This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

DISCUSSION

§1.0, Claims and Evidence

• 28 November 15:15 (PST) Okay, Griot. I'll begin here w/ intro/open paragraph I and work down per issue. What can you use to support your beliefs with about the following claims for: 1. believing Gonzalez's biography is too long? 2. The article is weighted down. How so?, 3. The article is too laudatory when there are supporting source citations to show his accomplishments? 4. The article is a "puff" piece? 5. The article does not paint an accurate picture? 6. A biography cannot include descriptive subjectivity when describing the individual's accomplishments? The article isn't concise? These are very loaded claims and you must be able to show why they're true and provide some evidence to show whether or not your claims have merit. I'll wait for your response. Rasax 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• 30 November 18:00 (PST) -
  • re: "(much of the material is copied verbatum from Gonzalez campaign Web sites)"
• Text taken verbatim from secondary sources is a minor editing error and can be corrected by adding quotation marks. Paraphrasing, however, isn't considered a direct quote, and not verbatim. Piled criticism doesn't tell readers a thing about the quality of the proposed article. Just because something is new doesn't mean it is improved or better, commonly known as a novelty fallacy. Rasax 01:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• 2 December 19:40 (PST)
  • re: change from "I believe that the article on the Article page is filled with ..." to "the poorly written article on the Article page is...")
• Well, I'm convinced when the weight of the argument for changing Gonzalez's biography hinges on omitting of his legislative accomplishments, revising each campaign to focus more on his opponents, and a coloful suggestion that readers remotely consider the opinions of gossip columnists as credible authorities. I imagine our fellow editor might have an interest in writing biographies for Gonzalez's political opponents and mistakenly ended up on the wrong one, or perhaps it is the intention. Rasax 03:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• 8 December 13:00 (PST)
  • re: "Gonzalez became the second Green Party member (after Larry Sanchez of the school board) elected to a municipal office in San Francisco."
• Editor Griot doesn't hesitate to claim factual errors exist in the current article but will not list them. There are factual errors in the proposed article, such as the one provided in the given statement. First, there is and was no school board member named Larry Sanchez. The editor is confusing school board member, Mark Sanchez. Secondly, Mark Sanchez is not the first elected Green in San Francisco. Matt Gonzalez was and this was already pointed out to the editor who insists on citing this factual error, see [1]. Rasax 21:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• 8 December 18:30 (PST)
  • re: "filled with factual errors and...too many footnotes"
• Let me point to an obvious contradiction in claiming factual errors and too many footnotes: the volume of sources cited/referenced is intended to put to rest any claims about factual errors. Rasax 02:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• 8 December 18:35 (PST)
• The editor claims the current article is poorly written, yet ignores the poor language command used in the proposed article. Note the following: "Between the general election and the the run-off against Juanita Owens..." As literally written, the reader must ignore the author's clunky wordiness. Rasax 02:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• 8 December 18:45 (PST)
  • re: "(the first was school-board member Marc Sanchez, according to the San Francisco Green Party [2])."
• The editor arrogantly continues to insist on using one statement from the local Green Party website and chooses to ignore several publications, including those from the state and national Green Party websites that put this non-issue into an appropriate context. This demonstrates a poor ability to evaluate the strength and weakness of a source. See: "(Sanchez reregistered Green after being elected in 2000.)" [3] I don't believe the editor intends to distort the truth but rather isn't skilled enough to evaluate the strength of secondary sources. It isn't my intention to take away recognition from Sanchez as "the first Green to be re-elected in San Francisco for the Board of Education..." (Oh, how big of you!)[4]. The context the editor fails to grasp is laid out neatly by the national Green Party in the following statement: "San Francisco Green Mark Sanchez also won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Education, becoming the first Green in San Francisco to be re-elected, finishing third out of 12 for four seats. Sanchez was elected as a Democrat in 2000, but joined the Green Party soon afterwards, inspired by Gonzalez's election." [5]. This account is further supported in a local report already brought to the editor's attention [6]. Proposed article factual error, check and mate. Rasax 03:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody who cares to wade through Rasax's bloviating can see she's just not a good person.

• 9 December 19:00 (PST)
• Given an absence of reasonable explanation to warrant the POV template on the current article and an absence of reasonable proof that the current article is factually inaccurate, a template has been added to the discussion table. The proposed article has been shown to not be what it's author has claimed. Rasax 02:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

§1.1, Intro

• 28 November 19:30 (PST) In your words, Griot, what does your intro improve? How? In looking at the first few sentences, I'd like to know what you use for evaluating a good intro and how yours meets that objective. What key information does your suggestion tell a reader about the article's general tone that's missing from the first? How does it relate to the overall theme? Which one tells a reader more about the subject's biography? Why? (Why? How? There is not point in arguing with an screaming idealogue.)

Note the differences: 1. From the suggested article: "Matt Gonzalez (born June 1965) is a former supervisor and president of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, California. He lost the 2003 mayor's election to Democrat Gavin Newsom. He is considered the first Green Party member elected to public office in San Francisco. Today, he heads the law firm Gonzalez & Leigh in San Francisco."

• A. The editor clearly chooses to set the article's tone as a competition between Gonzalez and Newsom, emphasizing Newsom's anemic victory of a whopping 14,217 votes. The editor claims the current article does too much editorializing, and toots his own horn to claim this doesn't [7].
• B. The editor's uses weasel words to imply Gonzalez may not be the first elected Green, yet takes the liberty to state the existing article is unbalanced [8].
• C. It takes some degree of audacity to criticize the current article as poorly written, question its accuracy, and offer the following: "[Gonzalez] is considered the first Green Party member..." [9], and later state "He became the second Green Party member elected..." [10]. The editor can't seem to decide which one, leaving the reader to wonder if he was the first or not and the issue was settled long ago [11].
• D. Clearly, the editor intends to use an axe for political hackery 101. I'll leave the current article's intro to speak for itself. Rasax 07:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

2. From this: "Matt Gonzalez (born June 1965) is a former district supervisor, president of the Board of Supervisors, and mayoral candidate in San Francisco, California. He is recognized as the first Green Party member elected to local public office and has a distinguished reputation as a progressive reformer at City Hall." Rasax 03:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Rasax rewrite of 11/18/05

Not only was campaign deception real in San Francisco, many of the reforms we enacted were brought to the forefront by Gonzalez. Since some have raised the encyclopedic neutrality issue as a concern, it seemed reasonable to temper the unchecked criticism with context. And to answer an earlier question about why Gonzalez gets the credit for running on a platform of progressive values, unlike his opponent(s), Gonzalez ran on a platform calling for change to the status quo. Changes included additional campaign reforms, public power, and curtailing the influence donors had on the mayor's office. His platform was opposed by groups not generally considered progressive in local terms, but well-known progressives did. So, that part that says Gonzalez supports progressive values is an accurate statement and should be added back. -- rasax 03:00, 17 November 2005.

