Talk:Sam Sullivan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
| This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |  |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. This article is primarily related to the city of Vancouver |
lol. i couldnt believe it. i heard him speaking cantonese on chanel m wishing people a happy new year. hes not bad for a gwai lo.
Contents |
[edit] Order of Canada Information
I have removed the statement suggesting that Mr. Sullivan is the only elected person who received the Order of Canada while holding office. This is untrue; Hazel McCallion, Mayor of Mississauga, received it in 2005. She has been Mayor of Mississauga since 1978 and won re-election for the 11th time in November 2006.
[edit] Party affiliation
Removed the party affiliation from the succession box, as it does not appear in the articles on other Vancouver mayors (except Larry Campbell, where I also removed it). If it is edited back in, it should be edited back in on all other articles on Vancouver mayors. ~~Fishhead64 06:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Edit wars over the 2005 election and trivial details
I edited the page to day to remove much of the rather excessive detail on the controversy over the 2005 election. I know that it is still a controversial topic, but it doesn't warrant the amount of detail that has been edited in (and out). Given the ongoing controversy, I think it is more prudent to make a briefer allusion to its existence, and the underlying reason for its existence. Also, I deleted much of (what in my opinion was) the rather trivial detail concerning Sullivan. Lots of people are featured in articles, the anecdote about Sullivan and the Olympic flag was not very important, and the fact that being a sitting politician awarded the Order of Canada is no longer unique renders the detail uninteresting. He's hardly started his term, and if brevity is not exercised, the length of the article will soon rival that of Churchill! (albeit with a lot less valuable information) Fishhead64 22:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with much of your removal of this information. If James Green is going to be mentioned at all in this article, then certainly it's fair to have details of the controversy included. The Olympic flag is current news, and of interesting historical note. The Order of Canada has gone to many people, but certainly not enough people to warrant removal of its noteworthiness. And finally, comparative length of article is no indication of importance. If it were, certain computer game pages would denote them being the most important thing in our society. I will not revert your edits right away, in hopes that you will give some better rationale for removing other people's work. Kickstart70 22:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I thought my rationale was adequate, and the basics of the information remain in the article (i.e., the Order of Canada, the Olympic flag). The flag situation is historically noteworthy - practicing in the parking lot and cracking a joke are details. What warrants their inclusion? When do they cease to be noteworthy (if indeed they are)? As for the election controversy, I've already seen five edits over the past month as various partisans insert and remove various allegations of which only the most devoted civic-watchers are aware. Again, how much detail is sufficient to make the point that there is a controversy based on a specific, original charge? I'd ask you to consider these points before reverting my edits, and also to give a chance for others to weigh in. Thanks! Fishhead64 23:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't exactly call 5 edits over the course of a month on a subtopic an edit war, and for what that's worth, were they even by the same people? Myself, living in Richmond like you, am not a voter in the Vancouver election and further thought that Sullivan was probably the slightly better of two mediocre candidates...yet my contribution was not in any way positive for Sullivan. I agree about the parking lot and the lack of noteworthiness of the article written about Sullivan, anyway. My main objection is the removal of details of the controversy, which are noteworthy in many people's minds, not POV, and therefore worthy of inclusion. As it appears now, your removal of them in itself appears POV. The rationale for removing the details under that section does not seem strong enough (with one caveat...if those details were copied over to a Controversy section on a page specifically about the Vancouver Mayoral Election, 2005 I would not object); it's the blanket removal of non-POV facts that irks me. Kickstart70 23:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kickstart70, I can see your point. And agree with you in your assessment of the candidates, btw, only I slightly preferred Green. I merely wanted to present the bare bones in order to avert ongoing extensions and deletions. I will take up your suggestion, and create a separate article on the civic election when I return to Richmond from a short trip next week. Fishhead64 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't exactly call 5 edits over the course of a month on a subtopic an edit war, and for what that's worth, were they even by the same people? Myself, living in Richmond like you, am not a voter in the Vancouver election and further thought that Sullivan was probably the slightly better of two mediocre candidates...yet my contribution was not in any way positive for Sullivan. I agree about the parking lot and the lack of noteworthiness of the article written about Sullivan, anyway. My main objection is the removal of details of the controversy, which are noteworthy in many people's minds, not POV, and therefore worthy of inclusion. As it appears now, your removal of them in itself appears POV. The rationale for removing the details under that section does not seem strong enough (with one caveat...if those details were copied over to a Controversy section on a page specifically about the Vancouver Mayoral Election, 2005 I would not object); it's the blanket removal of non-POV facts that irks me. Kickstart70 23:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I thought my rationale was adequate, and the basics of the information remain in the article (i.e., the Order of Canada, the Olympic flag). The flag situation is historically noteworthy - practicing in the parking lot and cracking a joke are details. What warrants their inclusion? When do they cease to be noteworthy (if indeed they are)? As for the election controversy, I've already seen five edits over the past month as various partisans insert and remove various allegations of which only the most devoted civic-watchers are aware. Again, how much detail is sufficient to make the point that there is a controversy based on a specific, original charge? I'd ask you to consider these points before reverting my edits, and also to give a chance for others to weigh in. Thanks! Fishhead64 23:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Photos of Sam
KrigKrug has some nice pictures of Sam on his flickr account and they are tagged with the CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Deed if you want to use them. --Geedubber 06:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've uploaded and replaced one here. The NonCommercial restriction on the license isn't as free as it could be, obviously, but it's better (I think) than however the previous NPA image was licensed. Step in the right direction. I hope I've tagged the Image properly where I uploaded it. --Ds13 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- It has just come to my attention, courtesy of User:Bobanny, that because this image has the non-commercial restriction, it may be a "deletable offense" to use it on Wikipedia. If this is true and if anyone knows if the photographer would relicense the image for Wikipedia, please speak up. Thanks. Putting the previous fair-use image back is an option, though it is a copyrighted image... so the best option will be to find a free image, with no restrictions. --Ds13 04:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
