Talk:2007 Calgary municipal election

Official Candidate List

It's here. The official candidate list form the City. I don't have time to update the page myself so I'll leave someone else to do that.

☭ Zippanova 00:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I’ve reviewed it and corrected the two differences in names of candidates. So, we’re now completely in sync with the official list. —GrantNeufeld 04:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How is Merle Terlesky's name actually spelled? it was spelled "Terlesky" in all the other elections he has run in, it was also spelled that way on the form you signed when you pick up your candidate information package. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.175.112 (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The official candidate list has it as “Terleski”, and that matches his website domain name. —GrantNeufeld 05:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but even some of the blog posts on his own website are signed "Merle Terlesky"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.175.112 (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias

Please note that before you edit an entry about yourself or others on this page, please keep the bias to a minimum. We have people changing certain words, omitting certain phrases, and vandalizing other pages, in order to make them seem better than the other candidates. This is not what Wikipedia is used for. Please refrain from doing so. Thank you. Crazyjz 01:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am disappointed in people ruining this article on the grounds that they want to abuse and take advantage of the system for their own purposes. Please stop. Thank you. Crazyjz 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wasting your breath. People know that Wikipedia is among the world's foremost sources of information, and they see a way to control the information that people get. The people making those edits never even see the talk page. They may not even know that what they're doing violates Wikipedia policy. Having to revert that kind of nonsense from time to time is unfortunately part of being a Wikipedian. Sarcasticidealist 23:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Youngest Candidate?

It's a little premature to state that Zhao is the youngest candidate in this election, no? Sarcasticidealist 16:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, I could reword the writing a bit. Crazyjz 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Fielding

I feel this edit is illegitimate on the basis that the user was vandalizing a page earlier. Crazyjz 06:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, is there an appropriate source to indicate that she's running for mayor? If not, you've certainly got my backing to delete her. Sarcasticidealist 07:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing Links

I have removed all links that direct users to websites about their campaign. I feel Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should stay neutral this way. I do not know if something like this should also be done to the Edmonton municipal election article. Perhaps these websites could be added on after the nominations are confirmed on the 17th of September. Any thoughts Sarcasticidealist? Crazyjz 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the websites that are linked from the Edmonton site are currently serving as references (and in my opinion a campaign website does meet WP:V for whether somebody's announced their candidacy - which isn't the same as filing campaign papers, obviously - albeit for precious little else). I'd be reluctant to delete them for that reason.

As for whether they should be included as external links, rather than simply as references, I'm agnostic (although there should obviously be one standard applied uniformly to all candidates), but leaning yes-wards. It seems to me that including them does add some utility to likely readers of the article (who are likely to be eligible voters in this election, for the most part). Besides that, allowing the links yourself will help prevent all of these campaign-affiliated IPs from taking it upon themselves to add them in, which would save minutes per day in reverting time.

I don't feel strongly one way or another, and I haven't read WP:EL too closely. But if you want my vote, it would be to leave them in. Sarcasticidealist 04:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. You folks have removed the link to my campaign site (Richard Evans, Ward 4) along with my description and replaced it with a "citation needed" tag. The link to my site WAS the citation. What else do you want? Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.227.47 (talk) 22:56, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

There we go. All fixed. Citations provided. --Calgaryward4 03:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is how I see it Richard. I will keep the campaign website as Sarcasticidealist has mentioned, but there are other things which seem irrelevant to the article. Here is your current post -

