Talk:Stephen Mandel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
These pages on local politicians are uninteresting, Mayor Mandel's being a pertinent example. We should probably have a section on current issues to spice them up. The problem, of course, is potential bias, so careful wording would have to be used. In Mandel's case, there are a few issues that could obviously be included to make the entry more stimulating:
(1) Oversight of Edmonton's recent infrastructure deterioration. (2) Response to the 2006 Windrow Scandal. (3) The ongoing issue (relates to (1)) of roadway deterioration ("City of Potholes"). (4) The above in the context of the proposed new art gallery ($90m), alderperson/mayoral pay increases, car allowances, and, of course, the proposed new hockey arena (>$500m).
All of the above can be reliably sourced (Edmonton Journal, for example, Edmonton City Website etc.). Of course, there would be issues that would reflect positively (I'm too blue collar, so can't think of any myself, others could contribute these).
Thoughts, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloom Thorn (talk • contribs) 15:24, March 28, 2007
- I think wording like 'scandal' is blowing these issue way out of proportion. Predictably, every spring roads deteriorate due to potholes. The above comments sound more like a political rant, and such bias violates Wikipedia NPOV policies, in particular for biographies of living persons --Leendert 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Edmonton's Goofy Mayor. I think that our collective patience has been tested to breaking point on the issue of Edmonton's illustrious mayor. I am a resident of Alberta, but not of Edmonton, and, in this context, I am absolutely amazed that this fellow has been allowed to remain as mayor. In the last two months I have heard from friends in the city of a whole litany of goofy behaviour, including the following. (1) Continued indiference to ongoing inrastructure issues, including condoning personal insults directed at many, including seniors such as myself, who dare to criticise him. (2) The ongoing Art Gallery (or should I say Fart Gallery) and Hockey Arena issues. (3) His support for the distribution of free yoyos, light bulbs, gardening trowels, and Heaven only knows what else. (4) His misappropriation of city resources to fund his slum landlord business. The man is either obviously a complete idiot or a dangerous sociopath. Petty and mean-spirited criticism is innappropriate, but everything I hear about this idiot seems to be true.
Finally, who is going to pay for the new tire I had to buy as a result of the pathologically dangerous road maintenance in Edmonton? Or is the damage my fault becuase I do not appreciate Edmonton's goofy idiot mayor?
Kristen Shaw 02:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Call 780-496-5130 and they will compensate you for the damage to your vehicle from an Edmonton pothole. Of course, it sounds a little like you are too busy ranting to bother. Try keeping your personal bias out of an article that is meant to be objective and neutral. Tyrth 14:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion that the city actually pays compensation for pothole-induced damage is preposterous. The risk management department is absolute in its refusal to pay damages resulting from a simple applications. All paid claims have been lawyer-supported! So in response to the above comments, it is probably much better to spend the $100 on a new tire than to get $100 compensation after spending >$2500 paying a lawyer to threaten the city.
Broken Axle 17:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Crime Capital of the Prairies
In all seriousness, the biggest issue in Emdonton is the administration's indifference to crime. I remember a few months ago that the individual referred to as the "idiot mayor" participated in the most disgraceful campaign of ineffective TV and radio advertisements that had no effect on crime rates at all, particularly violent crime. The desperation to be seen doing "something" but to do nothing, for fear of alienating business interests (bars on Whyte) is shameful to say the least.
So in closing, what is the point of maintaining the infrastructure if the city's elected representatives don't care if we live or die? Control crime first, then deal with the roads! Or, in October, deal with the idiot mayor first, then crime, then the roads. Sorry, the term "idiot mayor" just cracks me up!
Elk Islander 03:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Neoconservative" approach to governance
I've deleted the paragraph added by User:Kristen Shaw, as it was blatantly POV and entirely unsourced. If anybody wants to add something comparable, let's discuss it and reach some kind of consensus on it here, first. (the preceding comment was added by User:Sarcasticidealist on 6 July 2007. Unfortunately, he forgot to sign it.)
How else could you possibly describe Mandel's approach? The man positively exudes neoconservatism and his actions make perfect sense in this context. Bloom Thorn 02:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying whether he is a neoconservative ideologue or he isn't (though I've certainly got some neoconservative friends who would take serious issue at the suggestion that Mandel - who they view as a tax and spend mayor - is one of them). My issue was with a totally unsourced and POV paragraph. Sarcasticidealist 03:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The alternative view that Mandel is a "tax and spend" mayor is not incompatible with his neoconservatism. The point is that his policy of diminishing the impact of the public sector defines him as a neocon. After all, look at the great neocon idealogue to the south. There is a lot of tax-funded expenditure in the USA, just not on the traditional public sector areas so favoured by Eurosocialists. Kristen Shaw 13:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I would say that you can't simultaneously increase public sector spending as dramatically as Bush has and also be about "diminishing the impact of the public sector". Regardless, anything along the lines of whether or not Mandel is a neocon needs to be sourced and NPOV. I'm certainly open to including a sourced and NPOV paragraph that makes some of these points, if you still want to put one in - but let's hash it out here first. Sarcasticidealist 18:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been critical of Mandel on this and other pages. However, it has to be said that Shaw and Thorn have a point! Maybe there is logic to the apparent goofiness after all. In the context of Mandel's neoconservatism, his actions make perfect sense. I would argue that his neoconservatism is self evident: it is the only logical explanation of his behaviour that excludes complete and utter insanity. I am now off to buy a suitably patriotic SUV (we are at war, you know), and next week the chasms, potholes, and poor signage will be a distant and hopefully forgotten nightmare. Elk Islander 02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have deleted the paragraph again. Normally, if there is a paragraph that I disagree with added to an article, I leave it there pending consensus being hashed out on the talk page. This helps prevent revert wars. However, in this case I really think that WP:BLP dictates that the paragraph be removed while consensus is hashed out.
- In any event, here are my objections to the source:
- It's a message board posting, which certainly doesn't meet the threshold of "reliable source" under WP:N (I use a posting from the same message board elsewhere in the article; however, the posting that I use is an exact reproduction of an Edmonton Journal article).
- It doesn't actually make any of the points touched on in the paragraph, except very tangentially (by talking about an alleged intent by Mandel to, in the future, move to funding things by user fees rather than property taxes.
- Mandel is only tangentially mentioned (he isn't mentioned at all in the thread's initial posting, which I think is telling).
- We really need to hash out any neoconservative paragraph here before we put it in. I'm on Wikipedia daily, so hopefully we can get this done quickly. I just think that if Mandel is so clearly "neoconservative", as is being alleged here, at some point some journalist in Edmonton would have mentioned as much (and maybe one has - but if so, let's cite it). Sarcasticidealist 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I would hope it would go without saying that any paragraph that we do wind up adding can't include "...each has already contributed significantly to Edmonton's economy" absent an academic study or something to that effect. That's really very POV language. Sarcasticidealist 15:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This is not the same Stephen Mandel
I assure you that the Stephen Mandel who runs a very successful hedge fund company out of Connecticut is not also a mayor in Canada. Someone please change this.
Pittmang76 12:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Garrett Pittman
[edit] Material added by User:Cnmcomm
I think this material is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, and I've removed it. Please feel free to disagree with me here, so that we can achieve consensus. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
