Talk:Chris Daly/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Recent Edit War

Users from various IP addresses have been having a revert war. I am not convinced that either side is particularly NPOV. Is there any chance we can get you guys to talk it out here, or do we have to ask for the page to be semi-protected? Brainslug 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It happened again today. Please come on here and talk about this, or I'm going to go ahead and ask the admins to semi-protect until a consensus between non-IP users can be reached. Brainslug 06:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I made some very small changes today. Basically, I tried to balance the two competing versions and incorporate something from each side. It's very hard not to have a strong opinion of Chris Daly (one way or the other), but this revert war was getting to be incredibly annoying -- and may I add -- petty.
I want to thank Paulhogarth (author of the unsigned comment above) for his edit, which is very fair-minded. Brainslug 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, partisan supporters on Mr. Daly continue to add POV to this entry. Is there a way to have this page protected, so that we can be saved further squabbling and propaganda?

  • Please cite examples of POV. Criticism of Daly is perfectly okay, as long as it is sourced. GriotGriot
    • As a source, the San Francisco Chronicle is not unbiased when it comes to Daly. Also, the two external links to one Chron story don't support the allegations made in this entry (especially the crucial "nearly came to blows"). Jym 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The Chronicle is very biased against Chris Daly -- take, for example, its editorial where it called Daly a "walking embarassment" -- "http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/07/26/ED113790.DTL". Unfortunately, it's the paper of record in San Francisco.

So it's better to have an article that ends in 2003 than one that mentions Daly's current activities?63.199.155.82 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article ends at 2003. In 2006 Daly has introduced a resolution calling for impeachment of Bush. What's wrong with that? 09:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with that? Its a pointless political move that is quite frankly a joke.

Ooh, I got reverted! That's a first. Now I grant you I have nothing nice to say about Rob Black, but I did think that was as NPOV as I could be, and still remain factual: Palnu 00:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

While I don't have time to do a major re-write, the current version of this entry is very biased against Chris Daly. If you haven't noticed, the vast majority of the media sources come from Matt Smith of the SF Weekly and Ken Garcia of the SF Examiner -- both anti-progressive columnists who have an axe to grind about Daly. I'm not suggesting that the entry get re-written in the other extreme, but we definitely need to inject some balance here. Sourcing articles from the Bay Guardian and Beyond Chron are certainly in order.

Whether Matt Smith, the SF Weekly, or Ken Garcia are "anti-progressive" is a matter of opinion. They are legitimate sources working for bonafide newspapers and magazines. As such, their writings can be cited as per Wiki. Griot 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean to say that Matt Smith or Ken Garcia should not be cited as per Wiki. But it is grossly unfair to only source their articles without also sourcing alternative views of Chris Daly that are more favorable. I'm just asking that the entry be fair and balanced.
Given the type of divisive politician Mr. Daly is, it is incredibly hard to create a "fair and balanced" article. Most people informed on this issue are quite polarized in their opinion. That said, both Bonnie Eslinger and Joshua Sabatini at the Examiner are also cited. As for the "anti-progressive" label you so quickly apply, it would be hard to find many taxpaying people in this city that are not to the right of Mr. Daly. Mr. Daly is far more to the left than the vast majority of progressive politicians even by San Francisco standards. The wisdom of spending tax dollars on programs that do not solve the causes of poverty/homelessnesses and give minimal incentive to these people to change their lives is politically debatable. However, doing so while in the midst of 26 million dollar budget deficit is quite simply irresponsible. These proposals by Daly (as well as many of the ones that he will try to get on the ballot in November and that will probably pass) will create nothing in the way of tax revenue and will likely lead to higher deficits and an even greater tax burden on those of us who actually contribute to society. --SFLIBERTARIAN 00:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I made some revisions to the entry today to try to balance out the amount of anti-Daly sources cited and clear up factual issues. -- Paul Hogarth
Some of what you entered was POV, and I fixed that. I don't know what the wiki policy is regarding citing your own work in these articles, but yoiu appear to have done that. Griot 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

2006 Election

In the 2006 election, Daly's principal opponent was Rob Black, an attorney who was supported by many conservative organizations including the SF Police Officers Association and the Golden Gate Restaurateurs Association. Black was also endorsed by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. Independent expenditure committees spent an unprecedented amount of money for a local campaign, mostly on circulars attacking Chris Daly and pointing voters to a web site - DumpDaly.org. Some of the flyers seemed to break San Francisco election law and were referred to the city Elections Board, causing the board to lift the spending cap on the District 6 election. Despite this, Daly had a 10% lead in first-round voting, nearly reaching the 50% needed to avoid the allocation of second choice votes. (San Francisco uses Ranked Choice Voting for city elections.) [1] [2]

Your point? Griot 21:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Daly quote

Does this really demonstrate Chris' controversial demeanor? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 15:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It most definitely does. She's his wife. If first lady Laura Bush for example behaved like this, would it make the news? Would it be mentioned in the Bush article. I think so. 71.139.27.85 16:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It might make the news and it might be in Bush's article, but I don't see how it really demonstrates anything about Chris' demeanor. Is there a more appropriate place for it? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected the article for the time being, due to edit warring, disruption, and content removal. If you want to make major changes to the article, please discuss proposed changes here on the Talk page. --MCB 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity

It may be impossible for there to be a "balanced" wiki entry for Daly. Maligning Daly is good business for many in the press -- it is easy enough to source lies about his record. One could source a Matt Smith or Ken Garcia to disparage Daly and then easily be countered on the same subject by sourcing Steven T. Jones or Paul Hogarth.

