Talk:Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation

Updated "Current Projects" and "Recent Honors and Awards"
...To reflect what is truly current as reported on the GVSHP website. I'm noting it here because I missed the chance to do so on the editing pages. -- LeeRebecca  15:08, 03 March 2014

File:South_Village_Historic_District.PNG may be deleted
I have tagged File:South_Village_Historic_District.PNG, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. -- Chris  00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311211234/https://www.preservenys.org/seven-2002/seven-02.html to https://www.preservenys.org/seven-2002/seven-02.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect changes made to Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation page

 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done FULBERT (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Summary
1. The opening statement “The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP) is a non-profit advocacy organization that opposes housing developments, supports restrictive zoning regulations and calls for preserving neighborhoods…” is a highly biased viewpoint that does not accurately reflect what the organization does. The cited reference for this statement is an article on a local government entity’s negative vote on a rezoning plan, and nowhere in the article does it say that the organization opposes housing developments or supports restrictive zoning regulations as the editor claims. The only mention of the organization in the article is a quote from the executive director in support of the community board’s vote and in opposition to the rezoning plan.

In addition, the statement does not reflect the mission of Village Preservation, but rather the editor’s opinion on its actions. The original statement of “The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP) is a non-profit membership organization that documents, honors and preserves the architectural heritage and cultural history of several neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan, New York City: Greenwich Village, the Far West Village, the Meatpacking District, the South Village, NoHo, and the East Village.” It is an accurate statement, not only from the organization’s website but also from other websites such as here and here.

2. The statement “The organization has been characterized as a NIMBY (‘not in my back yard’) group” is a misinterpretation of the facts in two of the three citations. The article from Crain’s New York Business (citation 2) is much like the article cited in the previous section: a look at various opinions concerning the same rezoning plan, both pro and con. The only statement about Village Preservation’s stance on the issue — “This group has opposed our plan to bring affordable housing to these neighborhoods since the moment we announced it. It’s not surprising to see them backfill their conclusions with misleading data” — comes from a spokesman for the mayor’s office that is pushing for the rezoning, hardly an unbiased source of information. The article also includes a correction on an earlier statement — “An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Village Preservation opposed affordable housing proposals at Elizabeth Street Gardens.” — shows a more accurate sense of the organization’s stance on affordable housing.

Citation 3, on a proposal for tall buildings in the city’s Meatpacking District, describes that project as a “row of former meatpacking buildings [being] partly transformed into larger spaces designed to attract high-end retailers” — hardly affordable housing. In addition, because the new buildings would be “significantly higher than the low-rise buildings that dominate the block’s aesthetic” within a historic district, it would be within Village Preservation’s mission to fight for preservation, but they were not alone as the article also spoke with other community organizations and residents against the project; the only one in support of the project was the developer. Again, this is not NIMBY-ism.

The next citation comes from a magazine that promotes NYC real estate. The article covers the opinions of a very pro-development all-volunteer group, and Village Preservation and its executive director were called “an archetypal nimby (not-in-my-backyard) foe.” While this is hardly an unbiased source of information, it does call the organization a NIMBY-centric group.

Therefore, I would suggest the replacement statement as follows: “The organization works to protect both local landmarks and historic districts from potentially harmful developments, a stance some critics have cited as an example of NIMBY (“not in my backyard)”.

3. The second paragraph in the introduction focuses on the executive director, Andrew Berman. I have taken a look at a number of pages for various NYC-based advocacy nonprofits, and none of them feature the leadership in such a prominent position. Unless he’s the only person on staff, which he’s not, the unusual position seems unfair and designed only to somehow embarrass him rather than educate others.

Regardless of the position, the reference cited does not reflect the statement that he won an award “because of his role in blocking housing developments in Greenwich Village.” The “honor” from the New York Observer was naming the executive director the *88th* most powerful person in NYC real estate because of his ability to organize residents against various building projects as needed; it does not say anything about housing developments, over which Berman has no actual say.

