Jump to content

Talk:Chris Daly

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

Dropped out of Duke?

[edit]

The background section says that Daly attended Duke university but does not say if he graduated. Upon following the link in the external links section I noticed that it says "Attended Duke University but dropped out after 5 semesters." http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0198424/bio If that is true should it not be included in this article? BillyTFried 07:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling someone a college dropout should be sourced solidly. I'm sure IMDb is great and all that but maybe his bio would be a good place to back that. Benjiboi 17:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and you shall receive. Daly did drop out of college. Follow this link [1] to an article from the SF Chronicle referencing this event. Or perhaps you would like a more "balanced" reference [2] considering how conservative and anti-Daly the Chronicle really is... --69.239.229.46 18:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, just keep it all in perspective. Benjiboi 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not agree more. In fact, I am not sure if it is all that important. If other people think it is then may I suggest the following language.."Daly attended Duke University but did not graduate. While at Duke, he was part of an effort...." --69.239.229.46 19:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff missing from this article

[edit]

A bunch can be found here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/07/15/MN215206.DTL&hw=chris+daly+duke&sn=001&sc=1000

  • His exact date of birth
  • (FAMILY) Born to a mother who is an accountant and a father who was a midlevel federal bureaucrat
  • Was drawn to service as a teenager through the 4-H club
  • Was valedictorian of his High School class
  • Worked as a bartender in the Western Addition in SF
  • Was arrested at a sit-in at Hastings College of the Law.

And here's a great quote by the "Passionate Activist/Hothead"

BillyTFried 21:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please sign whoever added this, second, that quote is terribly POV and if you're not aware of it you need to research a bit more about writing what is considered a good article. we are not a tabloid but an encyclopedia, as much fun as slinging muck might seem we don't do it and we don't need to do it. let someone else and we will simply cover the subject of an article dispassionately. Benjiboi 21:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



A quote of what the man says about himself is POV? Basically admitting to and even complaining about his own "Controversial Demeanor"? And are you accusing me of "slinging muck" for including that quote here on the Talk Page? BillyTFried 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That particular quote seems to be chosen to show the subject of the article in a less than flattering light (I'm less patient and not as nice) and was been stated about the photo it doesn't seem to actually add anything to this encyclopedia. It might seem like a great quote to some, I would call it a quote that needs work at best. I will also self-disclose that I've actually met the guy at quite a few events and I've never seen him act anything other than completely gracious just like every other politico except he seemed to maybe interact with the regular crowd more. I will simply extend a bucketful of good faith that all the editors here want to see this be a stellar article and as part of that will work to presenting this bio of a living person in a NPOV and balanced manner. Benjiboi 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really suggesting adding that quote by Daly. Just posted it for informational purposes on this talk page. All of the bulleted info I've added above however belongs in this article. BillyTFried 03:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am glad to see that however this page is to discuss improving the attached article so posting stuff that seems overtly POV could easily be seen as POV pushing which we should probably avoid. You obviously know how to add material so why not simply add those bulleted points and ref them at the same time? Benjiboi 15:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with adding the bulleted stuff. He is just a supervisor after all. What he has done as a politician is more important than if he was in 4-H or was a bartender. Anyways, the article is pretty big already. --Friscocab 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. A bio is certainly an appropriate place to include possible motivations and achievements. Article length should never be a determining factor in improving an article and numerous solutions can address length issues if needed. Benjiboi 02:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Friscocab and BillyTFried. The article reads like autobio as it is. Adding clean-up tags. GridiotinSanFranciski 03:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, BillyTFried is for including those items and Friscocab is not. Benjiboi 03:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the quote, as in "I wasn't really suggesting adding that quote by Daly." - BillyTFried, etc. Thanks. Out, GridiotinSanFranciski 03:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue as we all seem to agree it shouldn't be included. Benjiboi 06:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the bullet points, though, to improve and expand the article. GridiotinSanFranciski 09:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. Benjiboi 09:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


