Talk:Matt Gonzalez/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Point Of View Template

17 February 2005 17:30 (PST) The proposed article is not an improvement in quality or style. Its proponent offers heavy-handed criticism of the existing article and little support. Without clear or specific reasons, criticism mostly relies on sweeping, ambiguous statements about the main article’s topicality, factual support, centrality, grammar, citations, and neutrality. Reasons for removing/replacing an entire wiki article should require more than speculation and full replacements must demonstrate a higher degree of quality for serious consideration. It doesn’t, and numerous concerns about the editor’s quality in the proposed article have been raised and included on the talk page. Rasax 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

One need only look at the article to see how sloppy and unworthy of the Wikipedia it is. Text is underlined for no reason. Eighty percent of the citations are to one place -- the SF Bay Guardian. Grammatical errors are legion. Please clean it up.

• Would you mind being more specific about the article and less editorial? Thanks. Rasax 20:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • More specific? I've been quite specific. Please fix these errors. Griot 20:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, more specific. It's unclear which links don't work or what errors you believe exist in the text. Rasax 21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please... You expect me to test the links for you? C'mon... That's your job. Please get to it. Griot 21:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's your complaint, and asking your to cite the specifics of it shouldn't be guesswork on my part if your interest is improving an article's quality. I certainly don't need to be told what my job is when each article is the result of numerous contributions. Rasax 21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's becoming clear to me that you have no interest in cleaning up this article. Griot 21:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I see. If you're a mindreader, then my intention should be crystal clear that I'm more interested in specifics about the article than devaluing and unhelpful comments. Please cite specifics or remove the templates you've put on the article. Thank you. Rasax 21:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote below on this page: Testing the links should be easy. Click each link in the article and see if it still works. For the many misspellings, you might try copying the text into a word processor and using the software's spell-checker. Here's a tangible thing you can do right away: For some reason, most of your "External links" links list two dates. There is no reason for that. You could start by fixing those double dates. (BTW, the Wikipedia convention is to call this section "External links" [note initial caps], not "Works cited and referenced." Griot 21:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I did a random test of the first and last ten links without incident. Each works as intended. Unless you are willing to be more specific about which links do and don't work, I will assume there isn't a problem. I see you mention numerous misspellings but cite no specifics, and word processors aren't necessary helpful for correcting spelling errors and their limitation should be recognized in this discussion. If you happen to find any, you're certainly welcome to correct them since wiki articles are the result of numerous contributions. As for the external dates, I'm not sure what you mean about how they're listed since there are numerous artlcles cited (in MLA style, mind you) with various dates. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining what the problem is here. Changing the "Works cited" to "External links" is also a minor change and shouldn't warrant a need for a cleanup template if that is a standard for wiki. If it is, there is a bit of a contradiction since MLA style references works cited/sourced, not "external links." Thanks. Rasax 21:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

1) A "random test" isn't good enough. Test all of them. 2)"As for the external dates, I'm not sure what you mean..." C'mon Raxax, get with it. I marked about a dozen of these "double dates" in the article. Please fix them, as well as the double dates I didn't mark. Griot 23:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• A random test meets my satisfaction and I don't need to test all of them because you tell me to. If there's a broken link you're aware of, I'll trust you'll share what information you have and not play some sort of guessing game. Rasax 22:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Re: "Double-dates" The dates indicated are MLA style notation, used to indicate when a link was last tested. I'm not sure what the problem is. The editor Griot may wish to familiarize himself with MLA style online notation before calling something an error. Rasax 22:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

1)Wikipedia does not use MLA styles. If you can find a single article in the Wikipedia that uses the MLA double-date notation, I'd like to know about it. 2)If you want to use this MLA style, you are oblilged to apply it to all the references in "External links." An editorial style has to apply to all text, not some of it. I think because you are the only person who uses this MLA style in all of the Wikipedia, you are obliged to remove these double dates and confirm with the Wikipedia style. Please clean up your article, Rasax; I'm frankly tired of arguing for a basic level of scholarshiop here. Griot 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• MLA is a generalized standard and wikipedia may or may not have its own house style. One great thing about MLA is that it is cohesive enough to work with and update to most notation styles. Since not all of the links included are mine, it is neither my obligation nor responsibility to update them. Furthermore, I'd like to clear up the assumption the current article is mine - it isn't. Rather, it is the result of numerous contributions, and I believe the sum of those contributions are superior in quality to the proposed article. I'm not about to make it a habit to concern myself with what you're tired of, Griot, that is your problem. My only purpose here is to contribute to improving the articles I'm interested in. Nothing more, nothing less. Rasax 23:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a house style. Please make the external links conform to the house style. Griot 00:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please review the Wiki section for source citations [1], and the subsequent link given at the bottom of the page for citing sources in MLA style [2]. Rasax 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• 29 November 2005 13:50 (PST)

