Talk:Dean Preston

Lead should summarize the body

Most of the body is devoted to Preston's actions to block and delay housing developments. The lead should summarize this in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course-- ze un fo un 03:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

The POV pushing on this page is just ridiculous. I am working on a complete rewrite of this page. I have also tagged the page for neutrality and opened this discussion here as required. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You have made large deletions without discussion, please avoid doing that and go to this talk page first. Eccekevin (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The article says "but city records show that the family of Goosby—a fifth-generation San Franciscan—has multiple trusts". How does that verify the claim you have repeatedly re-inserted, and why are you using a blog as a source? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have not inserted any claims nor did I write it. I am simply making sure that nothing is removed sweepingly and without proper discussion. Eccekevin (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

In further reviewing the claim, indeed the article supports the statement made in the page - that in addition to the multi-million dollar property Preston owns, his wife's family holds multiple trusts with multi-million dollar properties across different locations. hence, the paragraph as is (which i did not write) us accurate and properly cited - in addition to being relevant given the politics of housing connected to the subject of the page. This should not be removed without proper discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 02:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The "multi-million dollar property" you describe is a just a house in San Francisco. That is how much they cost. The article says "the family of Goosby" has multiple trusts. Including this claim based on this sourcing is clearly POV pushing. If you don't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

But in any case, there is plenty of other concerns on this page to occupy my time. I would ask that you do not revert my edits just because they are done "sweepingly". I plan to make a lot more changes to improve this page which currently contains huge amounts of violations of WP:BLP. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Why should the claim about the trusts be removed? It is reported by high-quality sources and supported by public records. Secarctangent (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what's supported by public records? Someone in his in-law's family has a trust. That's is supported by public records, but the claims that he and his wife are landlords or have anything to do with that trust is not supported by public records, and is by Preston directly. The sources listed are implying or straight out lying, but those claims and implications are not supported by public records. FriscoKVLT (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You cannot claim sources are lying because of your personal knowledge, that is the definition of original research. Eccekevin (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

What part of "is not supported by public records" is personal research? FriscoKVLT (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I've spent the last couple days removing and re-removing the false claim that Preston and his wife are landlords, which there is no evidence for anywhere. It seems there are many editing this page with the goal of being intentionally misleading. FriscoKVLT (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Coffeeandcrumbs. Those sources neither substantiate the claim, nor appear like good/neutral RSes. SFChron is one thing, but using op-eds with a clear bias is another. But in any event, they have to be discussed here and not played out in the main space, we can't have these potentially mistaken claims in the article space on a BLP. Admin involvement will be next if lies, or mere potential of a lie, about a living person is re-inserted, whether in bad faith or good. JesseRafe (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

User Coffeeandcrumbs, you have attempted to completely remove any material concerning Preston's opposition to new housing construction, effectively sanitizing this page to your liking in a very NPOV fashion. You cannot simply remove all material on a politician's page you don't believe to be favorable to said politician. Another user, rightfully, restored it. Please discuss this before deleting so much material. Additionally, I will remove the additions to the lede, since it is clearly NPOV and very flattering. I will not restore the previous lede, but wait till a consensus is built here first. Eccekevin (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The lede paragraph is just a summary of the content below. It is not "flattering". It is a clear summary of his accomplishments. You seem to be just upset I am not being unfair to him. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're claiming this is false. It is reported by multiple sources that he and his wife are beneficial owners of multiple property trusts, is it not? Secarctangent (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

He is demonstrably a landlord as far as I understand it. He meets the Wikipedia definition: "A landlord is the owner of a house, apartment, condominium, land, or real estate which is rented or leased to an individual or business" -- and he and his wife are co-owners of a trust that owns multiple such properties, is he not? Secarctangent (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrubms, you're the one pushing POV here to a ridiculous degree. You have removed everything remotely critical of Deen and basically turned this page into a campaign ad. Shadybabs (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the content I removed (now restored by Reywas92) and the reasons why it should be removed again. Happy to discuss each one individually but I would ask that people think critically and not just demand things stay in the article because a citation is attached.

