Talk:Derek Corrigan

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Dear

This isn't the place to

synthesis of council minutes or logs or whatevers is not going to fly. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but I did include a link to the recordings of the actual meetings at which the bylaws were discussed. If that's not a primary source, I don't know what is. Karen Middlefield (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you cared to do your research,

WP:3RR, I will not revert again, but this is on you to revert back to allow for the internal citations. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 20:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm getting so confused (sorry!). When I have more time, I will do a revision and post it here first, so we don't keep going back and forth on the Corrigan page. Thanks! The first part of this sentence is inaccurate, though Corrigan said the council would remove breed-specific language but according to critics, he failed to follow through on his promise.[6][7][8] Council did not say they would remove it. They were looking to strengthen it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen Middlefield (talk • contribs) 20:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karen, you don't have to apologize for getting confused...a lot of this stuff is overly technical and different editors interpret things in different ways. Just make a revision with inline citations based off of references 4-8, correct the sentence, and if everything checks out - the article will stand. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 20:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to do that. Karen Middlefield (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slazenger, I am aware of your conversations with Karen and User:WadeDavison who have been edit warring over this content. Conversations about content belong here on the talk page not on your user page. But enough with the pissing contest. Let's deal with the situation we have at hand. We are all here now and we can sort through this and move ahead. I don't agree with your approach but I won't edit war or interfere with you either as that's not productive. Let's see what gets created in the next few days. Please be aware that the following cited information is already include in the career section of the article and is the distilled version of Karen's non-compliant content which she has been repeatedly inserting since Oct 30th.

• In the fall of 2013, Burnaby City Council issued a report analyzing its animal control bylaws.[4] The report was criticized by some local organizations and citizens as being biased towards certain breeds.[5] Corrigan said the council would remove breed-specific language but according to critics, he failed to follow through on his promise.[6][7][8]

So please ago ahead with whatever you are doing but you and Karen should keep in mind that this is a biography of a living person, not a modern history of the city's politics. So whatever the outcome it will be subject to WP's policies and guidelines as well as discussion, consensus and change if it is not compliant with policies such as

WP:UNDUE. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I removed inappropriate content, yes. Call it "edit war" if you want, that term is a new one on me, no matter. Bottom line is that you have a user intent on editing a man's biographical page to push their own personal politics. This is not place for that; it makes a mockery or Wikipedia itself. If that user is not satisfied with a decision made by a city's elected officials, so be it; Wikipedia is not the place to dispute their legislation. - Wade Davision — Preceding unsigned comment added by WadeDavison (talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I would like to draw your attention to an article that recently appeared in the local Burnaby newspaper entitled "Burnaby mayor’s Wikipedia page hit by online troll": http://www.burnabynow.com/news/burnaby-mayor-s-wikipedia-page-hit-by-online-troll-1.688119 The use of "troll" is no accident given that is aptly describes the anonymous editor in question. It should be, by now, plainly obvious that there is a Wikipedia user determined to deface a biographical page simply because they obsessively don't agree with a legally rendered municipal legislative decision. Removing such obviously inappropriate content should not be contentious and, frankly, ought to be the end of this non-issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WadeDavison (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Sorry, Wade, but just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it was written by a troll. We've been having this discussion for a while now and agreed on what to include. It may be elaborated on in the future. If you can prove that the breed-specific legislation was not discussed in the manner reported on this page, in the news, and as appears in the televised broadcast of the two meetings in question, by all means do so. Until then, I think you should stop deleting factual data. I'm starting to think you might be somehow affiliated with the mayor. Karen Middlefield (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, for a mayor who has been in power for so many years, this really is a very sparse entry now. Surely he's made some decisions that he (you) can stand by. I suggest that instead of arbitrarily deleting what others post, User:WadeDavison, you positively contribute some information. I am willing to be edited, based on constructive feedback, and am certainly willing to compromise, as are the others taking part here. And name-calling really is counter-productive. Cheers, Karen. Karen Middlefield (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts, User: Slazenger and User:Keithbob? This is a very sparse entry now. And when you look at how many similar comments are allowed on Rob Ford or Gregor Robertson's bios, this hyper vigilance over Corrigan's page is a tad bizarre. Why is Wade Davison allowed to only delete? He hasn't contributed anything of substance anywhere. Karen Middlefield (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to everyone, that we have rules on WP about civility and behavior. We don't allow people to attack each other on WP per

WP:TALK. I think Slanzenger and I set a bad example by addressing each others behavior in our initial posts but I promise to set a better example now. Thanking you all in advance for your adherence to these policies and for being patient and respectful to all who are here to discuss this issue. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Karen and Wade, User:FreeRangeFrog and myself felt that the initial information that Karen added under the special section called, controversy, was excessive and violated WP's guidelines for biographies of living persons. So I reduced that content while retaining what I thought were the salient points and all of the citations. FreeRangeFrog then reviewed my new version and gave his/her agreement that he/she felt it was appropriate. We felt it was a good compromise between the extremes of well intentioned overkill by Karen and blanket removal by Wade. WP works through discussion and consensus, so there is always room for more discussion, if needed, which is what I would like to do now. So Karen, if I am able to reinstate the content that Wade has removed (see below) are you OK with that content compromise version? Once we have a consensus on what should be in the article then we can deal with Wade if he continues to remove it. Any thoughts on this Karen? And thanks to everyone for their cooperation and patience with the WP collaborative processes.

• In the fall of 2013, Burnaby City Council issued a report analyzing its animal control bylaws.^[1] The report was criticized by some local organizations and citizens as being biased towards certain breeds.^[2] Corrigan said the council would remove breed-specific language but according to critics, he failed to follow through on his promise.^[3][4][5]

Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• References

Thanks, User:Keithbob. My only concern with your version is that Corrigan did not say council would remove breed-specific language and the source cited doesn't say that either. Can we change it to:"Corrigan and his council were looking into strengthening breed-specific legislation and invited public input. According to critics, mayor and council failed to consider the information provided by the public." (Those who spoke at the meetings were opposed to breed-specific legislation. This can be confirmed by a review of the webcast of the meeting, which I had previously linked to but got defeated.

Also, I see that someone whose IP address links to the City of Burnaby (if I interpret that info correctly) has posted a whole bunch of praise on the mayor. There are absolutely no sources provided, however. Can you address this issue? Thanks.

Karen Middlefield (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm certainly open to discussing and changing the proposed text as long as it accurately reflects the best sources available per WP guidelines and policies. OK, as you may know, WP is based on reliable secondary sources (per

WP:PRIMARY

) have limited usage on WP and especially in biographies of living people. Primary sources are items like, editorials, opinion pieces, letters to the editor, court documents, research papers, Corrigan's web site, the city's website, a report written by the town etc. So with this general information in mind lets look at the sources one by one:

1. PDF from Sept 3, 2013] This is a primary source from the Director of Finance to the City Manager and asks the City Council to amend the 1991 animal control bylaws currently in place.
2. Letter to the Editor of local paper Sept 23, 2013 In this letter the writer criticizes the data in the aforementioned PDF.
3. Letter to the editor of local paper Oct 4, 2013 In this letter the writer criticizes the city council's response to public testimony at two prior council meetings that discussed "breed-specific legislation".
4. Letter from the director of the Paws For Hope foundation Sept 24, 2013 This web "letter" urges the mayor and council to listen to the input from the public.
5. Letter from director of Paws for Hope foundation Oct 4, 2013]

All of these sources are primary sources and generally not appropriate for a biography of a living person (BLP). Also, a biography is not the place to debate, or make statements about city politics or laws etc even if Corrigan is the mayor. So I think before we place any content about this back in the article. We need to find some better sources and we need to make sure those sources reference Derek Corrigan by name and report notable things that he has done not things the city council or members of the public have done. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keithbob Now I am really confused. Primary sources are the strongest sources you will get. They include hard data, recorded interviews (including the recorded council meetings), etc. I included some of that, but it got deleted. Secondary sources include editorials, letters to the editor, etc. Please see this link http://www.lib.umd.edu/ues/guides/primary-sources. In any case, we previously agreed to put in that one sentence or two about the dog bylaw. Is that now gone? Now the piece is super-fluffy with a lot of unsubstantiated, unsourced comments. Are you saying that is acceptable? Why is Corrigan being treated differently from the neighbouring city's mayor Gregor Robertson or Toronto's mayor Rob Ford? There seems to be a double standard at work and I'm not sure why that is. Karen Middlefield (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your confusion. WP has its own set of rules. In a courtroom first hand testimony is considered the gold standard. But on WP its just the opposite. WP wants third party information that has gone through an editorial filtering process and gives priority to sources like new reports etc. Letters to the editor are published but they are the opinions of one person and are almost never permitted as sources on WP and are certainly not acceptable for criticism of a living person. Let's see if we can find some secondary sources. I'm looking right now.[1]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

| Here are two. Will these work? http://www.burnabynow.com/news/pit-bulls-still-a-vicious-dog-in-burnaby-1.644957

http://www.burnabynow.com/news/delegations-take-a-bite-out-of-burnaby-s-animal-control-bylaw-1.636376 Karen Middlefield (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Experts on such things suggest that national press coverage of an "issue" is much more useful to justifity material in a Wikipedia article. --

talk) 23:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Karen Middlefield (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to use primary sources as there are dozens and dozens of news articles about Corrigan and his role in politics and his views and actions on many issues. He has been mentioned and discussed in the local Burnaby news but he has received coverage in the Vancouver Sun, Bloomberg, Reuters and the Wall Street Journal.(see partial collection of those articles here). He has also been mayor for more than a decade and has acted on many political issues of which this dog breed issue is only a single minor event. Yes it can be mentioned (and I just put something in noting the criticism) but we should be looking to see how we can build the article as whole not how we can build one section concerning his decision to maintain breed specific legislation that has been in place for more than 10 years.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree. But I had to start somewhere. I will let you decide how you want to fit it in. Based on your example, I'll try to gather and produce more info.

Karen Middlefield (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've toned it down, consolidated it and put a note on the contributor's page [2] letting them know that it may be removed if reliable sources are not provided within a reasonable amount of time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now what about the dog info? :-) Sorry to keep saying it, but if you just put a really tiny bit in and linked to the actual council meeting, you would be really safe on all counts and readers can decide, no? Karen Middlefield (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who, exactly, would be "really safe", and from what, exactly, would they be "really safe"? --

talk) 23:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Karen Middlefield (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better to put in info reported by the highest quality secondary sources and cite that information with links to the articles and the reader can decide if they want to check the source and read the whole news article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keithbob will you be reinserting the dog info based on the discussed edits? I would prefer it if you did, to show me exactly how best to do it :-) Thanks! Karen Middlefield (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that

WP:BRD which supports people making bold change like Demiurge did, but if that change is reversed, then the next step is to come to the talk page for discussion. So you could reverse the removal and if Demiurge objects, proper etiquette would suggest he/she begin to discuss it here rather than continuing to revert and edit war. WP is based on reliable sources and community consensus (which can be time consuming as you can see). So its up to you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Bio at 2011 IRBC Conference [3]

• CBC News Vancouver Late Night | Oct 1, 2013 | 3:37---RAW: Mayor defends pit bull stance--Derek Corrigan says pit bulls were bred to be fighting dogs [4]

• Twelve consecutive years won’t be enough for Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, who’s told the Burnaby NOW he fully intends to run again. The next civic election is due November 2014, and Corrigan said he hopes to make it his fifth consecutive term as city mayor............. Recently, Corrigan was under fire for his and council’s decision to keep pit bulls muzzled in the city, despite 95 letter writers and all delegations that came forward supporting the opposite. “I never like to make people unhappy in the city, but I found that in politics, that sometimes to make an omelet you’ve got to break a few eggs,” he added. Corrigan said he hopes voters consider the redevelopment of the Edmonds area as one of his strong suits. “I haven’t gotten to my best before date,” he noted. [5]

• Mayor Derek Corrigan said people pick and choose data to support their own opinion, and the good pit bull owners feel "put upon." "It's unfortunate this dog was bred by human beings in order to be a fighting dog, in order to be a dog that learned how to fight to kill and to sustain an attack," he said. "Unfortunately though, there are people out there who use this dog like a weapon. There are people out there who consider this dog is part of their macho image." He also noted that he did not want to remove the breed-specific legislation and then have a child get attacked by a pit bull because he would feel personally responsible.[6]

• Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan asserts Vancouver city hall is “dreaming in technicolour” with regard to the $2.8-billion proposal. He said he “cannot imagine” the rest of Metro Vancouver’s municipalities identifying the subway as a priority. “It’s just not on the radar at all in order to try and accomplish that,” Corrigan told the Straight by phone. “TransLink is in massive debt with huge operating deficits, and Vancouver continues to talk about spending more money on massive infrastructure.” [7]

• Even though he now has a digital smart meter installed at his South Burnaby home, four-term Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan is no fan of the billion-dollar program. “I think it’s an absolute waste of money,” Corrigan told the Straight by phone. “It’s an expenditure on infrastructure that produces absolutely no benefit.” Corrigan said he has not felt any physical impacts since his meter was installed, insisting he’s been mad as hell about the cost. [8]
• An Interview with Burnaby Mayor: Derek Corrigan--April 21, 2013 | Michelle Hopkins, [9]

• Interview with Derek Corrigan October 27, 2011-[10]

• List of pay to view news articles by the Vancouver Sun etc. [11]

• The province has failed to be accountable to British Columbians, Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan told more than 200 residents of Burnaby, Abbotsford, North Vancouver, and other neighbouring municipalities who packed the hall at a Burnaby Residents Opposed to Kinder Morgan Expansion (BROKE) town hall last night. [12]

• Burnaby’s mayor thinks fight against pipeline may be over--Frustration comes as Kinder Morgan takes another step in its proposal--Jason Howe May 24, 2013 4:23 pm [13]

• Following the Treaty signing, First Nations, environmentalists and public leaders are gathering for the West Coast Oil Pipeline Summit. The conference looks at the concept of transitioning from oil-generated energy to alternative forms of renewable energy production. The event was designed using speakers from various backgrounds and expertise in order to generate dialogue on a very complex issue. Speakers include Mayor Gregor Robertson of Vancouver, Mayor Derek Corrigan of Burnaby, [14]

• The building will be fitted to Terasen Gas' purposes beginning in January 2011. Recruiting and hiring of a local workforce with a strong customer focus will commence this fall and continue into 2011. "This is great news for Burnaby," said Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan. "We are thrilled to welcome another Terasen Gas facility to our City and look forward to the many benefits their new office will bring to the community, including job opportunities." [15]

• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]