Updates and support for the following editing additions:

1. "In December of 2000, Gonzalez was elected to the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. During the campaign, he issued a printed statement in the San Francisco Bay Guardian that questioned the values of the

and announced his decision to register with the Green Party." Supported with the op-ed included as a source citation at the bottom of the page. A review of Gonzalez's op-ed in his own words will support these changes. Since this section attempts to describe Gonzalez's campaign on an informative page about his record, it is best to defer to his reasons to inform readers about his motivations as a public servant. Permitting Gonzalez's view is prudent for avoiding neutrality conflicts when attempting to describe his record.

This kind of exposition isn't useful in an encylopedia article. People outside of SF won't know what the Bay Guardian is. You will find two articles in the "External links" section explaining why Gonzalez left the Demos.

Further, I think that business about his opponent in the supervisorial election attempting to use his Green party membership against him is wrong. I never heard of that. Do you have a source for it?

2. "Gonzalez was also an advocate for creating public power; a euphamism for a municipal owned and operated energy system." Supported by Gonzalez's legislative record and as a proponent for public campaigns for local ballot measures.

Why the euphonism stuff. Gonzalez's advocacy for public power was in the original article. Why the need to change it?

3. "Some critics have accused Gonzalez of being a contentious idealogue and cite a few isolated events with ad hominem attacks." To maintain the integrity of a public site and open contributions, comments concerning Gonzalez's critics were left in-tact with a reasonable counterbalance. "In some quarters" was changed to "Some critics" since no specific city quarters could be reasonably spoken for as a monolithic group. Therefore, "some critics" is more appropriate.

Okay, let's change it to "some critics." I think "in some quarters" and "some critics" mean the same thing, in the sense that a quarter of the people believe something is the same as "some" people believe something, but if you want to remove this colloquialism for neutered langage, that's okay with me.

4. Permiting isolated examples to warrant criticism without a counterbalance creates a neutrality conflict. Left unchallenged, a reader isn't given a neutral point of view, but allegations from people with an axe to grind. Ad hominem attacks should not be permitted to remain unchallenged without a counterbalance, otherwise they should be omitted entirely to maintain the article's neutrality.

These are not "isolated examples," but genuine criticisms -- made by many people in SF -- of Gonzalez. See the Ken Garcia article cited in the wikipedia article. I think you are incorrect to call these "ad hominem attacks." BTW, why did you take out the Nancy Pelosi stuff?

5. And, finally, if Gonzalez was the "contentious ideologue" his critics have accused him of being, he wouldn't have had the support from members of the Board of Supervisors to be elected as Board President. He was. Therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion, supported by the BOS's actions to describe the support from his peers as 'enormous' since a majority vote to become Board President doesn't result from partial, lukewarm support. Likewise, the same can describe many San Franciscan voters who supported Gonzalez during the election.

If by "idealogue" you mean someone who sticks to his ideas unbendingly, I think the term applies to Gonzalez. It was a term Newsom, his opponent in the 2003 election, used often. Therefore I think it is warranted here. Certainly many voters agreed with Newsom, as they elected him mayor.

Each change has been well supported to remain unrevised unless future editors are willing to refute them on more credible grounds. If not, and revisions are reverted back, I will solicit the expertise of wiki moderators for clarification and resolve. -- rasax ~14:40, 18 November 2005.

For you to step in and rewrite the majority of this article is disrespectful to people who have helped write this article in the past. Why not take these these changes one step at a time instead of making wholesale changes? Many of the points you make were made in the past and refuted. I remind you: This is an encyclopedia and it must therefore take a nuetral tone. This is not Matt Gonzalez hagiography. Gonzalez is a controversial figure in SF politicis; criticism of his record and ideas is warranted. Thank you for your consideration.

Update:

"For you to step in and rewrite the majority of this article is disrespectful"

Re-writing the article without respect to previous contriubtions made from others would have me remove rather than provide a counterbalance to subjective claims made about an article. To declare these matters are settled as stated is a clear attempt at revisionism without respect to neutrality or how these events occured. I will be following up with wiki moderators to settle this matter instead of engaging in a debate with someone who cannot provide sufficient grounds for including bias and clearly has an axe to grind. -- rasax 18 November 2005.

It's a shame to bring the Wiki moderators into this, because they are quite busy. It appears to me that you have declared all criticisms of Gonzalez "ad hominiem criticism," and then you spend the article defending Gonzalez against what you see as unwarranted criticism. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to present facts. If you read the Ken Garcia article in the "External links" section, you will see that many of the criticism in this article were in fact real and held as true by many San Franiscans.

I feel that the article was well balanced before. It presented a long paragraph with Gonzalez's many accomplishments, but also gave voice to his many critics.

Follow-up:

Is it a shame or have I pointed out an obvious flaw in allowing untempered criticism under a veil of declared neutrality? ("veil of decalred neutrality" <chuckle> )As both a San Franciscan and District 5 resident before, during, and after Gonzalez's time on the Board, I am more than confident in my ability to support any editing I've submitted. I don't need to give Ken Garcia any more credit than I would any other hack who wastes valuable space with endless nonsense. Ken Garcia was not only nasty little man with a bias, he no longer works for the SF Chron for a reason and isn't representative of most San Franciscans.

I will extend you an opportunity to present your argument provided it is done with the intention to insure readers can access an informative resource about a public servants, and not an opportunity for his critics to pawn off subjectivity as neutrality. In return, I'm more than happy to share what information I have. -- rasax, 18 November 2005.

P.S. - And, for the time, consider my request to the moderators withdrawn.

I have attempted a compromise here, by removing "in some quarters" but restoring the critical paragraph. Rasax, you obviously passionately like Gonzalez, but that doesn't mean you can expunge criticism of him. Let's try to keep this even-handed. Griot 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Griot

Reply to previous comments:

1. This kind of exposition isn't useful in an encylopedia article. People outside of SF won't know what the Bay Guardian is. You will find two articles in the "External links" section explaining why Gonzalez left the Demos.

Further, I think that business about his opponent in the supervisorial election attempting to use his Green party membership against him is wrong. I never heard of that. Do you have a source for it?

Assuming many readers won't know what the SFBG is, I hyperlinked the text and it should provide some helpful information. Using Gonzalez's own words to explain why he joined the Green Party is useful for readers to understand his motivations for changing than making his decision a referrendum about the Green Party platform. It isn't. I included the link below to the relevant op-ed piece.

2. :Why the euphonism stuff. Gonzalez's advocacy for public power was in the original article. Why the need to change it?

For clarification and to clean up some of the previous wordiness because it wasn't very clear. Longer term locals would understand what public power means, but many readers may not. Hence, the inclusion.

3. ...if you want to remove this colloquialism for neutered langage, that's okay with me.

I appreciate the agreement. "Some quarters" seemed to imply some quarters of the city and seemed to be a bit of a stretch.

4. :These are not "isolated examples," but genuine criticisms -- made by many people in SF -- of Gonzalez. See the Ken Garcia article cited in the wikipedia article. I think you are incorrect to call these "ad hominem attacks." BTW, why did you take out the Nancy Pelosi stuff?