• The San Francisco Chronicle reported that between December 2019 and November 2021, Preston opposed development plans and legislative proposals that could have housed more than 28,000 people, including affordable housing for nearly 8,500 people.
  • This statistic may sound notable but it absolutely is not! Typically, goverment-assisted developments are 50% to 100% affordable. The fact that Preston has opposed some developments is not notable. Focusing on it is POV pushing. Also see below, he is often not alone in opposing these. Framing it in this manner gives it WP:UNDUE weight even if the opinion is attributed to the San Francisco Chronicle. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You, as an editor, don't get to criticize a source, especially one as reputable as the San Francisco Chronicle, and you don't get to decide if the source is right or wrong about the numbers and the notability. We, as editors, report what the sources say. We do decide instead on whether it is notable, and since housing is a huge issue in the city of San Francisco and. a major policy of the subject of the page, then it is absolutely fair to include what the sources say, whether you personally agree with the sources or not. Yes, the fact that Preston has opposed some development is notable in context. Eccekevin (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This is what the source says:

The story is just one example of Preston rejecting, restricting or delaying housing in a new report titled “Dean Preston’s Housing Graveyard” compiled by advocates for building more housing.

It found that since his inauguration in December 2019, the progressive tenants rights attorney and activist has opposed development plans and legislative proposals — at the city and state level — that could have yielded enough units to house more than 28,000 people — including enough affordable housing for nearly 8,500 people. That total includes his opposition to state laws that could have potentially added about 23,000 homes.

So the source is not even the San Francisco Chronicle. It just some developers dubbed by the Chronicle as "YIMBYs". Please stop doing this on a BLP. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the root of your problem: you think that anyone who thinks San Francisco should be able to house more people, and should be able to do so with more housing, is a "developer". How disgusting. The Chronicle reported it, and just because you don't like the root source doens't mean you get to categorically exclude it. Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Who wrote this site? Four current and former District 5 residents who are personally affected by our housing crisis, and who have no connection to developers or the real estate industry: Amandine Lee, Alex Taylor, David Broockman, and Vitor Baccetti."

The fact that you're clearly misrepresenting the sources and casting aspirations while inserting your own POV and holding favorable articles to different standards makes all of your edits highly suspect, C&C. Shadybabs (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This source should be included, not only it is a RS on a pertinent topic, but it also offers differing points of view on the housing positions or Preston. Currently, the editors who tried to remove this have fought to only include positive criticism from the sources but removing all negative criticism. Eccekevin (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• In 2020, Preston delayed a major zoning plan which would have led to the construction of thousands of housing units to the Van Ness/Market Street area of San Francisco. He called for a "a race and equity study" of the project.
  • This is absolutely routine. Again this delay was supported by the majority of the Board but this paints Preston as the only hold out. Again this is an attempt to unfairly paint Preston as a NIMBY. Notice this edit where I removed outright name calling from this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Describing something as routine per your opinion and without references is WP:OR. We follow the sources, and the sources focus on these votes on housing and housing policy, which is an important issue in the city he governs in, hence this seems absolutely due. A RS decided to dedicate attention to it, and given how it fits the policies and topics of the politician of this page, it is reasonable to include it.Eccekevin (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree -- @Coffeeandcrumbs please follow WP:OR. Secarctangent (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not OR to use good judgement in evaluating sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Evaluating sources based on your opinion is the definition of OR. Proper evaluation would be with other sources providing couteropinions or context. Your judgement or expertise is OR. Eccekevin (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• In October 2021, Preston voted against the construction of a 495-unit apartment complex (one-quarter of which were designated as affordable housing) on a parking lot next to a BART station. Preston said that the construction of the apartment complex on the parking lot was "gentrification."

• Mayor Breed lost a sweet deal where only 25% of the units are affordable to the residents of SF and she is upset. That is the whole story. Again, a majority of the Board voted with Preston (8 out of 11). His vote here is not notable and this is undue. The only mention of Preston in the article:

Mayor London Breed concurred, taking the eight supervisors who opposed the vote to task and calling their vote part of an “anti-housing ideology" on Twitter. Breed also brushed off concerns over gentrification in the district, including those made by District 5 Supervisor Dean Preston, as “vague.”