"A husband and father of 2, Richard is self employed as an Occupational Health and Safety Consultant[15] and, in addition to his consulting work, Richard also runs the politically conservative group blog titled: "Let Freedom Reign" [16] Richard announced his intentions to run for Alderman in Ward 4 with the launch of his campaign website "www.calgaryward4.com" [17] in mid August of 2007." The site for your company has no reference to you and seems non-notable, only because there is very little information about you at this point from credible references. The blog seems to be irrelevant at this point, but please do discuss any concerns. The campaign website will be referenced in the footnotes only, only because we want to keep Wikipedia as neutral as possible. This is to keep Wikipedia as credible as possible. Crazyjz 06:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ward 7 - "Peter Albano - Peter's Campaign focuses on affordable housing, decreasing taxation, and developing a smart growth plan for Calgary. [16]" This is not cited on the website, as well it tends to be conflicting WP:NPOV. I will leave the website as a footnote only though. Crazyjz 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the information posted is varifiable on Peter Albano's official website. It does not conflict with WP:NPOV as it is completely neutral. It makes no assumption that the information is good or bad, it simply states the campaign focus (which can be summarized from the official source) I will continue to re-add this whenever it is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palbano (talk • contribs) 18:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief biography about yourself would be better than putting something general and saying things that would make you stand out than the rest of the contenders for Ward 7. See WP:COI as well. I urge you to discuss this before adding things that are going to be removed. It will not be beneficial for your own canvassing and it is generally not acceptable to write about yourself on Wikipedia. Crazyjz 19:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Crazyjz, does " Kassam was cleared of wrongdoing by a 2002 Canadian immigration hearing and was granted Canadian citizenship. [6]Kassam has also come under fire for raising rents from $650 to $1800 a month for his 16 unit apartment building in Mount Royal. " not make Kassam stand out from the other contenders for mayor? Why is a negative comment about one of your competitors allowed? This does not seem like simple biographical information to me. Also, you said "One of the sources is from Alnoor Kassam himself." to justify keeping it there. Sounds like your opinion on sources is effected by how much it benefits you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palbano (talk • contribs) 20:17, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I am responsible for the entire article. Feel free to criticize me for saying Craig Burrows has come under fire for spending $12,000 for a business course at the U of C. One of the sources is from Alnoor Kassam, it was listed on his website with a photocopy of the Herald article. I have openly discussed the actions that I thought were appropriate and I am asking people to vote on it and to discuss it. If you do not like the tone, then change the Alnoor Kassam biography. If you really do not like the tone, call Calgary Herald, and ask them why they have put those two pieces of information into their columns. Go to the news media and ask them why certain people stand out and others do not. I have tried to establish this article as best I can, but if you are having problems, feel free to take on the task. If you are simply concerned about your section, then I also question about how you feel about neutrality and how much you care about it. Crazyjz 22:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If i was only concerned with my section i would not have corrected the number of electors in the intro. It does not matter what the Calgary Herald does, or wether or not it is a valid source for information. All that matters is that the article is kept neutral. Stating the focus of a campaign is fine, as long as you don't say something about it being better than your opponents. But if all we are going to do is have biographical information, then keep it consistant and only have biographical information for everyone. Perhaps we can solve the problem of campaigning in this article by having a section dedicated to candidates' official webpages or something?

I'm very much up for solving this. I do not mind the criticism because it is difficult to write something that is consensually (is that a word?) neutral. Please tell me what could be corrected and what should not and we can discuss it and work out a plan ASAP. Crazyjz 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Carol Neuman is in the process of setting up a website separate from the facebook group, carolneuman.com , I'm far from neutral on this seeing as I'm building the website and working on her campaign materials. But if some one feels it's relevant enough to include the link in this article (at this time or later on after it launches) I'll leave that with them. --209.107.121.40 04:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I am citing the article I started for cleanup given there are just too many problems with what is neutral and what is not, random names that keep popping up, more recently, having Facebook as a "credible" source. Please submit ideas and suggestions. Crazyjz 04:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Facebook links I provided were the only references I had found that showed the intention of the applicable individuals to run. As to credibility — the Facebook links do clearly show intent to run for those potential candidates and really have as much credibility in that regard as a statement made to media or campaign websites. I’m not speaking of the credibility of the candidate, just the credibility of the idea that they intend to run.

Until nomination day is over, when the papers are filed and candidates formally established, all we have to go on for any of the candidates listed in this article (including the incumbents) is an expression of intent. Let’s not introduce any bias in excluding the various channels people may use to publicly express that intent. —GrantNeufeld 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Only problem with that is that the people could be anybody on Facebook and not necessarily said person. --Djsasso 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The same can easily be said of other websites, though. I could register a domain like “janedoe.tld” and set it up as if Jane Doe were running for office. It’s also not that hard to fool a media publication into running a story based on a false identity (see The Yes Men for some excellent examples). Should we really blanket exclude a source of information because there is the possibility that misrepresentation can occur? Isn’t it more prudent to include all available sources and let the aggregate point to the most accurate conclusions (which is what Wikipedia as a whole does in including everyone as an editor and letting the cumulative result determine the accuracy). —GrantNeufeld 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I need to take some middle ground on this. I think that the reliability of Facebook groups devoted to alleged electoral candidates changes over time. A Facebook group formed the day before with two members is less reliable as a source than one formed months ago with hundreds of members.