But they are isolated examples that neither describe Gonzalez's reasons nor his record. I believe the insertion of "contentious ideologue" meets the universal defition for an ad hominem. Citing isolated examples to support this assertion fails a standard logic test. As far as Pelosi goes, I didn't take out her information but, instead, tried to make what happened a bit clearer. The hyperlink in the text will describe her as the Congressmember who represents San Francisco; however, it isn't a valid point in an article about another individual. Brevity can be golden for clarity.

5. :If by "idealogue" you mean someone who sticks to his ideas unbendingly, I think the term applies to Gonzalez. It was a term Newsom, his opponent in the 2003 election, used often. Therefore I think it is warranted here. Certainly many voters agreed with Newsom, as they elected him mayor.

"Ideologue" has become a campaign euphamism used for political attacks. There are much better word choices that aren't as loaded and I hope you'll agree. By your definition, Newsom could also be considered an ideologue and I don't recall seeing it in any Wiki article about him. While many voters did pick Newsom over Gonzalez, Newsom was not given a mandate or monopoly on San Franciscan views when the outcome was as close as it was. A related point of interest going back to the election isn't included about Newsom winning with a similar margin as the number of Republican voters in SF who supported him over Gonzalez. -- rasax, 18 November 2005.

re:

1. "Rasax, you obviously passionately like Gonzalez, but that doesn't mean you can expunge criticism of him."

I'm not because that would mean omitting it. What I've done is provide a counterbalance with a context.

2. "Further, I think that business about his opponent in the supervisorial election attempting to use his Green party membership against him is wrong. I never heard of that. Do you have a source for it?"

I do, and will be back to provide it soon.

-- rasax 18 November 2005.

Follow-up:

Without digging up old campaign mailers from 2000, here's one published source, Griot: "OUR DEMOCRACY IS anemic, and the recent presidential election proves it. But while millions of Americans fell prey to the stun gun of intolerance directed at third-party presidential candidates this fall, San Franciscans, in particular voters in District Five, can defy negative convention by not succumbing to the outlandish fear-mongering generated by supervisorial candidate Juanita Owens...[Gonzalez's] independence has been met by campaign hit pieces from Owens..." -- Mirkarimi, R. "Who's Afraid of the Greens?" SF Bay Guardian, 6 December 2000. [12] Rasax 01:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes improved, but the following points should be discussed further:

1. "To some, Gonazalez had a reputation for being stubborn and uncompromising." If this paragraph is to be included, the article should also include a broader context for what Gonzalez was known to be uncompromising on, such as refusing to meet with Brown and corporate lobbyists. This implies that critics simply disagreed with Gonzalez because of his relationship with Brown and there's a lot more history not being included to give a reader a fair amount of information. Brown had an open door reputation for lobbyists that led to a series of reforms pushed through by Gonzalez. It was always a sticking point during their time together at City Hall. If Gonzalez's critics are permitted to have their grievances aired on his bio, then they should be tempered with a counterbalance. His bio should really be about him and his legislative record, not a forum for his critics without some context. If contributors would like to include issues that were sources for conflict, then it'd be best to stick with what his opponents were known to disagree with him on: public financing, campaign reforms, public power, and his party affiliation.

The article contains a long paragraph about Gonzalez's accomplishments; there isn't any need for a counterbalance. This paragraph starts by saying he was stubborn and uncompromsining and that some thought so. I think the instance sighted -- refusal to speak to the mayor, refusal to vote on a simple measure to congratulate Pelosi -- demonstrate this. If you have a beef with Brown, it belongs on Brown's page, not here, I think.

• You think? What about support? How does the criticism you cite apply in the overall context? It doesn't because they're isolated events and a non-sequitur.
• See logical fallacy: Non sequitur: “...a conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.” -- Freeley and Steinberg. Argumentation and Debate: critical thinking for reasoned decision making, 8th ed., p.178, Longman: New York. Rasax 23:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

2. "The supervisor hosted an art show at his city hall office in which graffiti artist Barry McGee spray-painted "Smash the State" on the wall." I'm not even sure why this is included. This event was never really a major issue for some of Gonzalez's most ardent opponents because he was known for hosting artists each week and McGee was a high profile guest. It shouldn't be included as criticism.

It is included because it indicates where Gonzalez was coming from politically, and because it's interesting. I think it's a colorful incident worth including, and frankly I don't think it reflects badly on Gonzalez or McGee.

3. "During the campaign, between the primary and the run-off election, he switched from Democratic Party to the Green Party; the candidate issued a statement in the San Francisco Bay Guardian explaining why." First, I don't see why the need to omit Gonzalez's disagreement with the Democratic Party's values. It was, afterall, one of the motivating reasons for his decision and should be included when describing his actions. Individuals can be given an objective viewpoint when a person being written about has their reasons for making certain decisions included. Removing it seems to imply a certain level of discomfort from the editor than simply stating what is a supported fact. Secondly, "between the primary and run-off election" isn't necessary and overly verbose. I hope the author will reconsider the need for including it and look forward to your thoughts.

Readers can click the link and go to the Bay Guardian article in which Gonzalez explains why he left the Democratic Party. Moot point, I think. The business about switching between the primary and the run-off is interesting, because one wonders if Gonzalez could have done it at the start of the election and still won, and there is also the issue of whether switching at the time in the middle of an election was fair to voters.

Minor points:

a. "(municipal elections in San Francisco are officially nonpartisan)" Is there a reason this cannot be its own sentence? I apologize ahead of time if it seems overly minor because the flow is a bit choppy when reading.

It bears mentioning, since the election of a Green Party member in a partisan election has yet to occur in California (or elsewhere).

In the meantime, please accept the added POV template until these issues are resolved. Rasax 04:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Change reverted back to the following from: "Gonzalez campaigned an municipally owned and operated energy system for the city of San Francisco, but his ballot measure for municipally owned power failed..." to the originally intended statement: "Gonzalez was also an advocate for creating public power; a euphamism for a municipal owned and operated energy system." If there's a question of what's more appropriate, then examine the lead of the paragraph's opening with, "During his tenure as Board President, Gonzalez..." That means any subsequent sentences must support the beginning premise, which is about Gonzalez's tenure as Board President, not a measure he supported or his opponents' gloating over its subsequent loss. Stop trolling. Rasax 04:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Please reconsider this. The use of the word "euphemism" is very confusing to me. What exactly was he trying to do? Rather than talk of euphemisms, how about saying exactly what ownership of public power in SF would mean? I like the sentence from some time back: "He was unsuccessful in his efforts to municipalize electricity by creating a municipal utility district, and his ballot measure which would have given non-citizens the right to vote in local school board elections failed."

Follow up:

1. "The use of the word "euphemism" is very confusing to me."

Fine, I revised euphemism to "a local term to describe a municipal owned and operated energy system."

2. "how about saying exactly what ownership of public power in SF would mean?"

I've updated.

See #1.

3. "I like the sentence from some time back: "He was unsuccessful in his efforts to municipalize electricity by creating a municipal utility district, and his ballot measure which would have given non-citizens the right to vote in local school board elections failed."