Further, while there is no way to tell for sure, it seems as if partisans are using this Wiki page to push back and forth on San Francisco politics. This hardly seems fair in an individual's biography, which is broader than the internecine local politics. -- SFProg on 6/18/07

I think this entry is pretty well balanced. It doesn't "malign" Daly, as all information here is sourced. Rather than blank the article as SFProg has done, I suggest he find quotes from people more sympathetic to Daly and weave them into the existing article. Griot 18:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Gun control

I'm not a registered user. Could someone please put in some notes on Daly's Proposition H, which banned nearly all handguns in SF, although was never enforced because it was struck down by the California courts? This was an important issue he got behind, and it got nation-wide coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.104.117 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 June 2007

Done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Daly#Proposition_to_ban_firearms --BillyTFried 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was the completely relevant and sourced section on Daly's famous gun ban that made waves across the entire country and ended in a massive legal showdown between the NRA and SF removed? I'm restoring it right now. If anyone feels it does not belong in this article then state your case on this talk page. Otherwise do not remove valid sourced info. --BillyTFried 08:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it wasn't "Daly's gun ban." Daly was a co-author of the proposition. Griot 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


Nowhere in the section I wrote does it call the ban "Daly's ban". Regardless of whether he was the primary author or co-author (which you have not proven and is contrary to what the sources below say) he was HEAVILY tied to the ban and it made his name known across the entire United States. This section is 100% factual and cites it's source where SFGATE calls Daly "the chief sponsor" of the ban. DO NOT remove this valid and sourced info again without a much better reason and solid consensus by other Wikipedians. Do a simple Google search and you will see Daly's name mentioned EVERTIME the Gun ban is discussed. Claiming that his being a co-author of it justifies DELETION is like saying the McCain/Feingold Bill, should not be on Feingold's wiki page because he was only a co-author, which would be ridiculous.

FOXNEWS: Supervisor Chris Daly, who proposed the measure, said he and other supervisors already have received threatening phone calls and e-mails from gun supporters. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144930,00.html

SFGATE: Supervisor Chris Daly, author of the measure, said that police are exempt from the handgun ban. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/10/BAGGCFLLCI1.DTL --BillyTFried 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this gun ban section is completely relevant to Daly and should be mentioned in the article. I agree that delete the section just because he is a co-author is ridiculous. Chris! my talk 20:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the gun ban was very controversial, the media coverage alone was indicative of that. The fact that Mr. Daly was a co-author of this measure ties him irrevocably with the measure regardless of whether or not you agree with it. The section is well sourced and not worded improperly. This section should undoubtedly be included. --Ian Struan 20:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Daly was one of four supervisors who put Prop H on the ballot. Is Prop H mentioned in the articles about the other three supervisors? It is not. If the Prop H isn't mentioned in the other supervisors' articles, it doesn't belong here either. Also bear in mind that the measure was not controversial in liberal SF. It became a national bugaboo to gun nuts across America, but in Daly's own backyward, where he resides and where he is a supervisor, it hardly amounted to a drop in the bucket. Griot 05:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ringo Starr was one of four people as well, so should his wiki page not mentioned the Beatles? Your argument that a lack of information in other wikipedia articles should dictate a lack of info in this one is ridiculous! And your assertion that in "Daly's own backyard" which is also my backyard here in San Francisco, that the Gun Ban was small news is totally false. It was not just a big deal to gun owners who you pejoratively refer to as "Gun Nuts", but to average hard working citizens, including the 42% of residents who voted against it. Could that possibly mean that 42% of "Liberal SF" residents are "Gun Nuts"? Please! The ban was even opposed by the San Francisco Police Officers Association, and Mayor Gavin Newsom refused to comment on it! As I mentioned before, EVERYTIME The Gun Ban was mentioned in the media from SFGATE to CNN, Chris Daly's name was tied directly to it as a key sponsor. EVERY SINGLE Google search you do on the ban will return an article which includes Daly's name. It's not like I'm reaching here at all, it is very clear that the section on the gun ban belongs in this article and that there is no valid reason whatsoever for it to be excluded.. --BillyTFried 17:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict over direct use of M&R S.F. Chron article language

I was going to just let this issue drop, but after thinking about it further decided that no, it's not OK to let the language of this article ("went ballistic") to stand. Why? Well, to those who keep insisting that we must preserve this language since it is in a "quote", let me remind all here that this is not a public official being quoted, nor even a well-known political figure: it's a couple of newspaper columnists who, after all, are basically paid to dish dirt and to do so in colorful language that will grab their shrinking readership's attention. Not exactly what I would call encyclopedic. In fact, downright misleading, as if some kind of overarching mediating authority is being quoted. If someone like Willie Brown (or, more to the point, Aaron Peskin) were quoted saying such things, then it might be worth repeating here.

Now, there are times when it is useful, even compelling, to use such language, such as when an event or incident rises to such heights of outrageousness that to not use the original language would be tantamount to censorship or using weasel words, but such is not the case here. Besides, the original quote is only a couple of clicks away for those who bother to read the reference, and there's plenty of other red meat for Daly-bashers to feast on here, which seems to be the underlying agenda of those who doggedly (woof! woof!) insist on retaining M&R's exact words. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What if we attribute it to Matier and Ross in the article? That will make it clear that the words are coming from a third-party. There is nothing wrong with quoting newspaper columnists. It's done all the time on wikipedia. As for your argument about "encyclopedia-like" language, that doesn't mean articles should be droll. In fact, enlivening them is a good idea if you can do it with quotes, as is the case here. Obviously Matier and Ross and their editors believed that the description is accurate. It belongs in this article. Griot 18:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Demeanor Image

The photo I have added to the "Controversial Demeanor" section is a genuine photograph of Supervisor Daly, is used with proper permission, and is a 100% accurate depiction of the exact "Controversial Demeanor" that this section is about. Do not remove this image again without discussing on this discussion page and showing proper justification for it's removal as well as a consensus from the other wiki editors of this article. --BillyTFried 22:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • There's no consensus for keeping this picture here, as evidenced by its removal by several editors recently.
  • Nothing unbiased about this picture: just because it's a real picture of Daly doesn't mean that it belongs here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you (the editor I'm responding to here) seems to have an anti-Daly agenda which brings your own motives for placing this picture here into question.
  • No legitimate newspaper, magazine, etc., would run this picture; it's obviously inflammatory and meant to paint the supe in a bad light. Let the facts speak for themselves, without beating readers over the head with tabloid-type pictures. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Having a few Pro-Daly editors remove the photo is hardly consensus. The photo is NOT biased. It shows Chris Daly exhibiting the EXACT "Controversial Demeanor" that this section is about. If a photo showing Daly's "Controversial Demeanor" is inappropriate, then the entire section by that name is as well. And The pic DOES NOT even have to be viewed negatively. The very first line of this section says: According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Daly is "either a hothead or a passionate advocate -- depending on whose side you are on."[16] And so that photo can easily be viewed as The "Passionate Advocate" standing up to the cops, or the "Hot Head" losing his cool in a meeting. Your claim that no legitimate newspaper or magazine would print this photo is just POV rhetoric and speculation. BillyTFried 00:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys, I just think this image is blatantly unfair to Daly. It is POV in the sense that a picture could be POV. I'm reverting. Hashaw 19:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

THIS PHOTO IS NOT POV AT ALL WHATSOEVER!!!