AT-ISSUE

[edit]

Material from "Progressive Convention" until the end of the article violates the following Wikipedia policies and therefore SHOULD BE REMOVED:

NPOV - Neutral Point of View
WP:UNDUE -- disproportionate coverage with NEGATIVE SLANT
soapbox
cherry-picking
WP:Biography of Living Persons

I contend this bias was intentionally injected by Daly's political opponents to discredit him and undermine his credibility with the public, not because this limited negative view is correct or even believed by those asserting it, but because his votes and policy do not favor the Mayor, big business and developers. Rather than object to his policy, these parties attack him personally and exaggerate any fault they can find.

NOTE: The objectionable material removed by me was restored by User:Zimbardo Cookie Experiment with the argument: "removal of way too much material. propose this on talk page" without addressing the objections raised above.

I do not know who gets the benefit of the doubt where there is a dispute over deleted material--the person doing the deleting or the person wanting the material restored. Please advise on policy. I am restoring on the assumption the person doing the deleting has priority, but I may be mistaken, as I am new.

Question for Mr. User:Zimbardo Cookie Experiment: Are you admin? Are you an interested editor of the page? Do you, for example, have the page on your watchlist? Or are you neutral? What drew your attention to the edit? Was it as a policing action or because you are interested in the page?

--David Tornheim (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to get far with your wholesale deletion of half of this article, especially since it was all cited factual info that's the result of months upon months of past deliberation over multiple years by many Wikipedians on this very talk page. (check the archives) And I personally contributed to about a quarter of them and I am not a political opponent of anyone. Also, your suggestion that they are overwhelming negative is simply your own WP:POV. Here's mine:
2 Political career <br\>
  • 2.1 Housing and homelessness Positive<br\>
  • 2.2 Progressive convention Positive <br\>
  • 2.3 Elimination of Police Chief post Debatable. SFPD, especially Cheif Heather Fong have a bad rap in SF <br\>
  • 2.4 Opposition to the Blue Angels Debatable. Probably negative to most of the non-activist public <br\>
  • 2.5 Removal from Budget Committee chairmanship Obviously Negative <br\>
  • 2.6 Proposition to ban firearms Probably Positive. Majority of SF residents backed his bill <br\>
  • 2.7 Canceling of the San Francisco Grand Prix Debatable. Seems negative to me but I didn't live here then, (parking IS a bitch though) <br\>
  • 2.8 Olympic torch resolution Positive (Free Tibet! Free Tibet! Free Tibet!) <br\>
  • 2.9 Controversial demeanor Debatable. A Daly supporter was quoted in the SFWeekly as saying, "He may be an asshole but he's OUR asshole!" People love a fighter. (as long as he's on their side)
BillyTFried (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Mr. Tornheim's questions directly: I am not an admin, I am an occasional editor of the page, I have the page on my watchlist, and I consider myself more or less politically aligned with Chris Daly.
However, this page has been the victim of edit wars several times in its history, and I don't want to see the elimination of a significant chunk of the material on the page done without discussion and the consent of the other editors. I do think that some of the incidents removed were pretty minor (I think the police chief stuff is old hat by now, and the Blue Angels of limited interest), but the version that you put in place is far too limited and sterile. For example, your version removes discussion of Daly's appointments to the PUC; losing that would be a real shame.
I am supportive of constructive edits, but let's make this a conversation. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your responses. During this discussion, which I hope is productive, I plan to withhold further attempts to delete large amounts of objectionable material, but I will leave the matter AT-ISSUE. I have many thoughts on the subject of Wikipedia and good “balanced”, accurate, honest non-deceptive writing and why an article like this fails (as it currently stands) to achieve the goal I believe Wikipedia set out for. I’m not ready to launch into that lengthy narrative just yet. First, I will focus on your responses:
It is no surprise that the creation of this article was contentious. The assertion that some sort of compromise was reached seems consistent with the fact that no discussion took place about the article since November of last year. (Feel free to point me to the previous contentitous discussion–it’s sufficiently burried that I don’t know how to easily retrieve it.) If there was indeed a compromise, that would not establish it was a good compromise or that it should be retained. Wikipedia policy states somewhere that if a new person enters the debate or makes a change, the consensus also changes–the equilibrium is off-balance and must be re-established.
Also, even if there was a “consensus” (a word that is vague and can be easily manipulated and misused), the question arises, a consensus of WHOM? If it was primarily Daly’s political opponents, and if “pro-Daly” arguments were often strawman arguments created by his opponents, then there is clearly a problem. From what I read, I believe that is precisely what has happened and explains why there is such a strong negative slant throughout a good portion of the article and that negative slant should be corrected to one that is more properly balanced and less judgmental. I read through enough of Gavin Newsom’s page to see the opposite phenomenon.
Rather than go line by line through the entire article, which I may eventually do, I will give you a chance to respond to what I wrote above, and I will give a line-by-line analysis of one the PUC paragraph. Also,
Look at the outline and topic headings. Can you honestly say they are not negative? Compare them with Newsom’s outline. (talk)


