Talk:Remo Mancini/Archive 1

NPOV concerns

 * NPOV - this 'biography' is seriously biased and selectively 'promotes' the subject individual instead of citing all the recent controversy surrounding the subject individual:

Arrested Development Development commission grills contrite Mancini Public Outraged - Mancini still earning $1,200-a-day as acting CEO Resign, Mancini Urged Full Forensic Audit of WEDC Essential Commission Board Gone For Good Unemployment Skyrockets to 12.6% Under Mancini's Watch


 * notability - the subject individual is non-notable, save for his being a former politician. There are literally tens of thousands of former politicians.  To list each and every former politician for the sole reason as their being former politicians is nonsensical.

In summary, this article should either contain ALL the known facts regarding the subject individual, or be deleted. WEWhistleBlower (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article claims that he was a cabinet minister in the regional government. If this is true (and can be demonstrated with references) then that would seem to cover notability OK. Unfortunately no references are provided to prove it. (BTW, I have moved your tags onto the article itself as that is where they should be placed. I hope you don't mind me altering your comment above. I didn't change anything else.) --DanielRigal (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The so-called 'reference' on the Remo Mancini article is not a reference at all, but a Coatrack. Schumacher Research and Leadership Group is headed by the Dr. Albert Schumacher - the SAME Dr. Albert Schumacher who, along with Remo Mancini, suddenly resigned from the Windsor Essex Development Commission under a cloud of controversy and calls for a forensic audit. Development Commission Board Gone For Good Full Forensic Audit Essential

The other so-called 'reference' from Niocan is not a reference as Niocan is little more than a 'penny stock' with zero liquidity and, judging by its trading activity, even less in the way of future prospects.

It is precisely for articles such as Remo Mancini that Wikipedia has rules regarding neutrality (NPOV); notability (Non-notable) and citations to prevent unscrupulous individuals from authoring biased articles about an individual to otherwise cover up controversy surrounding the subject individual. The only way that this article can be salvaged would be to include ALL verifiably known information about the subject individual INCLUDING the controversy surrounding the subject individual's departure from the Board of Directors of the Windsor Essex Development Commission. WEWhistleBlower (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference you deride is from the Financial Times not Niocan. The stock may be minor but FT provides a biography of its directors none the less. It is an RS source. It is being used to prove that he has the degree claimed and that we has a minister. I doubt you would wish to dispute those things. The controversy certainly will be included but we can't let you turn the article into a hatchet job on somebody you seem to have a grudge against. We need to make sure the coverage is balanced and fair. Please read WP:UNDUE. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: the biography that you reference as eminating from the Financial Times was provided by Niocan on whose Board of Directors the subject individual sits (ergo the subject individual provided his own biography) This is NOT a proper citation. Also, the subject individual holds no academic degrees (either undergraduate or postgraduate). The IDC.D is NOT a degree, but a designate granted by an association Institute of Corporate Directors.  There is no prerequisite for the IDC.D (anyone may pursue it regardless of their educational background). For the record, I don't carry a 'grudge' against the subject individual as much as I despise people using Wikipedia as a platform on which to promote their interests at the expense of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. WEWhistleBlower (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The biography carried by the FT is only used to reference the qualification now, so I don't think it is a problem. If we can find a better one it can be replaced. I was not aware that it was not a degree but the article never said it was. I have added the link you provide as extra clarification.
 * As for a my suspicions of a grudge: You can only expect that people judge you by your actions here on Wikipedia. That is all we can know you by. You have registered under a name which makes your attitude and preferred role clear and have only contributed content on this one subject. You requested that this article be deleted without a valid reason. Surely you can see that this all adds up to give the impression of a grudge?
 * Finally, do you have any evidence that there are "people using Wikipedia as a platform on which to promote their interests at the expense of the truth" on this article? If so, that should certainly be looked into however I have seen nothing that leads me to that view. I have looked at the article history and the original (quite preposterously overblown and disproportionate) coverage of this matter its removal was entirely justified and, in fact, necessary given its content. We are now back where we should have been at the outset, with measured and proportionate coverage of the matter. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have managed to distil the controversy into a couple of reasonably simple paragraphs with references on almost everything. The WEDC coverage is now about half of the business section and about a quarter of the whole article. It references the criticism of Mancini while acknowledging that the WEDC had CEO problems before he was involved. This avoids it reading as a personal hatchet job. I think this is fair and reasonable. If the political section expands a bit (and can be referenced) then I think we will have the balance about right. I took the NPOV tag off accordingly. We now need to work on other sections of the article to get those well referenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)