Except that wikipedia has already mostly as a group come to the decision that social networking sites such as myspace or facebook are not valid sources. --Djsasso 04:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As for domain names, you can always check to whom they're registered. That's only partially useful, I admit (since the domain being registered to somebody other than the candidate doesn't prove anything), but it's something. Sarcasticidealist 16:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no bias. Wikipedia just has a policy of not linking to any sites that are password protected or any social networking websites for information like this.Crazyjz 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What happened to WP:RS? Facebook is way outside of what's acceptable. Also, if no reliable source has written about somebody's intent to run, it's not significant enough for of us to write about it, even if we're certain it's an honest intent. Even if facebook didn't require a login, it's, at best, suitable as an external link in limited cases, but is never a legit source. Nobody should be able to use Wikipedia to get name recognition. If someone has never been written about independently anywhere, they shouldn't be written about here. Wikinews might be where info like this belongs. --Rob 16:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In your second point, you're conflating the notability standard for an article to exist with the notability standard for something to be included in an article (see WP:NNC). Sarcasticidealist 19:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. I'm not suggesting we need multiple sources to discuss someone in a non-trivial manner, before listing them. I'm quite happy listing somebody with just one independent and reliable source mentioning their name once. If the Calgary Herald mentions only a persons name, as part of a list of candidates, that's good enough for me (even though that's not enough for a bio article). But, if all that's said about the candidate, is that they're running, then that's all this article can say about them, as well. We must never write about things beyond what's already written about them, in reliable sources. For instance, we shouldn't say somebody is "A graduate of SAIT Polytechnic" unless a reliable source says they are (SAIT would be a reliable source obviously). But, their personal web site, is not ok for this. A basic flaw of this page, is that it's hard for somebody with no knowledge of Calgary, or knowledge of the editors and subjects, to be able to review the material. Anybody should be able to verify all the facts in here, by looking at cited reliable sources. We are exposing ourselves to future hoaxes by not being strict with sources. --Rob 03:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

How about we remove any information next to a candidates name and just provide a link to their official website? That would eliminate any neutrality/bias problems.

• Let's just lock it down. List each candidate's name, rank, and serial number, and then lock off further edits until silly season begins in earnest once the candidate's names are officially posted on 18 September. There are waaaaay too many cooks stirring the soup in here at this point. Beltliner 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here’s the information I think would be appropriate to include:

• Candidate name.
• Incumbent status if applicable. Year first elected to the office (terms served).
• A website link for their campaign (including social networking links if they don’t have a ‘real’ website yet). Basically, a link where people can find out more about the candidate and their campaign.
• Alternatively (if no website), a public phone number for the campaign, if they have one.
• Address of public campaign office, if they have one.

The above would provide the very basic information needed to know who was running, and how to contact the candidates and their campaigns to gather further information.

I further suggest that we include an “issues” and a “controversies” section (both of which I’ve seen in various other election articles on WP). The way I see it, issues could be for identifying issues brought up for the campaign (e.g., housing, transportation, crime) but not individual candidates’ positions, and controversies would be for identifying things such as the controversy over Burrows’ business course expense (and would need to be heavily monitored for NPOV). —GrantNeufeld 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that would be a good thing to do. The "issues and controversies" should come after everyone is officially nominated. Crazyjz 05:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In case of no candidate website

In cases where the candidate does not have a public website, it would be good to offer an alternative link where people can access more information about the candidate and/or their campaign. This would also help to address any issues of bias favouring candidates who have websites.

I suggest that if the candidate has a page dedicated to their campaign on a website that such a resource would be useful in the absence of a full website. (E.g., YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, LiveJournal, etc.) I realize this may be seen as dredging up the Facebook debate again, but this would not be links for citation purposes but, rather, links which provide a way for readers to connect with, or find out more from, candidates (and only when there is no candidate website). —GrantNeufeld 23:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Calgary Wikipedia Meetup

I’m trying to schedule another local meet of Wikipedia contributors in Calgary. This would be a chance to chat about Wikipedia stuff in general, but also to discuss ways to cover the election on Wikipedia. I’m suggesting next week, at a location (TBD) in the downtown area. If you’re interested in participating, please vote on when you’d like to schedule the meet. Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Vote

I am going to propose a vote in order to clean this article up as soon as possible. There has been a lot of discussion and I believe it is appropriate that we lay out what is going to be happening.

1. From now until nomination day has passed, this is what can be posted on the article:

• Candidate's name
• Candidate's website - This is the best source at this point. Any social networking sites should be avoided at this time in accordance with WP:EL since it may require a user to log in plus it is not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia. I understand that at this point some people do view Facebook as a potential source, but until September 17th, let us step away from that medium for now. As well, we all need to understand this is an article trying to inform people, not promote people.
• Simple biography - 1 or 2 sentences maximum from an appropriate verifiable source.

If there are no websites, the name can still go up, but with a "citation needed" tag.

2. Issues can be addressed if it has an appropriate and reliable source. Issues should only be along the lines of "transportation, infrastructure, etc..." Any issues regarding any nominees should not be posted.

3. Controversies should be started after the confirmation of nominees. Controversies that people post must be discussed on the discussion page before appearing on the main article. Any deviation would result in an immediate deletion or revert. This will hopefully make reduce the conflict of interest and neutrality problems.

4. A note should be written somewhere saying that no one is nominated until September 17th. These are all potential candidates that whether or not they are running will change over time. This should be addressed, as the election tag is not enough apparently.

To vote on this proposal, please follow the example:

For - Reason why - Sign your post

Against - Reason why - Sign your post

To change your votes, please follow the example:

For - Reason why - Sign your post

Against - Reason why - Sign your post

Have fun! This will last for 5 days until the 6th of September. Crazyjz 02:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why the vote on only one proposal? I suggest we break it down into the components. (see following section) —GrantNeufeld 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Poll on elements to include in this article

Candidate’s website

• Yes. Very useful for people wanting to find out more from the candidate and their campaign. However, should be balanced by other NPOV or opposing POV references. —GrantNeufeld 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, but I would include Facebook pages where no other website is available. Facebook certainly falls short of WP:EL, but in this case it would be used as a reference, not as an external link. Sarcasticidealist 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. The official website is the best place to view the candidates stance on the issues.Palbano 18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, Yes! I personally do not care if Facebook is used, but it will make Wikipedia in general less credible along the way. Crazyjz 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, with the proviso that anything cited from their sites is corroborated by news from a source like the Fishwrap, the Groan and Wail, or Mothercorp. Beltliner 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, preferably as inline reference. --Qyd 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes--Calgaryward4 01:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes--six.oh.six 00:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate’s first year elected to current office (incumbents)

• Yes. —GrantNeufeld 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Sarcasticidealist 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. - I don't see how this can harm the articlePalbano 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Crazyjz 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Migfht be useful in smoking out the lifers on City Council. Beltliner 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. just as a short remark (in brackets) --Qyd 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes.--Calgaryward4 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate bio (specify max sentences or paragraphs, if any)

• Maybe. One paragraph max. —GrantNeufeld 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. One paragraph max, and only for candidates who have achieved third party coverage. Sarcasticidealist 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• No. The candidates official page should be enough of a resource for personal information. Palbano 19:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. One paragraph max with credible references from media and official websites. Crazyjz 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. One paragraph, backed up with third-party references. Beltliner 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. very short, 1 sentence only (what does he/she do, not what school he/she attended). --Qyd 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. single paragraph.--Calgaryward4 01:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate photo

• No. We almost certainly won’t be able to get fair coverage in this. —GrantNeufeld 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• No, per User:GrantNeufeld. Sarcasticidealist 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• No - this sounds like a disaster waiting to happen! Palbano 19:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• No - Keep it clean this time round. Crazyjz 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• No. Maybe reasonable hand-drawn facsimiles?  ;) Beltliner 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• No. for many reasons. --Qyd 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• No. They can see photos on either the candidates website or their wiki bio.--Calgaryward4 01:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Election issues section

• Yes. Avoid addressing specific candidates in this section. —GrantNeufeld 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, but disagree that specific candidates shouldn't be addressed (for example, addressing Bronconnier is more or less inevitable). Sarcasticidealist 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe. Would this be like a list of the issues? would there be a descritpion? I'm just not sure what the organization of the list would be like... Palbano 19:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes With as little references to specific candidates as possible. Crazyjz 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe. Probably worth discussing crime, transit, and development from the mayoralty standpoint, but it's tough to see how raising ward issues would do anything but bog down the page. Beltliner 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes separate section, thoroughly referenced. --Qyd 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Keep the trash in the alley instead of on the main page.--Calgaryward4 01:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Election controversies section

If yes, please indicate when you think it should be added (e.g., “now” or “after nomination” is complete).