The PUC Paragraph

[edit]
“your version removes discussion of Daly's appointments to the PUC; losing that would be a real shame.”Zimbardo Cookie Experiment (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dear "longtime activist" David Tornheim, co-founder of Central City Progressives, an SF political group that opposes chain stores,
For someone who was questioning peoples' political motives only yesterday, you sure sound like an advisor from the Daly political camp today:
  • YESTERDAY: "Question for Mr. User:Zimbardo Cookie Experiment: Are you admin? Are you an interested editor of the page? Do you, for example, have the page on your watchlist? Or are you neutral? What drew your attention to the edit? Was it as a policing action or because you are interested in the page?"
  • TODAY: "That was Brown’s perspective. (You mean Brown’s POV) The real reason was quite different: (You mean YOUR POV) Daly wanted to put in QUALIFIED appointments, appointments representing the people, the environment, rather than patronage appointments and appointments inappropriately connected to the industry they were supposed to regulate, as is so common. That’s why the Board of Supervisors backed Daly up."
And just how do you know all this with such certainty? (peoples' intentions) The material in this article cites its sources. What is your source? A conversation you and Daly had over a couple lattes between your Stop Starbucks! and Save Harding Theater! rallies? Was that you and your political group on my street standing out front of that new Drug Store on Pacific & Van Ness holding a "Boycott this non-union chain store" sign, that I saw on my way to Home Depot last night?
A simple Google search on both of your names makes for some interesting reading: http://www.google.com/search?q=David+Tornheim+Chris+Daly
Since you're obviously here to attempt to promote and defend your fellow "SF City Progressive", please spare us all the "I'm here to bring balance to the force" act. And your little "HEY!!! Daly's arch rival Gavin Newsom's Wiki-page is more positive! NO FAIR!!!", rant didn't make the act any more convincing.
Yeah, you're really here to help make things neutral alright! BillyTFried (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear BillyTFried: Thanks for your hard work digging up my political work. Yes, that's me indeed. I never said *I* was neutral on the subject of Chris Daly; I said that the ARTICLE was not neutral. I asked Zimbardo Cookie Experiment about his involvement because I wanted to know whether he was acting as a person who had an interest in the topic or whether he was acting in a more disinterested administrative fashion with the intent to settle a potential editing dispute or to enforce rules he believed had been broken (I'm new and don't know all the rules). I think the distinction is important. Editors clearly act in both roles and it can be difficult to distinguish unless you ask. I could see real advantages for Wikipedia to require or request more disclosure/transparency (and disadvantages as well). Note that I use my real name rather than hide behind an anonymous moniker, as Wikipedia suggests you do. I'm still learning what the protocol on what you are or are not supposed to reveal about yourself, your interest in editing the article(s), etc.--Wikipedia seems to suggest NOT disclosing, despite the obvious disadvantages. In fact, in disputes, unlike a Court of law, rather than saying you are the petitioner requesting relief, you're supposed to make an anonymous request, which I find quite odd.
Let me also comment on the word "neutral." Please see my user page for this.
--David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I see. You're concerned with his involvement after he reverted your vandalism, but nobody should be of yours. Let's see... One person is a long established Wikipedia editor, the other is a "Longtime Political Activist" who just created a Wikipedia account on July 15 2008 to promote a theater he is an activist for: Harding Theater, and then waltzed in here and deleted half of this article 11 days later because he felt it was too critical of his fellow SF Progressive Activist. Hmmm. As far as using your real name goes, I have been personally contacted by multiple people through Wikipedia including calls to my home phone and even ended up with my name in a local newspaper (connecting me with the delightfully popular topic of gun ownership) as a result of using my real name. And it has been suggested to me that it's rather unwise considering my involvement in editing pages such as: Islamic terrorism, Ruhollah Khomeini, and 2006 Lebanon War. It all depends on how comfortable you are with that kinda stuff. You're the political activist, not me. Though you may want to refrain from making any edits to Your Black Muslim Bakery after what happened to Chauncey Bailey. BillyTFried (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I never said people need not know my political beliefs or opinions, etc. No one ASKED. And again, the rules make is sound like you aren't supposed to talk about yourself, but instead talk about content, so I did just that. If there is rule about revealing potential conflict of interest, please point me to it. I'm new and don't know all the rules.