If the editor wants to include information about the executive director, fine, but this organization should not be treated any differently than others by placing this kind of deatil so high on the page. Instead, it should go in the History section, and it should accurately affect what the 88th-place award actually honors.


 * A lot of these requested change revolve around changing RS language and other content so that it reflects the particular spin of the organization. The requested changes seek to reframe attempts to block construction of housing into bizarrely somehow being in favor of constructing new housing or demanding that the article go into detail on all the trillion reasons why the organizations seeks to block construction of housing (Wikipedia is not the organization's own website). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done FULBERT (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

History
1. Regarding the project the editor cites on St. Vincent’s Hospital, the description of the expansion’s goals as noted in the reference and other sources was not to expand the hospital. As the cited Gothamist post states, the application was “to demolish eight structures in Greenwich Village on West 11th and 12th Streets, near Seventh Avenue, and construct an $800 million, 21-story, 329-foot-tall hospital and condominium tower. Falling to the wrecking ball would be the 1963 O’Toole Building which houses the hospital. The plans are strongly opposed by local residents, The Municipal Art Society, the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation and the Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff.” In other words, the biggest issue those players had with the project was its focus on tall luxury housing, which is not as noble as when the editor calls it an expansion of the hospital.

The editor claims, “The hospital sought to expand its size, as well as modernize the building in order to provide effective medical care and improve the financial situation of the hospital,” and cites an article from the New York Times. That’s not what the referenced article says. According to the Times, an existing five-story building would be razed for a 329-foot-tall hospital building, while “eight other hospital buildings in the historic district would have been sold to the Rudin Management Company for $301 million. “The Rudin Company would then have demolished the old hospital buildings and constructed a separate $800 million residential complex that would have included a 265-foot-high luxury condominium tower on Seventh Avenue, and new town houses and a midsize residential building on 11th and 12th Streets.”

The hospital did file for bankruptcy a second time and eventually closed, as the editor states. It was not as a direct result of the hospital’s plan to allow tall luxury buildings, as the editor seems to imply. His citation is from a response to an earlier letter by Dr. Alec Pruchnicki, who worked in the Department of Medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital for seven years. Even the doctor states, “there were many reasons for the hospital’s collapse, including the massive and complex nature of the 2007 rescue plan, hospital mismanagement, and the lack of support from the Department of Health (DOH), if not outright sabotage, when Mount Sinai was looking at a takeover”

The editor spends a full paragraph on St. Vincent’s, stating the case there in more biased detail than other projects. If this project is to be included on this page, I would suggest a statement along the lines of “In the late 2000s, the organization staunchly opposed a project by St. Vincent Catholic Medical Center to sell most of its property to a private developer for luxury housing and significantly expand its remaining main building from five stories to 21 in a historic district. The organization argued against the project as ‘a blow to the distinctive historic character of Greenwich Village.’” (same citation)

2. The statement “The organization advocated against rezoning of SoHo and NoHo to allow construction of thousands of new apartments,” is true, but the bias behind what’s omitted limits its usefulness as an opening to the subject. The citation used here even has the executive director not opposing affordable housing but instead wanting more (“we would welcome and embrace new affordable housing — deeper and broader than what the city is proposing. Fifty percent, 75%, 100% for people really in need”).

Instead, the paragraph would be more neutral and accurate as follows: “In the 2020s, the organization advocated against rezoning of SoHo and NoHo to allow construction of up to a few thousand new apartments, with about one-quarter of those designated as affordable housing. According to city officials, the plan will protect existing rent-controlled properties. [23][24] GVSHP condemned the plan, calling it "bad for our neighborhoods, and bad for affordability,"[24] and said that the construction of new housing would make the wealthy neighborhoods of SoHo and NoHo as well as parts of lower-income Chinatown less diverse.[23]

DVillageP11 (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am an employee of Village Preservation but I am not the executive director nor a director of any kind in the organization. I have tried to edit the entry for the organization after seeing it was changed so as to not have a neutral point of view, only to have those revisions changed back by the original editor. I have written the above to provide an unbiased account of the group’s preservation efforts using quotes from the citations used by the editor. These changes should be placed in the interest of fairness and of ensuring Wikipedia remains unbiased, accurate, and useful for all.


