Talk:London Breed

Quality of sources and characterization of positions

[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:

• all 14 edits by this account have been to the London Breed article (4 in April 2017; 10 last month), which suggests this is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. If an admin were to investigate this, they might find it useful to see the IPs used by this editor.
• this edit on 14 April 2017 removed a statement that as a supervisor Breed was Ed Lee's closest ally (a charge her opponents have made and she sought to avoid while Lee was alive). It also describes Breed as "the first challenger to unseat an incumbent" without any time caveat; in fact this happened many times in the past 162 years.
• this edit removed sourced information about alleged corruption on the part of Breed. The news article simply reported information from an FBI wiretap disclosed as part of a criminal indictment for bid-fixing.
• when these changes were reverted, Editstuff reinstated most of them. The sourced bribery allegation was allowed to stand, with wording added to cast further doubt on it.
• Moving up to 23 September 2018, we get a lot of background on the ugly fight to name an interim mayor, a huge addition of material complimenting Breed's public safety record (I hope this doesn't present any WP:COPYVIO issues), more additions burnishing Breed's housing record and also distancing Breed from the FBI wiretap that alleged corruption, and so it goes on.

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

I think this should be mentioned in the article:

https://www.newsweek.com/san-francisco-mayor-london-breed-asks-brothers-early-release-prison-ethics-1265448

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)

Quoted from discussion on same issue: "Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to London Breed. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

How/what sources would you prefer? Newsweek isn't a poor source, but I can use several others if you would like? Here's another news source that references court documents on it. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/12/19/mayor-breed-asks-gov-brown-to-reduce-sentence-for-jailed-brother/

   Sources say she gave her brother an alibi. None say she gave a "false alibi". That's a serious BLP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so instead of stating it as a false alibi, I can say that instead it was proven to be false via court decision/her brother later admitted it was him? Would that suffice?

   Any wording on this issue could be contentious. It's important not to draw conclusions from what may have happened. I suggest testing out some language you are proposing on Talk:London Breed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)"

So I guess the question is.. "she provided an alibi, which was later proven in court and by confession of her brother, to be false" would that be considered contentious? I believe that is stating facts.

Problems with Lede

Paragraph 2 states:

As president of the Board, Breed, according to the city charter, became the acting mayor of San Francisco following the death of Mayor Ed Lee.

However, this appears to contradict the way that Ed Lee himself had been appointed in 2011: Ed_Lee_(politician)#Appointment_as_mayor

Under the San Francisco City Charter, vacancies in the mayoral office are filled by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors, in which each supervisor is barred from voting for themselves.

So did the city charter get amended? If so, it would be useful to note that, at least by inserting "new" or "revised". Martindo (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Martindo, the difference in these cases, which I acknowledge isn't clear, is that Breed became acting mayor after Lee's death, whereas Lee was elected interim mayor (by the board) after Newsom's resignation. Breed became acting mayor automatically as the president of the board, but then the board elected Mark Farrell to be interim mayor, serving out the remainder of his term. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Entire article reads like a campaign advertisement

It may be appropriate if the subject is in fact the Second Coming, but--back here in the real world--most of us have both supporters and detractors, and some facts are inevitably more glowing than others. London Breed, however, is possibly the most perfect person gracing the planet. At least that's the impression I get. Why isn't she running for president? We really need someone of her caliber. ConradArchguy (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree. It reads more like a hagiography. --91.118.56.243 (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is just embarrassingly sycophantic at times. 2601:647:5E00:24A0:BCDD:A42D:3031:D9D2 (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It's only gotten worse over the past few years. To read this article without knowing anything about Mayor Breed or San Francisco you would be left scratching your head as to why she lost her 2024 reelection campaign by a 56%-44% margin in the final ranked choice. The way this article is written, you would think that Mayor Breed was overwhelmingly beloved in San Francisco and that the civic consensus was that things are going really well. 174.218.85.174 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Gyms

I have provided two sources, one that explicitly names her as opposing the opening of (private) gyms, the other which names the City (of which she is the Mayor) of allowing city-owned gyms to remain open for city employees, and for asking CAL-OSHA for a waiver to do this. There is no reason for removing a reliably sourced, notable issue. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Trying to reconnect, you provided two sources that said these things, yes. None of the sources say Breed kept gyms open for certain people. There's no indication she knows anything about this. The SFist piece says that it was written into the SF ordinance, but that was written by San Francisco Health Officer Tomas Aragon, not Breed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources say the city petitioned CAL-OSHA to keep those gyms open. She is the Mayor, and the city does not and cannot do these things without her approval. The mayor does not personally write ordinances, but the Health officer is her employee. You will note that this section begins with "Breed issued a state of emergency because of Covid-19 in February 2020"- but the actual declaration is issued by the same San Francisco Health Officer Tomas Aragon - https://www.sfdph.org/dph/alerts/files/C19-07h-Shelter-in-Place-Health-Order.pdf. You can't have it both ways - crediting it to Breed in the former, but suggesting it is only Aragon in the latter. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't say what has happened with the petition, does it? We should probably edit the "Breed issued" sentence based on the fact that it's not all on her, to be accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

My edit said nothing about any petition. I don't think it is relevant, but feel free to add this detail, if you want. And no, we shouldn't change the first sentence, because it is obvious that any policy carried out by city employees is done at the direction and with the approval of the mayor, unless the Mayor explicitly disavows it and cancels it. That applies to policies that bring her under criticism of hypocrisy, as well as to ones that earn her praise. Trying to reconnect (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The current passage about gyms still feels a bit off to me: "private gyms were required to shut down, but the city government petitioned Cal/OSHA for a waiver to allow various government employees to continue to use gyms in city-owned facilities, which were allowed to continue to operate." Neither of the cited articles connect London Breed specifically to that, and between them contain only one, somewhat vague unsourced mention of any official waiver: "the city reportedly requested a waiver with Cal-OSHA." In one article Breed's office responded by stating government gyms are supposed to still be closed. The other article explains SFPD seemingly had leeway on its own since it's an essential city service and physical fitness standards are a required component of the job: "There are allowances in the Health Order for government services to deem what is essential." The articles also describe severe limitations in the government gyms (e.g. only 7 people at a time), which the text here omits. Overall the way it's described here seems a bit non-neutral, and also somewhat offtopic given the lack of clear-cut connection to London Breed or any of her own policies. Ytpete (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal Life

This entry includes no mention of her personal life, including any mention of spouse or children. Is there a reason this has been left out?

Perhaps because she is unmarried and has no children. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of clickbait articles with the false rumor that Breed is married to developer of hotels and real estate Lawrence Lui. They are apparently based on a misreading of this SF Chronicle article which states that Breed was at a French Laundry party for Goretti Lo Lui, who the person who is actually married to Lawrence Lui. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/S-F-Mayor-London-Breed-had-her-own-French-15767506.php Larrybob (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Missing Photo

Anyone know why her photo is missing from Wikimedia Commons, and/or how to correct? Celjski Grad (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Name

Should there be a section about how her name can be London, which usually is a city and not a person? 193.188.156.131 (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)