As for "neutrality": MOVED TO DT USER PAGE.


* I will decide for myself whether or not a user who vandalizes articles needs to be focused on or not, just as I did with this now permanently banned City College Professor, User:Griot, who decided his "cause" was more important than ethics.
* You said you will propose a revised paragraph. Then show us what you got already instead of deleting cited info and quoting Wikipedia policy all day.
Also...
"I have not seen any response to the NPOV and balance of views issues I raised."
Yes you have!
"That was Brown’s perspective. (You mean Brown’s POV) The real reason was quite different: (You mean YOUR POV) Daly wanted to put in QUALIFIED appointments, appointments representing the people, the environment, rather than patronage appointments and appointments inappropriately connected to the industry they were supposed to regulate, as is so common. That’s why the Board of Supervisors backed Daly up."
And just how do you know all this with such certainty? (peoples' intentions) The material in this article cites its sources. What is your source?
BillyTFried (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your revisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tornheim (talk • contribs) 08:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. I copied some of your comments about my political work to talk page for disclosure purposes. Please let me know if you have any concerns about that. I kept most of it as is because it helps provide context for the reader & is probably more interesting that just laying out as a bunch of facts.


No uncited info please. This article has been a nightmare as it is.


I actually agree that Daly’s appointments to the PUC is something I think would be worth retaining in the article, but NOT AS IT IS WRITTEN and not under the negatively slanted topic “Controversial Demeanor."
  • Daly taking advantage of a legal loop hole, that was never done in SF history, and appointing people to governmental posts that he knew the mayor would not approve of while the mayor was on a trip abroad ABSOLUTELY falls under Daly's FAMED "Controversial Demeanor", you'd have to be joking if you planned to argue that it doesn't. For crying out loud, they CHANGED THE LAW after his stunt just so nobody could ever pull that kind of thing ever again. Come on already!


In 2003, serving as acting mayor -- normally a ceremonial duty --
  • That info is in the cited source from SFGATE, but I changed it to say "generally regarded as a ceremonial duty" anyway.
Daly appointed two anti-Brown members to the Public Utilities Commission.
  • I changed this to to say "Daly appointed two members to the Public Utilities Commission without Brown's consent or approval", "Anti-Brown" is not in the cited source.
**This is a good change that I support.
Mayor Brown said that the appointment "clearly is a conspiracy to, in one manner or another, move away from the traditions, the rules, the customs and the conduct that has been the hallmark of this city, long before I became mayor of this city." But Daly said by way of explanation for his actions, "I'm an activist. I had an opportunity, and I took it."[40] The custom of assigning the acting mayor position to supervisors on a round-robin basis was discontinued after Daly's actions.
  • Both the Brown quote and Daly quote are in the cited source as is the cancelation of the round-robin tradition.
The real reason was quite different: Daly wanted to put in QUALIFIED appointments, appointments representing the people, the environment.
  • Please! Go ahead and look for a quote from Daly where he makes such a claim, otherwise this is pure speculation.
    • This is far easier than I realized. Most of what I have said WAS IN THE ORIGINAL cited Chronicle article, which incidentally was far more balanced that then Wikipedia paragraph....
No mention of Brown’s questionable appointments are made in this paragraph
  • This article is about Chris Daly. If you want to write about the pros and cons of Willie Brown's mayorship please do so on HIS page Willie Lewis Brown, Jr..
The last sentence is the clincher: The result of Daly's actions accomplished only one thing: It eliminated the "round-robin" tradition.
  • I don't see "accomplished only one thing" anywhere in this article. And the sentence I do see appears to be 100% factual: The custom of assigning the acting mayor position to supervisors on a round-robin basis was discontinued after Daly's actions.


An uniformed reader is left with the impression Daly is saying “I’m an activist. I saw a chance to piss off Brown who I’ve always hated, stab him in the back while he wasn’t looking, so I did it. Who cares about stupid City traditions anyway? I’ll walk all over and destroy them to get my way. I’m a punk. I don’t play fair.” It makes activists sound like annoying jerks, riding their skateboards through City hall, painting graffiti, a band of selfish and a nuisance and with nothing to offer. This is exactly the way Daly’s opponents, people like Ken Garcia and Matt Smith, want him characterized. It is entirely one-sided and slanted, devoid of any substance showing why Daly did what he did and why the Board supported him.
  • Everything you've said here is just a bunch of emotional pro-Daly slanted speculation and rhetoric with the exception of "devoid of any substance showing why Daly did what he did and why the Board supported him." If you can find any info on why he did what he did and why the board backed him, feel free to add it as long as you cite some credible sources. By the way, the fact that Daly is very very very well known for being an "annoying jerk", does not reflect on all activists, everywhere.
Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality, sourcing, etc.

[edit]

I think this discussion has gotten derailed over a misunderstanding of Wikpedia's neutral point of view, verifiability, and reliable sourcing policies. The mission of Wikipedia is to summarize what has been written about the subject in reliable sources, in a neutral fashion. NPOV does not require using only neutral sources -- that would be difficult or impossible in the case of controversial issues or people. It is not particularly relevant whether the SF Chronicle or Examiner are "conservative" or whether the Bay Guardian is "progressive" or whether either represents or opposes Daly's views. What is relevant is that they are reliable sources as to occurrences and quotations (of Daly and others) that are in the article. (It is also not the case that "Wikipedia does not like the Guardian" etc.)