There is no justification for inclusion of this. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Stating that Mayor Breed lost a sweet deal and then dismissing the rest because you do not like it is also WP:OR. This is a reputable source that described Preston's action on housing policy, and comments from other elected officials. There absolutely is a rationale for including these RSs.Eccekevin (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Why should only issues in which Preston is in the minority be included? Sure he was in the majority here, but it's perfectly relevant to include issues which (a) Preston had leadership on in the Council and (b) there was a conflict between councilmembers and the mayor. This might belong on all 8 of those members' articles. Reywas92^Talk 18:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. These positions are notable (an noted in RSs). Eccekevin (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• When San Francisco was at risk of losing millions of dollars in state affordable housing funds because of the city's failure to provide a legally mandated eight-year plan to build new housing amid the housing shortage in California, Preston accused California Governor Gavin Newsom of being an agent in a neoliberal conspiracy.
  • This is hilarious because it lacks all context. For one, the deadline is Jan. 31, 2023, and this article was published September 2022. This is a non-story as far as I know. The fact that he called Newsom "an agent in a neoliberal conspiracy to funnel money to housing developers" is funny but not notable. Preston is a socialist, of course, he called Newsom a neoliberal.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If context is lacking, it should be added, but only if properly sourced. Removing it because you don't like it or because it "is hilarious" in not proper Wikipedia policy. In particular, a politician calling his own governor an "agent in a conspiracy" is very much notable, especially when reporter by the city's major newpaper. Eccekevin (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Secarctangent (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, you can't decide whether a source, especially a RS like the San Francisco Chronicle is right or wrong. In regards to notability, it is absolutely not undue to discuss the criticism of his position on blocking housing, since he is a local elected official in a city where housing is among the top debated issue. The truth is that Preston has received a lot of criticism for his housing politics, as reflected by these sources, and you cannot remove them simply because you disagree. Eccekevin (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You can continue the discussion, but you cannot unilaterally remove without discussion this after two users have opposed removal. Giving a rationale is not enough and not a substitute for consensus. Eccekevin (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Preston has been widely commented and criticized in the media and among the public for his opposition to housing construction. The amount of RSs that focus on this issue show that this is not undue. This should be reflected in the page, but the user above has removed everything connected to this topic.

References

This is not OR. The deadline is January 31, 2023 and the Board is going to submit the required plans.[1] You just don't know what you are talking about and I do. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Not only is this WP:OR, but it is WP:SYNTH too. You cannot add editorialize. Eccekevin (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, please stop removing sourced material until this discussion has reached a consensus. Disagreeing with sources does not mean they are invalidated. You have now broken the WP:3RR by removing material that was added by me and User:Reywas92. If you continue engaging in edit war without awaiting consensus I will report this through the proper channels. Eccekevin (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If we are just tagging people, I would appreciate some input from JesseRafe as well. 3RR does not apply when you are reinserting false claims and other violations of NPOV to a BLP. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

1. RR has exceptions, but that is not one. These claims are sourced (not written by me) and need to be discussed before removing. I see no violations to BLP,; the claims are sourced, if anything the problem is whether they are DUE, but that is definitely not a violation that excuses edit warring and 3RR breaking. In particular, you are engaging in an edit war. Wait for the outcome of the discussion. Eccekevin (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   WP:3RRBLP. #7: Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This is none of those tings. You removed well-sourced (from the city's preeminent newspaper and RS) topical (housing is a relevant topic) material. Eccekevin (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs This is not good Wikipedian behavior. Please stop attacks on other editors by claiming that they "just don't know what you are talking about and I do" or this will have to be appropriately escalated. Secarctangent (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I have stricken that statement. I apologize. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I have yet to see an argument for excluding criticism of his anti-housing position as a reported by the San Francisco Chronicle and others. Eccekevin (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Dean Preston doesn't have an "anti-housing" position.@Coffeeandcrumbsis correct to be making these edits. FriscoKVLT (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This is original research, you are just expressing your opinion. Here we are discussing the inclusion of a source. A significant portion of the media and electorate have criticized Preston for his opposition to housing (both market rate and affordable). This is a fact. Whether that criticism is fair or not is an opinion. As Wikipedia editors we present the facts only (of course, with the appropriate context). Eccekevin (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Agree. Secarctangent (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Let us talk about each of the sources you cite above:

1. Literally says the accusations are from YIMBYs. There is no claim that Preston is "anti-housing" in SF Chronicle's own voice. The claim is attributed to a self-published report on https://nimby.report/. If you want to include this, then you have to be clear about the attribution. Feel free to do that, but you will notice quickly that is would be silly to do that on Wikipedia.
2. Not in SF Standard's voice, again attributed to same report. Also states (Broockman made clear the report was a personal project and not part of his work at UC Berkeley.)
3. This source actually proves the opposite of what you claim, how he has worked to build affordable housing rather than block it
4. This source says that Preston approved THREE projects and put a hold on ONE for a six-month study. Says nothing about Preston being "anti-housing"
5. Exact same article as #2
6. This is literally a republish from this website https://marketurbanismreport.com/, which espouses a "free-market city policy".
7. As our article presents in a balanced way since my edit, this project was replaced by 1 of 2 other hotels in his district that Preston suggested.

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, I never said the Chronicle said he was anti-housing. Simply that it reported criticism of his housing positions, seen by critics and pro-housing advocated as “anti-housing”. And of course this should be properly attributed (I said as much in the past and I agree). What I disagree with is not including this criticism at all. And no, it is not silly to properly attribute criticism of his policies, same with praise. Eccekevin (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence in the lede about his opposition to housing. I agree that a better lede should be found,t hat summarizes his positions better, as well as the criticism. Eccekevin (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the lede should summarize his positions on rent control, publicly built affordable housing, as well as criticism he receives for blocking new housing developement. Eccekevin (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Then why did you delete the summary that does that. Why not add the critism you think is so well sourced? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Because I think we should do that on this page first. I'm happy to come up with a proposal or discuss others'. Eccekevin (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I await your suggestion for that. I have made my suggestion. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with this deletion. I think a lot of these elements should be included and pass muster. I thik the material added by User:Coffeeandcrumbs can belong on the page. Tagging also User:Secarctangent who removed it. Eccekevin (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

If you truly believed that, then undo it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Since they are recent additions, discussing on this page is appropriate. I am open to undoing it, but wanted to hear the opposition first too. Eccekevin (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

That is not how this works. Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit. If people have policy-based reasons for undoing my had work, they should state them. Otherwise, I will be restoring my very well researched edits. I do not need to get consensus for every edit. "I don't like it" and "you need to gain consensus" are not good reasons to removing well sourced uncontroversial content. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's exactly how this works. Read Wikipedia:Consensus (consensus is at the base of wikiedia) and WP:ONUS (just because something is verifiable, cited, or well written does not merit inclusion). That said, as I mentioned, I do not oppose the insertion of those elements, and if there are no reasonable objections on this talk page, that is the new consensus. Eccekevin (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That is not how this works, I support @Eccekevin in his statement with regards to Wikipedia policy.

I have no objection to the additions @Coffeeandcrumbs made in this specific edit, I do oppose the deletion of content under "other issues and ballot measures" and think should be record.

I also note that @Coffeeandcrumbs has done other very non-NPOV edits and would ask that they read WP:NPOV. Secarctangent (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

48hills is a progressive publication with a clear bias

It cannot be used to make statements in wikivoice, any citations from it must be clearly attributed as opinions of progressive supporters of Dean Preston. Shadybabs (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That is itself a POV you are pushing. Reports of fact can be attributed to a news publication, it is not automatically an opinion because it is a non-profit or because identifies itself as progressive it is therefore a mouthpiece for Preston. If you like, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources but one editor's opinion that something else is an opinion just because they don't like it, when it's front page has literally news articles on it. It looks solid, and of course, if they publish an opinion it should be attributed as such, but it otherwise looks like legit local news. JesseRafe (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

well, not properly. It is an explicitly politically and partisan source, so it should be treated as per WP:PARTISAN. Eccekevin (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly the opposite of what the policy you cite says. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It says that they shouldn't be excluded, but that the bias should be acknowledged. Eccekevin (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

From what I can see, 48hills is a reliable source on local issues.[2] It appears to have good editorial oversight. Prints corrections when necessary.[3][4] It has all the hallmarks of a reliable independent source. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It is still a politically oriented source, so should be treated as WP:PARTISAN (this does not mean excluding it, but placing it in context and with appropriate attribution). Eccekevin (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That is correct. 48Hills is a legitimate source. It self corrects it's mistakes more than the chronicle or many other publications used as sources on this article. FriscoKVLT (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, and an opinion. Eccekevin (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Coffeeandcrumbsthat 48hills has "all the hallmarks of a reliable independent source". FriscoKVLT (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