  • It is not a photo of him picking his nose.
  • It is not a photo of him drunk at a bar.
  • It is not a photo of him shirtless at the beach.

IT IS A PHOTO OF SUPERVISOR DALY ON THE JOB, AT A PUBLIC MEETING, PERFORMING HIS DUTIES FOR THE CITY!

And while performing those duties he is well known for exhibiting a Controversial Demeanor. And that's EXACTLY what this photo shows! Chris Daly displaying his famous Controversial Demeanor, for better or for worse. It is NPOV because it can be viewed positively or negatively, as a pic of a Hot Head losing his cool or a Passionate Advocate standing up to "The Man" for the little people he represents. For all we know, that cop could have just said "Screw the homeless! Let the smelly bastards starve!", and Daly was responding to him exactly as was deserved for such a statement. Some see the pic and say "The man's out of control!" while others see it and say "Go get em' Chris!" The photo is a perfect display of Daly’s well known Controversial Demeanor which is WHAT THIS SECTION IS ABOUT. That much is a FACT. Is it positive or negative? That's up to the reader's POV, not yours. Therefore, there is no valid reason at all for censoring this photo of Supervisor Daly on the job. --BillyTFried 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I challenge you to set aside the capital letters, the boldface letters, and the cries of "censorship" and ask yourself whether this photo is truly objective. I'm reverting for now. Hashaw 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already stated my case clearly and concisely why this photo belongs in that section of this article and that removing it is inappropriate. The photo is NPOV, and only your view of it as being a negative pic is POV, as I clearly illustrated above that YOUR view is not the ONLY view of that image. Trying to have me blocked for reverting your deletions of valid content was pretty lame too. I have given several reasons over and over again why this photo is valid and relevant to this section of the article and have received no true rebuttals with any detail, but only only peoples own personal POV that it's not a fair or objective photo. With no background as to what the reason for their POV is. Why is it unfair? Nobody says! They just state it CLEARY POV and then remove it. That's 100% bs. At this point I am guessing the only thing left to do it to request dispute resolution. --BillyTFried 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Only one photo of someone as minor a figure as Chris Daly is needed, and there is a better one that this already at the top of the article. Also, even though there are citations, this article is ridiculously long for someone so unimportant, a mere city councilman. Quatloo 01:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
While Mr. Daly is a minor figure in terms of world politics, he is a rather outspoken city councilman of a major metropolitan area that is well known for its political fervor. I would expect that both supporters and detractors of Mr. Daly can agree that he is an anti-establishment figure and this photo is a good demonstration of both his political leanings and his penchant for 'heated' argument. For these reasons the photo should remain. --69.239.229.46 17:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
How on earth does that photo show his "political leanings"? As the Firesign Theater once put it, that's metaphysically absurd. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I would imagine that it would be rather clear from the photo. The picture shows Mr. Daly speaking to a police officer. In fact, Mr. Daly appears to be yelling at the police officer, who appears to be backing away from Mr. Daly. Law enforcement is a representation of the 'establishment' and Mr. Daly is pictured to be yelling at an establishment figure in a community meeting. In most other contexts, speaking this way to a member of law enforcement would be less than wise. However, in this context, Mr. Daly appears to be fulfilling his role as an anti-authoritarian figure. Now combine this with the common perception of many Americans (for a variety of historical reasons) that progressive/liberal politicians (Mr. Daly identifies himself as such) are not supporters of the law enforcement community and are in general in opposition to the establishment. The result is that the photo demonstrates Mr. Daly's political leanings. That said, the photo's value is not in demonstrating Mr. Daly's political leanings. The photo's value is its representation of Mr. Daly's reputation for a fiery disposition in support of his many causes. I hope we can all agree that Mr. Daly is undoubtedly a forceful advocate for progressive policy. My feeling is that this photo combines well with the text in making that point. --69.239.229.46 20:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