One thing to remember is that Daly is probably the most controversial political figure in San Francisco, and he has affiliated himself with a number of contentious issues and causes, and has engaged in provocative behavior (as reported by reliable sources). All these things have been widely discussed in the public sphere and would be expected to be covered in this article. Verifiable facts and quotations should not be removed from the article simply because they paint an overall picture of the subject that is not agreeable to the subject's supporters, so long as the material is well sourced. That is what WP:BLP requires, and that is what has been done here. Looking at the article, there is no grounds for wholesale removal of well-sourced sections or subsections simply because a particular editor (who clearly is not a disinterested party) does not like the material. --MCB (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't like the material. It's slanted and not balanced, as carefully explained in my example comments Re the PUC paragraph. I have good reason to believe that other not so disinterested parties added material to deliberately slant it to make Daly look bad. I should note, I *ADDED* one factual statement to the Lennar Corp. site (not at all dissimilar to the "controvesy" regarding Daly) and in a neutral tone, not slanted, and it was quickly removed for all the reasons cited above--that's where I got those reasons, in fact. I wanted to see what would happen when I used their standards to delete material that I find prejudicial.
Again, I'm asking that the article be balanced. Let's hope you are right about the Guardian, as I will no doubt find quotes from there... A gain, I suggest you compare Daly's page to Newsom. Newsom, like any politician , is controversial too, (politics is a contentious arena with competing interests) but it's better buried in his article. Large portions of the article look to me like paid consultants had put it together. Newsom is well known for his rule by "press release." I just don't see a level playing field. I hoped Wikipedia would do better with balance and not parrot mainstream press opinions and focus more on facts and the truth. I'll do what I can to "keep it real".--David Tornheim (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I hoped Wikipedia would do better with balance and not parrot mainstream press opinions and focus more on facts and the truth."
Haaaaa!
  • Citing credible sources like CNN or SFGATE = "Parroting mainstream press opinions"
  • But comments like this: "Daly wanted to put in QUALIFIED appointments, appointments representing the people, the environment, The Children! Puppies! SOURDOUGH!!!" = "Focusing more on facts and the truth"
Rrrrriiiiiiiiggggggghhhhttttttt!!!!!!
By the way, what goes on with one Wikipedia article has no bearing on another.
If you feel this article does too good of a job showing that Daly is more well known for being an asshole than anything to do with homelessness or the environment than feel free to make constructive edits to help balance it out. And if you feel the other articles don't do a good enough job showing what a slime ball Newsom is or what a nut job Brown was, then by all means, have at it buddy! :-D
BillyTFried (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above you said you were okay with me making edits to the article. So I will go ahead an include the changes based on my comments. If others, disagree please let me know, and I will consider revoking them, or of course, you'll probably revoke them yourselves... We haven't heard from Zimbardo cookie experiment. I'd like to hear what he has to say.--David Tornheim (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"(Feel free to point me to the previous contentitous discussion–it’s sufficiently burried that I don’t know how to easily retrieve it.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Daly/archive_1
BillyTFried (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like were are finally in agreement. I like some of the changes you added like making the SF PUC an internal link... If do agree can we at some point delete some of the back and forths? Or is that some moral, ethical violation. Also, I appologize for not looking at the Chronicle article sooner. A lot of the articles I found were fairly well balanced. Some were even slanted towards an environmentalist or pro-Daly position--to my surprise.--David Tornheim (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can never totally delete it, it stays in the history. The usual way that's handled is the whole page is cleared and archived eventually. But honestly I don't really care. What Daly did was pure weasel behavior, but in my opinion, the real bombshell that was missing all along, was that one of Brown's picks was the son of a full blown criminal who is right now facing 70 years in prison (at age 61!) and a million dollar fine. Amazing these people! And I thought NY/NJ politicians were crooks! Though I think they still hold the trophy. Check out this gem I wrote up entirely myself, long after moving to CA of course! :-P BillyTFried (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you learned something new from it. That's why I work on this stuff. I hope you better understand why I didn't like the original paragraph and much prefer the revised version. I know I learned some more sublties or at least had my memory refreshed some, and it did give me more confidence in the Chron. Just to keep the record straight--the criminal was Julie Lee, not her son. The son was the appointment, but the favor was no doubt to Julie Lee. I'm sure you get the idea... I don't know if you read about Julie Lee or how long you have been in S.F., but that scandal has been going on for quite a while and I believe cost Kevin Shelly, a notable politician in SF, his job in the State Gov. I don't know if the article mentioned it, but the reason she went to such lengths to cover it up, was it was an incredibly noxious dishonest scam to get money to Shelly's campaign, using money that was SUPPOSED to be for a playground or something like that that the community had been longing for... I can't believe they even THOUGHT they could get away with something like that. Alot like the Ed Jew thing with the chain store, or at least as the FBI tells it. I'm still waiting to see what happens with that case. A couple people told me they really believed Ed Jew was innocent and eventually that would come out (He certainly doesn't LOOK like mafioso, but you never know). But, I'm having a very, very hard time seeing him coming off clean. I will say that I think that the business of residence is a violation many other politicians get away with and don't suffer the City Attorney's wrath--I think they just were looking for a legal way to get him out of office after the FBI thing came up.--David Tornheim (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start deleting portions of what I said above that I believe we have resolved. If something new arises on that paragraph, I'd rather start from scratch, and if someone needs to see my previously comments, they can always dig them up. Again, if this is cause for concern, let me know.--David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at some old pictures of John Lennon. Before the hair and the beard, Lennon looked like a dork with a dumb grin. After the hair and the beard, we worshipped him for his lame remarks. Daly has looked like the early Lennon his whole life, and nobody takes him seriously. Now that he's leaving politics and buying a San Francisco bar, this would be the ideal time for him to change his look. Why not adopt the "late Lennon" look? He'd be much more likely to sound like someone wise if he had a bunch of hair all over his head, wouldn't he? Reporters would stop by his bar much more often for his opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.73.248 (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition to Ban Firearms