@Secarctangent, please give policy reasons for these edits removing sourced content. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not how this works. Seek consensus for additions. I also answered this above. Secarctangent (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Why should it be removed? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Since no one objects to this content, I will be restoring it then. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced claims about the value of Preston's house

In this edit, @Shadybabs inserts unsourced claims about the value of Preston's house. The purported source added says it is " purchased for $880,000. It was most recently assessed for $1.27 million, and Redfin estimates the property’s value has increased to $3.5 million." None of these figures are what is claimed in the article.

On top of that, the dollar amount value of the home is not why the home is exempt from the tax. It is exempt because all single family and duplexes are exempt. Using these two sources together, to make a third claim is clearly WP:SYNTH. What is the reason for this POV pushing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is clear SYNTH since the article does not mention the legislation. Eccekevin (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Excessive citations

91 references is an unusually large number for one of the eleven supervisors on San Francisco's current board. The other ten average 23 between them. This is why I added an excessive-citations template to this article just now.

This article gives the relevant context. The war in question between leftist yimbys and leftist nimbys results from two things: the former's understandable desire to greatly increase California's affordable housing, and their dependence on developers' willingness to build it, this being the only practical source of funding for such housing.

The problem there is that developers lack the yimbys' altruism, and insist on creating profitably large buildings on profitably valuable land as soon as it comes on the market. Normally local governments resist this, but with California's recently enacted 2021 Senate Bill 9 developers have been able to override local governments and create large condominiums and apartments provided only that a small percentage of the housing thus provided be priced lower than the rest.

The result has been to divide the left against itself, with the yimby half accepting this "devil's bargain" and the nimby half complaining that the winners here are not so much those in need of affordable housing as the developers, for whom SB9 is a veritable gold mine.

Hence the 91 references and the bitter infighting on this talk page.

Both sides have good points. However much of the arguing here has been to claim that the subject of this biography is a hypocrite, using arguments similar to those on the right complaining that Al Gore is a hypocrite for not going around in sack cloth and ashes. My recommendation would therefore be to remove all such attacks on Dean Preston as being too obviously from those taking the yimby side of this ongoing debate, which is not going to be decided by Wikipedia. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there a particular place where you see more citations than necessary? Otherwise, I do not think excessive citations is the issue. I think what you mean is excessive detail and tendentious editing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an algorithm for computing excessive citations? I merely noted that he had something like three times as many citations as average for that board. If excessive citations is not a symptom of an edit war, what is? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with C&C, that tag is optimally used for excessive citation on a single claim, or a habit of citing something like every sentence of a non-contentious thing, especially when to the same ref. The tag doesn't apply here, and there's no use comparing one supervisor's article to another, it's about the merits of one Wikipedia article only (this one) and what needs to be cited. As he has been attacked in the press, that's notable coverage. As he's been defended in the press, that's notable coverage. White-washing or removing some of the context that's relevant is not an improvement. There's no rule that "An article of X type should have Y citations." That's, frankly, absurd. JesseRafe (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:OVERCITE, "One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring." Are you denying there has been any edit warring here? For example, why are three references needed to support a simple fact like "After graduation, the couple moved to Jenckyn's native San Francisco in 1993, settling down near Alamo Square." This is typical of what one sees in edit wars.

This article reads like an extremely detailed attack on Preston designed to dissuade people from voting for him. I don't live in San Francisco and have no skin in this game other than objecting to Wikipedia taking sides when it's not obvious which side is in the right.

Hopefully we can all agree that tobacco companies and oil companies aren't in the right when they argue that their products enhance life on earth, but that doesn't seem to be the sort of disagreement we're seeing here. The article is obviously pro-yimby, but as Preston and many others have pointed out, that makes the article pro-developer. I don't see why Wikipedia needs to take the side of the developers. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You are correct on the fact that this article (one section in particularly) is "an extremely detailed attack on Preston". But there is a proper tag for that and it is already placed on the section that is the problem. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)