User talk:Rasax:Archive/Gonzalez Pages - 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Matt Gonzalez article dispute

Summary of dispute in chronological order:

• ’’’17 November 2005’’’

My initial comments were in defense of local campaign financing laws. A previous exchange from months prior was on the discussion table with the following dialogue: “’Gonzalez is widely credited with promoting progressive values...,’” “Only Green Party members would give this credit,...I interjected the word ‘some,’” "Gonzalez's success in the mayor's race was attrributed by some to his ability to...this was stated as fact. Objectively, we can't say what Gonzalez's ‘success’ came from...” and, “the gist of your argument is that SF voters can be manipulated. They can't make up their own minds, but are influenced by "the millions of bucks poured in from outside."

I saw this editor’s reasoning as a dishonest attempt to re-construct Gonzalez’s record and omit some of the most notable parts of his biography, including his party affiliation. Overidealizing San Francisco allows that editor to imply a need didn’t exist for some of Gonzalez’s most prominant reforms, effectively diminishing his record. There’s plenty of verifiable public information to show Gonzalez’s efforts were needed as are additional reforms. How ironic to see an individual who belittles the record of a public servant s/he is altering.

Rather than entangle myself with their exchange, it was constructive to focus on improving the article’s quality. I added a direct quote from Gonzalez who, in his words, described his reasons for becoming a representative of the Green Party. Source citations included.

It became apparent the same editor who is ademant about writing a biographical article about an individual he trivializes would challenge me, and did with the following reply, “This kind of exposition isn't useful in an encylopedia article. People outside of SF won't know what the Bay Guardian is.”

• ‘’’18 November 2005’’’

“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.”

I called the editor on a double-standard for injecting ad hominem attacks after professing an intention to maintain an “encyclopedic balance.” he vitriol from biased sources known for double standards. I stated, “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.”

The editor denied it stating, “These are not ‘isolated examples,’ when referring to one State of the City address, a single vote on the Board of Supervisors, and a single art showing. If those aren’t isolated events, I don’t know what is.

The same pattern of deniability extended into other areas of discussion when s/he defended the label “contentious ideologue” as balance and denied it was an ad hominem with, “I think you are incorrect to call these ‘ad hominem attacks.’” Webster’s defines an ad hominem as “appealing to one’s prejudice, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.”

Deniability becomes the grounds for refutation and establishes an evasive pattern entirely created from pseudoargument fallacies. Each given justification is falacious, including substituting bombast for argument, denying a valid conclusion, weasel appeals to ignorance, special pleading, and circular dialogue.

S/He cites a local San Francisco Chronicle gadfly, Ken Garcia, whose point of view was known for positions like referring to the homeless as "human toll booths.” [1]. The editor [Griot] states, “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.” Except “many” ends up being a single source and, that, gets called “balance.” Perhaps someone else should inform our fellow editor about the fallacies of appealing to false authorities and composition.,. [2], [3].

The editor reasons in a reply, “The article contains a long paragraph about Gonzalez's accomplishments; there isn't any need for a counterbalance.”

In other words, giving Gonzalez’s critics a forum for unchecked criticism is, in the editor’s view, important for balance because his accomplishments while in office were mentioned. And, it gets called “encyclopedic balance.” .

• • Resolve:Because of the appeal to false authority and the user’s recalcitrant refusal to remove it, agreement was reached to lump all criticism, regardless of validity, into a section identified as criticism and to include a campaign section so Gonzalez could answer the given criticism in his own words.
• ‘’’19 November 2005’’’’

I insert a point of view template so content conflict could be resolved, and comments added to the discussion table.

I refine a clearer format and article breakdown in sections. Changes made were included with hyperlinks to sources cited if any deviations were made from the previous text. Follow-up comments were included in the discussion area and stated to welcome feedback and additional discussion about the changes.

The editor agrees to a new format, reiterating a belief that Gonzalez’s personal biography isn’t enough “balance” without criticism. S/He states, “Good job of filling out the article. I especially like the numerous inks. Thanks as well for not tampering with the criticism paragraph, which I believe is necessary to give this article balance.” I removed the point of view template believing the matter was settled.

• • I offer to provide some assistance to refine the criticism to mention Gonzalez’s legislative controvery and provided the user with a link [4] . To date, criticism about isolated acts

[edit] Remaining points of order

The editor Griot continues to challenge the current article on factual and accuracy grounds and offers no verifiable alternative. In addition, the suggested alternative is problematic in the following areas (at the time of this evaluation. The editor has since revised some):

I. Disorganized thesis

A. 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.”

B. 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)

E.g.. “In 2003, he lost the San Francisco mayoral election to...”, “"(municipal elections in San Francisco are officially nonpartisan)"

• Dispute: does not develop the thesis. The statement was debated as non-topical to the thesis and the user continues to re-insert it into the lead for the article’s main idea. The idea isn’t that Gonzalez lost the mayoral race, that insertion is the gloating result of the users personal opinion. It is not topical and doesn’t belong in the opening paragraph.

II. Omissions of vital info, substitutions of irrlevant info

Insert Pelosi, remove SFBG piece.

III. Content

“He explained why in an op-ed piece in the San Francisco Bay Guardian that read in part” -- overly wordy

“, defeating school board member Juanita Owens.” [doesn’t need it twice]

“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 [5][6], but Gonzalez won the run-off election to become the second elected Green Party official in San Francisco (after school board member Larry Sanchez” [factually incorrect]

Draw basis for conclusion to establish negative intent c hx:

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 objecting to treating them as content differences when deception is not any accepted standard for genuine debate. It’s unfortunate when our local spinmeisters attempt to broaden their efforts beyond the local population. The editor chooses to ignore, embellish, hairsplit, reinvent, and is hostile toward other editors, the individual at the center of the discussion, and me. This establishes an abusive pattern, recognized as cyberbullying or trolling. [5], [6]. In this case: [7], and [8].

The editor doesn’t hesitate to state a desire for “encyclopedic balance” but fails to demonstrate it when monopolizing the content with reductive oversimplifications. 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 , 8th ed., p. 158-9, New York: Longman.

A review of the editor’s history shows combative antagonism, either from ignorance or willful malfeasance, and failure to yield on unsupported points of view. Discussions result in blocking any 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 unqualified view, and protests are 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. Any attempt at refutation quickly reveals the editor’s self-appointment as the article’s judge, jury, and final arbiter. Furthermore, the persistent effort to re-insert inaccuracies and irrelevant remarks following supported counterarguments are disregarded unless they are watered down and whitewash over any positive or favorable emphasis. Wikipedia should take immediate steps to stop this intentional sabotage. Rasax 19:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Plain and simple -- you are a Green Party member? What's the difference between you putting this puff piece together and having someone from a congressperson's office write nice things about you in Wikipedia? Clearly a bias.

[edit] Copyright

At one point, there appeared to be questions about copyright and I ask Wikimods to please respond on this page with clear instructions to identify the problem and offer suggestions in order to resolve it immediately. Please be as specific as possible with contact info so I may answer any remaining questions to settle this matter. I'm still not certain as to what the problem was/is or how to correct it. Thank you. Rasax 19:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)