 * A lot of these requested change revolve around changing RS language and other content so that it reflects the particular spin of the organization. The requested changes seek to reframe attempts to block construction of housing into bizarrely somehow being in favor of constructing new housing or demanding that the article go into detail on all the trillion reasons why the organizations seeks to block construction of housing (Wikipedia is not the organization's own website). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The editor is trying to turn opinions about the organization and its mission into fact on this Wikipedia page. The goal of this organization, as stated in sources cited here and elsewhere, is the historic preservation of Greenwich Village, the East Village, and NoHo. If the editor wants to spin that goal as something else because he or she doesn't agree with it, that's biased and unfair to the community at large that supports Village Preservation's mission.  We have no policy to oppose new housing, and we in fact support effective, workable plans for more affordable housing in the area, as shown by our community alternative plan for SoHo and NoHo, and other types of new housing . While we have tried to be open to the editor's position in these requested changes — otherwise, I would have asked for them to all be reverted back — we only want this article to be as fair and accurate as possible to all concerned, and not just show one inaccurate opinion as the editor does here. DVillageP11 (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Updates made
I have made updates here to improve accuracy concerning the organization's work and to attempt to restore a neutral point of view to the page.

As I have disclosed before: I am an employee of Village Preservation but I am not the executive director nor a director of any kind in the organization. I have tried to edit the entry for the organization after seeing it was changed so as to not have a neutral point of view, only to have those revisions changed back by the original editor. I have written the above to provide an unbiased account of the group’s preservation efforts, and should be remain on the page in the interest of fairness and of ensuring Wikipedia remains unbiased, accurate, and useful for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVillageP11 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Restoring a neutral point of view
I’d like to try to work on a compromise regarding this page with the editor, who seems committed to maintaining edits that are often inaccurate despite numerous requests for changes. Hopefully, we can restore a neutral point of view to the page, one that gives an accurate accounting of the organization's programming and accomplishments while acknowledging that there are differing perspectives on that work. As such, I would offer a new opening paragraph:

“The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit advocacy organization whose mission is to document, celebrate, and preserve the special architectural and cultural heritage of Greenwich Village, the East Village, and NoHo. (https://www.villagepreservation.org/about-us/mission-history/) The group is well known for its work on landmark, historic-district, and zoning protections, but some say this focus hinders housing developments and supports restrictive zoning regulations. In 2019, the organization was renamed Village Preservation.”

After that, perhaps we can work on restoring the edits that were undone by the editor on December 2, all of which focus on adding missing information, improving accuracy, and restoring a neutral point of view. DVillageP11 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the current lead is not NPOV. But I would reword to:
 * “The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit advocacy organization whose mission is to document, and preserve the architectural and cultural heritage of Greenwich Village, the East Village, and NoHo. (https://www.villagepreservation.org/about-us/mission-history/) The group is  known for its work on landmark, historic-district, and zoning protections . In 2019, the organization was renamed Village Preservation.”


