Talk:Remo Mancini

Archiving
All old discussion relating to the content prior to and during the AfD has been archived. This is to give us a clean slate to discuss the current content without getting confused over old issues. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
I see that some people think that the article is too negative. Please discuss this here. Please do not simply cut out the section on the WEDC. It is referenced to reliable sources and is relevant to the article. Repeatedly removing it is likely to be interpreted as vandalism.

If you want to argue that the coverage is excessive then it might be a good idea to read WP:UNDUE and frame your arguments in terms of that policy.

Personally, I do think it is slightly overdone (but only slightly) and we do need to be careful not to mix up criticism of the WEDC with criticism of Mancini himself. The WEDC was an organisation with problems long before Mancini got involved and it sounds like its problems are far from over even though it has got rid of him. That said, I think the best way to balance the article is to expand the other sections so that we have coverage of all his other notable activities. That way the WEDC coverage will naturally be put into context. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Neutrality
I have held off from creating an account and editing this article myself for a number of reasons, primarily that I wanted to ensure moderators had enough time to research the material posted and to respond with more accurate information.

I am extremely disappointed with the way the article has settled, particularly in the way that circumstantial, opinion-based evidence has been subtly included to create a slanted perspective. The article contains vague inaccuracies, such as "Mancini's tenure at the WEDC was controversial", which is most certainly not the case. As the author has since been blocked from editing for his obvious bias against the subject, I believe the entire WEDC section is misleading, contains highly dubious sources and still fulfills the original author's malicious intent.

More concerning to me is the approach of moderators in the handling of the edits made here. In one instance a moderator notes that a single link to an opinion piece in a newspaper is far from enough to discredit a person in a biography of a living person, yet this article is now riddled with such links. Another example is in this very page, where a moderator casually remarks that "The WEDC was an organisation with problems long before Mancini got involved and it sounds like its problems are far from over even though it has got rid of him" - the last remark here is entirely false, Remo Mancini and the other ten board members resigned. While this is clearly an off-the-cuff comment, we feel it is indicative of the attitude of those who have allowed the story to become so twisted. I am in the process of compiling the documents, links and sources necessary to provide a more accurate account of events, a time consuming and frustrating task considering that very few newspaper articles randomly sing the praises of public figures doing a good job under difficult circumstances. In the meantime I urge editors to review the material and remove anything not sourced, poorly sourced or damaging to the subject. Tobyleftly (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that everything you object to is referenced to a reliable newspaper. I think our coverage is a little overdone but, unless there are additional reliable references that recast the events in a different light, then there is not much scope to change it much. I don't think any of it is poorly sourced. The problem is that it is only a local spat and it should not be covered in undue detail. Looking for additional references is good. I did Google quite hard to see if the other local papers were more sympathetic than the Windsor Star but I couldn't find anything useful. If you can do better then that would be great. I think you are misunderstanding my point about the WEDC's problems not being over. All I meant was that we should not give them impression that all of the WEDC's problems are to do with Mancini because it is clear that they had separate problems which were nothing to do with him before his tenure and probably after it as well. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

New Details Added
In talking with the WEDC and the Windsor Star, I have been able to supply some additional source material to settle the WEDC information dispute. The new references have been added to the WEDC section outlining the successes of the WEDC, the organizational structure, the original public letter of resignation, and the letter sent to the mayor's office that outlines the board's position. Ultimately this can be added to the WEDC information page since as much as it has to do with WEDC, it has less to do with Remo Mancini. Regardless the new details should shed some light on the situation.

One reputable resource was the Windsor Star reference of WEDC accomplishments under Remo's tenure, which is quite extensive and provides a more broad look at what the WEDC board including Remo Mancini was involved in. Perhaps we could even expand on that reference and provide more specific details, but I think those details can be added into an WEDC information page next. Hopefully with these new references and facts backed by the WEDC itself, this will become more correct.

Another note: Remo was ELECTED to his position at the WEDC, not appointed. Additionally, the WEDC is not a public body but a non-profit organization, despite the mayor of Windsor and Tecumseh now being on the board. The City of Windsor confirms this position. If additional clarification is needed post in the Talk section so I can get the required people to provide the needed references if more are needed. Cykron (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the specific corrections but the thrust of the new section is no good at all. It is too much about the WEDC and not enough about Mancini. Remember, this is an article about him. There is no article about the WEDC itself. I hold no opinion on whether there should be. I am very concerned that you are actually working with the WEDC on this. This indicates a conflict of interests. We can't have a whitewash of the WEDC here. What we do need is to explain the events briefly and in a way which focuses on Mancini. It must be fair and honest. It should not blame Mancini for everything that went wrong but it can't pretend that there was not a problem that lead to a local scandal. I am going to see if I can work something out using the new references. In the meantime, can you clarify the way in which he was elected? Is this a genuine public election in which all local people can vote? If so, are the election results on line? They always make for good impartial references. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * After reading the new references I am very unsure whether to try to fix this version or revert to the old one and try to fix that. There are problems with both. I am going to leave it for now and probably try to make a mix and match using the good parts of both when I have the time. Don't panic if you do see me revert it wholesale. If that happens that will only be an intermediate stage in the merging process. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced is Goal
First, when I said "work with" I meant to say "in communication with". I am not under the employ of the WEDC nor have I been in any contractual relationship with them. I have not been commissioned by anyone to make these claims nor am I involved with any of the parties mentioned in this article.

