This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This seems like unnecessary information:

• Catherine Stefani, member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors since 2018
• Quentin L. Kopp, former member of the California State Senate from the 8th district (1986–1998)

Can we agree to make it like this instead:

• Supervisor Catherine Stefani
• Former State Senator Quentin L. Kopp

PacificDepths ( talk) 23:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• The above's formatting is consistent with any other US election articles. — twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 00:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Suzy Loftus isn't a significant person and is not a DA (was actually a competitor, having lost election to Boudin) She's already mentioned in that capacity in an earlier section. Seems like she should be removed. Drtofu ( talk) 07:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ Drtofu: This is not the topic at hand. — BriefEdits ( talk) 17:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ PacificDepths: It seems much more economical to just say "Supervisor" and change table section head from "Supervisors" to "San Francisco Board of Supervisors". It's redundant to call everybody a "Member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisor" when they are clearly listed in the section under "Supervisor". Also adding years to sitting members of the board makes it somewhat more difficult to maintain the article as we'd have to update the page after they leave office. — BriefEdits ( talk) 17:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  Thank you for the feedback. I tried to clean this up: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2022_San_Francisco_District_Attorney_recall_election&oldid=1092010307 PacificDepths ( talk) 17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Is this an endorsement from the Marina Times? It's a column from the Editor Emeritus, Susan Dyer Reynolds, but it does not appear to be a formal endorsement from the paper. User:Eccekevin: I saw that you added a Marina Times endorsement back. Thoughts? PacificDepths ( talk) 19:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

She is the co-owner editor in chief, hence that column would amount to an editorial, which is what has been used as endorsement in for other newspapers. Indeed, as proof, I also used as source the Tweet from the Marina Times that you’ll see reads “my endorsement of #YesOnH”. You’ll see that the Tweet is from Marina Times account and does not say that it’s an opinion piece or has no qualifier either that it’s not the point of view of the editorial board. ^[1] It's also not surprising, given that the MArina Times has been Boudin's harshest critic and continues to be ^[2] Eccekevin ( talk) 19:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC), and the Marina Time Twitter article constantly tweet and retweet the official recall campaign. ^{[3] [4]}. Finally, here is a Tweet from the Marina Times stating "#YesOnH". ^[5] The endorsement is pretty clear. Eccekevin ( talk) 20:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks @ Eccekevin and I appreciate the work you've put into the article. It seems unusual because the endorsement appears to come from the person, not an "editorial board" like from the Examiner or the Chronicle. It seems that another blog is calling it an endorsement: https://sfist.com/2022/05/29/only-one-sf-based-media-outlet-has-openly-supported-recalling-da-chesa-boudin/

One suggestion for the main page: when citing Twitter, can you use something for the title like "The Marina Times on Twitter"? The references section for me throws warnings like: {{ cite web}}: External link in |title= ( help) PacificDepths ( talk) 03:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

For example:

<ref> "https://twitter.com/themarinatimes/status/1528912971891585024". Twitter. Retrieved 24 May 2022. {{ cite web}}: External link in |title= ( help)</ref>

To:

<ref> "Marina Times on Twitter". Twitter. Retrieved 24 May 2022.</ref> PacificDepths ( talk) 09:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

This endorsement does seem like a personal endorsement, and there doesn't seem to be a formal endorsement from the paper itself.

The title of that page is "Reynolds Rap" which reads to me as Susan Dyer Reynolds' personal opinion column, not the official stance of the newspaper itself.

In fact, the final sentence is "People often ask me if getting rid of Chesa Boudin will solve the problems, and my answer is “No, not right away.” (emphasis mine) This reads to me as a personal position, albeit as publisher, not that of the paper itself.

Also, the Marina Times twitter account reads 'Tweets by @SusanDReynolds " so it sounds like she is the sole author of those tweets.

Perhaps the paper and she are interchangeable, but if so, does that bring into question their impartiality? Drtofu ( talk) 21:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Editorials by news media really should be in their own section as they are based on reporting, research, and interviews, often with links to supporting articles and detail. Not following some party line. They are also not part of pro or anti-recall campaigns.

Also, editorials are not necessary endorsements of the individual (as this is a recall). For example, SF Chronicle argues for staying the course for reasons other than their support of Boudin himself.

Press editorials in an issue as nuanced as this one deserve their own section as seen in ^[1]

They should probably not be grouped with politicians and celebrity endorsements.

By putting press editorials at the bottom of the Endorsements box, we putting giving the press less weight than individual politicians and people who are vying for the DA position (specifically, Suzy Loftus, who lost to Boudin in the last election).

