Jump to content

Talk:Matt Gonzalez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nonpartisan nature of elections

[edit]

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)[reply]

Removing inaccurate "criticism" section per WP:BLP

[edit]

The first sentence of "criticism"--"Gonzalez's critics considered him a stubborn and willful idealogue" is unsourced.

"He walked out of Mayor Willie Brown's State of the City address in 2002" How is that criticism?

It made big news in SF when it happened. It marked his split with Mayor Brown, a split that was never reconciled. Griot (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The next: "..Gonzalez was the only board member who voted against it" How is this "criticism"?

Nancy Pelosi is from SF. Her being named Speaker of the House was a very big deal. It was remarked upon in its time, as the source indicates. Newsome used it against Gonzalez in his mayoral campaign. Griot (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Gonzalez said that supervisors shouldn't issue such commendations for winning partisan political positions...etc" HOW is that criticism?

That's not criticism. That is included in the article as Gonzalez's explanation for his actions. Griot (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"spray-painted "Smash the State" on the walls of the office" Vandalism is criticism?

Spray-paitning "Smash the State" inside City Hall! Griot (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert these per the WP:BLP guidelines, which instructs that such nonsense be removed. Please discuss any changes proposed, or include well sourced criticism. GRIOT, I'm really not interested in Wikidramas, but I will report your continued policy violations--including your postings on my talk page telling me which articles I can or cannot edit--on the appropriate boards, as they are out of hand. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not go in and tear up articles without regard for the editors who came before you. I have discussed the changes here. I hope you will respect them. Griot (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the issues above--I am not going to go through tons of archives, particularly since you have inaccurately cited past discussion in other contexts.Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed the issues above. You can go to the sources if you want. Click the footnotes below and start reading. Again, I find it odd that you who doesn't live in SF or even in California would make such huge cuts in this article when you don't know this person or his history very well. Griot (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is all original research. You need to say WHO made the criticism, and you need a RELIABLE SOURCE indicating where the criticism came from. And it needs to be criticism--citing someone walking out of an office is NOT criticism.
You DO NOT know where i live, and if you live in sanFrancisco, that does not give you license to write a criticism section without reliable sources. And again, please do not tell me where I can or cannot edit--that is a serious policy violation.Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are San Francisco newspapers. A newspaper is a reliable source. I can tell you don't live in California because of your comment "They're political parties, not religions (unless California is different?" Griot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion with you once again is proving pointless as you refuse to address the fact that this is original research--you do not indicate WHO the critic is or WHAT the criticism is--nor do you address the suggestion that vandalism of an office is not "Criticism." So this is on the WP:BLP/N BLP noticeboard to avoid wasting time with your filibustering and profligate edit warring.Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Gonzalez's opining about Marxism is "tabloid gossip" is, of course, subjective. I would remind you that here in SF there are a number of Chinese-American refugees from Communist China who view Marxism with less charity than you. Sampson Wong, a Chinese-American, is one such person, so he reported Gonzalez's "Really, I am a Marxist" comment to the Golden Gate Breakfest Club and remarked that the audience was "stunned," as it would be, since the Club is composed mostly of Chinese-Americans. Can you put aside your own view of Marxism and imagine what Wong's might be? You'll notice that Gonzalez's comments about his remarks to the Breakfast Club were also included for balance in the text you cut from this article. In Gonzalez's "My Green Manifesto", he mentions liking the Communist Manifesto. Perhaps you can put yourself in the position of someone who had to flee a Communist state and who saw their family and friends, for example, murdered in the Cultural Revolution. You might be able to imagine how someone like this might find these comments disturbing. Griot (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that this is an encyclopedia? That that section tells us NOTHING about Matt Gonzalez' ideology? Do you think Wikipedia exists solely for you to push your personal opinions (as you clearly think based on your explanation above)? Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm asking is for you to consider another person's view, in this case that of Chinese-American Sampson Wong. Given the two examples of Gonzalez's references to Marxism, you can see how Wong might interpret his words. An encyclopedia has to be objective. All I'm asking is for you to set aside you subjective views for a moment and imagine how someone else views this. I have heard some real horror stories from Chinese refugees her in SF, where Gonzalez and I live. Griot (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world do "horror stories from Chinese refugees her in SF" have to do with a biography of Matt Gonzalez? For the umpteenth time, biograpies are not repositories for your personal proclivities, as you clearly seem to think.Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about a lot of the POV-pushing to leave out context and showing this subject in a less-than-favorable light. For instance "He walked out of Mayor Willie Brown's State of the City address in 2002" is valid content but his reasons which were also available in the references cited (I just happened to read the account) balances out why he did it and completely fits in with his stated concerns about politics. I've addressed a few points and added needed formatting. Let's keep this clean and when in doubt post to talk instead of adding items easily seen as POV, there may be some validity but we need to balance and adhere to a higher standard on BLP's. Benjiboi 04:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference clean-up

[edit]

All the references should be properly formatted including the accessdate. Ths will greatly help resolve content issues. Benjiboi 03:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

only image -- of Newsom?

[edit]

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)[reply]

I object. Better to simply add a photo of Gonzalez. Benjiboi 20:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I agree with Sfmammam. It is not at all customary to have a photo of someone's opponent in a political campaign on a website devoted to an individual. In fact, it is abnormal. A photo of Gonzalez, of course, belongs on the page. What must be done to delete the Newsom photo while one of Gonzalez is added? Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Lots of images to choose from are here.bov (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

A good image of both of them is here, on Nader's blog. What does it take for an image to be considered free-use? bov (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Trial lawyer?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Improving article

[edit]

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)[reply]

Image deletions

[edit]

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)[reply]

Re-Added Reference

[edit]

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).[reply]

Overhaul of this article?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Cut the fluff out of the "Early Life" section today. Chisme (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Matt Gonzalez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes -- Further proposals

[edit]

@Chisme: 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 ([1] [2]), I reverted (([3] [4]). 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)[reply]

(2) In your change of the sentence about Gonzalez moving at the urging of Ammiano, I did not see that in the article. Please show me a quote if I am mistaken. The article says he formerly lived in the Mission, but I saw nothing indicating that he moved to District 5 at Ammiano's urging. I did see that you cut down on the definition of District 5. I doubt that is important. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(3) I was okay with removal of some of the material that did not have RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(4) In other thoughts. The section on Gonzalez's tenure at the Board (before becoming President) is only negative. Not exactly NPOV. I doubt that is all that is available in RS, even though the Chronicle has never been that fond of Progressives. Gonzalez was responsible for the Proposition that raised the min. wage, for example. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Changes

[edit]

@Chisme: 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 GentlemanGhost, IronGargoyle, IcarusLivesX who have also participated this month for any thoughts on these overall changes. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored most of the Matt_Gonzalez#2008_presidential_race. I did reduce some of the material that was WP:undue and not WP:NPOV. Please note that I try to make multiple edits so that you can tell what changed: simplify, revise, move. It is much easier to figure out what I did than if I had done it all in one big edit. I encourage others to try to do this too if possible, since our diff software is not smart enough to show these steps. Otherwise, relatively small changes can look like very big changes. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Okay. I deleted it. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

More RS

[edit]

I see this page has quite a bit of RS within it:

  • SF Chronicle, 04/13/03 (re minimum wage) [5]
  • SF Chronicle, 02/28/02 (re minimum wage) [6]
  • SF Chronicle, 01/04/06 (re mimimum wage) [7]

...

That's just for that one section. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matt_Gonzalez&oldid=1207318026"