Talk:Matt Gonzalez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matt Gonzalez article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. Proposed rewrite
  2. 2005
  3. 2006
  4. Proposed rewrite
  5. 2006
  6. 2006
  7. 2007 - present
Peer review Matt Gonzalez has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Nonpartisan nature of elections

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)

[edit] Removing inaccurate "criticism" section per WP:BLP

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Reference clean-up

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

  • Yes, I am putting this on my "one citation per day" cleanup rounds. If a few people do this we can have it within a week or two.Wikidemo (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links clean-up

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)

  • Do you have a pointer to a style guideline on this, or an article where this is done the right way? Wikidemo (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] only image -- of Newsom?

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Trial lawyer?

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)

[edit] Improving article

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)

[edit] Image deletions

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)