The Point of View (POV) Template was placed erroneously and should be removed unless the issuer can warrant the grounds to support each claim. ["I'm afraid this piece will have to be a POV," §3.6]

What the editor states: "...the article on the Article page is filled with factural errors and is weighed down with too much editorializing, unneeded detail, and too many footnotes. To my mind, it is not objective or balanced, but a puff piece. I propose using the following article instead. It is objective and paints a thorough, concise, accurate picture of the former supervisor and mayoral candidate.this piece will have to be a POV," -- Griot,28 November 2005 Discussion: Matt Gonzalez, §1.0.

• What the editor stated after revising. Any doubts are resolved in the discussion table's history for (Nov 29). I hope the editor would apply the same standard to the proposed article, fact checking, and argument for the template. Rasax 10:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• 8 December 2005. 13:00 (PST) The editor Griot has upped the ante with a factual dispute template and claims there are factual errors in the existing article but does not list any. I'd like to see Wiki moderators step in and encourage this editor to use these templates when grounds can be cited to support claims about factual inaccuracies. Thank you. Rasax 20:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• 25 February 2006. 12:30 (PST) Today's lead for maintaining the article's POV template states: "...the sprawling, poorly written article on the Article page is filled with factual errors and is weighed down with POVs, editorializing, unneeded detail, too many footnotes, and numerous grammatical errors. Judging by the paltry number of edits to the article, we can assume nobody reads past the first paragraph or two. The article is not objective or balanced (much of the material is copied verbatum from Gonzalez campaign Web sites and the SF Bay Guardian)." Rasax 21:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Current and previous claims made about existing article

• A. Factual errors
• B. Weighted down with POVs
• C. Too much editorializing
• D. Unneeded detail, poorly written, and "sprawling"
• E. Too many footnotes
• F. Not Objective
• G. Not balanced
• H. A puff piece
• I. Numerous grammatical errors
• J. A "paltry number of edits" (gotta love this one with a sense of humor)
• K. Directly cites a source without quoting it (1)
• L. Nobody reads past the first or second paragraph (which is it?)
• M. Too long. Main article word count as of today: 2,352. Proposed article word count: 2563.

(1) Plagiarism is a serious charge and shouldn't be taken lightly. When the editor states, "...much of the material is copied verbatum from Gonzalez campaign Web sites and the SF Bay Guardian," it is an accusation of plagiarism.

People with an academic background will recognize it as grounds for expulsion from numerous institutions and are provided with adequate training to avoid it. Defined as a "presentation of someone else's ideas or words as your own," plagiarism should not be confused with summarizing (Fowler & Aaron). It is not plagiarism to summarize information from verifiable, secondary sources with acknowledgement. Direct quotes are cited as such. Unless the editor can cite specific, concrete examples of deliberate plagiarism, and not accidental, the claim should immediately be withdrawn. The editor cannot reasonably claim to argue "for a basic level of scholarshiop [sic, (Griot 22:50, 19 February 2006)]," and make unsupported claims of plagiarism. Intentional plagiarism is equally deplorable as alleging it without sufficient support. Source: Fowler and Aaron. The Little, Brown Handbook, 8th edition. Rasax 22:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Claims about proposed article