Of course you do, because it's obvious you're trolling when you refuse to follow the paragraph's lead to inject a non-topical point about the measure. Rasax 06:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply 19 November 2005:

1. : "It bears mentioning, since the election of a Green Party member in a partisan election has yet to occur in California (or elsewhere)."

Source?

2. "The article contains a long paragraph about Gonzalez's accomplishments; there isn't any need for a counterbalance."

Yes there is or it isn't neutral. There are many genuine issues you could include to describe Gonzalez's controvery and disagreements, but you've used isolated events to inject yours and his critics' opinions about what happened. That is known as an ad hominem attack because you're substituting bombast for substance.

3. "This paragraph starts by saying he was stubborn and uncompromsining and that some thought so."

Right, and it's a good start but poor choice of examples to support it with (See #1). Disagreements with Brown or Pelosi don't prove or disprove the paragraph's opening statement. Why not use what Gonzalez was criticized by opponents in public debates? There are plenty of issues that created controversy and it would make an interesting addition to the article. Even better yet, here's another you could build the section from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1102809,00.html

Since I've included a recent addition describing some of the events in Gonzalez's words, I'm willing to remove the POV template flagging my concerns about the article's neutrality because it offers a solid counterbalance more than my opinion, yours, an editorial or journalist's. I still believe the criticism misses the mark and will leave it for someone else, perhaps you, to develop more since I don't have a dog in that fight.

Let's keep the POV template.

4. "I think the instance sighted -- refusal to speak to the mayor, refusal to vote on a simple measure to congratulate Pelosi -- demonstrate this. If you have a beef with Brown, it belongs on Brown's page, not here, I think."

And? Elected officials refuse to vote for things and disagree with people all the time. They're entitled to because it comes with the privilege of the job. Weekly chats with the mayor wasn't a part of the job description and Gonzalez was perfectly within his right to refuse.

4. ":It is included because it indicates where Gonzalez was coming from politically, and because it's interesting. I think it's a colorful incident worth including, and frankly I don't think it reflects badly on Gonzalez or McGee."

I don't either, but it comes across much differently in the section where his appreciation for art is mentioned than it does when it's lumped together with what his critics think.

5. ":Readers can click the link and go to the Bay Guardian article in which Gonzalez explains why he left the Democratic Party."

Why should they have to bother taking the extra step when this is supposed to be an article about him? It seems to be more about your discomfort than the article's neutrality. I took the liberty to re-edit using his words to clarify it to diffuse this as a difference between your and my personal view. Describing the campaign and his reasons for changing party affiliation shouldn't need to become anything more or less than about what happened and why and, yes, there's even a little glee on his side for doing it. It happens and that's what articles describe - the who, what, where, when, why and how of events. And as you've pointed out in my #6 response, it's a point of interest. I also broke out the criticism because it seemed to be easier on the eyes to read with sections rather than one enormous text.

6. "Moot point, I think. The business about switching between the primary and the run-off is interesting, because one wonders if Gonzalez could have done it at the start of the election and still won, and there is also the issue of whether switching at the time in the middle of an election was fair to voters."

I included "run-off" when I re-edited. Anything I've edited, I've attempted to include the original integrity of what was said. Granted, some things have been moved around but put into a cohesive context so it makes more sense. I'm still open to hearing what you don't like and why and hope it's clear that any changes I've made are viewed a genuine attempt to improve the article. I hope you'll agree. Rasax 13:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks like there have been quite a few revisions and they're terrible. The opening I left was clean, concise, and structured to support the following article. The revision was weak, poorly written, and shows no command of language skills. Why?

1. "Gonzalez is recognized as the first

member elected to public office in San Francisco..."

This is factually correct! Please, learn your history before making these claims and changes. Someone cited a link to the local Green Party and it does not support the change. Anyone who remembers these events should remember it was Gonzalez who inspired Sanchez to become Green, not vice-versa. Here you go: http://www.sfbg.com/News/35/13/13oggrn.html

re: ":I know the history of SF quite well;"

You don't know it well enough when you cannot get your facts right. You aren't. 69.3.233.162 21:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The question here is: Do you want to talk off the top of your head, or do you accept the history as stated by the SF Green Party. I think you have to go with what the party says.

• See logical fallacy: Begging the question: When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.155-6 , Wadsworth: Miami.

2. "I was born here and have lived here all my life."

I'd find that surprising.

Please, let's try to keep this above board.

reply: Why not try your own prescription on for size?

Gentlemen, please... Why the nastiness?

• Please review the dialogue and I'll be more than happy to respond to direct questions. Rasax 23:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

3. "If you go to this page of the SF Green Party Web site [13], you will read these words: "Mark Sanchez made history four years ago by becoming the first elected office holder of the Green Party in San Francisco." Don't you think we should go with the SF Green Party on this? Sanchez was the first, no matter how you remember it."

No he wasn't, and I provided a published record proving it. Sanchez was elected to the ed. board as a Democrat and switched after Gonzalez. I don't understand why this is even important to you enough to debate when it's clear you've made every hairsplitting attempt to undermine Gonzalez in his own bio. I think there's a good argument for taking this to the moderators because you're abusing your right to edit with an axe to grind. 69.3.233.162 21:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I refer you to [14] and the words of the SF Green Party. Yes, it's a minor point, but an encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate. If you can find a better source for this than the SF Green Party, I would like to know about it.

• I can and I already gave it to you and you didn't bother reading it and continue to insist on some idiotic rant about your misinformed interpretation from a website because, again, you seem to fail to recogize how to put things into context. Even better, here's Sanchez's own words. I'm sure the paper waited several years to use that quote, because time on your planet is in opposite land. Now, if you want to debate this further, I suggest calling the BOE and ask for Mark Sanchez, Then, try telling him he doesn't know a thing about himself and see what he has to say about it.

• "San Francisco Board of Education member-elect Mark Sanchez announced this week that he has also gone Green. He said he was emboldened by Gonzalez's decision.

"I'm a little disenchanted with the Democratic party," Sanchez said. "It's not progressive enough, and I agree with the values of the Green Party." -- Zoll, D. " Green buds School board member-elect Sanchez joins ranks of Demo defectors," San Francisco Bay Guardian, 27 December 2000. http://www.sfbg.com/News/35/13/13oggrn.html

2. From "He is also credited for helping other Green Party members get elected to public office and expanding the party's local base." To -> "He is credited for helping other Green Party members get elected in the city and expanding the party's base."

Why? "Also" is appropriate because it's a supporting statement to the original where initial credit is recognized. "City" versus "local" - again, why? The original revision clearly lays out who is credited, why, where, what, and how. The second re-arranges it and turns it into a rambling mess. Where was it again? Oh yeah, the city. I almost forgot because most readers won't remember the location from one sentence to the next. [sarcasm alert] Rasax 16:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Suits me. I didn't make this change.

• rebuttal to above sentence:

":Suits me. I didn't make this change."

Of course it would. Rasax 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

??? I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm fine with this sentence.

