Talk:United States Conference of Mayors

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • My main problem with this article, and something which had me seriously considering failing it without a hold, is the emphasis on activities that occured since 2000, especially in the 2007-2009 period. The fact that the History section is made up of three extremely short paragraphs while the Current issues section is made up of four good-sized paragraphs dealing mainly with 2 years of activities is rather POV and slanted toward recent events. What would happen if every two year period since this organization was started got the same amount of attention as 2007 and 2008? The article would be huge!! The focus on current events in this article needs to be trimmed significantly, while information on the past history needs to be expanded.

   • I found a few things.--
     WP:LOTM) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

   • Reference #31 (Communication Initiative Network) deadlinks.

   • New refs.--
     WP:LOTM) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]

   • Reference #42 (US Conference of Mayors on Frank Murphy) deadlinks.

   • Rewrote with new refs.--
     WP:LOTM) 06:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Please see my comment above in the prose section to understand my serious reservations about this article's comprehensiveness and ability to fulfill the NPOV policy. I am placing this article on hold for now; however, if the lead editors wish to withdraw the article from consideration in order to have more time to work on it, I would be more than willing to re-review it when they consider it to be more finished. Dana boomer (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   • I see that you have done quite a bit of work on the article. However, I still have major concerns about the coverage. The article discusses nothing that the Conference did between its founding in 1932 and 1972. There were major wars, cultural revolutions and many other happenings during this time - was the Conference simply sitting around eating bon-bons? Also, the Current issues section is still just as long as the History section. It is a little ridiculous to have this much information (not to mention the first two paragraphs of the Activities section) devoted to such as small span of time (2007-2009) when writing about an organization that has been around for over 75 years. My suggestion would be for the nominator to agree to withdraw this article, and then spend a few weeks working on it (perhaps drawing on resources from their local libraries, if possible) before renominating it. Dana boomer (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   • That's all the bullets I've got for this one in the short term. I accept whatever evaluation you wish to submit. I understand your reservations and I hope you have advice for me to improve the article regardless of your final decision.--
     WP:LOTM) 22:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]

   • Thank you for your understanding, and I have decided that I will fail the article for now. My main comments to improve the article stand above - the history section needs to be expanded with notable events/programs from the 40s, 50s and 60s, while the emphasis on current events needs to be trimmed. Another comment would be that the Controversies section could probably be integrated into the History section. As it stands now, it's little more than two pieces of unconnected trivia. Also, did nothing controversial happen in the organization prior to 1995? Thank you for the work you've done so far on the article, Tony, and I look forward to seeing this article at GAN again once more work has been completed on it. Dana boomer (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the following into the text: The scheduled 2008 meeting was set for Detroit, but was moved due to the legal travails of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. I do not have a ready source for this, although I believe it to be true based on what I read in the Detroit papers at the time. Maybe somebody has an available reference and could help? I think it is pertinent, and it was done because of the distraction element (not to mention that it would run contrary to a lot of thtngs this organization nominally stands for). Some of you seem to have better sources on the comings and going of the conference than I. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

FWIW I was wrong. The National Conference of Black Mayors moved its meeting.

• Detroit scandal costs city mayors' meeting. Here is an excerpt from the relevant article.

DETROIT, March 1 (UPI) -- The National Conference of Black Mayors plans to move a meeting from Detroit to New Orleans because of the scandal involving Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. . .

"When we saw what was going on," Williams said, "we were reaching out to the mayor's office to say, 'Are we OK?' 'Is the conference OK?' The response was that the mayor wanted us to go to another site." The conference meetings usually attract 300 to 400 mayors. With staff members, total attendance was expected to be about 2,500 people. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Thanks for the help.--

WP:LOTM) 03:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Experience teaches that it is better to be truthful and admit error than it is to willfully keep spreading bullshit. I do think that the National Conference of Black Mayors might deserve an article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Have at it. I had enough trouble trying to get this one up to snuff. I am still troubled by it in fact.--

WP:LOTM) 07:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Conference of Mayors. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/budget/disbursementreports/profiles/National_Expenditure_FY08.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203001136/http://www.artsusa.org///news/press/2008/2008_07_18.asp to http://www.artsusa.org/news/press/2008/2008_07_18.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719224445/http://www.comminit.com/en/node/266409/347 to http://www.comminit.com/en/node/266409/347

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.

• 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) 04:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Conference of Mayors. 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/20100218214413/http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/revised/ to http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/revised/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702204157/http://usmayors.org/about/pastpresidents.asp to http://usmayors.org/about/pastpresidents.asp

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.

• 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) 19:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Daniel Hoan be labeled Socialist because he didn't join the Democrats till 1940? Bryson08 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]