarimi.com/news
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 21:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ross Mirkarimi. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20050206224741/http://www.sfgov.org:80/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=29087 to http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=29087
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the following which appeared under the heading "Gun Control": "As a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Mirkarimi fought against pro-gun advocates who were challenging San Francisco's attempt to further tighten gun control laws.[28] This issue has caused many pro-gun advocates to accuse Mirkarimi of hypocrisy, when it was reported that he himself was a gun owner even before he was elected Sheriff. He has since had to surrender his firearms due to the pending domestic violence allegations." I removed it because it implies that owning a gun and favoring gun control laws is hypocritical. Respectfully, I believe this isn't the case. Someone may own a gun and still favor stricter gun control laws. Furthermore, the words "has caused many pro-gun advocates to accuse Mirkarimi of hypocrisy" is a)unproven, because what constitutes "many" in this instance can't be properly defined, and b)because the words qualify as weasel words. Chisme (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of "Gun Control" section

message: Why is there so much expended on this minor individual?  Articles for major scientists, politicians and military figures are much shorter.  The artice should be 1/10 the size, and most of the Talk is pointless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andarin (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , or maybe those other articles should be 10x the size, instead of cutting 90% of this one? Maybe you should work to expand those short articles rather than comment without any specifics that this one is too long? If you see something specific from the article that should be cut, say so. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor individual