• Yes, now. Don’t wait for candidate confirmation — there are controversies applicable to the election before nomination day (such as the fallout from last election’s Ward 10 ballot scandal and Ald. Burrow’s education expenses). —GrantNeufeld 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, now per User:GrantNeufeld. Probably goes without saying (although I'm saying it anyway) that we need to cite the living hell out of this section, per WP:BLP. Sarcasticidealist 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• No. I have a feeling this will just be turned into a candidate bashing section. Palbano 19:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, now. Anything applicable and can be referenced appropriately is fine by me. Crazyjz 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, after nomination. And be ready to cite works. Beltliner 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes separate section, thoroughly referenced, could be now already. --Qyd 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, now. --Calgaryward4 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Slogans

I believe we should remove any type of campaign slogan from the biographies. Anyone with me on this one? Crazyjz 02:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% with you on that, unless the slogan itself has received media coverage (for example, if a candidate ran under the slogan "Calgary for the whites!", I'd probably favour including that on the strength of the media coverage it would no doubt demonstrate. Same goes, only milder, for any especially witty slogans to garner media coverage). Sarcasticidealist 07:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

New sections and content

Based on the responses to, and discussion of, the poll, I have added sections for Issues and Controversies, as well as adding campaign website links to the candidates (where I have found their links).

Content still needed:

• Both the Issues and the Controversies sections need many more details. I have just contributed a rough start. Please feel free to significantly add or change what I’ve posted.
• Many candidate websites are missing. Please add them if you can.

Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Media coverage of our work here

I’ve been contacted by CBC Radio’s The Eyeopener, and am scheduled to be on tomorrow morning, at about 7:45 am (ugh), to talk about the use of Wikipedia for this election (and possibly other internet sites like YouTube and Facebook). They specifically want to talk about this article and the cleanup/“conflict of interest” banners at the top. —GrantNeufeld 17:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind letting those of us outside of CBC Calgary's broadcast radius know how it went? Sarcasticidealist 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That’s a reasonable request. I don’t know how long they’re going to give me — might just be a couple minutes. But, I’ll try to report on what gets said. —GrantNeufeld 23:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it went well. I was able to make clear the positive impact of having many editors contributing to bring the articles on WP to NPOV. I pointed out that while there are candidates and campaign supporters contributing to the article, it is kept balanced by the diversity of editors. I also talked about how an article that starts attracting a lot of biased contributors (a ‘hot’ article) attracts more editors interested in protecting NPOV. Covered WP’s transparency, too (article history, user pages, user contributions). Also covered the mechanisms for dealing with vandals and edit wars (user blocks, page protection).

Actually managed to cover a lot of ground for a short interview.

One correction: Jim (the host) identified me as a WP administrator, but I’m not. I’m just a regular contributor here. —GrantNeufeld 14:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

They’ve posted the audio online. Unfortunately, it’s only available in Real format. CBC Calgary Eyeopener: Wikipedia (RealAudio) —GrantNeufeld 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The story was included in the weekly CBC Podcast for Alberta on September 20. It’s the first story in the podcast. The intro they added kind of sensationalizes the story (Wikipedia as a political “weapon”). They also clipped a little bit off the front of the interview. But, it is mostly there. CBC Alberta Podcast, September 20 (MP3). —GrantNeufeld 02:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Calgary Herald

Hey everyone. I figured I would mention that I was just interviewed by a reporter from the Herald regarding this page and the Bronconnier page leading up to the election. The article should appear in Sunday's Herald. Hopefully, I didn't say anything too stupid. -- JamesTeterenko 17:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