• A. It is objective
• B. Paints a thorough picture
• C. Paints a concise picture
• D. Paints an accurate picture (as in the dig to label Gonzalez's decision to join the GP as a conversion with religious overtones. Right.) Rasax 21:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Gonzalez used the word "epiphany" to describe why he joined the Green Party. Look up that word and tell me whether it has religious overtones. Sheesh. And seeing as you're too lazy to look up the word, try clicking on it in the article. I've provided a wiki-link to "epiphany" just for you. Griot 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• It certainly doesn't mean a metaphor is literal. Is grass truly greener on the other side? Do all people who see the world through a rose colored lens really wear glasses? Must one literally be in a pasture in order to detect a bull's excrement? Rasax 22:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• E. Main article is too long. Editor claims, "the Wikipedia tag notes at the top of the article's edit page, This page is 38 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable. That tells you right away that the article needs editing." As of today, the main article is fewer than 32 kilobytes, an acceptable length. Rasax 05:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• F. "[The proposed article] is objective and paints a thorough, concise, accurate picture of the former supervisor and mayoral candidate." A rather comical claim considering the editor mostly constructs the proposed alternative with op-ed opinions that tend to agree with his own negative views about Gonzalez. Anyone can claim to have an objective view and putting window dressing on bias is spin no matter what its proponents call it. Rasax 08:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions about claim validity

1. "What can you use to support your beliefs with about the following claims [with ?]" -- rasax, 28 November 2005, Discussion page: Matt Gonzalez, §2.1.
2. "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?" -- rasax, 28 November 2005, Discussion page: Matt Gonzalez, §2.1.1.

25 February 2006. 12:30 (PST). The sum of these claims amounted to a misspelling of former SF District Attorney Hallinan's first name being corrected, fixing eight typos, and re-routing of some hyperlinks cited to Beyondchron.org and San Francisco Independent. I'd like to add that links to the San Francisco Independent were submitted and cited by the same editor who has made broken links a centerpiece reason for maintaining the cleanup template, and the context to which either article is used remains unclear. Neither adjustment validates the argument that the current article is: 1. factually incorrect nor unsupported, 2. biased by POV, 3. editorial, 4. "poorly written" and "sprawling," 5. non-topical, 6. unbalanced, 7. contains "numerous grammatical errors," 8. cites sources without using direct quotes, 9. and "a puff piece" (as previous claimed). Unless the editor can support the centrality of the reasons given, and indicated in the templates used, both templates on the main article should be removed immediately or recognized as vandalism. Rasax 20:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Proponent for the current Wiki article responds

As of yet, the suggested article's author responds by ignoring questions about it (See §2.1 [3]). It's difficult to ignore some similarities between the current and proposed articles, but there's a key difference or two. The proposed article uses a similar organizational style, sentences from the current, and formatting. Where they differ is historical content. The mayoral race trimmed to just four sentences in the proposed version (See §1.1.4 [4]) , and readers wouldn't know it was one of the most competitive local campaigns in years. They're informed about it by the current article [5].

The editor gives a hint about why a change is wanted, starting out with "to my mind" (See history file for November 29). In other words, personal and unsupported. Without more information, this reader was left wondering if the editor intended to suggest personal beliefs are sufficient grounds for removing an entire article. If so, isn't it the same as cherry-picking out what we dislike in any Wiki article and resubmitting it with a "new and improved" label? And, since facts are often reasonable enough to prove or disprove, do factual errors constitute grounds for using a point of view template? It's included among the reasons given. Unless the centrality of each claim is reasonably supported, the POV template should be removed Rasax 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Update 2 December 04:00 (PST). The new & improved article's author has re-written the intro and now gives readers a laundry list of labels [6]. It's good to see the editor acknowledge some readers might want more than a belief. It looks doubtful that these slight revisions will have any lasting effect since the editor fails to answer an obvious sticking point when readers are convinced about the quality and merits for the re-write (See §2.1.1, 2.1.2 [7] [8]). Hardened criticism isn't a wise substitute for substance, and watching it implode after one first sentence isn't impressive. Asking readers for credibility without proving it ignores an obvious effort needed to earn it Rasax 12:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please! Any objective person can see there's not point in engaging you. Hardened criticism? Implode?

Your proposed text speaks for itself. Overarching reductionism, unsupported claims, editorializing, and verbosity are destructive for any article. Objectivity requires an absence of bias, something I've missed in your attempts to engage me. You're certainly welcome to engage the grounds to any argument I've submitted in support to the existing text or in opposition to your request for change. Rasax 22:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup template

16 February 2006 19:15 (PST) The template used suggests a cleanup may be required when a rationale is offered on the talk page. Criticism alone isn't reasonable proof and haste doesn't warrant it. Unless the editor can offer something more of substance, unsupported beliefs shouldn't be enough reason to saddle an article with a cleanup template. Rasax 04:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Where to start? How about if you begin by fixing the numerous dead links? And spell Hallinan's name correctly? You could wiki him while you're at it.

• A good start is the confusing nature of the criticism offered. As a test, the article's first ten links are working as intended. The double r in Hallinan's first name is a minor error anyone can correct and doesn't warrant the need for a cleanup template. Rasax 00:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I found 21 dead links. Please fix them. The misspelling of Hallinan's name is typical of the numerous misspellings. Please fix them.

• Again, your comments are as confusing as your template. Please be specific or remove the template. Thank you. Rasax 20:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, it's your article. I'm not your English teacher. It's not my job to point out the numerous errors you made. Please try to read your article with a cirtical eye. Testing the links should be easy. Click each link in the article and see if it still works. For the many misspellings, you might try copying the text into a word processor and using the software's spell-checker. Here's a tangible thing you can do right away: For some reason, most of your "External links" links list two dates. There is no reason for that. You could start by fixing those double dates. (BTW, the Wikipedia convention is to call this section "External links" [note initial caps], not "Works cited and referenced." I will be happy to continue to point out these and other errors, scholarly and otherwise, if you take it upon yourself to fix the errors instead of feigning confusion or pretending to be insulted because someone has faulted your pseudo-scholarship. Griot 21:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• When you make a complaint about an article's quality, the burden of proof is yours to meet, not mine. I hope this helps put ownership of the discussion into proportion. Works cited/sourced referenced in discussion above, and fewer devaluing comments at my expense would be appreciated. Thanks. Rasax 22:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• An editor who adds a cleanup template to one article and makes the same errors in a proposed replacement [9] doesn't have sufficient grounds to stand on and should remove the template immediately. "Pseudo-scholarship," indeed. Rasax 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Additions and edits to current article

§1.0 Early years

Sensationalism from Guthrie article headline recognized and put into an appropriate context with secondary, veryifiable sources for information. Rasax 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Prev §4.0, "Affinity for the Arts," incorporated into intro. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

§1.1 Education

Background info more organized, separate, and with links. Rasax 18:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

§1.2 Office of the Public Defender, 1991 to 2000

Section now just states "Office of the Public Defender" and the years. "...in nine years" re-edited out since readers are given the length of time in the subsection header, and it's redundant. D.A. race info moved to §2.0, Politics and Public Service, where subject is pertinent. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Section prevously "Career as a Public Defender, 1991-2000", now as is. 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

§2.0 Politics and Public Service

Section created, and Gonzalez's political experience is organized into subsections. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

§2.1 Board of Supervisors, 2001 to 2005

Moved intro from §2.2 to support opening statement in this section. POV comments left in text removed. The opening supported by actual events should adequately support the significance and any POV questions about it. "Registered" trivializes the significance of the candidacy and public sentiment in the district. Re-stated to simply remark that the candidate went Green and the district followed. Rasax 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Subsection incorporated at the beginning of Gonzalez's BOS experence and the reader given the significance of his candidacy. Since it originated from me, I felt okay with the edit. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Candidate and District Go Green" (incorporated in section) Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Previously indicated as §2.0, now listed as §2.1. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Positions summarized. Rasax 04:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

§2.2.1 Criticism

Previously listed as §2.4, now indicated as §2.2.1. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

§2.2.2 Increased Green Party visability

Section added, sources cited. Rasax 04:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved intro, "Municipal elections are nonpartisan but had been dominated for decades..." to previous paragraph to support the intro and remove the POV comment left in the text.Rasax 03:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)]

Subsection moved to follow BOS experince. See §2.2.2 Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Previously listed as §2.2, now §2.2.2. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

§2.3 Campaign for Mayor, 2003

Paragraph 5, sources cited, added to list. Rasax 04:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Some adjectives removed, leaving a more neutral account of the event. Rasax 07:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Previously indicated as §3.0. Previous §3.2, Central Platform Themes, Incorporated into section. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) and Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Campaign interview

Section moved to follow section about campaign. Rasax 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) and Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Previously indicated as §3.3, "Campaign Video Interview." Rasax 18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Section removed and incorporated into article as needed. Rasax 06:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