Newsom doesn't belong in the intro:

• Definition (essay format): “...the controlling idea, the main point, the conclusion you have drawn about the evidence you have accumulated.” -- Fowler and Aaron. The Little, Brown Handbook , 8th ed., p. 30, New York: Longman.

E.g. Lead: “Matt Gonzalez was a district supervisor and former president of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, California.”

• Functions of a thesis: “1. It narrows your subject to a single, central idea that you want readers to gain from your essay 2. It names the topic and asserts something specific and significant about it 3. It conveys your reason for writing, your purpose, 4. It often provides a concise preview of how you will arrange you ideas in the essay.” (ibid, p.31)

• Basis: Emphasizing Newsom's win at Gonzalez's expense does not develop the thesis. The statement was debated as being non-topical and Griot continues to re-insert it as the article’s main idea when it isn't anything more than a gloating reminder that the editor doesn't think highly about the individual whose biography s/he monopolizes. Rasax 23:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

(municipal elections are officially nonpartisan)

In the intro? Why? Exactly how is it topical to the article's overall theme? It's not; therefore, it doesn't belong in the intro. I seem to notice that any effort to obfuscate Gonzalez's party affiliation and successes is taking a front seat to what the article is supposed to be about - Matt Gonzalez. If you want it in an intro, then I suggest another article all about elections in San Francisco. You could even use it as the article's intro because it's topical in that context. Rasax 17:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

re":The Greens have never won a nonpartisan election in California."

Never? Really? It's off topic, but please indulge me. I'd like to see you cough up a source for this. Rasax 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

At the national Green Party web site, it says only one Green has won a nonpartisan election, a guy from Maine. I deduced from that fact that no Green in California has won a nonpartisan election.

Well, you’d be wrong - again. The BOS are nonpartisan positions, as is the mayor. I think you mean to say partisan. In case you haven’t noticed, Mark Sanchez, Ross Mirkarimi, Sarah Lipson, etc... are all elected to nonpartisan positions. But let’s assume you and your myopic righteousness meant partisan. You’d still be wrong. Now go look up Audie Bock. Not a proud moment, but never means not have ever happened, and you were wrong. Issue resolved Of course, why make that the opening statement for an article about someone you don't like? 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

re: "I keep coming round to this point because the Greens appear to be having a hard time winning nonpartisan elections."

Why does anyone need to care what you think about the Greens or I think about the Democrats? It's not relevant to the topic. Rasax 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's relevant. Some would think he won against a Democrat or Republican in a partisan election, but he didn't.

• Perhaps, if someone were lazy enough to be bothered with reading the article. Rasax 00:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"I want to make it clear to readers that SF elections are officially nonpartisan, so they understand this. But I'll keep it out of the intro out of respect to your opinion."

I have nothing to add. Rasax 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Who was the first elected Green in SF?

Matt. Supported by the following:

Sources: Matt's own website [15], Boalt Hall School of Law at U.C. Berkeley [16].

The next article [17] can be linked from the CA Green Party webpages. The article's timing is supported by another souce - an interview with Mark Sanchez by none other than Matt himself. Here's what Sanchez says, "I was elected to the Board of Education in November 2000 and joined the Green Party before I took office. Ive always been progressive and I felt that the Greens more closely reflected my politics."

At the California Green Party webpages, Sanchez is credited as one of the "Greens [who] captured seats on two schools boards Nov. 2 - Mark Sanchez, who became the first Green to be re-elected in San Francisco to the Board of Education." http://www.cagreens.org/press/pr041129.htm

What does it all mean? Sanchez was elected before Gonzalez in November, but as a Democrat. He didn't switch his party affiliation until after Gonzalez won the run-off campaign, but before he was sworn into office in January, just as it stated in the SF Bay Guardian and now correctly credits him in his biographical info.

Matt was elected in December 2000 after D5 voters Dumped the Democrats and kicked Owens to the curb on election day. It's not asking too much to have your tall-tales in order if you're going to make up stuff. Get a life, Griot. Matt is the first elected Green in San Francisco. [Edit to include in current section] Rasax 08:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Update 6 December 16:30 (PST). More source citations provided about the outcome between Gonzalez and Owens, an Owens quote to support the current text, and the significance of Gonzalez's victory updated. Rasax 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Griot disagrees

<shakes head> Umm-umm. You cannot re-write history and substitute Gonzalez's words with your own. It's attempting to sterilize by omission and whitewash over one of the most central features to his campaigns - his party affiliation. You cannot use a better reference than the source itself, and you're not that source. Every effort was made to cite each major point to avoid any whitewashing, including that bit about the Democratic "stranglehold" from an original source. You cannot reasonably soften it with spin, chip away each segment bit by bit, or ignore Gonzalez's candidacy as a direct challenge to it. To do so is to turn the biographical content into an apologism piece for the party he challenged, and that's unacceptable. Rasax 16:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

1. ":Shake your head all you want, but the word "dump" isn't appropriate for an encylopedia. If the wikipedia said that SF voters "dumped" Gonzalez in the 2003 mayoral election, would the word be appropriate?"

They did. You know it, I know it, all of San Francisco knows it, and the world knows it. And, the top authority for definitions in the US supports it: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/dump Rasax 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point about wanting to make text livelier, but I remind you once again that this term isn't suitable for an encyclopedia, which is supposed to present balanced articles.

2. "Moreover, I cannot find the word "dump" anywhere in the article Gonzalez wrote in the Bay Guardian. "Dump" is your choice of words, not Gonzalez's."

And? Events can be stated in any which way as long as a statement is 1. true, 2. supported, and 3. in context. They are. Rasax 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

See my point above.

See logical fallacy: Begging the question: "When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.156 , Wadsworth: Miami. Rasax 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for finally removing the word "Dump" from the heading. It took two months, and you used your "logical fallacy" quote from your book, and you engaged in all manner of obfuscation, but you finally removed this offensive word. Thank you. GriotGriot

3. As for your "apologism piece (?)," the words quoted in this article and the link to the article as well make plain why he left the Party and are not "soft." Let it stand."

• No, because you're confusing balance with content. Gonzalez's view doesn't require a counterbalance when he's the main topic. Omiting his view because you're not comfortable with it is your problem, not the article or content. Rasax 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You missed my point. I was expalining to your why "dump" isn't appropriate.

• See logical fallacy: Begging the question: "When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.156 , Wadsworth: Miami.

4. ":Getting personal. I was hoping it wouldn't come to that, and if you knew me better, you would hope so as well..."

• Do you disagree that you're cherry picking? I hope not because it's called cherry pickinig when one becomes selective with facts.

Look, you think highly of Gonzalez, and I think that colors your view of him. I am being objective, not cherry picking.

• See logical fallacy: Begging the question: "When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.156 , Wadsworth: Miami. Rasax 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Why work on a biography you don’t even like? I’d prefer this to continue with the wikimods’ involvement. I’m willing to make a case that you’re not here to do anything else but sabbotage a biographical article with an axe to grind. Troll. Rasax 01:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm very sorry you feel this way, and that you feel the need to bring moderators into this. I am merely trying to bring a balanced view of Matt Gonzalez to this article.

