Talk:Ed Jew

Untitled

The flower shop? There are more than one, this should be cited.

There is only one. He divided the building into 2 sections and rented the other to a jewelry store --Cs california 03:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Person

As you have noticed, I have added an Infobox.

But, it is still not complete, as I do need help with these following categories:

• known_for
• occupation
• Ed Jew's Mom's Name

If you know them, great. Thanks!

--Goodshoped35110s^{My Talk}03:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed Jews mothers last name was Chan before she was married but I am not clear on first name. The families occupation is running that flowershop. Also wasn't 10,000 USD found at Jew's Burlingame home when raided by the FBI. I also saw in several papers that Jew was taped counting the 40K in bills given by the FBI and Quickly. Please confirm and add information if true. --Cs california 09:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just removed unilaterally (with no discussion)

(simplified Chinese: 赵悦明; traditional Chinese: 趙悦明; pinyin: Zhào Yuèmíng Badagnani (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Lee (simplified Chinese: 李小龙; traditional Chinese: 李小龍; pinyin: Lǐ Xiǎolóng; Cantonese Yale: Léih Síulùhng; November 27, 1940 – July 20, 1973) was an American-born martial artist, philosopher, instructor, martial arts actor and the founder of the Jeet Kune Do martial arts system, widely regarded as the most influential martial artist of the 20th century and a cultural icon. He was the father of actor Brandon Lee and of actress Shannon Lee.

References

Edjew.net

I wonder: is using a source like that okay for basic info despite it being from no third party? If not, it should probably be replaced. Hekerui (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is ok for supporting basic biographical info.—Chris! _ct 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ed Jew/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Remember to avoid contractions (such as "didn't").

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I am interpreting the criteria as such: For a person it may be difficult to get a photograph, and since fair use cannot be used for living people, only if an image is available on the Commons would an image be required. On the other hand, I am a bit skeptical in including the document as an image. I will not remove it, but I would not have included it myself. Including portions of primary sources is not the job of Wikipedia.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A clear, good article. It reads well, is interesting, stays to the point and covers all relevant areas. Congratulations on a nice piece of work!

number of votes

So, here's how I see it

Ed got 26% of the 1st place ballots. I.e. 26% of the electorate wanted him to win over everyone else. He didn't really get 52% of any conscious electorate.

He did WIN but that 52% is a process number. It could have been 51%, 53%, 55%, etc based on technicalities like how many votes he had after the 3rd round, and how many votes the 4th place candidate had. The 26% number is actually far more important as it reflects voter preference.

Maybe there's a way to include them both?

Richmondian (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would called the 52% is a process number. The way I understand the system is that in the first round all votes are counted. The person with the least votes is eliminated and his/her votes are redistributed to the remaining candidates according to their second choice. This process is repeated until a candidate has 50+1%. So, the 52% is the actual percentage he won the election with. But you are right that only 26% of the electorate wanted him to win over everyone else. So now, I don't oppose mentioning this in the article.

One thing, though. I think this should be in the body not the lead. Because, per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article's most important aspects.—Chris!_c/t 05:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Read various articles about the many candidates who have won in runoff=type systems - for example, most presidents around the world. No one ever mentions the first round number. So I think this is much ado about not much, and think that my edit was a fair way to move forward on this.71.163.240.79 (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There was an entire article written about how Ed got into office because it was so convoluted. (Nearly) Every IRV election will have a number between 50%+1 and 55%. But it says very little about how many votes the person got. They just keep redistributing votes till it gets above 50%. From the public's point of view, there's a big difference between someone who got 11% of the first place vote and managed to pull in some 2nd and 3rd, and someone genuinely popular who got 45%. I believe Ed pushed for race-based voting, e.g. "vote chinese for 1,2,3" Richmondian (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to the body. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article's most important aspects. The fact that he won is all readers need to know when they glance at the lead paragraph.—Chris!_c/t 01:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs major cleanup; please stop reverting

This article is an abominable mess, yet every time a significant attempt is made to improve or clean it up, the edits get reverted. I’m not sure why certain people are so intent on keeping this article in such terrible shape. The specific issues needing improvement are as follows:

(1) This article is littered with a ton of irrelevant information. How is it relevant that Jew was in a motorcycle accident as a child, or has a brother named David? These extraneous details do not serve the article at all, they simply bog it down.

(2) The ‘personal life’ section is a grammatical mess. It’s not even clear when it’s referring to Jew or to his grandfather. Meaningless sentences such as “he was raised by his parents” boggle the mind.

(3) There is absolutely no reason to summarize every single blow-by-blow of Jew’s investigation and trial, i.e. what his attorney said each day, the fact that he switched attorneys, every document produced by each side, etc. It is numbing and obfuscating to read. As an attorney myself, I would NEVER write a brief this way. It is tedious, shoddy writing. Only the main points of the investigation and trial should be covered.

(4) The bloated introduction MUST be pared down. The argument that “lead section is supposed to summarize the whole article” is nonsense; no other Wikipedia article summarizes itself like this. The introduction should NOT contain where he went to college, or detail his entire political rise. All that information that belongs in the main article.

It’s frustrating that a conversation needs to happen in order to make these changes. Please STOP reverting every good faith effort to clean up this article. This is easily one of the worst politician articles on Wikipedia, and the reversions are keeping it that way. 209.150.70.134 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I've reverted every change you made. Please read the article again. That is not true. I only made small changes. For example, Jew having a motorcycle accident isn't in the my version anymore. But I did restore the bit on his brother, which is not irrelevant IMO. Take a look at Barack Obama, one of Wikipedia's best articles. It mentions his half sister briefly. The change you made to remove the blow-by-blow of Jew’s investigation wash't restored. I agree with you on this.The introduction according to WP:LEAD has to "summarize the whole article”. Please respect that guideline. Take a look at Barack Obama again, the intro there summarizes the whole article. Your claim that "no other Wikipedia article summarizes itself like this." is inaccurate. That said, I will await your response before restoring the intro.—Chris!_c/t 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the lead and the bit about his brother.. I assumed you have read my response above and have no problem with my edit anymore. Though feel free to keep on cleaning up the article. Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 04:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Jew

Unless we cite a ref that says he is commonly and mistakenly thought of as jewish, this is completely inappropriate. i think it may have been added as vandalism.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ed Jew. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616150123/http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/ed-jew-associate-may-be-source-probe to http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/ed-jew-associate-may-be-source-probe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616152027/http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/jew039s-lawyer-rips-local-probe-039politically-driven039 to http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/jew039s-lawyer-rips-local-probe-039politically-driven039

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)