 * The "but some say..." criticism line does not belong in the lead unless it is substantially covered in the body, which it does not appear to be. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, please don't make any edits yourself, since you have a conflict of interest, but instead come here, like you did with this request. You are welcome to ping me if you do. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not accurate to say "Critics of the organization say their efforts hinder housing developments and supports restrictive zoning regulations." Half the body is about this organization blocking housing developments and calling for stricter zoning regulations. It should be written in Wikipedia's own voice in the lead because it is objectively what this org does. However, the lead should say that critics characterize this org as a NIMBY group. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But the way you seem to want to phrase this is not neutral. Would you call a nature preservationist an "obstructor of housing developments"? To the preservationist, they are trying to preserve something. To the builders, they are obstructing. As a neutral observer, we can't pick a side. But their stated mission is their stated mission. The body lists obstruction efforts, but also summarizes preservation of NAACP and LBGTQ landmark designation. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Why can the lead not to specify that their form of "preservation" entails persistent advocacy against housing developments and persistent advocacy to restrict zoning regulations? Why should the lead obfuscate that this is what the organization does rather than omit it or incorrectly frame it as a "criticism"? That is literally what half the body of the article is about. The "criticism" is that the organization is just a straight-up NIMBY group, not that the group persistently advocates against housing developments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose it can, but I don't think the way it was described before read neutral. Would you care to suggest an alternate lead or phrasing so we have something more specific to talk about? Is the way it was before my edit your absolute preference, or are you okay with a mix of yours and mine? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with (1) keeping the stated mission of this org, but (2) the lead should state in Wiki voice that the group is known for its efforts to hinder housing developments and push for restrictive zoning regulations, and (3) the lead should say that critics characterize the org as a NIMBY group. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated the lead to say: The organization's attempts to block housing developments and their support of restrictive zoning regulations has led them to be characterized by some as a "NIMBY" group. How is that? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But that is a misrepresentation of what the organization actually does; adding that statement in the lead makes it seem as if the nonprofit actively pursues the work of blocking housing development, for example, rather than that being one viewpoint of the end result of historic preservation. As Pyrrho the Skeptic notes, Would you call a nature preservationist an "obstructor of housing developments"? Also, as for Snooganssnoogans's claim of "That is literally what half the body of the article is about," it only became "half the body" after that editor changed the article months ago. Since then, I and others outside the organization have tried to restore the neutral point of view - both in edits and (from me) in talk, generally trying to add info for a more complete and accurate picture of the group's actions yet maintain the editor's views as best as possible - but have been rebuffed. I would really hope we could work on this so the Village Preservation page is treated like those for other organizations with similar missions (eg, Municipal Art Society and Historic Districts Council) and with a nonneutral POV. DVillageP11 (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Right now, is that line the main point of contention in the lead? If so, I suggest we start a Request for Comment to get independent editors' opinions on that whether or not that line belongs in the lead. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead is a big issue, but there are problems in the rest of the article that should be resolved for both accuracy and neutrality. DVillageP11 (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I've agreed with some of your points, but it's time to enlist the help of other editors, since you have a conflict of interest and can't be the best judge about what's "neutral". That's why Wikipedia relies on independent, reliable sources to determine what to put in an article. And there is media coverage about the NIMBY stuff. But I will post this on the neutrality noticeboard, and see what others say. You are welcome to comment there. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

OK I am coming fresh onto this, what do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for jumping in. : Could you provide the WP:RS (without WP:OR) that best represents the org being described as obstructionists or NIMBYs? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Crain's has literally headlined a story about the organization's head as "The Obstructionist" and the New York Observer characterized the head of the org as one of the most powerful people in NY real estate because "Building anything new in Greenwich Village can be an extraordinarily trying, if not impossible, experience today, in large part due to the well-organized resistance of Mr. Berman." Sources that include criticism of the group as being a NIMBY group: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of those are behind paywalls, but the few I checked do seem to say they are NIBYs. so we can say "they have been described as...", but maybe not in the lede, as that is a summary of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be problematic to uncritically include the stated purpose of the organization (just a preservationist group) in the lead while omitting a rebuttal to that stated purpose (NIMBY group). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well (technically) it is a preservationist group, and the fact they may also be NIMBY's does not alter or undermine that. In fact I would argue it is part and parcel of it. Maybe the problem is some people think it means something noble, it does not always, and in fact, would say I always assume it means people who want to oppose change and expansion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can point to sources that focus on the organization's preservation efforts as preservation and not NIMBYism or anti-affordable-housing, which I had tried to put in the article but were rejected  . Also, even the Wikipedia article on NIMBY characterizes it as opinion and not definite fact: "Although often used rather pejoratively, the use of the concept NIMBY and similar terms have been critiqued. For instance, the term is frequently used to dismiss groups as selfish or ill-informed, yet these same groups may have virtues that are overlooked." DVillageP11 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hence why I say we can't say it in the lede, in the body yes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "Prevent" might sound less perjorative than "block"? Sennalen (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Efforts to preserve what currently exists only arise when developers or politicians start talking about doing something with that space, meaning that preservation is always in something of an oppositional relationship with development (especially largescale development). In NYC, debates over development, housing, and preservation are so common, so fraught, and so complicated that there's typically sourcing covering multiple perspectives. It sounds like that's the case with this subject and their various projects/initiatives.