I don't need to know you and have seen enough of your nettiquette to know my patience are wearing thin. I've gone to every length to include your imput, provided there was some reasonable basis. If you recall, I wasn't even going to argue opinion, and pointed out my impression about your intentions being disingenuous. It's ironic you should mention getting personal when you've taken a very personal interest in making every attempt to distort a public servant record. I believe that speaks volumes about one's person more than anything I could muster. Rasax 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who got personal. You wrote, "How did you ever survive a history class? Have you even attended one?" I thought that comment was very inappropriate in a scholarly discussion, and I called you on it. Please don't do that in the future. Thank you. As for my "distorting" Gonzalez, I disagree. I am merely being objective.

• See logical fallacy: Begging the question: When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.155-6 , Wadsworth: Miami. Rasax 23:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You haven’t and it’s painful to watch you try to explain academic discussions. You’re not a scholar and you’re not even at an academic level. I’d like to see what the mods have to say about it. So go ahead and reverse the page back again. I won’t even reply but forward all of it, including a copy of this discussion which I have been saving. Rasax 01:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe I have a unique perspective on this. I work in city government. No, you're right, I'm not a strictly trained scholar, but I am good at researching on the Internet, as I believe I've demonstrated during this debate. I beseach you to reconsider bringing mods into this, because what you have here is a very balanced article. And I'm sorry you see some kind of ulterior motive on my part, because I assure you it isn't there. Happy Thanksgiving.

• See logical fallacy: Begging the question: When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.155-6 , Wadsworth: Miami.

re: "Playing on anger at the Green Party in the aftermath of the

"

As a campaigning candidate, Owens would've known progressives were leaning towards Gonzalez in the district. She assumed people wouldn't know the Greens enough to recognize their platform from her "extremist" characterization - much like the attempts to reinvent Gonzalez's record. It isn't accurate to say she was playing off of an anger that didn't exist in the district. You've taken it upon yourself to generalize one belief about the national mood (as if we're a monolith) and applied it to a district you clearly aren't familiar with. I've been in this district for almost two decades. Rasax 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

re: ":This obviously needs more explanation. Why did Owens feel she could use Gonzalez's Green Party affiliation to her advantage?"

Owens, as I'd explained, tried to take advantage of a less known third party and mistakenly believed she could distort their platform. She gambled on Matt not stepping up and refuting her claims, but he did. Additional explanations aren't required when a claim is sufficiently supported, such as the SFBG source citation given. If you want to refute it, then do your own work and find one. I already have. Without one, you have no basis for speculation. Rasax 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you analysis is dead wrong. Owens attempted to use Gonzalez's Green Party affiliation to her advantage because there was (and is) so much anger against the Greens because of the 2000 election. It wasn't a matter of her underestimating how many progressives were in her district. Owens herself campaigned as a liberal progressive, both for supervisor and in her school board campaigns.

re: "The answer is there was -- and there still is -- much anger at the Greens for their role in helping Bush get elected in 2000."

That's your unsupported opinion. Again, you're generalizing a belief about the national view that, even if remotely true, did not translate to San Francisco. Rasax 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsupported opinion! Good lord man, the Green Party practically split up in 2004 because the party members couldn't decide how to keep from making the mistakes they made in 2004. Cobb wanted to run a campaign that didn't hurt Kerry's chances because he knew how badly the Greens are suffering because so many liberals and progressive blame them for helping elect Bush.

Substituting Bombast for Argument: “...support for [an] argument by sheer noise and historionics {and] no evidence.” -- Freeley and Steinberg. Argumentation and Debate: critical thinking for reasoned decision making, 8th ed., p.175, Longman: New York. Rasax 23:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You wrote, "That (Owens capitalizing on anger against Greens} is your usupported option." However, this [18] supports it. Here is how the article reads in part and I put a footnote to this article in the wikipedia article):

It's clear that Gonzalez's decision will be an issue for the Dec. 12 election. "I'm troubled that Mr. Gonzalez has left the Democratic Party," said Owens, whom voters elected to the county Democratic Central Committee in March... "It's troubling, particularly at this time when the Green Party's tactics could be handing the presidency to George Bush," Owens said, referring to Green presidential candidate Ralph Nader's refusal to withdraw in favor of Vice President Al Gore... Some leading Democrats have already acted. County central committee member Jane Morrison and longtime local and national party leader Agar Jaicks canceled a fund-raiser they planned for Gonzalez after learning of his switch. As party officials, we can't have a party for him," Morrison said.

Morrison isn't a credible authority. Why not list her credentials to give viewers an idea about her perspective? Hmm?

False authority: “citing as expert opinion the views of a person who is not an expert.” -- Fowler and Aaron. The Little, Brown Handbook , 10th ed., p. 156, Wadsworth: Miami. Rasax 23:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

See my notes above. It is plain to me what Owens was trying to do -- capitalize on anger against the Green Party. Your very strange notion that Owens could use Gonzalez's third party affiliation, not his Green Party affiliation, against him is just strange.

It’s plain to you? A clarvoyant are you? [channelling, Juanita, channelling...] Time to put your effort where your mouth is. Source? -- rasax

• 24 November 2005

Wikipedia notified Rasax 01:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments from rasax

• 25 November 2005

As a San Franciscan, a resident of the district represented by Gonzalez, and San Francisco Green Party member, I make no apologies for confronting intentional lies and distortions about Gonzalez’s record or my objection to treat them as mere content differences. There is no rule that says deception is an acceptable substitute for debate. It’s unfortunate when our local spinmeisters broaden their efforts beyond the locals who have first hand accounts.

Editor Griot doesn’t hesitate to state a desire for “encyclopedic balance” but fails to deliver it when monopolizing the content and oversimplyfying it. Oversimplification is a reductive fallacy that happens when one “conceal[s] or ignore[s] complexities in a vain attempt to create a neater, more convincing argument...”, and fails to explain a “relation between cause and effect.” -- Fowler and Aaron. The Little, Brown Handbook , 10th ed., p. 158-9, Wadsworth: Miami.

A review of the discussion history shows the editor's combative style and failure to yield on unsupported points of view. Discussions result in blocked attempts to improve the article’s accuracy. When the editor espresses a willingness to yield, the end result in my experience has been similar to what another editor described as a gradual “chip[ing] away.” Any emphasis believed to be too positive is quickly re-written to coincide with the editor’s view, and protests ignored when the article is reverted back. The editor, however, doesn’t object to negative emphases even when out of context. This double-standard shows disregard for Gonzalez and the integrity of his biographical information.