  • I've never heard of Chris Daly before seeing the RfC. After reading the article, article history, and comments, I don't see any reason why not to include the photo. It does illustrate the section fairly well; if anything, it certainly does not show him in a more negative light than the actual text. OTOH, the text itself probably needs no embellishment. As to the discussion as to whether the photo is 'POV' - get real guys. All photos by their nature are taken from a particular POV. WP:NPOV is not about excluding things that have a particular POV - it is about including all significant POVs. Dlabtot 18:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This photo does seem to be a bit much, but I think that it is deplorable that there is a revert war between Hashaw and ILike2BeAnonymous on one side and BillyTFried on the other. Why don't we keep it out for now, open the issue for discussion and then make a decision on the basis of responses. Just my two cents. Incidentally, my opinion is that the photo is probably a bit inflammatory but then again it really does sum up in a nutshell what Daly is all about and why people either love him or hate him (assuming of course that they know who he is). My opinion is that we keep it in the article. --Ian Struan 02:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, let me ask you this: since you agree that the photo is "a bit inflammatory", considering WP:BLP and all, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution (and decorum and all that) here? And I don't mean just for legal reasons ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
First, there are no legal reasons to keep the photo out. I presume your concern is a defamation or invasion of privacy. There is nothing to suggest that the photo is false or altered so presumably the photo is true. Truth is a defense to defamatory actions and many invasion of privacy actions. Also, since Mr. Daly is a public figure, it would be exceedingly difficult for him to prevail due to the heightened first amendment protection that the Supreme Court set out in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Besides the photo was taken is a public place so that would also knock out the other invasion of privacy actions that truth would not. Second, as for decorum, that was my goal is entering this argument. Let everyone else (people other than those of us who have commented) have a say on this issue, and then return to it later. Although I must add that I find it humorous and ironic that in an article about a person who most certainly does not respect decorum [3], we are calling for decorum. That said I have stated my position on this issue and respectfully leave it to you all to decide. --Ian Struan 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The majority of the content in the "Controversial demeanor" section of this article could be considered "a bit inflammatory" by some. Does that mean it should all be deleted? --BillyTFried 03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
If the content of the article is inflammatory (as opposed to merely factual), then yes, I'd consider removal. One big difference being that we're talking about a picture here, not just text. It's a matter of weight. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so now it's "a matter of weight", whatever that's supposed to mean. Does the photo display anything that the text does not describe? No, it does not. Is there anything that's NOT "merely-factual" about what can be seen in the photo? No there is not. Is it an unfairly timed photo of behavior that is totally uncharacteristic of Daly? No it is not. It shows EXACTLY what the text in the "Controversial Demeanor" section describes and is 100% relevant to that section. --BillyTFried 04:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You must have missed that day back in first grade where they told you "a picture is worth a thousand words". +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
No no I remember that clearly. I just must have missed the section of Wikipedia that states that if a photo seems to hold more weight than just plain text, then it is "cleary" innapproiate for display in an article. Too funny! --BillyTFried 04:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I got to comment on this. The photo clearly portrays Chris Daly in a negative way. And we shouldn't edit war on this. Discuss the issue first. Chris! my talk 02:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please state your reason for feeling that way instead of just stating that you consider it positive or negative with no background at all. Thanks. --BillyTFried 03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is my reason. If the photo is trying to portray someone negatively, that it shouldn't be here. That is a simple logic. What more do you want? Chris! my talk 06:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The photo is not "trying" to do anything! It merely shows Supervisor Daly on the job exhibiting the very "Controversial Demeanor" this section of the article is about. And as I've also said over and over, it does NOT necessarily have to be viewed negatively either!
Here's the opening line of this section of the article:
Controversial demeanor
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Daly is "either a hothead or a passionate advocate -- depending on whose side you are on."[1]
So this photo can easily be viewed as a Hot Head losing his cool or a Passionate Advocate standing up to "The Man", which fits PEFECTLY with the opening line as well as the entire Controversial demeanor section. If you think the photo is of a Hothead, that is YOUR POV, or if you think it's of a Passionate Advocate, that's YOUR POV, however, the photo is completely NPOV in and of itself. BillyTFried 06:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

