Talk:London Breed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Quality of sources and characterization of positions[edit]

[Up-front disclosure: I have campaigned for one of Mayor Breed's opponents in a past race for supervisor. I did not campaign for a candidate in the mayoral election she won in June 2018. Therefore, I'm not making any sensitive edits to this article. However...]

I'm troubled by the quite partisan nature of a lot of the statements here, and I'm going to pick one in particular, from the Housing section, as an example:

"Her reelection opponent, who consistently opposes new housing, demanded that she rescind the law, but Breed refused, citing the need for more homes in the city."

Problems with this:

  1. It's sourced from an op-ed, not a news article.
  2. The op-ed is written by a strong supporter of Breed, whom I believe endorsed and campaigned for her, and is employed by a advocacy group for the housing construction industry.
  3. It's incorrect. Dean Preston, Breed's opponent in this supervisor race and the candidate I campaigned for, specifically opposed relaxation of controls on new market-rate housing without sufficient provision of affordable units, not construction of new housing per se.

So... what's a good way to fix this? Without a potential conflict of interest I would be WP:bold, but I don't want an edit war. And yet, I'm pretty sure anyone who cares to set this straight has a declared view on our mayor's policies. Rupert Clayton (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rupert Clayton: Thanks for pointing this out to us. Certainly, I don't have to read the SF Examiner article in question to know there's an issue with that sentence. A lot of content was added all at once a few weeks ago by Editstuff1, who I am pinging in the hope that they will come to explain themselves and make edits for neutrality. Otherwise, I'll remove all of it and reinsert what I think can stay. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Looking in more detail I'm seeing quite a few problems with this user's edits in general:
My gut feeling is that this is a very enthusiastic Breed supporter who is having a little trouble understanding the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines, and feels compelled to show Breed in the best light possible. If they are or have been part of any of Breed's campaigns I think it would be better for them not to edit this article. If they just sympathize with her positions, I feel they need to show more restraint and rigor than we've seen so far. How about editing some stuff other than politics for a while? Rupert Clayton (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Rupert Clayton: I agree with everything you wrote. If you want to remove it all, I won't object. If you don't, I will when I have a little more time to parse through it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek says Breed lied under oath[edit]

I think this should be mentioned in the article:

However, critics of Breed's actions, including Smith, point out that Breed neglected to include important facts about her brother's case in her letter—including that she offered an alibi for Brown, testifying at his trial that he had been sleeping on her couch at the time the robbery occurred and when White was left on the bridge. Breed also makes no mention in the letter of Brown's heroin possession in 2017.

Josh likes salad (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Josh likes salad: It doesn't say she lied under oath. I do agree that her letter to Governor Brown is something that can be added, somehow, somewhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)