[edit]

Does "Proposition to Ban Firearms" belong in the "Controversy" section of this article? It certainly wasn't "controversial" in San Francisco, where Proposition H won with 58% of the vote. Sean Hannity and others made it a national issue, but in the city it didn't mean much, and moreover, Daly wasn't the one spearheading it. I propose removing this section from the article. Chisme (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody? I'm going to remove this section unless anyone can argue against it. Chisme (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No takers? Then I'm removing it. Chisme (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family's residence in Fairfield

[edit]

When Daly's family moved to Fairfield in 2009, it became a story in SF, as some questioned whether Daly could properly be considered a resident of SF. This belongs in the article, I think. Anybody agree or disagree? Chisme (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edited by the subject...

[edit]

The recent edits by someone named superdaly, who has only edited this article on Wikipedia and not contributed elsewhere, have to be considered suspect, right? I put an "extensively edited" tag on the article for that reason. Chisme (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the "living person" who is the subject of this article. While I understand that it is not recommended, I have attempted to correct this article is a way that any reasonable person would agree is fair. I have not made extensive edits but have instead improved grammar, corrected straightforward errors of fact, and removed or corrected unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. This is not only allowed under Wikipedia's policies, it is important to be mindful of this guidance on living subjects: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."
In San Francisco political circles, it is well known that much of this page was written by political operatives from 2006-2009, nearly all of whom had a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia's definition. This page was even frozen amidst repeated attacks on it from Newsom campaign operatives. At the time, I thought that in politics you choose your battles, and I let it go. However, now five years out of office, this Wikipedia page is one of the main sources of information about me. And it is one of the most slanted, poorly conceived, and poorly written pages there is. (At least now, it is not as riddled with fundamental errors like my place of birth, etc.) Superdaly (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can sign your contributions to talk pages by adding four tildes at the end of your contribution. What evidence do you have that this page was written by "political operatives"? Chisme (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is common knowledge in SF political circles that campaign operatives working for my political opponent were all over the internet with anything having to do with me, and at least one of them was caught sockpuppeting and then lying to try to cover it up.[1] I don't do the internet forensics thing needed to give you the evidence you request (and I understand Wikipedia frowns on that sort of thing even more than self-editing), but the truth in this matter is painfully apparent to me.Superdaly (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Tough-times-for-Peter-Ragone-Newsom-s-press-2648359.php
@Chisme: Do you disagree with any of the edits? I had a similar impression as Mr. Daly as to the nature of the negative material and its source, and the way balanced reporting was cherry-picked for the worst of what was in the original source article. Consider for example this quote:
Brown also compared Daly to a stalker and suicide bomber, stating that, "When you conspire and calculate what you intend to do several days before you're designated as the acting mayor, you really are venal, you really are violative of all the protocols. It's like stalking. You knew exactly what you were intending to do. You concealed all your steps. You carefully plotted, then you did it behind closed doors, and then you laughed about it."
Is that really encyclopedic content? Or an attack piece? Most of that section comes from multiple article by a single reporter, Rachel Gordon. I am not sure about Gordon, but other reporters in the footnotes, including PhilHeather, Matt Smith and C.W. Nevius are well known in San Francisco for their hostility to progressives and progressive causes in their coverage of politics in what at the time was a very progressive city. The article and balance could definitely be more WP:NPOV than it is now. Often much of it read as an attack piece then (in 2008), and much of that negative non-NPOV material has remained to this day.