By now, it should be painfully obvious to anyone reading this that this is a clear case of one editor, with an agenda to boot, pleading for inclusion of this photo, which many agree is at least somewhat inflammatory. Nobody else is clamoring for keeping this photo. That ought to tell us something. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What IS clear is that you are one of the parties involved in the dispute that led to the RfC, not a neutral observer. Accusing another editor of pushing 'an agenda' borders on incivility. My suggestion is to disengage from the topic for awhile. Dlabtot 17:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a typical ad hominem attack from someone who has failed to justify his POV reasons for wanting to censor valid content that I contributed to this article, so instead he resorts to a personal attack, and accuses me of pushing an "agenda". It's not only incivil, but pathetically weak as well. And THAT ought to tell us something. BillyTFried 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion I offered to ILike2BeAnonymous applies to you as well: you might want to consider disengaging from the topic for awhile. Dlabtot 22:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have read the above discussion. I favour of the position of BillyTFried. His argument for the photo is clear. Whilst further arguments in favour of not having the photo may be provided in the future (and this may cause me to reconsider my position), at present I think the photo should be added, once the discussion is over. I do not encourage any reverts with respect to the photo until the discussion is concluded. I do not see the photo as inflammatory and if someone thinks it is, it should be possible to provide an argument to support that position. Did the event covered by the photo take place? Answer yes. Does the photo show Daly in a negative way? No. Does BillyTFried have an anti-Daly agenda? No evidence has been provided to establish this, so no. Eiler7 20:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do honestly think the photo is anti-Daly. I mean this photo is showing Mr.Daly literally barking at a policeman, which is inflammatory and POV. According to WP:UNDUE, "views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." That is exactly what it is here. As IL2BA put it, only one editor, representing a tiny minority, here is pleading to include this photo! Chris! my talk 22:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A tiny minority? Exactly what it is here? Are you kidding? Whether a person loves Daly or hates him, there is ABSOLUTELY NOBODY that does not consider him to be an aggressive and confrontational live wire who's prone to exhibitong a....... CONTROVERSIAL DEMEANOR. Nobody.
Here's a great example for ya:
--BillyTFried 23:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, you are a tiny minority insisting on including the picture. His demeanor is controversial, but not aggressive. Your comment here just show that you are POV. And how other news media portray Daly is irrelevant. Chris! my talk 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You can't be serious! The vast majority of references in Wikipedia are to news media articles and you're claiming that what the media says about Daly is "irrelevant"? Even KRON 4 the Bay Area's #1 news station? And are you really trying to contend that a guy who told someone to fuck off at a public meeting is NOT agressive?
http://www.mistersf.com/archive/index.html?archive130.htm BillyTFried 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what news media says about Daly is irrelevant. And I am not claiming anything as this is supported by Wikipedia policy. If you don't know about this still, please see WP:NOT#NEWS. Chris! my talk 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Jeez dude, did you even read the info at that link you just provided? It has nothing to do with news articles being used as references. It is just an explanation of how just because something is in the news, that doesn't mean it is worthy of it's own Wikipedia page. Try this page instead WP:CITE, which CLEARLY states that news Articles are VALID as references and it even shows you an example using http://news.bbc.co.uk! And here's the Wikipedia Template for citing news articles as references Template:Cite_news. Please don't post on this topic when you have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks. --BillyTFried 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You must have misread or misunderstand my comment above. What I said is that how other news media portrays Daly is irrelevant. I never say that we can't use news reports as references. So please read careful before you lecture me on Wikipedia policies. You clearly don't know what you are saying here. Chris! my talk 05:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
He's "literally barking" in the photo? Gee maybe my sound card is broken. I don't hear any barking when I look at the photo. Dlabtot 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You know what I mean. Please stop reading my comment out of context. Chris! my talk 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If you mean something different from what you wrote, than no, I don't know what you mean. I only know what you wrote. If that wasn't what you meant, I suggest you try to rephrase in such a way that your words accurately reflect what you mean. Dlabtot 22:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you are trying to get at here. What I wrote is that he is barking at the police officer. It is very clear. You even write a sarcasm in response: "Gee maybe my sound card is broken. I don't hear any barking when I look at the photo." So it is obvious that you know what I mean. No need to elaborate on this. Chris! my talk 01:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't know what I am trying to get at? What I am getting at is that the statement that 'the photo shows him literally barking' is patent nonsense. If you didn't mean that he was 'literally barking' then I don't know what you meant. If you did mean it, then I do know what you meant. Dlabtot 04:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. Well, that is your opinion. But that is fine, I am not trying to make you accept my position. Chris! my talk 22:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. Daly is not aggressive, but he barks in peoples' faces. That makes sense. BillyTFried 17:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
So now you think he is barking. That is exactly why the photo should be deleted. Chris! my talk 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No no, "barking" was your terminology. I was just pointing out how you contradicted youself saying he was barking but is not aggressive. Silly. BillyTFried 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Is Daly completely aggressive? No, that is not true. Was he angry at that moment? Yes, he was. And that is not a contradiction. A person being angry at a moment does not automatically mean that he is aggressive. It is silly on your part to say that I am contradicting myself. Chris! my talk 01:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Whatever dude. I don't know what planet your from, but here on Earth most people consider shouting in peoples faces and telling people to FUCK OFF to be fairly aggressive behavior, regardless of being angry or not. BillyTFried 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Chris! my talk 05:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But Billy is right on one thing. A large part of the article is devoted to anti-Daly content. In order to adhere to WP:UNDUE, perhaps we should shorten these content. Chris! my talk 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a moment. I take issue with the idea that a large part of the article is devoted to anti-Daly content. The sections on the Progressive Convention, Blue Angels, the Police Chief Position, his Anti-Homelessness Record, Firearms ban, and the SF Grand Prix are all true and not necessarily anti-Daly. In fact, Mr. Daly's position on firearms and the Blue angels warranted national coverage on news media outlets, therefore those two at least are essential to the article. To many in the Progressive community, Mr. Daly's position on those two issues are laudable. --69.239.229.46 16:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is that some parts of the article is devoted to anti-Daly content such as the controversial demeanor section. (Sorry, I shouldn't have say large part, that is simply not accurate) Thanks for pointing that out. Chris! my talk 22:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC Comment I was poking around on the politics RfC page and saw this RfC and figured I’d throw my 2 cents in. When I saw the name Chris Daly I didn’t know who this person was until I saw the picture at the top of the article. I live in the Phoenix, AZ area and when we are having slow news days here one of or local news venues favorite hobbies is to poke fun at CA politics. I’ve seen this guy in news stories here in Phoenix precisely because of his “outspoken” demeanor. I don’t think there is any problem with the image; images like this one are precisely why anyone outside of the California knows who this guy is. Sure the image might be controversial but I think it does illustrate the points made in the article. There is also precedent for controversial images being included in a political figures article. Take a look at the image over at George W. Bush#Foreign perceptions. There was a little bit of a debate over on the talk page about whether this image could be included in a NPOV way. The result of the discussion was that the image be included because it illustrates the type of foreign criticism the President recieves. I believe the image of Chris Daly also does a good job of illustrating some of the controversial behaviour that has been reported about Chris Daly. Also while reading through the comments here there were some editors complaining about the length of the article for someone who is basically just in a low level local political office. I don’t think this is valid argument. Check out the article about Joe Arpaio. He is the local sheriff for the county I live in. This is also just merely a local office for someone to hold, but Joe Arpaio is also a highly controversial figure who has made news outside of his jurisdiction so he has a longer article then someone in his position would normally have. That’s just my cents on this subject, hopefully it’s helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhector (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris do you really think making up stories that this image is not free is the way to go about trying to win this debate?

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 September 24
Image:Daly Cop.jpg
I nominate this image here feeling that it is unfree, not because of my POV. I am saying this because I am recently in a dispute regarding this photo. The license of this image is shown as being released in public domain. But I am not sure if that is correct. If it is in fact free, then my mistake. Chris! my talk 01:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_September_24

Your bad indeed. BillyTFried 03:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not making anything up, nor I am trying to win the debate by doing so. As an editor, I can raise this if I think it is not free. In the statement, I have explained my intention clearly. So if you insist on thinking like that, be my guest. Also if the picture is in fact free, then it should have no problem going through the process. Chris! my talk 03:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


This discussion has gone on for 20 days.

Keep Image

  1. BillyTFried
  2. Dlabtot
  3. Ian Struan
  4. Eiler7
  5. Elhector
  6. 69.239.229.46
  7. Friscocab
  8. Bobanny

Remove Image

  1. ILike2BeAnonymous
  2. Hashaw
  3. Quatloo
  4. Chrishomingtang
  5. Griot

Restoring image. BillyTFried 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest. Discussion is not done. Chris! my talk 23:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
And User:69.239.229.46 didn't say anything about keeping the image. Chris! my talk 23:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I did not make it clear enough in my comments above. I am in support of keeping the picture in the article. --69.239.229.46 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


The input from RfC commentators has clearly shown justification for the image to remain. And you are wrong about User:69.239.229.46 who was indeed in favor of keeping the image, as shown below.


