Talk:Mayor of Los Angeles

Untitled

The office of mayor is non-partisan. The party affiliation is not necessarily more relevant than their ethnicity or religion. I object to posting it and will remove it, despite user:Cmdrbond's nifty "colouring" job, unless convinced otherwise. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I repeat my earlier objection to drawing attention to the party affiliations of the mayors, since it is a non-partisan office. -Willmcw 20:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm going to remove the partisan attributions. - Willmcw 23:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Noting that the office is non-partisan should be sufficient. -- User:Docu—Preceding undated comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, and I've been too lazy to remove the partisan designations, which I know some editor labored over. They don't really belong, but they're fairly harmless so long as we have a non-partisan disclaimer.-Willmcw 09:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the party is listed on the ballot or not, politics is hardly ever non-partisan. The party is a useful piece of information and should certainly not be removed. --Nelson Ricardo 10:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Willmcw. Totally irrelevant. You might just as well shade the boxes for ethnicity or religion. Ethnicity in particular has more relevance in local politics than do national political parties. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Four problems: (1) The office is nonpartisan. (2) In the added column, there were no sources for the claim of the given mayor's party affiliation. Without a source we can't use it. (3) Some mayors changed their political affiliation. (4) Really, there is no consensus that this column should be there. An observation: Each mayor's article should have information about the party affiliation, or lack thereof, so it is not absolutely necessary that this chart include it: Deleting the info from the chart does not mean that the info is deleted from the encyclopedia; it is just in a different place. I hope everybody understands that this is nothing personal. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't take it personal. I feel that a nonpartisan election is never truly nonpartisan. Candidates often advertise themselves as being a democrat or a republican during nonpartisan elections even if the ballot box doesn't indicate so. If you feel that strongly about it why haven't you edited these articles similarly?

• Los Angeles mayoral election, 2005
• Los Angeles mayoral election, 2009
• Los Angeles mayoral election, 2013
• Los Angeles mayoral election, 2001
• Los Angeles mayoral election, 1997
• Los Angeles mayoral election, 1993

Also I dont believe that the mayoral elections in Los Angeles were always nonpartisan. Racingstripes (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right about the office of the mayor. It and the other posts were at one time VERY partisan. Haven't a chance to investigate just when the switch to nonpartisanship was made, though. I have been VERY busy writing new articles for every single City Council office since 1925, starting with Charles Randall. I'm up to Ned R. Healy, which is a chore because there is no LA Library file posted on line for him. I believe I will start the article anyway and ask for the help of any editor who can get to the downtown library to check his file: They won't do it for me by e-mail. Also, you might want to check List of Los Angeles municipal election returns, which I've begun. I've also completed updates for all the City Council districts—Los Angeles City Council District 1 through Los Angeles City Council District 15. Also I updated all the council members from District 10—mainly because I had a good personal picture of Herb Wesson I wanted to use. In truth, I have never seen those sites you mentioned. I am more of a Los Angeles history buff. But I guess this doesn't have much to do with improving this page. Sorry for bending your ear. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Should we change this to Mayor of Los Angeles?

I noticed that Mayor of Los Angeles redirects to this list. Why not have a page all about the mayor and his job and all the background on him and then inside that page include all the lists that are on this page? -- Cmdrbond 21:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree (similar to lists of prime ministers and articles on the office). Though, for now, the description of the office itself is quite short. The situation is similar to many other lists of mayors. Unless the description is quite lenghty (and different from that of the same office in other cities in the state), I'd keep the redirect. The details on the mayoral races might warrant a separate page. -- User:Docu—Preceding undated comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. "Mayor" makes more sense for a main article title than "list of mayors". The list is a component, but it is more generally about the office. -Willmcw 09:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Gap in Mayors

Why is there a gap, January 13, 1855–January 25, 1855? The mayors preceeding this time and the one after all served May to May, so it seems odd that there is a break for this time... but even weirder that it's the same mayor before and after it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.13.132.150 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Mayor of Los Angeles Welcomes Legal and Illegal Immigrants on May 1, 2008

On May 1, 2008, the Mayor of Los Angeles welcomed illegal and illegal immigrants to events designed to protest enforcement of America's immigration laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.148.23 (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbering

The official city website describes Villaraigosa as the 41st Mayor of Los Angeles (here). The list on this page makes him the 52nd Mayor. Even excluding from the numbering scheme those who served only as Acting Mayor (all three of them), there's still a major discrepancy. Clearly something's wrong – any ideas what? — Lincolnite (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Some mayors have served non-continuous terms. We count them separately - perhaps the city doesn't. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're spot on. I've adjusted the numbering accordingly and now we make Villaraigosa the 41st. Good job. — Lincolnite (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Something more should be done to clarify this in the article. It's confusing to see this page refer to Villaraigosa as the 52nd mayor, then click on his Wikipedia article and see it declare him the 41st mayor. As I looked at the list, I picked up that the reason was that the number wasn't incrementing for some of the mayoral terms, but I had to come here to the discussion page before I fully followed exactly why.

