Talk:Hillary Ronen

2018 Mayoral election

Hillary Ronen voted to remove London Breed as interim mayor of San Francisco. She explained the vote by asserting that Breed was beholden to special interests, including rich white men who Ronen believed had been responsible for San Francisco's housing problems. These are facts relating to a politician's political positions and should be included to illustrate those positions. Assistance and advice regarding how to neutrally report the facts would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambondy (talk • contribs)

Biased writing

This page is written in a way that is clearly biased against her. I came here to learn more about Hillary Ronen, but this page is not written in an objective way. 50.213.5.61 (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you please point out some specific examples? SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Her fear of shadows seems a bit unusual, but it is supported by the sources. In fact, here's a video where she talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4

If this is typical of how she behaves, then I wouldn't blame wikipedia editors for the fact that the wikpiedia article makes her look bad. San Francisco is in serious need of a huge amount of new housing, and the wikipedia article cites multiple reliable sources for her opposition to many different proposed construction projects. The wikipedia article is merely a reflection of what reliable sources say about the subject.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Police funding section

I'm concerned about whether this section meets the standards of WP:BLP and WP:Neutral point of view.

Specifically, I'm concerned about the reliability of the source and that this is WP:Advocacy with the persistent re-addition of this material by someone using different IP addresses. See WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS for more information on this source. Also, the redirection of funds by London Breed is not mentioned in the article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I am too very concerned about the neutrality of this section. As to the BLP, this is contentious material that is poorly sourced. FOX News is generally held to be an unreliable source of information and a perpetrator of misinformation, most notably with their stories on how the 2020 Election was stolen from Donald Trump even though Joe Biden legitimately won.

As to the words used in this section, they clearly display of lack of neutrality. The section makes her sound like she is hypocrite even though her position from various news sources show that she wants to transfer funds from law enforcement agencies to other programs that can deal with social problems more efficiently while she also stating that there no viable alternative to police that can deal with violent assaults at the moment.

Also, there is no reason that this should be at the top section. This should be at the very least the last section or second-to-last section. I intend to make these correction soon. In addition, this section should be retitiled towards a broader category such as public safety. SFHistorian1850 (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's allow for other people to comment (i.e., someone who is not one of two people edit warring over this section). I've added a tag and there's no deadline to fix this so please respect the guideline to avoid reverting during discussion. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I have read the guideline to avoid reverting during discussion and still believe the section should be taken down under the following exception to the rule:

Exceptions to this recommendation include the following:

• Living persons – Always remove unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious.

The only source that is provided is from an affiliate of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group (see https://www.vox.com/2018/4/3/17180020/sinclair-broadcast-group-conservative-trump-david-smith-local-news-tv-affiliate). News from these local outlets have been extremely biased and unreliable as the article explains. SFHistorian1850 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sinclair isn't listed by Wikipedia as an unreliable source. I also found an article on the same topic from the SF Examiner. While I do believe the section needs some work to avoid bias, I don't agree that the material is unsourced, even without the additional source. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

One clarification on sources: When I originally added the POV tag to the section, I thought the article was by Fox News, but I subsequently realized it was actually from TND (Sinclair). My primary concerns right now are around the phrasing in the section (that is, the part about the redirection of funds seems like WP:Advocacy from someone). The sections should probably also be ordered alphabetically. Adding the second source that I listed would also be a good idea. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and revised the section. I also went through the rest of the article and cleaned up some issues, specifically Wikipedia:Too much detail on proposed legislation, some Wikipedia:Neutral point of view phrasing issues, and I reordered the issue sections to be alphabetical. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

In this edit, I added a quote of her exact words as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.

In this edit, User:SFHistorian1850 removed the quote, and commented, "These edits provide a more accurate reflection of her career and accomplishments on the Board of Supervisors in contrast to past edits made."

In this edit, I restored the quote.

The San Francisco Chronicle is a highly reliable source. Please do not remove this quote. Thank you.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Opposition to the construction of new housing

I have just restored the following content. I commented, "Restoring the info about her opposition to the construction of new housing. This topic is probably the #1 most notable thing about her time as supervisor, and it has been reported in a very, very large number of articles from reliable sources. San Francisco's housing shortage is a huge problem, and readers have a right to know who is responsible for this, as it has been reported in reliable sources."

In 2018, Ronen fought to prevent the construction of a 75-unit building on the site of a laundromat. She argued that an environmental review of the building did not consider the impact of a shadow on a nearby schoolyard, even though an environmental review conducted by officials at the San Francisco Planning Department showed that the new construction, including its shadow, would not have an adverse impact on children at the schoolyard. In October of that same year, Ronen dropped her opposition, stating that the appeal process seeking to halt the project had been exhausted, thus allowing the project to proceed.

In 2019, Ronen co-sponsored a resolution opposing California Senate Bill 50 which would have mandated denser housing near public transit stations and jobs centers in order to reduce the housing shortage in California.

In October 2021, Ronen voted against the construction of a 495-unit apartment complex (one-quarter of which were designated as affordable housing) on a Nordstrom's valet parking lot next to a BART station. Her vote was unusual, as she was blocking construction of housing in the district of another supervisor. The norm on the board is generally to honor the wishes of the district supervisor, who in this case was Matt Haney, a supporter of the proposed construction. After the vote, The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board wrote that the Board of Supervisors "have lost their minds on housing" and that San Francisco "needs a Board of Supervisors that won’t sabotage any and seemingly all earnest attempts to deal with this city’s housing crisis." The California Department of Housing and Community Development began an investigation into whether the San Francisco Board of Supervisors acted improperly in its decision to block the housing project. Ronen defended her vote, saying she was "pro-housing."

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC) SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an advocacy forum for axe-grinding against a politician you dislike. Your changes give undue weight to your housing-related complaints regarding Ronen. It might be appropriate to include a blurb on Ronen's stances and votes on NIMBY/YIMBY housing issues, but this reads as an anti-Ronen screed that violates NPOV just as much as the (recently removed) pro-Ronen material did. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The content in question is all reliably sourced. The weight of coverage in the article is determined by the weight of coverage by reliable sources. There's no policy-based reason why only a "blurb" should be devoted to this topic when RS have extensively covered it in relation to the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Biased: page is promotional content

This page reads as a puff piece for a politician. From the comments, it appears there's been a systematic effort to remove or minimize references to her controversies. SharkAttack (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)