If my Request for Comments was not good enough to settle this then maybe it's time to Request Mediation. BillyTFried 00:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just wait a little longer before doing anything else? A request of mediation is not necessary. Chris! my talk 01:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment says a discussion will be removed after one month. So wait until 30 days then decided.Chris! my talk 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think we should wait 30 days. I see the 30 day idea as more of a safety net. The key point is consensus. A 6-4 position is a split, not consensus. I suggest we wait one day and ask Chrishomingtang if he is willing to withdraw his objection to the image. If he does (and no one else changes his position), then we have 7-3 which is consensus in my view. If he does not withdraw, then he should indicate how discussion should proceed.
I note that Chrishomingtang said "I am not trying to make you accept my position". I think that reasoned consensus is the approach to take on these kinds of issues. I would therefore encourage him to be willing to explain his position as this may well help in arriving at a consensus position or a compromise.
We should try to resolve this first without mediation. If Chrishomingtang has questions for people on the pro side, I would encourage him to ask them. Alternatively, if Chrishomingtang is willing to respond to questions from the pro side, he should indicate this. If he is unwilling to do either of these things aimed at resolving the dispute, I think he should withdraw his objection or agree to mediation (a last resort).Eiler7 23:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Add my name to the people who think the image shouldn't be used. I'm no fan of Daly, but an encyclopedia, which at least tries to give the appearance of objectivity, ought not to include such a derogatory imagine. It's unfair to the subject of the article. Also, in votes like this, it's customary not to include people who don't sign their names. Griot 23:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Evening professor! ;-) Your opinion that the image is "derogatory" is just that, your own POV. I still stand my statement that the image perfectly depicts exactly what the opening SF Chronicle quote at the beginning of this section states, "either a hothead or a passionate advocate -- depending on whose side you are on." Depending on whose side your on means depending on the READER'S POV not yours as an editor. Like I said, the reader can see the image as a champion of the poor standing up to The Man or an overzealous supervisor losing his cool. It can go either way, is an accurate depiction of "Controversial Demeanor", and is a NPOV image of Supervisor Chris Daly on the job working for the city. BillyTFried 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm expressing my own point of view. What else do you expect of me? Do you want me to express yours? <chuckle> Griot 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to throw my two cents in. Daly is a huge champion of the rights of the little people in this town. I think that this photo shows Daly at his best, standing up for rights of others in the face of those in power. For a politician to take on the police is refreshing. I vote to keep the photo!!! --Friscocab 00:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY! BillyTFried 00:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Friscocab. I notice that the above is your very, very first contribution! You came right out of the blue to an obscure little quibble-tussle on an obscure Discussion page. You came at 21 minutes after midnight, just 14 minutes before Billy T. Fried. And you topped off your little contribution with three exclamation points!!! Where have I seen this use of punctuation before? Griot 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Griot, I am not a stand in for anyone. I was looking into Daly and Ammiano because at work they mentioned that they were helping us get stop the longterm lease plan that yellow cab is pushing and they are working for health care for us cabbies. I saw this page and looked at the discussion and wanted to vote on it. So I joined wikipedia since it read that a person can't make a comment if they are not a member. Then i get the nice welcome from you about being a stooge. It that is kinda messed up. --Friscocab 00:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me professor but are you accusing me of being User:Friscocab as a second name or Wp:sockpuppet? If so why don't you back up your accusation and report him to the Wikipedia Admins so his IP address will be checked? Do it! It won't be the "very very" first time you've been dead wrong on here. I really enjoyed your last "quibble-tussle " with the admins and this should prove even more hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) BillyTFried 16:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, BillyTFried. Your wrongful accusation of POV to those who disagree with you won't help resolve this issue. So please read WP:AGF and WP:EQ. And responding to Eiler7's comment, I have already state my position in the above discussion. So I don't see the point for me to repeat it again. And like you said, a 6-4 is more like a split, if we wait just one more day, there won't be enough time to form a consensus. I don't see the need for us to rush through this discussion. So just wait for more comments before deciding. Chris! my talk 01:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on now Chris, once again you did not even read the Wiki pages you just advised me to read. Here's a quote from one of them: "Use article talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article". You seem to think POV is an insult or something. It simply stands for Point Of View, and some people have the Point Of View that the image is negative while others have the Point Of View that it is positive, which means the image itself is Neutral Point Of View (NPOV), because it can be seen either way. BillyTFried 02:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone of POV when they are not is clearly an insult. And I am pointing the page out so that you can work toward an agreement while being polite and assuming good faith. And how can the image NPOV, as it is presenting a biased and one sided POV. The concept of NPOV is not about balancing editor's own opinions, but about presenting a clear unbiased POV to readers. Chris! my talk 02:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Man you just don't get it. Can somebody else please explain this to him for me. I'm done trying. BillyTFried 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Chris! my talk 05:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
RfC Comment - I never heard of this guy until today. I'm adding my name to the growing list of editors who think the photo should stay. It's an excellent photo because it illustrates the subject, better I might add, than the generic studio photo of the happy politician, making it more encyclopedic. There's nothing inherently POV or even negative about the photo and if anything it adds balance by offsetting the PR photo. Challenging the freeness of the photo or claiming that the subject is too minor a figure to warrant two photos seem like lame tactics/reasons to this outsider and should be discounted when determining consensus.
The reason I stopped by though was to say that "controversial demeanor" is a bad section heading. Surely it's his behaviour that's controversial? His aggressive/impassioned political style? Whatever someone's demeanor may be, it doesn't by itself provoke controversy.
Lastly, if I lived in SF, I'd probably vote for this guy. From what I understand, the poor there are subjected to all kinds of crap and could use someone to shake things up at city hall. Not that my opinion counts for anything, but I just wanted to point out that I don't see the photo or the content as somehow negative. If you want to make an omelette ... That's all. Now play nice. bobanny 03:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactamundo! Thanks for your input! BillyTFried 03:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing I would like to point out is your opinion in the freeness of the image. Although the freeness of the image seems to be irrelevant to this discussion, but it can prevent the inclusion of the image in Wikipedia. Just to let you know.Chris! my talk 05:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We all know what you did Chris. Since your arguments here are not getting anywhere you decided to try and eliminate the image by reporting it as "Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images" when you have absolutely nothing to base that on. You didn't even give a reason for your suspicion in your description. BillyTFried 16:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Again. I can't stop you from saying such nonsense. But just ask around, any editors can list any image at Wikipedia:Possible unfree images anytime he or she want. So that is what I did. I never intend to win an argument by doing that. So save your effort trying to discredit me.Chris! my talk 19:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So why did you do it then? BillyTFried 19:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to explain to you why I did it. Chris! my talk 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the discussion seems to be continuing, I withdraw my suggestion to just wait a day. I would still like to understand your position, Chris. You said "this photo is showing Mr.Daly literally barking at a policeman, which is inflammatory and POV". I cannot see how this position can be defended. It cannot be POV because (no one disputes) the event actually happened. POV would be something like including the caption under the photo saying "Daly shows what an idiot he is in the above picture". Please explain how it is inflammatory. I think the average reader of wikipedia would see the image and realise what it is, a picture of a specific event. I can see a picture of the Pope with his arms raised in benediction without assuming that the Pope is always in that position. Can you respond to this? Eiler7 15:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that if we include this photo, it would present an one sided POV on Daly's behavior. If you ask me, I think the photo is basically telling people that "Daly shows what an idiot he is in the picture." Chris! my talk 19:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
An image, by its very nature, is selective. If we are to rule out all selective things on wikipedia, we will have to remove all the images of the Pope too. Beyond that, you seem to think (if I understand correctly) that people will react to the image in a negative way and deduce that Daly is an idiot. Well, we are not here to police the way people think. If the audience chooses to be non-neutral, wikipedia must not follow suit and respond by being non-neutral. The only way I can see that you can deduce that Daly is an idiot is thinking about the photo in the light of additional information. I would like you to judge the article (with image) purely on its merits without that additional information. Suppose Daly appeared in a picture with an anti-abortion poster in the background. By your logic, pro-choice people might react negatively and thus the image would be non-neutral. However, that reaction is not the responsibility of wikipedia. I think the image itself would be neutral and the people would be non-neutral. Please tell us what you would think about this hypothetical case (with an anti-abortion poster) and whether a negative reaction would depend on pro-conceived ideas of the audience rather than embedded non-neutrality in the photo. Further, a negative reaction is itself not an argument for omission. To take an extreme example, the deaths of Jews by order of Hitler reflects badly on Hitler. No one would claim that the Hilter article is wanting because of that. If Daly is damaged by his past actions, then that is part of our mission (provided the information can be reliably sourced which the picture can). Informing people about Daly and Hitler is what we are about. If something is true and significant and does not fall into the exceptions set out in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, then it should be included. Eiler7 14:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the image is still going to present an one sided POV on Daly's behavior. As a matter of fact, I don't think that is allowed per WP:NPOV. Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember reading a section about biases and how that is not acceptable by Wikipedia. Although I agree with you that it is not Wikipedia's job to care about people's feeling, I firmly believe that this photo is not a good one and a more neutral alternative can definitely be found. Chris! my talk 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You say "the image is still going to present an one sided POV on Daly's behavior". I do not see how. I think it presents an accurate view of one incident. As far as I know, the incident was not staged and the image was not doctored. If photoshop was used to create an image of Daly shaking hands with Bill Clinton and that image was included in the article without further comment, the image would be misleading and therefore not neutral. You mentioned WP:NPOV. If you think that a policy page sheds light on this issue, please can you quote the relevant sentences. Since you are not specific in your comment, I can only assume that you are thinking that it is a problem that people might dislike Daly more after viewing the photo. Such a reaction is not generally considered a good reason for exclusion. I would like to repeat the Hitler example since I am not convinced that you realise its full force. There is consensus on wikipedia that the Hitler article should not downplay his controversial actions. I have just checked the article and confirmed that this is the case. Please look at the Hitler article to verify this. The fact that people might dislike Hitler after reading about him is not considered reason enough to exclude information on such actions. You said that the debate was between people who like the image and people who do not like it. I do not see it that way. The debate is between those who see the image as neutral and those who do not.Eiler7 19:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Since I never edited any Hitler related articles, I don't know the full details of things. Thanks for pointing that out. Anyway, I review WP:NPOV and it reads:"NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas." Now this part seems to apply to all the content including image. Now I could interpret this wrong. So if you interpret it differently, let me know. While the reaction of people looking at the image is considered not a good reason for exclusion (I agree), but the image is clearly displaying a person's negative behavior. My question is: Wouldn't the inclusion of this image constitutes biased. Would you mind telling me what you think. Chris! my talk 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the quote from NPOV. I think you are not interpreting it correctly. The intention is to encourage wikipedia editors to work with sources in a manner that excludes bias (in that source). Bias is different from negativity. A source can provide negative information and yet be sufficiently free of bias to be useful to wikipedia editors. Determining which sources to use and how is a matter of judgement. If a claim is extraordinary, sourcing it to a tabloid newspaper is insufficient as such papers may not provide reliable information. The bias of such papers interferes with their accuracy. In the case of Hitler, a neonazi organisation would probably also be biased in its information about him. Turning to this specific case, I note that no one is claiming that the event did not take place. You are free to investigate the image to see if there are reasonable doubts about its accuracy. Given the lack of expressed doubts, it seems there is general agreement that the image is an accurate representation of the event and that agreement shows we have satisfied NPOV - the only view is represented fairly and without bias. Eiler7 23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
So are you saying that the image is not biased because it depicts something that in reality happened? Please explain more. Chris! my talk 02:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, not quite. The image depicts a real event. This is a good start. However, images can depict real events and still be a problem. An image of a real event that distorts (makes a man's nose look bigger than it is) would not be suitable. Also, an image might make it look like one man is going to attack another when this was not the case. An image of a man smoking a non-tobacco cigarette which looks like a normal cigarette placed near a section about his opposition to smoking could be misleading. However, all these exceptions need to be spelled out by the objecter. Eiler7 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well if you guys all think that the image is not biased and agree to keep the image, I don't see the reason for me to object anymore. Thanks for explaining patiently. By the way, Wikipedia doesn't have a clear image policy, it is hard to understand sometime. Chris! my talk 23:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All you are really saying Chris, is that despite several other editors stating that the image is appropriate, you simply don't like it and feel as though that should be enough justification for removing it, which it isn't. The image does not express any biases either as it can be interoperated in several ways. It would only be biased if the caption I wrote said something like "Chris Daly losing his cool" or "Chris Daly standing up to police corruption". And I highly doubt anyone can provide a more neutral alternative that demonstrates Daly's famous "Controversial Demeanor", which is what this section is about. BillyTFried 00:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to ignore another of your nonsense comments, but I have to answer. All I am saying is my opinion! (of course, what else can I say?). Just ask around. Everyone here is writing about their own opinions including you. And that is extremely obvious. As matter of fact, you just express your opinion by saying "The image does not express any biases." To put things in a simple way, some editors here dislike the image. While some other like you like the image. That is what this discussion is all about, trying to find the best solution to resolve the issue. Please step away if you don't intend to comment constructively. Also, I don't have to agree even several other editors stating that the image is appropriate. There is simply no law or policy here that forces me to agree with anything. Chris! my talk 03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For someone who was harping on these two issues earlier, I'd say calling a person's words "nonsense" hardly falls under assuming good faith or being civil. And you still aren't getting it either. I know you are expressing your opinion and I know you want the photo removed, having gone as far as reporting it as being possibly unfree(not good faith either). However, I have gone into great detail as to why I believe the photo is NPOV and should remain whereas you have not. A detailed explanation of why you believe it is unfair or bad or negative is what I am asking for and you still have not delivered that. Simply saying the photo makes Daly’s look like an idiot or like he is barking is not enough, and you have not countered any of the arguments for it such as it being of a good depiction of a "Passionate Advocate" standing up to the cops. In order to prove it is POV you'd need to prove that it absolutely CANNOT be viewed in a positive manner, which you have not done. Or prove that it is in fact NOT an accurate depiction of Daly's "Controversial Demeanor" as I have asserted, and is a depiction of something else entirely, which you also have not done. You also did not address any of the points that Eiler7 directly asked you about. I suggest you address some of the above before you criticize my comments as being unconstructive.BillyTFried 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

