Jump to content

Talk:Sam Sullivan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biography or Political Election Platform

[edit]

Any good biography is a chronological document outlining the subjects low and high points in their life. Starting where he was born, who his parents were. Early life. Turning point is his life - THE SKI ACCIDENT. How he coped. His successes His failures. How he overcame his difficulties to become mayor. This article seems to be a list of planks in and election platform - sometimes clearly identifying those who voted differently from him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.178.12 (talk) 04:24, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


Order of Canada Information

[edit]

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.

Party affiliation

[edit]

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).[reply]

Edit wars over the 2005 election and trivial details

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Election fraud is not a trivial detail. Sam Sullivan clearly interfered in the election when he rented space to a candidate with effectively the same name as his political adversary - Jim Green. It absolutely sickens me that anyone would find that detail "trivial". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.166.246 (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Sam

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia editing controversy

[edit]

[1] Anchoress 10:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like 199.175.219.1 is the IP number they are talking about (whois 199.175.219.1). One of the contentious edits was this one. The Sun did not mention that User talk:199.175.219.1 has various warnings from last year relating to spamming. --Mathew5000 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City Hall / my tax dollars being wasted.

[edit]

As a citizen of Vancouver I find it very sad and tragic that City Hall / Sam Sullivan find it nescessary to have a City hall employee edit and sanitize Sam's wiki page. With all the tax dollars available to Sam to advertise his acheivements and accomplishments through photo-op's and glossy new bulletins Sam and the NPA should allow the wiki article to stand.

Bobbie4 01:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is obviously inappropriate, even on a discussion page. Have some shame and keep your political and personal opinions off an encyclopedia site. ThVa (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Civil City

[edit]

There is not enough about this section. I still don't know what "Project Civil City" entails. --Louiechefei28848888 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long has this article been changed by City Hall?

[edit]

I remember reading a much smaller and cleaner article a while ago that had less POV issues. I can't find anything referring to the labour dispute that's been going on for months that's referred to as "Sam's Strike" or the "Olympic Strike" depending on who you ask. I can't seem to write a decent wikipedia worthy paragraph on this, but I know the sources are out there to support this. Infil00p 06:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View Dispute

[edit]

This article is categorized as a biography - yet when any biographical information is added it is quickly removed as irrelevant or not noteworthy. All that remains is a number of paragraphs of civic current events ie civic strike, ecodensity (concept is a work in progress), Civil City and CAST. This really belongs in WikiNews.

To really understand the article you must have some understanding of the sparring that goes on at city hall. What is really missing is the story how an individual from not-well-to-do background combined with a serious accident was elected to civil office.

This is advise that the given to high-school students in writing a biography.

Get the basics: your subject's place of birth, hometown, favorite stuff—you get the idea. Then, trace the subject's family history, emphasizing any prominent family members and their particular contributions to the subject's life. Outline major events in the subject's life: education, relationships and jobs, for example. Create a list of effects/impacts the subject had on society, or any historical significance the subject had.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.178.12 (talk • contribs)

Unsourced info of questionable importance is not a WP:NPOV dispute. Provide some WP:reliable sources for information and you'll find the sledding a lot easier. Also, discussing content on this Talk page prior to editing is a good idea. Not creating an account and repeatedly adding

unsourced content anonymously on a bio about a contentious public figure is a poor idea. Canuckle 04:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stated my reasons for removing your edits on your talk page. That info has little to do with his notability and overwhelmed the article. Ecodensity, Civil City, serving as the mayor of a major city, etc. all have far-reaching consequences that will affect thousands of people's lives and how the city develops into the future. How he keeps warm doesn't. It's not a human interest story or a generic high school assignment, it's an encyclopedia article. Personal details, family background, etc. have a place in biography articles, but need to complement the stuff that make the subject significant. Take a look at some featured biography articles to get an idea of proportion. You'll find that Wayne Gretzky's focuses on his hockey career and Jackie Chan's focuses on his film career. Why wouldn't Sullivan's article focus on his political career? Both those articles include personal details and background, but not to the extent that hockey or action films are pushed to the side.
Also, ditto what Canuckle said: this has nothing to do with the point of view of the article, so I'm removing the tag. And don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes(~~~~). bobanny 07:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not so fast - tag should only be removed if the dispute is resolved - Sam Sullivan's career should focus on his advocacy for the disabled not politics - He got involved in politics to advance his advocacy. Some Wiki contributors disagree with his politics tend to dismiss his achivements hence impacting the neutrality of the article. 24.81.178.12 14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? His advocacy and politics are in the article, with or without your additions. You're saying people who don't like Sullivan's politics are trying to censor his advocacy for the disabled in the article? What are you basing that on? bobanny 14:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the noncompliant tag is nonsense on those grounds is nonsense. Read the WP:NPOV you're trying to cite: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. You can't add your unsourced, unverifiableed info and then claim the article suffers from unsourced, unverifiableed info. Put up a source and you'll see your problems disappear, or at least lessen. Some more info on his adapting to life as a quadriplegic and achievements with his companies are welcome -- but come on, create an account and supply a reliable source for it already. Canuckle 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain:

Section CAST (Chronic Addiction Substitution Treatment)is unsourced yet not deleted.


Section Civic strike is sourced to an opinion/editorial in "24 Hours Vancouver" - Is this a reliable source?


Section Police Board relating to new chief of police is sourced to an article that does no even mention the new police chief

Section Olympic and Paralympic Games: Sullivan also revealed that he had practiced the flag waving in parking lots during nights.[2] -- is sourced by an obsolete webpage


24.81.178.12 04:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? There's already a tag on the article saying it's lacking references. Personally, I'll take your word for it that the content you added is true. Oh, look. I just did a google search to see for myself how notable your additions are, and I found a source for you. The one you cut and pasted from. Now, I know they don't teach plagiarism in high school, and you'll get a fat "F" or worse if you try it in university. Nor is it tolerated on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for details. bobanny 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Portal Biography

[edit]

This biography was previously nominated and placed into the portal Vancouver biographies. On changing the format to automatic rotate, this article could be re-entered, but it has only a one sentence lead, and does not summarize the entire article. One sentence as an introduction on the portal just does not really work. Could someone familiar with the biography please edit the article, with a better lead, and then it could be on the portal again if so desired. SriMesh | talk 00:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sullivanflag.jpg may be deleted

[edit]

I have tagged File:Sullivanflag.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

birthplace

[edit]

User Bearcat removed unsourced potential vandalism that added Honolulu Hawaii as Sullivan's birthplace. This TedX marketing site says born and lived in East Vancouver: http://langara.bc.ca/tedxlangara/speaker-bios/sam-sullivan.html

Any more reliable sources out there? Canuckle (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Sam Sullivan. 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:

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) 07:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sam Sullivan. 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:

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) 19:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sam_Sullivan&oldid=1209005989"