One approach to figuring out NPOV may be to raise the bar for sourcing, if possible. Example: I was curious to see the sourcing for the "NIMBY" claims in particular, because while I'm not surprised there's criticism of the organization, the term "NIMBY" (at least in NY) has particular socioeconomic connotations that I don't typically hear applied to preservation groups. So looking at the sources, I see two business publications and the Village Voice. Crain's and the Real Deal aren't bad sources, but they're both more for the real estate industry and developers. Village Voice would be good, I think, but it only uses the term "nimby" in the headline (see WP:HEADLINES). I would feel more comfortable with that kind of claim if it were from more mainstream sources (and not in headlines). That may well exist, and this isn't to say anything about the other criticisms here. Just a thought, and to be clear, I haven't looked at the sources for the other claims. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, and I'd note that the "critics" are not so much critics as opponents whose business plans would be less constrained in the absence of historic preservation efforts. I think NIMBY is simply a term of disparagement opoonents use to cloud whatever the underlying issue. And who else would devote their efforts to preserving a neighborhood's legitimate historic or cultural assets if not the people who are nearby and most familiar with it? I would certainly not put this in the lead and would be careful to explain the standing of the opponents.  NY is famously receptive to the real estate industry and its donors over the past 50 years or so, and it was not until the mid-1960s that preservation activists even had a seat at the table. I would not uses Crain's or RealDeal for anything controversial or for any news adverse to the real estate industry. If it's valid and notworthy there should be other sources in a town with many top tier newspapers and magazines.  SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for jumping in. Seems way have a path forward for the NIMBY mention in the lead, at the very least. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What? SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, what would be that path? If we start here with the lead, can I suggest "The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP) is a non-profit advocacy organization whose stated mission is to document and preserve the architectural and cultural heritage of Greenwich Village, the East Village, and NoHo.[1][2] In 2019, it was renamed Village Preservation."? It's simple, neutral, accurate, and fair in that it describes the organization in a similar to other orgs with similar purpose, eg Municipal_Art_Society. DVillageP11 (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant the path forward is removing the NIMBY mention in the lead. That seems to be the soft consensus unless new or better sources are provided. For what it's worth I think DVillageP11's suggestion above this comment for the simple lead is fine. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MISSION is relevant. Wikipedians typically view inclusion of a mission statement (especially in the first sentence) as a red flag for promotional content. Wikipedia articles are primarily concerned with how independent reliable sources talk about a subject rather than how the subject talks about itself. Doesn't mean it can't be included, but IMO best avoided in this context. What about simply "The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP) is a non-profit organization which advocates for the preservation of architecture and culture in several neighborhoods of Lower Manhattan, New York." &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While I'm looking at it, how about this for a lead:
 * "Village Preservation (formerly the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, or GVSHP) is a non-profit organization which advocates for the preservation of architecture and culture in several neighborhoods of Lower Manhattan, New York. Since it began in 1980, it has engaged in efforts to attain landmark status for a variety of sites like the Stonewall Inn and Webster Hall. The organization and its Executive Director, Andrew Berman, have been described as influential in New York real estate, while some of its activities to prevent development and to support restrictive zoning have attracted criticism."
 * Seem fair? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