COI

I know longer believe there is a conflict of interest given that we have two excellent contributors, User:Sarcasticidealist and User:GrantNeufeld to help out and make this an even better article. I believe this banner was put up only because I believe the page was just a complete mess, but after our vote, it has become a much more stable page and one that is easier to edit. Crazyjz 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your kind compliment. To be completely open, I do have personal bias in this as I am volunteering with a handful of the ward campaigns and doing advocacy work outside of the campaigns to promote my (and the activist groups I work with) positions on the election issues (specifically regarding housing and bicycle infrastructure). However, I certainly do my best to maintain NPOV in my contributions (e.g., I added all the candidate campaign websites I could find, including for candidates I am actively opposing). The biggest factor in maintaining NPOV here has been, as you suggest, having a number of folks of varying perspectives contributing — mitigating the particular biases that any of us may bring. That said, I do think there should be some sort of warning advising readers that some of the contributors to the article have vested interests in the subject. —GrantNeufeld 23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd echo User:GrantNeufeld's thanks, but I do have to caution that I'm not especially involved in the article. Right now, I'd say I'm basically just another set of eyes ready to revert vandalism, blatant POV violations, or edits not in accordance with the consensus established on the talk page. Sarcasticidealist 14:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Similarly I'm also keeping my eyes on the article. I think the COI banner can go, there's enough editorial overview and cleanup ongoing that I think we're okay. If we have COI we're at least keeping each other in check. While we're in full disclosure mode, I only started watching this article cuz Palbano is a friend of mine. He's not running anymore, anyway. Crazyjz, apologies, but did you disclose your own COI on this talk page? I must have missed it. --six.oh.six 16:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am running as mayor of Calgary, so that's my COI, but I know to keep it as neutral as possible. I am regretful to not be able to edit anymore due to my campaign schedule. I am very happy that this article will be in good hands, and I hope this page will be a pinnacle of total awesomeness. Thank you! Crazyjz 01:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias Aganist Some Candidates

I've noticed that everytime I put up parts of Mohamed El-Rafih's campagin bio, it gets undone to a simple line stating he is a tutor. Yet when I look at all the other candidates, espeically those are supported by Grant Neufeld, have more policy information.

Also I have noticed that the Mayoral Candidates also have a lot more information than their aldermanic counterparts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.97.141 (talk • contribs)

Could you cite an example of an aldermanic candidate who has policy information? Sarcasticidealist 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these folks are really interested in a discussion--they just tagged Grant Neufeld, Merle Terlesky, and Bob Hawkesworth for deletion. User:JamesTeterenko scratched the tags on these articles, but I wouldn't take anything 136.159.97.141, 136.159.248.202, 142.59.98.68, or for that matter User:Canadianliberal all that seriously any more; their actions have spoken loudly enough for them, methinks. Beltliner 20:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm still prepared to WP:AGF, here. I can understand tagging the Neufeld article for deletion (if you weren't aware that it had already cleared three separate AfD nominations), since it's borderline as far as WP:N goes. The Terlesky article is too short of me to gauge notability, so I can't comment on that (although in its present form it could probably be speedied for failing to assert any). Hawkesworth's sort of a head-scratcher, since he was an MLA and therefore automatically notable, but these are newly-registered users and anonymous IPs - they could easily not know enough about our notability policies. Besides that, if a bad-faith editor makes a good point, we shouldn't disregard it just because of its source.

Also, the nominations were nuked because they were incomplete, not because they were bad faith. Sarcasticidealist 20:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus on this talk page has been to include brief, citable, biographical information on the candidates, but not any platform or position details (folks who want that information can visit the candidates’ websites). The deletion of details added to El-Rafih’s entry have been because those details have been outside of the consensus. I just did a thorough review of the candidates and found that the entries for Sandy Jenkins and Alnoor Kassam were also in violation of the consensus, so have cleaned them up. —GrantNeufeld 20:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Election information resource

I’ve been gathering extensive contact information and links (including social networking, YouTube, etc.) for all of the candidates (including for the school boards). I finally took some time to publish that information today: http://calgary2007.grantneufeld.ca/

I shouldn’t be the one to decide if this would be appropriate to include in the external links for this article, particularly since — in addition to the pages of candidate listings and election resources — that site also contains a page of my very biased opinions. I’ll leave it to other editors here to decide if it would be a useful reference for this article. —GrantNeufeld 02:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorsements

Endorsements candidates have received violate WP:NPOV and are non-encyclopedic. Let’s leave them out of the article, please. —GrantNeufeld 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calgary municipal election, 2007. 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/20011108195002/http://www.gov.calgary.ab.ca/election/ to http://www.gov.calgary.ab.ca/election/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)