§2.3.1 Claims of a Democrat-Republican Campaign Alliance

Section added and source citations included. Rasax 04:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Previously indicated as §3.1, now §2.3.2. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Previously indicated as §2.3.2, now §2.3.1 with removal of campaign interview section. Rasax 06:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

§3.0 Return to Private Life

Previously indicated as §5.0, now §3.0. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments about Mirkarimi's role not relevant to article topic, and catty. Re-worded to maintain article focus on topicality. Rasax 18:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

§3.1 Lawsuit to void SF school chief's pay raise

Subsection added 7 December, details added, sources cited. Rasax 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Suit's dismissal included when source cited, added to works referenced. Rasax 21:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Uh, that would be when the Green Party ran African-American school superintendent Arlene Ackerman out of town? How about some background? The district set up Ackerman's pay contract to discourage Green Party members from gang tackling her out of office. Like I said, a little background, please? GriotGriot

One could only hope local Greens were empowered enough to run Ackerman out of town. I'd guess they would've done it sooner to save the district money and put someone who isn't autocratic in charge. Since you're an activist for brevity, I suggest saving the background info for an article where Matt Gonzalez isn't the main subject. Rasax 03:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Previously indicated as §5.1, now §3.1. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Section re-worded to direct focus back to article's topicality. Rasax 18:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

§4.0 References

Changed from "External links." Sources cited in chronological order. Rasax 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC) From "Works cited" to "References" Rasax 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Previously indicated as §6.0, now §4.0. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable links removed. Source citations given uniform notation style. Rasax 04:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

§5.0 Further reading

Previously indicated as §7.0, now §5.0. Rasax 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Gonzalez, Matt

Cleanup: Tasks to Do to Clean Up Article

1. Repair all dead hyperlinks (2/18/06).

• Editor states there are dead links but refuses to list them. A random test of the first and last ten links found each working as intended and will assume there is no problem. Rasax 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Links to the following Beyondchron.org articles were re-routed to the paper's main site and confirmation date in notation updated: 1. Shaw, R. "Matt Gonzalez’s Political Legacy," Beyondchron.org, 3 January 2005. 23 February 2006 2. Carlsson, C. "How the Gonzalez Campaign Shaped San Francisco," Beyondchron.org, 16 December 2004. 23 February 2006 3. Shaw, R. "How Ross Mirkarimi Ran Away with D5," Beyondchron.org, 10 November 2004. 23 February 2006.
• Links to the following San Francisco Independent (weren't these submissions yours, Griot?) articles were removed and referenced using MLA citation: 1. Hampton, A. "Gonzalez In, San Francisco Independent, August 8, 2003. 2. Hinkle, W. "An old town win," San Francisco Independent, analysis of the 2003 mayoral election, est December 2003 (Estimation since no date given). Rasax 16:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• It's an ironic twist the very same editor who has made broken links a centerpiece for a cleanup template on the existing main article should cite the same broken links in the proposed article. At the risk of sounding cliche, the old proverb "charity begins at home" comes to mind. Rasax 23:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Remove "double dates" in "External links" (2/18/06). Refuses to do it: "Since not all of the links included are mine, it is neither my obligation nor responsibility to update them."

• Editor is unfamiliar with style notation. Referred to Wiki source citation page for further explanation. Editor seems to be under the mistaken impression that requests are demanded and should be advised that wiki editing and articles are the result of contributions, not paychecks. Rasax 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Fix spelling errors (2/18/06)

• On 2.17.2005, editor stated there was a spelling error on the former district attorney's name. It was corrected and should be indicated on the article's history file. Rasax 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Additional spelling errors corrected. Rasax 16:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Arrange "External links" by date order or by alphabetical order by author name (2/19/06)

• External links are listed chronologically as per notation style. Rasax 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Total Puff Piece

From my perspective, criticism of this article is totally justified. It is simply a puff-piece that glorifies someone who actually was more of a beneficiary of District Elections than a "signal" of a change in SF politics.

Why include his whole Mayoral campaign platform? Just link to his website.