Using the Presidency of the United States as a comparison, I'm not sure that the "acting" mayors should increment the number. I suppose it depends on just what that term officially means. Did they actually assume the office of mayor, or did they just hold mayoral powers for that time period, without ever assuming the actual office? For example, when the VP assumes presidential powers under the 25th Amendment, like Cheney did the two times that Bush had colonoscopies, the VP becomes the Acting President, but does not assume the office of the Presidency, so, of course, the numerical count is not incremented. In those cases, though, the power was held by the VP only for a matter of hours and then transferred back to the same sitting President. In these mayoral cases, the power was held for days/weeks, and then transferred to an entirely new individual, so perhaps that different circumstance did entail the "actor" in some way actually assuming the office? I'll admit that I don't know.

Counting non-contiguous terms separately seems correct, as it's certainly more consistent with Presidential numbering, whereby Grover Cleveland is pretty much universally referred to as having been the 22th and 24th President, rather than just the 22nd. But if the city isn't going to be on-board with that numbering, then the distinction should be better communicated within this article. I'm not sure what is the best way to do that, but the article should clarify this in some way for the reader. 12.155.58.181 (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

List of mayors of Los Angeles

Couldn't this page List of mayors of Los Angeles (pre-statehood mayors) be better named ? Something like List of pre-statehood mayors of Los Angeles, California following the governor's list List of pre-statehood governors of California - although not as directly connected to Statehood.Emargie (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See also List of pre-statehood mayors of San Francisco , List of pre-statehood mayors of San Diego, California. Emargie (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to List of pre-statehood mayors of Los Angeles, California. Note that there is also a page List of mayors of Los Angeles, California (post statehood) that currently re-directs to Mayor of Los Angeles, California#List of mayors. The page List of mayors of Los Angeles, CA (post statehood) currently re-directs to Mayor of Los Angeles, California#List of mayorscould be deleted.Emargie (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

William E. Bonelli vs. William G. Bonelli

I just noticed that for 1929 and 1932, William E. Bonelli is listed as the/a losing candidate, yet clicking on his name redirects to William G. Bonelli. On the "G" page (and the JoinCalifornia website which was the apparent source), he's listed as having run unsuccessfully for mayor both years. I presume that "G" is correct based on the available information (a search for "E" turned up no credible references), and will change it from "E" to "G" for both entries, however I wanted to put an extended note here in case someone is able to document that "E" is actually correct and I am mistaken. CheMechanical (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

County mayor?

I deleted this recently added paragraph because the chair of the Board of Supervisors is just never referred to as the County Mayor, except maybe in an L.A. Times headline, and there seems to be no chance of confusing the two offices.

The title should not be confused with the mayor of Los Angeles County, which refers to the chair of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The County mayor title is purely ceremonial.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Acting mayors

They should not be listed here. The council president is always acting mayor when the mayor is out of the state. For example, G. Vernon Bennett was acting mayor when Fletcher Bowron went gallivanting. What do the rest of you think? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Having heard no objection, I removed the three acting mayors. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The acting mayors listed are those that were acting at times when there was no regular mayor, in or out of state. They should be listed. There is plenty of precedent for this practice in other lists of executive offices. Otherwise, you have inexplicable gaps in the list.WQUlrich (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No matter how you slice it though, these estimable placeholders were not the Mayor of Los Angeles, as the title of the article indicates. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Party color

I added the party color to the list so that this list would match the featured list for Mayor of San Francisco more closely. I personally like including the colors because it makes it easier to visualize the political party at a glance better than with just text. It also seems like this standard that is generally accepted for other featured lists of mayors. Finally, I don't think that the fact that the coding is a little more complicated in and of itself should be a concern since this will be transparent to most users. I didn't want to revert back the edit without some discussion first, and I'm interested to see what other people think. mcd51 (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked at a few other lists of politicians, including List of Governors of California (featured), List of Presidents of the United States, and List of United States Senators from California, and it really looks like the standard is to show party color on lists of US politicians. I'm going to go ahead and restore the version with party color. If people have specific concerns about how this particular list is formatted, I'm happy to work toward consensus on making changes. mcd51 (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mayor of Los Angeles. 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/20101008203818/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mayor of Los Angeles. 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/20160303165559/http://file.lacounty.gov/lac/sfoster.pdf to http://file.lacounty.gov/lac/sfoster.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304022923/http://file.lacounty.gov/lac/mrequena.pdf to http://file.lacounty.gov/lac/mrequena.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)