A few other notes:
 * "selected honors and awards" would be better folded in elsewhere using prose rather than a list.
 * every bulletpoint in "notable efforts" should have an independent reliable source
 * "research and resources" should be folded in using prose
 * "historic districts" should be summarized in prose and/or removed. listing them in a separate section makes it seem like the organization was responsible for their designation
 * I'd get rid of the "NIMBY" mentions per what I wrote above about lackluster sourcing. (this doesn't mean some of the criticism from those sources can't be included, though) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking action on this and providing the rewrite. I think it's good. If needed, here is a potential independent source for a description that aligns the one you wrote for the opening sentence. Your other suggestions are good, too, in my opinion. I am happy to help implement some of these, unless there are objections to your suggestions. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work in rewriting the lead paragraph of this article by Pyrrho the Skeptic, Rhododendrites, and others. I do have a few follow-up questions on editing this article for accuracy and fairness.
 * The lede is better, but as has been noted, the organization's activities focus on historic preservation and not preventing development and supporting restrictive zoning, as real estate-centric citations claim. Just to be fair to all points of view, what about "The organization and its Executive Director, Andrew Berman, have been described as influential in New York real estate, while some of its activities for historic preservation have attracted criticism for preventing development and supporting restrictive zoning." Also, shouldn't there be citations here?
 * In addition to the lede, there is still a good deal of missing and/or inaccurate information in the article that I and others have tried to remedy in earlier stages using cited sources. How can those details be added/edited to ensure precision in this article?
 * Now that the organization is correctly noted as "Village Preservation (formerly the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, or GVSHP)" in the opening, would it be appropriate to correct the article's title to Village Preservation rather than the former name? DVillageP11 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to be fair to all points of view, what about... - On your proposed wording, I don't have an objection. As long as the criticisms are clear, I think it's fine to reframe those activities as resulting from preservation activities rather than for their own sake. Also, shouldn't there be citations here? - The lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, and so relies on citations elsewhere most of the time.

How can those details be added/edited to ensure precision in this article? - I'd try to focus on one thing at a time, and do your best to read up on the relevant wikipolicies to make sure they're behind you when you do. Most new users are afforded a lot of leeway, help, patience, and good will in learning them that I'm afraid isn't readily extended to people editing with a COI. It may take some time, but it seems like there are at least a few people watching this page.

As for renaming, the main question is whether independent reliable sources have started using the new name yet. We give more weight to recent sources when there's an official name change, but still follow what independent reliable sources call something. Sometimes an entity is better known by a former or unofficial name, and per WP:COMMONNAME, that's where the article title is. To get this done, you'll need to link to some independent reliable sources which use the new name, so we can evaluate whether it's the common name yet. Doing a spot check myself, I'm seeing a lot of mentions of the old name even in more recent sources. It may just require a bit of time. Once you provide those links, if there are no objections after a week, I think we can safely move it. If there are objections, there's a formal consensus-building discussion of the move. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, greatly appreciated. DVillageP11 (talk)