It has been a number of years since I have edited the article, so I may have to do some research into the biased editing that created the non-WP:NPOV material like that quote.
Note: Someone above did some google research on me and said various things about me suggesting a COI because of my relationship to Mr. Daly. I posted this on my userpage for transparency. I do not believe there is any COI prohibiting my editing the article and at no time was I ever paid by Mr. Daly directly or indirectly while in office. Based on that material above, if you think there is COI problem, please explain. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Superdaly:: Hi Mr. Daly. Please feel free to make proposed edits here. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC) [revised 00:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)][reply]
"...other reporters in the footnotes, including Phil Knight, Matt Smith and C.W. Nevius are well known in San Francisco for their hostility to progressives and progressive causes in their coverage of politics in what at the time was a very progressive city." I live in SF. I don't believe that statement. Chisme (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Do I need to bring up examples? I am talking in particular about the past during the time when Daly was in office, but it would be hard to believe any of those writers have changed. For example:
“The Chronicle used [Daly] as the poster child to try and dissuade anyone from supporting a progressive agenda,” former Sup. Jake McGoldrick observed.
from [3]. Please note that I meant Heather Knight rather than Phil Knight.
Heather Knight: "progressive movement has been hemorrhaging for years" [4]; compare with report in Beyond Chron here about her writing. In article she passes on nasty rumors to undercut both soda tax -and- progressive David Campos.
C.W.Nevius: Nothing good to say about progressive here
Matt Smith: "Progressive Failure: Why San Francisco supervisors who call themselves progressives should get the boot in November" (2004).
--David Tornheim (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
San Franciscans at large consistently reject "progressives" in the mayoral contests. The only "progressive" to win a mayoral election was Art Agnos, who did not win re-election in 1991. I think SuperDaly (Chris Daly editing his own Wikipedia article) is being paranoid to suggest that editors who include criticisms in this article are "operatives." It wasn't hard find his critics in the City when Daly was supervisor. He was a very controversial figure and this article should suggest that. Chisme (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Superdaly: You might find this post on Jimbo's talk page interesting. A person complained about WP:BLP's that are slanderous. Please keep in mind that threatening legal action by saying something is slanderous or libelous can be reason to get you blocked or banned. (See: WP:LEGAL). This happened with Sharyl Attkisson. See here and here for the discussion about that. The entire talk page for the article has quite a discussion about how she and her team complained about things in her article they felt were misrepresentations is quite interesting. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daly comments in print on his Wikipedia article

[edit]

From a March, 2016 article about Daly in San Francisco magazine:

His reputation, Daly insists, hasn’t preceded him here. Much. “People have read my Wikipedia page, which is not good,” he says. “So I went on to correct some of the—what would you call them?—misstatements of fact that were written by Newsom campaign operatives in 2007. Now my page has this big disclaimer on top that says it may be edited by the subject and that it’s no longer ‘objective,’ because the subject is the source of material and it’s not what [Chronicle columnist] C.W. Nevius felt like writing that day.”

This idea that operatives wrote his Wikipedia page is preposterous. I'm not an operative. I'm just someone who enjoys going to the circus. Chisme (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Chris Daly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Daly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Daly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Daly&oldid=1211786002"