It's plain to me, too. But good luck trying to get her to fix it or even acknowledge any criticism. Griot 16:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: " It is simply a puff-piece that glorifies someone who actually was more of a beneficiary of District Elections than a 'signal' of a change in SF politics." Opportunity didn't knock softly, and San Franciscans didn't feel adequately represented when the majority voted for district representation over the quid pro quo model. If that isn't change, then change has been re-defined in Orwellian terms. Rasax 18:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Orwellian terms? Kind of melodramatic, don't you think? The guy has a very legitimate criticism and you ignore it. And Ras, you broke the mould this time! "He described his father's employment with Brown & Williamson in the late '50s and early '60s as a salesman who sold 'cigarettes from the back of his car in south[ern] Texas.'" Putting aside grammar and style errors, why do you persist in denying that his father was a business executive? The family lived in Puerto Rico, Maryland, Kentucky, and New Orleans until Gonzalez was age 11. Are you suggesting that he sold cigarettes from the back of a car in those locations? Griot 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• What I think shouldn't matter as much as what can be shown by verifiable, secondary sources of information to support the centrality of any Wiki article. If you have a claim about his family's history, the burden of proof is yours to meet. Not mine. Rasax 20:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The man could not have been selling cigarettes out of his car in Kentucky, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and New Orelans. It's that simple. This article explains where the Gonzalez family lived. It also states, "His father, Mateo Gonzalez, was a division chief for tobacco giant Brown & Williamson." Division chiefs do not sell cigarettes from the back of cars. Am I suggesting that Gonzalez may have mischaracterized his father's past in his interview to the Chronicle editorial board? Am I suggesting -- egads! -- that a politician may have equivocated with the truth? I am. And as a scholar, your job is to root out the truth behind the static. Please don't persist in this car cigarette selling hoo-hah nonsense. Griot 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Re: "The man could not have been selling cigarettes out of his car in..." According to Gonzalez, his father began selling cigarettes from the back of his car in the late '50s or early '60s [see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?m=/g/av/movies/2003/12/04/gonzalez_segment_06.mp4&f=/g/a/2003/12/04/gonzalezivu.DTL]. The Guthrie article neither supports, contradicts, nor refutes what Gonzalez said. It's certainly possible for a corporate division chief to have begun her or his employment by selling a company's product, and you've produced nothing to suggest otherwise. To claim Gonzalez's portrayal was a "mischaracterization" without any further proof to support it is a hasty attribution error on your part. What seems clear enough is division chief wasn't lucrative or fulfilling enough or to dissuade him from later attempting his own import/export business. Either way, career choices his father made seem to have little relevance in an article about him. Rasax 23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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

• Griot, keeping my immediate response(s) expressionless is a bit of a challenge each time you try to point out any grammatical errors or attempt to offer explanations about your endless criticism. Not only are your responses often vague enough to avoid specifics, this is coming from someone who didn't have the foggiest idea about MLA style source citations. I'm often more than willing to offer specifics about my feedback. Cheers. Rasax 01:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

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

• Hmm, it seems you're struggling to convey a basic disapproval when you feel a need to clarify "puffpiece" with a link. Nonetheless, you're entitled to your view and I have no intention of taking it away from you. It must've taken an enormous amount of time to review each and every article in Wikipedia in order to declare with any degree of certainty that absolutely no one else here uses MLA citations when, in fact, it is indicated on the reference page I provided for your convenience. I hope to never find myself concerned with trying to force anyone to do anything they wouldn't normally want to. If the day comes when I'm anxious about the number of people who read my written word, I hope I'll recognize it as a sign to put my keyboard down for a while and return to the world of the living. Life's much too short in my opinion. Rasax 20:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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

• Perhaps you might explain what producing an article in MLA format achieves when you've already been provided with a link to acceptable notation styles for Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is the notation style used in humanities, including historical biographies. I wouldn't expect articles relating to the natural sciences to use anything other than what is used for each discipline, likely CBE style notation. That means there isn't, nor should there be, a universal notation style for all articles. Rasax 22:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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

• Making an effort to show what's already permitted is an obvious waste of both of our time and effort. Rasax 23:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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

This is ridiculous. It's puff-piece crap like this in Wikipedia that gives it a bad name. Gonzo actually had a more privledged upbringing than Gavin Newsom, and yet Gonzo's groupies persist in drinking the kool-aid (which is a pointed attack for San Francisco, if you know what I mean). Either Gonzo is paying this character (or they share more than this person wishes to explain). And I take back what I said earlier -- he is a signal, because he personifies the decline of San Francisco and its relevance. Why do people continue to follow this jack-ass?