Talk:Loren Taylor

Conflict of Interest Acknowledgement / Edit Request

• Information to be added or removed: All content in current page draft - 29 July 2020.
• Explanation of issue: Jumpstarting article creation for notable California politician serving the City of Oakland by providing secondary independent references.
• Referencees supporting change: See sources in page draft - 29 July 2020.

Preston726 (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Preston726: - you have submitted the draft for review. That is the right way for feedback right now. If the article is accepted and you need further changes the edit request would be appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: - Noted. Thanks for guidance! Preston726 (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Autobiographical bias

I've been reading up on the folks running for mayor in Oakland, which led me to Loren Taylor's wiki page. With just a first pass, I noticed a significant number of uncited claims that, while absent of egregious bias, were clearly not written from a neutral point-of-view. Due to the number of personal details included, but not cited, this does indeed to be autobiographical or otherwise written by someone with a more-than-putative conflict of interest.

I've done my best to remove the united claims and less-than-neutral opinions and inclusions, and I'm happy for others to weigh in. The article could also just use some cleaning up - it's got a fair few stylistic improprities and inconsistencies. 135.180.194.21 (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Having followed Loren Taylor's recent career I took the time to update the content with reliable citations and removed biased language referenced by you and @S0091. Based on the combined edits since the maintenance template was added, I believe it can be removed. 99.196.131.62 (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah. It looks like the primary (only?) writer of the article is Loren Taylor's brother. That would explain the bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.180.194.21 (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@135.180.194.21 As you can tell, I've been completely transparent about my conflict of interests and have sought others to engage with this article from the very beginning (see Conflict of Interest Acknowledgment / Edit Request" above). Appreciate your engagement with this article and your edits to remove any inadvertent bias. Preston726 (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern about Post News Group

I did some cleanup on the article to remove claims that were sourced to primary sources or the source cited did not support the claim along with some clear non-neutral language. I do have a concern about Post News Group. There is no "About us" page or any other information that I could find about their journalistic standards. I also noticed some articles are by "guest authors" but no information is provided about the author. Post News also does not make it clear the author is a guest author. It is only by the url which is a concern as well because it is not transparent at all. Examples are this article by Ken Epstein and this is their information (none and has not published anything in 2 years) then this this article by someone named Kiki and this is the information about them (none and again has not published anything in 2 years) . Therefore, I removed any content attributed to such guest authors. Perhaps better sources exist but those need to be provided. S0091 (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

reverting all edits containing information critical of Taylor

It seems odd that even well sourced edits linking directly to the candidates campaign website are reverted without explanation. 2001:5A8:44F4:7200:92DD:D9B8:91B7:122E (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing "odd" about reverting this edit. "plans to make the budget crisis worse"? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

what does "second ballot" even mean?

I removed a sentence that emphasized supposed election results the day after the election when only about half of the votes had been counted. It was quickly reverted to the previous unclear and misleading language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loren_Taylor&oldid=1299532048

The sentence removed includes a reference to "the second ballot." What does that even mean? It's not mentioned in either of the cited articles. For all of the issues with this article regarding auto-biography, it seems like removing a weird flattering sentence about "results" mid-way through the count would be non-controversial. Taylor never won, and was never winning. He lost the election.

Also, it would be more appropriate to cite a story about Taylor conceding and Lee claiming victory rather than "Lee likely wins." Lee didn't likely win, she won. It was over by April 19.

This would be a better source: hhttps://oaklandside.org/2025/04/19/barbara-lee-wins-oakland-mayor-race-loren-taylor-concedes/ 2600:1010:A007:A754:D0ED:58B4:D945:B192 (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thinking on it more, I figured out what the author might have meant by "second ballot." It was the second release of vote totals from the Alameda County registrar. Sometimes they release one total per day, sometimes two per day, and sometimes none for a day or more. It varies. The "second ballot" is not some formal aspect of the election, even though that's how that sentence reads. So, Taylor was "losing" on the first release, was ahead on the second, and then was behind again on the third, forth, fifth, sixth, and so on releases of vote tallies, including the final tally four days after the election.

I still believe this sentence should be removed, for making up a term without explaining it (second ballot) and more so for playing on unnecessary blue shift/red mirage type flattery for Taylor. 2600:1010:A007:A754:7DAD:992D:EBC6:D9D3 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)