I agree with your comments. The new reference material is something you can work from to make this more accurate. I simply have been asking the WEDC for clarification on the matter, same with Windsor Star, since I am from the area, but am not working with them directly. Journalistic research you may call it. I've talked to the mayoral offices, the WEDC, various Star editors and done some other research into what exactly was done at the WEDC while Mancini was there. I am not a personal acquaintance of Mancini but do wish to clarify a lot of the ambiguity out there.

I will also see if there are CVs available for this person and some other records. Many of the articles referenced in the Star are op-ed opinions (such as the big hoopla about his $1200 a day salary of which the hourly rate is quite low in comparison to similar interim CEOs in other Ontario communities). Another referenced article is no longer available online so really is not a reliable source. Stressing the community reaction doesn't add to the merit of this article really and just stirs up the local angst among a select few who really didn't see the whole picture. That's what I see anyway since I grew up and live here in the city and heard the whole debacle. There are also some pieces that were negatively referenced in regards to the WEDC in the Star but were in this wiki attributed to Remo Mancini, such as the frustration with the selection process, which was created by the city, not Mancini. If we make this more about his track record, his values, his accomplishment and the frustration with the WEDC process that makes more sense since there is probably a lot we can tell.

Really my understanding of the situation is more from both sides and I think getting a good balance will be ideal here. There was an individual online who spent 3 weeks on 14 different social media sites including LinkedIn, Facebook, Hi5, Bebo, MySpace, etc, impersonating Remo Mancini and succeeded at creating quite a bad name for Mancini who was really more of a secretary during this whole debacle. This individual seems to have been the source of a lot of the negative bias on this wiki as well. Several of the candidates Mancini presented to the board were rejected despite his recommendations, so this short stint in a 20 year career in business really should be more of a footnote than a major section. With these new references you can perhaps attribute the proper facts and fine tune as needed.

I can further investigate facts required and make sure this article is as accurate as a portrayal of his accomplishments and challenges during his brief tenure. His remuneration I don't really see as having any merit since I know a number of local consultants who receive much more than his hourly rate and are in the public sector and people are aware of their compensation in the community. I will also try and find references for earlier works of his such as articles and letters of his work in the business world before working with this non-profit. No sense trying to spend all this time about the WEDC but I see your point.

I see the problem is really this page has become a sounding board for a lot of different biases so if we can make this as accurate as possible that is the goal. I will look into your questions and let me know if any further clarification is needed. Any new references I find I will add them to the discussion area. Cykron (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Some details about all the stirring up around Windsor: http://windsorcityon.blogspot.com/2009/02/innuendo-disease.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cykron (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Undue
I didn't have time to work on this as I had planned but looking at it now it needs to be sliced down to avoid giving wp:undue coverage to the WEDC business. I am going to vastly reduce the section. Some of it isn't even about Mancini at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I have sliced it down to the essentials avoiding getting bogged down in issues of blame or justification. If people want to read about the squabbling (and I doubt that many people do) it is all in the references. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes
I see that changes have been made to Remo Mancini's article as promised, but this article is still woefully incomplete, and still seems rather biased against Mancini. Anyone reading this page would be forgiven for thinking that Mancini's career at the WEDC represented half of his post-political business career, and that the only notable event of his time at the WEDC was that he and the board came under fire and shortly after resigned. This article remains a classic case of a Biography of a Living Person not being shown any due care or attention, and while I understand that Wikipedia is staffed by volunteers, this page remains a slight on the character of Remo Mancini to anyone who cares to Google his name. I am all for a fact-based article on Remo Mancini, but that article should, in accordance with Wikipedia's rules, show due care of the fact that the page is a Biography of a Living Person and accurately reflect the importance of a VERY minor incident in a long and successful career (WP:UNDUE). If this is the eventual goal of the diligent editors of Wikipedia, in the mean time it is unacceptable that the page reflects upon Remo Mancini negatively, particularly since a piece of text that does accurately reflect the recent events of Mancini's career exists but was removed by an editor who by his own admission was unable to find much information on the subject. In order to explain why I feel Mancini's representation is unfair, please see the following parties articles, all of whom are of a similar level to Mancini in terms of notability and stature: Sandra Pupatello, Dwight Duncan. Tobyleftly (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have shortened the WEDC part as much as possible and I do not think it is unfair or undue as it is written. It may be that the local media blew this out of proportion but we have to write from the sources, not our own interpretation of them. We don't want a lengthy description either attacking or defending him but I can't see much scope for cutting it down either. I would be prepared to run the two paragraphs together and lose the subheading. I am not sure how much difference that makes.
 * I agree that the article is incomplete. What we need is for the article to be expanded so that this minor affair does not seem more important than it is. This means more about his political career and more about the rest his business career. Why not have a go at adding some stuff about other stuff? Something about what he has done since WEDC would really help. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)