First, interjecting between the conversation between me and Eiler7 is impolite. If you want to talk, we can do that on your talk page or mine. (not that I want to do that, anyway) Second, it is pretty ironic for you to accuse me of incivility and not assuming good faith when you begin commenting in an uncivil manner at the first place. I also have gone great length explaining my position. And I don't see the point for me to repeat over and over again. Lastly, I consider your comments as nonconstructive because you kept asking the same question and kept questioning my position in a hostile tone. You can call this comment or me whatever you want. I don't care. I am done answering to you. Eiler7, you are welcomed to continue this discussion though. (If you want, of course) Chris! my talk 20:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where to begin on this but want to offer my opinion. The photo is obviously portraying Daly n a negative way as he is obviously yelling at full volume at a police officer within inches of the officer's face. Hard to imagine anyone not looking like a big bad meany when yelling at anyone within inches of their nose. If Daly weren't alive and we were using it to illustrate his famous temper then I might be swayed but he is actually a public servant and this photo serves to portray him negatively and I think it should be removed as WP is not a newspaper and the real things we write and publish affect real people, public figures or not. If I were either of the poeple in the photo I would want it removed. If it has to be included then you need a balancing photo of him kissing puppies or saving an endangered eagle. That fact that this single photo has generated so much debate should be a clue that it's a source of controversy. Get rid of it as it doesn't accurately portray the man's work or general character but simply the most aggressive side of his public life. Benjiboi 14:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus question

Do we now have consensus on including the image? Or do we need a vote? Eiler7 12:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not require that everyone agree. It looks to me like there is a consensus. Dlabtot 04:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree; no consensus seen from this corner. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask you to review what I wrote above in the discussion with Chris and respond? It appears to me that there are good arguments for inclusion and I would like your feedback. Eiler7 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It's important when determining consensus to ignore the repetitive comments of the very few editors who have attempted to dominate the discussion through sheer volume. One editor saying one thing 200 times should not be given more weight than one editor who says one thing one time. Dlabtot 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There was no response from ILike. I think there is now consensus that the image can be added. BillyTFried, I suggest you go ahead, Eiler7 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. BillyTFried 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have closed the RFC. Eiler7 18:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is still no "consensus" on this; just check the last comment in the section above, added only a day previous to this. I've removed it again, for these simple reasons:

  • It's tabloid material.
  • It's just plain unenencyclopedic. No reputable eneyclopedia would include such an image. It's just inflammatory and placed by editors with agendas. And most importantly, it is not needed. The article stands without it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not needed seems a strange criteria for not keeping the photo. It is a great illustration of the written material. I say keep it. +Trick (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know. The decision is keep. But it is deleted because the image is not free. So as far as I know, this discussion has ended. Chris! ct 21:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Caption of the image

I just want to ask if you guys think that the caption "Daly speaking with a member of the SFPD" fits the description of the image? Chris! my talk 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It was suggested to me by a friend that the text I wrote seems purposefully understated. And that because of that it may make the viewer read it and then look at the pic and say to themselves, "He's not speaking. He's shouting", and so in that sense I am affecting the readers point of view, which was not my intention. I just didn't want to use words like arguing, quarrelling, yelling, debating, or shouting, so I went with speaking. But I have been thinking about it too and maybe it should just say "Daly with a member of the SFPD" or "Daly and a member of the SFPD". BillyTFried 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What about "Daly responding to a member of the SFPD." Chris! my talk 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Daly is "either a hothead or a passionate advocate would be a balance way of helping people unstnd the use of an image of that nature. Benjiboi 14:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. BillyTFried 07:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I remove the "either a hothead or a passionate advocate" part. I just don't think that is necessary. Keep it simple. Chris! ct 00:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition

{{editprotected}} Could someone add this to the page, below references but above the SFSupervisors box? (code found by clicking "edit")

{{start box}} {{s-off|us}} {{incumbent succession box | before = Election not district-specific | title = [[Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors|Member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors<br>District 6]] | start = [[2001]]}} {{end box}}

Currently, all the current (and some former) supervisors have this box with the exception of Chris Daly, due to the semiprotection of the article. Thanks! --71.141.117.207 03:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. For your information, place code after a <nowiki> tag, and before a </nowiki> tag; any place you need to have an HTML tag - replace the openning < with &lt; - and then the code should appear properly without needing to click "edit". Od Mishehu 08:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Gordon, Rachel (November 24, 2004) "Daly scolded -- but not censured: Supervisors reject formal action over his use of profanity. San Francisco Chronicle.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Daly/Archive_1&oldid=1190233516"