The editor is neither a qualified expert nor demonstrates an ability to refute on authentic grounds. Any attempt at refutation quickly reveals the editor’s self-appointment as the article’s judge, jury, and final arbiter. Furthermore, it supports my view when the record shows a persistent determination to re-insert inaccuracies and double-standard for content. Fallacious reasoning isn't debate because it avoids the argument. Coupled with antagonism and a negative bias, it creates a hostile environment for anyone who questions or challenges it. Over time this behavior establishes an abusive pattern and recognized as cyberbullying or trolling. Should I consider the positive statements and well wishes? No. Passive-aggression shouldn't be confused with genuine disagreement. An effective way to deal with a troll is: 1. make sure you're dealing with one, 2. identify what's happening, 3. find immediate resolve, including notifying someone before the well is poisoned. [19], [20]. In this case: [21], and [22]. Wikipedia should take immediate steps to stop it.

I am confident I will resolve reasonable scepticism, provide clarification and source citations, meet the threshold and show a reasonable burden of proof, and resolve lingering doubts about why change is needed. -- rasax.

Seeking corrections on the following

1. Matt Gonzalez should be recognized and credited in his Wiki article as the first Green elected to public office in San Francisco.

2. The description I submitted about Gonzalez’s campaign for Supervisor is more accurate. The article should revert back to my previous submission because the following revisions are less concise and contain factual errors:

• a. Between the general election and the run-off campaign against Juanita Owens...

Gonzalez switched parties between the general election and the run-off election. Why is this being disputed?

• Because you can't get your "facts" straight.
• b. Between the general election and the run-off campaign against Juanita Owens, Gonzalez left the Democratic Party and registered with the Green Party.
• c. In an attempt to capitalize on anger against the Green Party in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election, Owens attempted to use Gonzalez's Green Party affiliation to her advantage in the campaign...
• d. "...but Gonzalez won the run-off election to become the second elected Green Party official in San Francisco (after school board member Larry Sanchez)."

3. Newsom’s mayoral win should be removed from the introduction. 4. Criticism should be cleaned up and refined or removed. 5. Changing "Dump" to "Leave" offers no compelling reason and should be changed back. Rasax 02:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC) [Put back in order as originally stated, Q & A listed below by section] Rasax 08:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Space for Griot

I am a native San Franciscan, born and raised in what is now District 5.

See logical fallacy: Red herring: "...an irrelevant issue intended to distract readers from the relevant issues. The writer changes the subject rather than pursue the argument." -- Fowler and Aaron. The Little, Brown Handbook , 10th ed., p. 157, Wadsworth: Miami.

Someone disagreeing with you does not constitute "chipping away" or "over simplicfication."

See logical fallacy: Red herring: "...an irrelevant issue intended to distract readers from the relevant issues." -- -- Fowler and Aaron. The Little, Brown Handbook , 10th ed., p. 157, Wadsworth: Miami. -- rasax.

The article now is well balanced, I believe. It lists all of Gonzalez's many achievements. I really don't understand why this man/woman sees ill intention in my attempt to be thorough and objective.

See logical fallacy: Arguing in a circle: "...carr[ying] an argument beyond its reasonable limits." -- Freeley and Steinberg. Argumentation and Debate: critical thinking for reasoned decision making, 8th ed., p. 175, Longman: New York. -- rasax.

Is this other fellow an expert? I don't make any claims in that regard, except to say that all my changes to this article are in the record and are backed up. I am sorry he sees me as being antagonistic, but a quick review of this article will show that there is no antagonism. This article is well balanced and, as I said before, is fair to Gonzalez.

See logical fallacy: Begging the question: When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler,The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., Pp.155-6, Wadsworth: Miami. --rasax

I think Griot has been fair and accurate in his/her edits.

See logical fallacy: Begging the question: When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.155-6 , Wadsworth: Miami.

See logical fallacy: False authority: “...citing as expert opinion the views of a person who is not an expert.” -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.156 , Wadsworth: Miami. --rasax.

Re: Seeking corrections on the following:

• Correction 1.

The Web page from the San Francisco Green Party that I cite in this article states that another person, Larry Sanchez, was the first. Do we make a claim contrary to what the local Green Party itself says? I don't think we should do that. I think we should trust the SF Green Party to know who was the first.

See logical fallacy: Special pleading: "... [to] accept a line of reasoning and its conclusion by urge a special exception for their case." -- Freeley and Steinberg, Argumentation and Debate: critical thinking for reasoned decision making, 8th ed., p. 174 Longman: New York. Rasax 07:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Correction 2a

This is a matter of fact.

So is the Newton's Law of Gravity. If you want to glamorize Owens, then start her biographical page. This is Matt's. Rasax 00:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Correction 2d

Discussed earlier. See the citation in the article. The SF Green Party Web page clearly says Sanchez was the first elected Green in SF.

Review additional support that will show why Matt reasonably can be identified as the first elected Green. Rasax 00:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Correction 2c

See the SF Chronicle article I cite. It clearly says that this is the case. Gonzalez's opponent in this election was hoping that Democrats angry at the Greens after the 2000 election would vote for her instead of Gonzalez.

See topicality. Angry Dems projecting blame? Nooooo. Matt wins campaign against Juanita Owens? Yes. --rasax

• Correction 3

Look up wikipedia articles on

Fritz Mondale and Bob Dole

. In the first paragraph of those articles, it mentions that they lost the presidential election.

Look up definition for thesis (essay format): “...the controlling idea, the main point, the conclusion you have drawn about the evidence you have accumulated.” -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p. 30, Wadsworth: Miami. In other words, learn to stick with the topic being written about. Clue numero uno: Matt Gonzalez was a district supervisor and former president of the Board of Supervisors... -- rasax

Why not say the same of Gonzalez, that he lost the mayoral election? This is how Gonzalez is known to most people.

See logical fallacy: Begging the question: "When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.155-6 , Wadsworth: Miami. --rasax

• Correction 4

The criticism, as this reviewer calls it, is accurate. Why remove it? Without this single paragraph criticizing Gonzalez in the article, most readers would wonder how St. Matt Gonzalez ever managed to lose an election.

As if any of the isolated events you justify as reasons have anything to do with Newsom outspending by outlandish sums, a parade of national Democratic Party hacks campaigning on his behalf, and merging with the local Republican Party for endorsements as a counterweight didn't have any effect. No, it's gotta be those three events you've cited. See logical fallacy:Ad hoc/post hoc fallacy: "...the assumption that because [event] A preceded B, then A must have caused B."-- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p. 159, Wadsworth: Miami. -- rasax

• Correction 5

As I have argued repeatedly, "Dump" is not a good word

See logical fallacy: Begging the question: When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.155-6 , Wadsworth: Miami.

See logical fallacy: False authority: “...citing as expert opinion the views of a person who is not an expert.” -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.156 , Wadsworth: Miami. Rasax 02:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

in an article that seeks to be neutral. I'm pretty sure you would be hard pressed to find the verb "dump" in a heading in the World Book Encyclopedia, for example.

See logical fallacy: Hasty generalization: "...also called jumping to a conclusion, is a claim based on too little evidence or on evidence that is unrepresentative."-- -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.156 , Wadsworth: Miami.

Reductive fallacy: "...oversimplifies (or reduces) the relation between causes and their effects." -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.156 , Wadsworth: Miami. -- rasax

Original statement: "In the run-off campaign against Juanita Owens, Gonzalez re-registered with the Green Party and wrote an op-ed piece..." Revision statement: "Between the general election and the run-off campaign against Juanita Owens, Gonzalez left the Democratic Party and registered with the Green Party." Uh, riight. Between the general election and run-off campaign? What, for only one second at midnight after the election and before the next second starting the run-off campaign? Time for a brush up class and learn some new skills, Griot.

It follows with this next little piece of let me gouge my eye out redundancy: "He explained why in an op-ed piece in the San Francisco Bay Guardian that read in part..." Do op-ed pieces read? How does saying less in more sentences improve the quality from the original? Answer: it doesn't.

"In spite of Owens's attempts to use his Green Party affiliation to her advantage..." to this little winning number: "In an attempt to capitalize on anger against the Green Party in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election, Owens attempted to use Gonzalez's Green Party affiliation to her advantage in the campaign..." What more does it add? Well, it's one way to pollute more space about Owens getting beat by voters with an ugly stick and still says less in more words.

Opening paragraph called a thesis. A definition (essay format): “...the controlling idea, the main point, the conclusion you have drawn about the evidence you have accumulated.” -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p. 30, Wadsworth: Miami.

re: No need to change "Dump" to "Leave."

I am sorry that rastax does not tolerate an objective opinion

• See logical fallacy: Begging the question: "When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler,The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., Pp.155-6, Wadsworth: Miami. In other words, objective to whom?

Re: Matt Gonzalez and feels that moderators need to be brought in. I would like him/her to please read this article objectively. It lists Gonzalez's copious achievements. Indeed, the majority of this article verges on hagiography. It paints Gonzalez in a very favorable light. Nitpicking about criticisms of this SF politician shows an inability on rastax's part, I respectfully believe, to view Gonzalez objectively.

See logical fallacy: Begging the question: "When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler, Argumentation and Debate: critical thinking for reasoned decision making, 10th ed., Pp.155-6, Wadsworth: Miami.

See logical fallacy: False authority: “...citing as expert opinion the views of a person who is not an expert.” -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p.156 , Wadsworth: Miami. -- rasax

I ask the moderators to simply read this article and decide whether it is balanced and objective. I believe it is. I think rastax, a Green Party member, is not reading objectively. Thank you in advance for hearing me out.

See logical fallacy: Begging the question: When a writer begs readers to accept her or his ideas from the start. Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved." -- Aaron and Fowler,The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., Pp.155-6, Wadsworth: Miami.Rasax 07:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Do your own homework and quit assuming everyone else is dumb enough to fall for you being an authority when you've not even demonstrated an ability to provide a counterargument. Gonzalez's biography doesn't need your permission and neither do I. Rasax 05:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it fair to me for you to cut and paste "logical fallacies" from "The Little Brown Handbook" in reply to my carefully considered answers to your queries? Again, I ask you to read this article objectively. This is not an "attack piece," but on the contrary a balanced article that presents all of Gonzalez's many achievements in public office. I'm completely confused as to why you see ill-will in my editorial changes and suggestions.

It's certainly reasonable to point out every justification you offer can be linked to a error in judgement and inability to refute on more solid ground than some inflated view about how objective you believe you are. Stick to the grounds of your claims and yield when you cannot support them. If not, I will pursue those I can support and refute with the grounds to warrant them. Try to learn the weaknesses of your argument from fallacies cited. I'd prefer our interactions remain strictly limited to the following criteria and nothing else.

Reasonableness"...involves all the elements of argument examined: claims, evidence, assumptions, and language...the fair, sincere argument always avoids so-called fallacies." -- Aaron and Fowler, The Little, Brown Handbook, 10th ed., p. 152, Wadsworth: Miami. Rasax 00:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Griot. Tell me, what can I do to make you feel included? I'm very flexible and have no problem giving respect when I see it returned. I don't mind disagreement, and wouldn't be here if I couldn't deal. It's probably a good idea to set some ground rules to keep future disagreements focused on the quality of claims and supporting evidence when it happens. It seems far more constructive to yield when any of us, myself included, doesn't have enough information about a topic. I hope you'd see a benefit as I do in making a little extra effort to see what types of support is out there. I am almost willing to bet we will continue to have points of contention, and with a few parameters I'm confident it'll be just like most disagreements that must rely on meeting a burden of proof. Not all claims are equal, not all sources are authoritative. I've made every effort to preserve the content when attempting to edit for topicality, flow, and precision. When an excellent source like this depends on contributions from others for accuracy and improvement, we have all agreed to be open to more convincing evidence, better ways to improve things, and not having all the answers - or life would be boring, indeed. Rasax 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's start with §1.1 and work our way down. We can stop whenever and don't need all the answers this moment. Rasax 05:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

wrote on hx file: "requires 1<honest answers", read: "requires more than honest answers alone." Limited space doesn't always allow room for clear expression. We can talk about unclogging some of this talk space if it's a bit overwhelming, and why not cross that bridge after we figure out how to get there? Ball's in your court. Rasax 05:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Number 1: You cluttered it, you unclog it. Number 2: We start from my article, not yours. Number 3: You address me honestly without "Little Brown Books," "logical fallacies," or other means of condescension.

Sure, let's start there. I'll take a few minutes to respond. Again, let's settle this by each line item if that's what it takes to see how to improve Matt's article. I'd prefer it if we found resolve this way rather than risk confusing some hapless soul who wanders in.

re: Fine. Number 1: You cluttered it, you unclog it.

• Are you giving me permission to omit your words? If so, I will once I'm satisfied we're working on a solution.

re: 2: We start from my article, not yours.

• Lets, but also understand, I will give you my honest view and I have no way of knowing when you feel unfairly criticized unless you're willing to make the effort to say it. With your words comes agreement to provide reasonable grounds to support them and yield without battle when you don't. I'll make the effort to point out when I don't have anything else to offer or when I'd prefer to re-visit something another time, leaving the status quo remain, and expect the same courtesy in return.

re: Number 3: You address me honestly without "Little Brown Books," "logical fallacies," or other means of condescension.

What I will offer is to address you first and limit sources strictly to the context they're applied in. However, also realize I don't mean to suggest that neither the book nor any authorative source won't be necessary at some point throughout the conversation and wouldn't expect you not to have your own to cite from for future discussions. I'm not under the impression you're asking not to cite them because resolve would become a Sisyphean effort when the only resource we're given is limited to what we know. I'll check out what you've written and offer a response. Rasax 06:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My three sentences get 40 sentences of commentary from you. I just don't see this working out, bro. I'm afraid this piece will have to be a POV. Sorry.

This working out? Or do you mean to say you're not willing to work through a discussion? It wasn't really clear and POV is yours so no need to apologize if that's how you feel. I'm prepared to support my view, even to a larger audience if necessary, or I would've bothered writing the first word from day one. Let me know if you're saying you don't want to interact any further and leave things as they are. It's important enough to recognize when offering up a response becomes a waste of time because the other involved party is no longer listening. Rasax 23:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)