Last sentence of the lead
I believe we should change the last sentence in the lead paragraph as described and discussed above, but shorter: "The organization and its Executive Director, Andrew Berman, have been described as influential in New York real estate, while some of its activities for historic preservation have attracted criticism for preventing development." This is a more accurate description of the organization's activities and results than what is currently there. DVillageP11 (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. The lead should not state that the organization has a genuine concern for historic preservation, as that's something which is unknown and contested. We are also not going to add to Donald Trump's lead that "his activities to fight for American freedom have attracted criticism." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * But... it's not like that at all. The difference, if we're going to use the metaphor, would be something like changing "Trump received criticism for activities which were racist and transphobic" to "Trump received criticism for actions as president that were racist and transphobic". "Historic preservation" isn't some meaningless populist fluff like "fight for American freedom" -- it's a type of organization. Specifically, it's a type of organization that frequently comes in conflict with developers, construction companies, and housing advocates because it necessarily involves things like changing (or objecting to changes in) zoning, fighting development, securing protections, etc.
 * I don't actually have a very strong opinion on this particular change, but I get where DVillageP11 is coming from: the current wording makes it sound like the organization pursues restrictions on development/zoning as ends themselves rather than in the course of trying to preserve something. I don't know if the proposed wording is ideal, but I don't see a problem with reorienting it around activities undertaken in the course of their primary goals (which is true even if we take the most cynical possible view that it's a NIMBY operation that doesn't actually care about the properties and areas it seeks protections for). There's just not a consensus among the sources I'm seeing that it's anything other than a historic preservation organization that gets some criticism for some activities. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Every NIMBY group brands itself as holding high and mighty goals. Across the country, groups are using environmental laws to block bike lanes and renewable energy projects, and ostensibly progressive groups are blocking affordable housing projects. We should not endorse these groups' branding of themselves in Wikipedia's own voice when it's possible to describe the activities without affirming their unknowable true motives. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How can you distinguish what the organization's "true motives" are? If almost every reference source cites the group as a historic preservation organization, isn't that what Wikipedia's supposed to report? DVillageP11 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. I agree with Rhododendrites on this, and have voiced similar opinions here in the past. My advice to Snooganssnoogans is to create a 3O or an RfC, if they believe other, independent editors would agree with them. But in the meantime, we should be describing this organization's purpose the way its described by the independent sources. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Across the country, groups are using - But we can only base this article on this group. I'm curious how exactly you'd tell the difference between a historic preservation group that advocates against development/rezoning preserve historic buildings/areas and a historic preservation group that advocates against the same development/rezoning because they don't want poor people moving in? I'm consistently blown away by just how complicated and fraught absolutely everything is when it comes to NYC real estate, housing, development, landmarking, etc. I don't doubt at all that there are people involved with preservation who are guided by explicit or implicit biases baked into "what our neighborhood really is", but there are also plenty of people who are simply into NYC history and want to see it preserved. Then there are the people who want to create the illusion of a small city in parts of this big city, without big buildings or the addition of more commerce. Often this ignores the reality of what people who actually live in the city need (housing, for one; services, for another), but it's also different from the more discriminatory mindset. What everyone who opposes development has in common, however, is that they are all lumped in as "NIMBY" by developers and the pro-business publications, because of all that NIMBY connotes. And indeed, as I mentioned a while back, it looks like most of the sources cited to support "NIMBY" were from pro-business sources. That doesn't mean it's wrong that many preservation groups use preservation to achieve other things, but we also need good sources for this stuff for this group.
 * Snoogans, even this most recent edit is POV: For starters, that source doesn't say the organization "lobbied" against it. It's a quote critical of the deal, which is quite different from lobbying. Maybe it did lobby, but it's not backed up there. You've also framed it in terms of affordable housing, i.e. the point you're trying to make. It's rezoning, not a concrete construction plan. If every available space is redeveloped, it can hit up to 900 units of affordable housing, and 25% is more than would actually be required. This is one of this complicated things -- the whole promises of affordable housing with development vs. what actually happens once given the go-ahead. And it's an area which many argue has a distinct character that's only been made possible by the current zoning, so is it hard to believe that locals might be motivated by something other than "we don't want other people to live here" when they oppose a largescale rezoning (which, incidentally, was initiated by large retailers in an area that's predominantly smaller shops)? Now, I don't actually know if the rezoning is a good idea (it does seem like something is overdue, and perfect is the enemy of good enough, yada yada) but we don't need to get into right/wrong to see POV framing when it's there. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)