Drtofu ( talk) 03:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

This is non-standard. As you’ll see in most other recall pages, the newspapers endorsements are in the table with all others. I would like to hear opinions from other editors. In the meantime, I will revert to the status quo version. Eccekevin ( talk) 07:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Drtofu: You cite 2020 California Proposition 19 as an example where press editorials had their own section, but that article has no general endorsement area. I agree with @ Eccekevin that status quo (keeping newspaper editorials with other endorsements) is better and in line with (for example) 2022 San Francisco Board of Education recall elections. PacificDepths ( talk) 07:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

There are other articles that better list out endorsements and give additional detail (as we should as well) — for example, 2020 California Proposition 17 .

It actually seems to be quite unusual for us to put newspaper endorsements in a box (It’s also incredibly hard to edit) especially considering that these same news sources are who we cite throughout this entry.

I argue we’re doing our readers a disservice by burying these news sources and their recommendations at the end of a box in tiny text, far below politicians and below even celebrity endorsements.

These are not personal endorsements (perhaps Marina Times is).

Also, you’ll note that in 2022 San Francisco Board of Education recall elections, as @ PacificDepths mentions, news media are not included in that endorsement box. Drtofu ( talk) 08:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

> Also, you’ll note that in 2022 San Francisco Board of Education recall elections, as @ PacificDepths mentions, news media are not included in that endorsement box

News media endorsements are included (see image).

PacificDepths ( talk) 17:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Is she really significant enough of a person to list here?

Not only was she an appointee DA (i.e. not elected), and lost her first and only DA election to Boudin.

She and Nancy Tung, who were both running against Boudin in the DA race, were mentioned earlier in the entry as being for the recall. (see the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee vote)

One argument for her being listed is how narrowly she lost the race. Drtofu ( talk) 07:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

By WP:ENDORSE for individuals:

1. Person should be notable ( WP:N). Suzy Loftus has a page and has been deemed notable.

2. Endorsement should be covered by reliable independent sources ( WP:RS). The endorsement has one source.

3. Endorsement must be an unambiguous endorsement. This is not 100% clear to me, as a vote for the Democratic Party's endorsement is not the same as a personal individual endorsement. PacificDepths ( talk) 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree with PacificDepths. Eccekevin ( talk) 02:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree with Pacificdepth’s #3 as well. While she voted in favor of recall at the committee vote, that’s not necessarily her personal, public endorsement. I looked and could not find evidence of a public endorsement statement, but perhaps I missed something.

Could one of you remove her name as it seems we’re in agreement? Drtofu ( talk) 07:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

We are not in agreement. Suzy Loftus endorsement should remain. Eccekevin ( talk) 10:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

PacificDepths does bring attention to a good point with the third category though. I think there is an argument to be made for her vote as a reflection of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee rather than her as a person. Without further context of anything she might have said prior to the vote, it would be more accurate to say that she voted to endorse the recall as part of the DCCC in the body of the article rather than including her name in the endorsement table. — BriefEdits ( talk) 17:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ BriefEdits @ Drtofu I will remove Loftus from the endorsements table. PacificDepths ( talk) 06:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/chesa-boudin-recall-17151778.php. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae  /tlk 10:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Yup, my mistake. I only changed a few words. Apologies. Drtofu ( talk) 07:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Eccekevin: I used WP:BRANCH as an example of establishing notability for branches of larger organizations. Having their own article is usually good enough to establish notability for the time being because there is no indication that, for example, a local chapter of the United Association is in of itself notable just because they are a part of a larger umbrella organization ( WP:INHERITORG). This would suggest that they fail to meet the criteria for WP:ENDORSE—1. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable organizations.—and would not warrant an inclusion in the section.

Also a lot of the organizations that have not been deleted inside of the table are self-referential. It seems pre-emptive to list primary sources for entities that have not proven their own notability, therefore questioning the notability of their endorsements.

And I would like to see more evidence to support the claim that local branch endorsements of local races are standard in Wiki pages because otherwise it seems pretty WP:MILL to include the umpteenth political club endorsement. — BriefEdits ( talk) 04:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

The first examples I could find was 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin and 2021 New York City mayoral election but most local races are along those lines, where the endorsement tables include locals organizations and union chapters and branches. More generally, local chapters of organizations would likely not be notable for a state or country-wide election, but in this case we have a city-wide election. The endorsement of, for example, that city's chamber of commerce or local chapters of parties or large national organizations would be notable at city-level. Notability is relative, of course. So the United Association endorsement of a state wide race would be notable, while its branch endorsement could be notable on the scale of the branch itself, as county of city. The reason we don't see this much is also because rarely are city-wide races notable (expect for mayor). But since this race is notable (and I don't think you're arguing against this fact), then of course the notability of the rodents scales down, to some extent. WP:ENDORSE states clearly that the individuals and organizations don't have to have their own page to be notable (as in this case, where branches don't have their own page and hence WP:BRANCH does not apply) but the notability depends on the consensus among editors. So far, many editors have contributed and none has given an opinion against considering these individuals and institutions non-notable for the scale of the page. Eccekevin ( talk) 04:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Eccekevin:I can see your logic for local orgs for local election but that comes back to the question at hand of how do we know which ones are notable. Before we proceed with the subcategory discussion, I have listed below several political organizations that are listed that only rely on primary sources for their endorsements. Unless there is a compelling argument for their notability, I feel like these can easily be removed (from both the table and the body of the article) due to the lack of reliable sources:

• Chinese American Democratic Club
• District 2 Democratic Club
• United Democratic Club
• Eastern Neighborhood Democratic Club
• Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club
• GrowSF
• San Francisco Taxpayer Association (uses an ad in a local paper)
• San Francisco Berniecrats

— BriefEdits ( talk) 18:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I am going to be WP:BOLD and proceed with this. — BriefEdits ( talk) 18:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Reverted the WP:BOLD. There is no consensus to remove these. As shown above, WP:BRANCH does not apply here. The local Democratic Party and local Republican party (which you kept) are branches of national organzations without their own page. This is fine, because WP:BRANCH does not apply here and per WP:ENDORSE these are notable based on the scale of the page (city-level orgs for a city-level election page)

In regards to WP:ENDORSE, it does not say at all that you need a secondary sources (although there are), but that Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable sources, which may include the organization's own website or official social media accounts. Hence, their own Twitter is perfectly acceptable. The only bar here is notability, which is contextual (for example, as seen in the above examples provided, local org and local branches of national orgs can be notable in a local and city-wise context). I did add secondary sources (although again, this is not necessary, but I did it to cover all grounds). The lack of secondary sources doe not per se mean an org is not notable under the terms of WP:ENDORSE.

For example, when you removed all these organizations, you removed all Democratic Clubs in favor but kept all those opposed. You kept the Noe Valley Democratic Club but removed District 2 Democratic Club, Eastern Neighborhood Democratic Club, etc. These clubs have the same level of notability since they all are local neighborhood clubs of the Democratic Party. Another example of double standard in your edit is that you removed the San Francisco Taxpayer Association but kept San Francisco Tenants Union, despite both only being sourced to primary sources and both being similar organizations. There seems to be no clear rationale for your deletions and you deciding what is notable vs what is not. Eccekevin ( talk) 22:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Eccekevin: I kept Tenants Union because I thought you were going to disagree with me on the supposed notability of the organization (e.g. Chamber of Commerce example you've given before.) I have kept certain clubs because they were mentioned tangentially in a secondary source article at the time of my edit however I disagree with their inclusion but did not want to argue over every single organization at the time. The orgs that I did choose felt like the lowest hanging fruits, meaning I could not see a justification without further establishment of notability. Your argument that local politics can warrant the inclusion of local clubs purely based on mentions in the news is so broad that if we were to include every single club, union, or political organization that gets mentioned, this page will just look like Ballotpedia or some aggregate of both campaigns political website. And wikipedia is not here to indiscriminately collect information ( WP:NOTDATABASE). I can see the argument for the inclusion for certain entities but to keep the vast majority of these organizations that haven't been proven to be notable based on aggregates in lists or off hand mentions in articles feels somewhat lacking. BriefEdits ( talk) 03:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I added the paragraph

"Overwhelmingly, organized Democratic Clubs and elected officials opposed the recall. Every elected Asian politician in San Francisco including Board Supervisors Eric Mar, Connie Chang, and State Assemblyman Phil Ting opposed it. In all, eight of the eleven members of the Board of Supervisors opposed the recall, as did every publication but one in San Francisco. Eighteen of the registered Democratic clubs in San Francisco opposed it, as did the NAACP and the ACLU."

Because a reader of the text might be confused into thinking that a majority of San Francisco politicians and political clubs supported the recall when in fact it was the other way around.

Ausman ( talk) 02:26, 25 Oct 2022 (UTC)

A causal observer could tend to think the second paragraph was written in support of the recall. I am suggesting trimming it rather than go into such exhaustive detail on this one point to have some semblance of balance.

In this case, it seems particularly strange to get to this inside-baseball level of detail, especially considering the brevity of this article.

This lack of context, balance, and additional perspectives is a problem throughout, I think, actually.

We -- and I include myself here -- are listing atomic facts of 'how' and 'what' in this article but completely lack the big-picture context of 'why' this got on the ballot in the first place, the controversies the lead to it, etc. (even though there are so many articles written about just that).

Why is there a Boudin recall? This context is necessary to actually make sense of these individual facts. And it seems facts about his record, crime, pandemic, politics, etc. would be important context as well.

I encourage us to fill in this gap. For example, the words 'crime' or 'prosecution' are nowhere to be found, and both are very much related to this recall effort. Drtofu ( talk) 10:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Funding totals are notable in a political campaign.

Why is this sentence being removed repeatedly? "The pro-recall campaign has raised over $7.2 million, while the anti-recall campaign has raised over $3.3 million."

One reason given was that it was copyrighted — it is not, and I wrote it myself and google shows 0 matches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drtofu ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply