Talk:Jenny Durkan

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

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

LGBT studies: Person This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles This article is supported by the LGBT Person task force. 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). United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as High-importance). Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090930115131/http://blogs.thenewstribune.com:80/politics/2009/05/15/obama_names_jenny_durkan_u_s_attorney_fo to http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/05/15/obama_names_jenny_durkan_u_s_attorney_fo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—

Please participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC Should articles say elections are decided based on preliminary returns?. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To re-iterate what I put in my edit explanation: I added "elected" to the lead (first para) - she isn't the second *consecutive* LGBT mayor, there were two unelected interim mayors in between her and Ed Murray (Washington politician). (Bruce Harrell, Tim Burgess (politician)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulie 27 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just removing the abovementioned "LGBT" and substituting "gay" or "LGB" , instead of doing that, which I am not doing because that would be a provocative edit for someone to make who is neither L nor G nor B nor T nor Q nor I for that matter...but honestly, it would be a more economical use of language to just drop the ding dang "T" because Seattle has had exactly zero consecutive "T" mayors, so why mention "T"? It's like saying, "Jenny Durkan is the second (and not the third or fourth) consecutive gay mayor of Seattle." It's like, why even mention the next two gay mayors after Durkan resigns, those future gay mayors have nothing to do with the current gay mayor. 98.247.86.238 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Bardolph98.247.86.238 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at an outdated version of the page and reverted what I thought was vandalism. But accidentally reverted the fix. I've reverted my reversion. Faolin42 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

And just to clarify, of those who have been involved: two have been (unnecessarily) banned, one has indicated that they are not interested in becoming involved, one (who only made one edit in the article) has not responded. That leaves the two of us, alone at last. Let's discuss. I call for a vote on whether or not we should discuss. I vote AYE.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Gavel bang, gavel bang). Approved, the Ayes have it! Hurray! @Drmies: now that we have consensus for discussion, we'll have discussion for consensus for consensus or consensus for no consensus, provided consensus is reached. My argument is that both huge portions of content should be reinstated. What are your specific concerns?--174.21.179.79 (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read your silliness and I'm not going to play along. Stop pinging me. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's up

WP:INVOLVED? Just answer that and, given your response, you'll never hear from me again.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the loaded question. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. Not really, it was a serious question. You haven't really responded to my response to Deepfriedokra's specific wikipolicies. Nor have you indicated if you have actually read the news articles that were sourced (as you also stated that you did not bother reading my responses earlier on this talk page). I did get an apology from Deepfriedokra, which I take as a retraction of most of the wikipolicies that that editor listed. I fully responded to any other complaints. What do you have to say? I'd also like to point out that this discussion was initiated by the deletion, not the inclusion, of said content. That content had been in the article for several weeks and was not deleted as soon as it was first added. Therefore you and others should have immediately taken your concerns to this talk page and not edit warred. I am now attempting to have a civil discussion with all involved editors. I even attempted to reach out to uninvolved editors, alas, to no avail. You have been given ample time to respond and have not done so, but instead insist on edit warring. I believe that you should show gumption, mettle and true grit by not running away from a fight, but instead take my (and the great

User: Origamite's) example and charge towards an argument. I look forward to your response.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, I agree with User:Techie3 and think that Someville243's ban should be lifted. As Sawant once said of Alex Tsimerman (paraphrasing), "I fail to see the crisis."--174.21.179.79 (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping-ping Doc. I assure you, I'd love for this to be resolved. So ok, I'm waiting to hear back from you in regards to your reasoning for wanting to delete content that was already in the article for a fair (although not substantial) amount of time. When this began, your reasoning appeared to be both a personal attack and a presumption of knowing exactly what I was thinking, soothsayer style. Those are not encyclopedic reasons. Deepfriedokra (may I suggest adding ghost pepper hot sauce and a dash of whole cumin to that recipe?) listed actual wikipolicies, all of which I addressed. So, can you please make a better case for your initial objections with actual wikipolicy examples, comment on my response to Deepfriedokrawithhotsauseandcuminandmaybeafriedeggontheside's objections (for instance do you believe that the content was fabricated?) and reiterate precisely why you believe that this content should remain deleted? Also, the other content is, in your words, excessive. Alrighty, I think that once again that's just IDONTLIKEIT, but I can compromise. Would you object to a shortened version? I am giving you every possible chance to have an actual conversation about this topic, and frankly I consider your sulking to be childish. You stopped actively participating as soon as I responded to actual wikipolicy arguments, so I'm sorry but right now you are making yourself look like a bit of a crybully. If you refuse to participate in a discussion then this talk page is consensus, so please do not blindly revert edits.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey then. The above user has indicated that they are not interested in being

In one last good faith effort to actively welcome debate and differing opinions (unlike the example of the admin whom must not be named) I have followed the example of Deepfriedokra by reaching out to four other pages. However Deepfriedokra made some reckless accusations about COI concerns (which the user later apologized for), so in that aspect I am not following the users example and instead am reaching out to editors from 4 completely unrelated pages that are unlikely to have COI conflicts, and yet are, hypothetically, apt for a good and healthy debate. Specifically

Talk:Modern flat Earth societies. I'll give it a few days now. To any new, uninvolved editors: In a nutshell this article had a subsection in the "Controversies" section in regards to Jenny Durkan being a defense attorney for an Everett police officer in 1991/1992 who was accused of molesting a 15 year old and attempting to pressure the 15 year old and a 16 year old for sexual favors. Durkan's defense was to accuse the teenagers of lying, although the police officer openly admitted to "joking" about sexual intercourse and, when initially interrogated, admitted to frisking the 15 year old for a routine traffic stop. The content was fully sourced and had been in the article for several weeks. The initial arguments for deleting the content was a vague and inaccurate accusation of slander. More vague accusations were made, such as the content being fabricated and not supported by the cited sources, as well as personal attacks and presumptions of knowing what the agenda of the initial poster of the content (me) was. Eventually, after several requests by myself, actual wikipolicies were listed. Once I began to fully defend the content against all accusations, some involved editors apologized and others became silent and unwilling to to discuss further or defend their now discredited points. And one (two) were indefinitely banned for, in my opinion, minor reasons. Most of this can be found above, as well as on some talk pages that can easily be found from the involved editors. Many big egos and thin skins appear to be involved, which unfortunately means that excessive hubris prevents them from wanting to admit being wrong. Happy editing.--97.113.252.12 (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• The content removed (again) in this edit was grossly excessive (the article is not about her family, there is no good reason to delve into the father's past or the non-notable siblings' careers) and at least a little tendentious, inappropriate for a BLP. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm, welcome back. OK then, if you now seem to be willing to explain your reasoning for edits and reverts like any other editor is expected to do, please answer this (in regards to the initial content in question): Do you still think that the content is fabricated and a lie? And if so do you think that I, the compiler and editor of the content, am lying? Or are you suggesting that the two teenage girls were lying? You were quite aggressive and vehement about "lies", so I would hope that you recognized the irony in regards to the actual circumstances of the disputed content. Please have the courage to answer that question since you seemed to have no issue with making the accusation.--97.113.253.30 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the "Early Life" section revision: Of course there is good reason to go into the father's political career. Durkan is a politician, her father was a politician, many of her siblings are involved in local politics as lawyers and lobbyists. Its completely relevant. The deleted content included a quote explaining the very relevant background from which a politician came from. You're just being silly here.--97.113.253.30 (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that this seems to be other case where your limited understanding of how things work here is IMO part of the problem. If you want to demonstrate that those details are important in relation to Jenny Durkan, you should find sources about Jenny Durkan that discuss those details. Those sources mostly seem to be about someone else (her father, mother or siblings) which I assume briefly mention Jenny as their well known daughter or siblings. It may barely be acceptable to use such sources to clarify certain biographical points like although frankly I'm surprised we really need a source from before she was born. I suspect we don't and it can be replaced hopefully with one about Jenny Durkan (or at least the family in general) if someone tries. Once you start going into more than basic biographical details, you really need sources about Jenny Durkan which demonstrate why these details about her family are so important to the article on Jenny Durkan. See also

WP:BLPNAME. Nil Einne (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I looked again and there was one source about Jenny Durkan, that about a possible COI if elected. That still seems fairly insignificant. If there is evidence that this possible conflict of interest became significant when she was elected, then this could probably be mentioned albeit in the mayoral (or whatever) section and not in the personal life one with only enough details to establish why there was an issue as established by the sources. I saw there was one source which I guess about the family in general comparing to the Kennedys. The problem is "never quite" is significant here. Unlike the Kennedys where a large number of them are notable, only her father seems to be. Nil Einne (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a separate issue. There are plenty of sources that specify the importance of the Durkan family in regards to Jenny Durkan's notability. It looks like you looked over the deleted content, so I'm sure you saw that it was more detailed info on Martin Durkan's career, a list of the siblings and their career choice, and the Kennedy quote. To be clear, some of the sources were added by other users. I don't know the wikipolicy, but there are certainly many other examples of someones siblings being listed and family background briefly mentioned. Sure, some of the sibling's careers are not relevant, but several are related to politics. Really it just gives a fully picture of the background of the article's subject.--174.21.161.199 (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nil Einne, here's an example of a Featured Article that goes into the background of its subject to some detail: The Man in the Moone#Background and contexts. Are there also issues with this article? Would it be synthesis and undue to include this content since it does not relate directly to the book? I'm positive that I can find other examples.--97.113.228.118 (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

W. R. van Hoëvell#Resignation and here's an example of a Good Article that uses the word "controversial" without specifying "according to whom", and which seems to be written in a non-encyclopedic tone: "...and perhaps too important...".--97.113.228.118 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Also this section is currently inaccurate after being edited by a now banned user. There were 6 biological Durkan children and 1 informally adopted child. There were sources that supported that.--97.113.228.118 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section is

]

Proposal for Updates to Article

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I have a personal and previous professional connection to Jenny Durkan. As recommended on the Contact Us page of Wikipedia [10], I am submitting proposed edits to the article here for volunteer editors to review. I have tried to comply with Wikipedia policies to the best of my ability, especially Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of Views. Please let me know if I can help in any way.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

• In the Lead, paragraph three, first sentence, please change:

FROM

Durkan has received criticism for her response to the

TO

Durkan has received criticism for her response to the

Explanation: adds the words “of protestors” as this reflects what the body of the article, and the source actually says. Jenny Durkan#Criticism of Donald Trump. It also corrects a typo in the current sentence. Thank you for your consideration. 1920sportsfan (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

• In the “2011 raids on medical marijuana dispensaries” section, please change sentences two, three, and four:

FROM:

The targeted dispensaries were accused of "flagrant violations" of laws because DEA officers believed that "the shops were fronts for illicit drug dealing and revealed that agents were looking for evidence of drug conspiracies, money laundering and guns." Durkan stated her belief that many medical marijuana users were "fakers". Marijuana activists protested the raids.^[2]

TO:

The DEA’s search warrants suggested the dispensaries were involved in illicit drug dealing and money laundering; Durkan stated the raided shops were “operating well outside the medical provisions” and that they had only targeted flagrant dispensaries. ^[3]

EXPLANATION: replaces the dead link. Focuses on how Durkan as the prosecutor explained the DEA’s actions. Eliminates the claim that Durkan stated Medical Marijuana users were ‘fakers’: this is a characterization by a journalist but Durkan did not say it so it should not be represented as a statement from her.

• In the “2011 raids on medical marijuana dispensaries” section, please ELIMINATE sentence five:

That same year Durkan urged Washington governor Christine Gregoire to veto a bill that would have legalized medical marijuana, writing that the bill would "authorize conduct contrary to federal law, and thus would undermine the federal government's efforts to regulate the possession, manufacturing, and trafficking of controlled substances."^[4]

REASON: this does not have anything to do with the 2011 medical marijuana dispensary raids or her career as U.S. Attorney.

• I've rewritten and renamed this section. I consider a discussion of the letter to Gregoire to be relevant in establishing context for later events. Durkan stated she would uphold federal law and then supported action on the basis of federal law. I've also cleaned up the quotations and citations; there were several incorrect statements. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: bullet points two and three in Request Edits above, while the content in the section is fine, for the following reasons, it should be divided into two subsections, not lumped together as Jenny Durkan#2011 medical marijuana legislation. It also needs a new source for the first paragraph.

1) The new source recently added in the newly written first paragraph is a law firm blog post, which is not a reliable source.

WP:RS [11]

The second paragraph refers to raids initiated by the DEA (not Durkan) and are unrelated to the letter she wrote at the governor’s request explaining proposed state legislation conflicted with federal law. The DEA raids were caused by criminal behavior – money laundering, selling guns illegally and selling illegal drugs (e.g. Oxycontin and pounds of marijuana to drug dealers) unrelated to medical marijuana dispensaries selling cannabis to medical patients. These “medical marijuana” stores being raided were fronts for serious criminal behavior in no way legalized under state law. [12] This severe criminal behavior had nothing to do with the state law legalizing selling medical marijuana to medical patients. Furthermore, none of the sources say that the raid happened as a result of Durkan’s opinion that the medical marijuana bill could be a violation of federal law.

Putting both these events under the subsection “Medical marijuana legislation” directly implies causality or connection, when there is none, and none reported in the media.

WP:NOR. User: Mary Mark Ockerbloom

says in Talk she has combined them this way “to provide context” for Durkan’s later prosecution of those arrested by the DEA. But the DEA raids and prosecutions were for severe criminal behavior that would not have been legalized even if the proposed state law Durkan opined against had been passed.

Especially in the context of a BLP, where Durkan’s career is what counts, it makes no sense to try to connect these two events. This is a BLP and Wikipedia needs to be especially careful here.

WP:BLP. 1920sportsfan (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

• In the Career section, under U.S. Attorney, 2012 May Day Response sub-section, please change the first, second, and third paragraphs:

FROM

During the 2012 May Day protests in Seattle, masked individuals identified as "black bloc" members vandalized a federal courthouse. By law, destruction of federal government property in excess of $100 is considered a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.^[6] In July FBI agents raided the house of several suspects in Portland, Oregon.

The Department of Justice and Durkan's office brought the suspects before a federal grand jury, but were unable to obtain confessions from them. Durkan then asked Judge Richard Jones "to imprison the activists, some for up to five months, in an effort to force them to testify against their peers in the Pacific Northwest’s radical left." Emily Langlie, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office in Western Washington, said of the DoJ's actions: "It’s not punitive, it's coercive."^[6][7][8]

The suspects were held in solitary confinement at the SeaTac Federal Detention Center. The Seattle Human Rights Commission condemned this action, stating, "There is simply no credible reason for their continued detention in solitary confinement...in an environment known to cause serious and lasting psychological harm."^[6]

TO:

Durkan’s office headed the prosecution of the vandalization of Seattle’s

B) Re: the fourth and final bulleted Request above, the original Request Edit is now out-of-date because User: Mary Mark Ockerbloom has written a new version of the “2012 May Day vandalism response” subsection in “Controversy”, expanding it. I think there are some big problems with these edits, explained below – and I hoped other editors might join a consensus conversation about them. Here is her new version:

The

FBI investigation that both preceded and followed the events of May 1, 2012.^[16]

anarchists". Under grand jury rules, they could be asked a wide range of questions about themselves and people they knew, in secret proceedings without a defense lawyer present.^[17][18][19]

use immunity, which impaired their right to refuse to testify.^[19] They were sent to jail for refusing to testify by U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones, and spent several months at the Federal Detention Center, SeaTac, including time in solitary confinement.^[20] The justification given for this by a spokeswoman for Durkan's office was that it was "coercive" and could lead them to testify, rather than being "punitive".^{[21][22][23][24]}

The Department of Justice and Durkan's office were widely criticized. The Seattle chapter of the

ACLU raised concerns that the grand juries might be used as a "fishing expedition looking into people's political views and political associations."^[17] The Seattle Human Rights Commission opposed the use of solitary confinement as a human rights violation.^[25] On February 27, 2013, District Judge Richard A. Jones issued a court order for the release of Matt Duran and Katherine Olejnik. That was followed by the release of Maddy Pfeiffer.^[26][27] Durkan's office refused to answer questions about the decision-making process of bringing people before the grand jury, saying that it would "not discuss the status of investigations or the deliberative process."^[26]

Apart from The Stranger other disallowed sources include a HuffPost

WP:RSP, HuffPost contributor pieces are not reliable sources. This is reference #65 (used twice), the second sentence of paragraph two and first sentence of paragraph three. There are also two primary sources (#64^[18] and #73^[27]

) in the section. Many of the Coatracking sources do not even mention Durkan.

Durkan’s office headed the prosecution of the vandalization of Seattle’s

William Kenzo Nakamura U.S. Courthouse during the 2012 May Day protests.^[28] Four individuals called before a grand jury because they might have information about the protests refused to testify even after receiving immunity. The individuals were jailed by U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones because they refused to comply with his order that they testify.^[29] Durkan received criticism for her part in the process. “What (prosecutors) decided to do is choose people and punish them for their association,” according to Jenn Kaplan, an attorney for Katherine Olejnik, one of the individuals. A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office said the incarcerations attempted to force them to answer questions as is legally required “It’s not punitive. It’s coercive.”^{[30] [31]}

Thanks.1920sportsfan (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. 1920sportsfan (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Go4thProsper:@Snickers2686:@Neutrality:Each of you has made recent changes to this article based on this talk page proposal, which I have updated to remove the answered requests. I am pinging to see if any of you might have time in completing the above requests for an independent review. Thank you for your consideration. 1920sportsfan (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for these suggestions. I have rewritten the final section incorporating many of your recommendations. I felt that more context was needed in some areas and have expanded the section in several places to address this. Happy New Year, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses to the Request Edit in the subsection about the “2012 May Day Protests” have, in my opinion, pushed some of these subsections further into problems with

WP:COATRACKING. I am hoping User: Mary Mark Ockerbloom and other editors will read my objections, which I posted below the fourth bullet point above. There is another issue, regarding “2011 raids on medical marijuana dispensaries.” I have posted an explanation above bullet point two. I’ve tried to offer constructive alternative suggestions that take into account the work by User: Mary Mark Ockerbloom. I am pinging all the editors who have contributed to this specific Request Edit proposal before some of the answered items were removed from the proposal since they had not been marked as “Done”. [14]

(before some of the answered items were removed from the proposal.)

@Go4thProsper: @Snickers2686: @Neutrality: 1920sportsfan (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{BLP noticeboard}}

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I have a personal and previous professional connection to Jenny Durkan. As recommended on the Contact Us page of Wikipedia [15], I am submitting proposed edits to the article here for volunteer editors to review. I have tried to comply with Wikipedia policies to the best of my ability, especially Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of Views. Please let me know if I can help in any way

• Please add as a new section under Mayor of Seattle section, between the “Workplace conduct” and “Homeless in Seattle” subsections. The Covid pandemic and mayor’s response dominated the second half of Jenny Durkan’s mayoral term, and there were many dozens of high-quality reliable sources covering it. She also received substantial national press coverage because of her success in Seattle’s response. [16], [] In order to give the bio
  WP:DUE
  weight regarding these events (and not just controversies), a substantial new section is warranted.

Covid response

Mayor Durkan was half-way through her term when the first recorded U.S. case of Covid-19 appeared in the Seattle area on January 19, 2020 and the first recorded U.S. death on February 29.^[1] Covid response was a central part of Durkan’s remaining term. ^[2] Under Durkan, as of March 2021, Seattle's response to the pandemic resulted in the lowest deaths per capita of any other large metropolitan area in the United States.^[3] By March, Durkan, in collaboration with other area officials, implemented some of the first mask mandates in the U.S.. They also set up four testing facilities in different parts of the city,^[2][4] which tested up to 6000 people per day by mid-December 2020 and had completed 463,000 tests between June and December of that year.^[5] On March 17, 2020 Durkan signed an emergency order prohibiting the eviction of small businesses and nonprofits for 60 days or until the end of the emergency. The City Council and Durkan had already halted most residential evictions^[6]

In May 2020, Durkan closed more than 20 miles of city streets to most vehicles in order to enable more socially-distanced biking and walking.^[7][8]To help families in economic distress from Covid shutdowns, in May 2020, Durkan’s administration sent $800 supermarket vouchers to households enrolled in subsidized child care and food programs, later extending the voucher program to other households.^[9] The administration also opened additional shelter spaces with more distance between beds and provided supporting services at hotels commissioned to house homeless persons during the Covid crisis. Durkan’s administration also provided $10,000 grants to 250 small business by May 24, 2020.^[10]

When she left office in December 2021, about 90% of Seattle's eligible residents had received at least one dose of the Covid vaccine and about 50% were fully vaccinated.^[2]

Since the Seattle Times is behind a paywall, I’ve posted excerpts below.

Seattle Times, February 29, 2020

King County patient is first in U.S. to die of COVID-19 as officials scramble to stem spread of novel coronavirus

The state [Washington] that saw the first confirmed novel coronavirus infection in the country now has become the site of its first death… A man in King County has died of COVID-19.

Seattle Times, December 30, 2021

Mayor Jenny Durkan leaves a mixed legacy shadowed by crisis

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan's term… will be marked by two major historical events: The COVID-19 pandemic and…

Seattle Times, November 19, 2020

Coronavirus testing sites in Seattle stretched beyond capacity as people seek pre-Thanksgiving results

Between its four testing sites on Tuesday, Seattle’s emergency medical technicians swabbed 5,465 people and sent samples to the University of Washington…

Seattle Times, December 30, 2021

Mayor Jenny Durkan leaves a mixed legacy shadowed by crisis

…Durkan acted aggressively, being among the first mayors in the country to implement a mask mandate early in the pandemic…

Seattle Times, December 13, 2020

1 in 4 Seattle residents have used the city’s free coronavirus testing sites

As of Friday [December 11, 2020], the city’s sites had completed more than 463,000 tests since June…The sites can test more than 6,000 people per day.

Seattle Times, March 18, 2020

Seattle mayor orders coronavirus moratorium on evictions of small businesses, nonprofits

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan has signed a coronavirus emergency order prohibiting evictions of small businesses and nonprofits…The step comes after decisions by Durkan and the City Council to halt most residential evictions in Seattle…Seattle’s commercial evictions order, which Durkan signed Tuesday [March 17, 2020].

Seattle Times, May 7, 2020

Seattle will permanently close 20 miles of residential streets to most vehicle traffic

Nearly 20 miles of Seattle streets will permanently close to most vehicle traffic by the end of May, Mayor Jenny Durkan announced Thursday…The streets had been closed temporarily to through traffic to provide more space for people to walk and bike at a safe distance apart during the coronavirus pandemic.

Seattle Times, Aug. 27, 2020

See the city on foot with these 3 walks through Seattle’s Stay Healthy Streets

The city of Seattle has closed more than 20 miles of residential streets to through traffic, leaving the roads (mostly) clear for pedestrians, bikers, skaters and more.

Seattle Times, May 24, 2020

Mayor Jenny Durkan in crisis mode as Seattle confronts coronavirus, homelessness, failing West Seattle Bridge

The mayor announced March 16 the city would send $800 each in supermarket vouchers to households already enrolled in subsidized child care and food programs. Since then, vouchers have been sent to additional households.

Seattle Times, May 24, 2020

Mayor Jenny Durkan in crisis mode as Seattle confronts coronavirus, homelessness, failing West Seattle Bridge

The Durkan administration, which strenuously defends its work on homelessness, has opened additional shelter spaces to allow more distance between beds and is supporting services at hotels where the county has moved homeless people. The city hasn’t rented additional hotel rooms. The Durkan administration has distributed $10,000 grants to 250 small businesses, with more on the way…

 Done Duke Gilmore (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please revise an inaccurate date in Education section, the first paragraph, first sentence:

In 2020 Durkan signed an executive order to create the Seattle Promise College Tuition Program, which increases free access to college for Seattle public school students.^[11]

To:

On November 19, 2017, Durkan signed an executive order to create the Seattle Promise College Tuition Program, which increases free access to college for Seattle public school students.^[12][13]

EXPLANATION: This is just a mistake. The source in the article is from 2017, so obviously couldn’t report on 2020 events. I also added a second source, from the Seattle Times, a stronger publication.

Since the Seattle Times is behind a paywall, I’ve taken the relevant excerpts below.

Seattle Times, November 29, 2017

Jenny Durkan takes step on free-college promise on 1st full day as Seattle mayor

Jenny Durkan…signing an order for Seattle to make community college free for new high-school graduates…The program will begin next fall…

 Done Duke Gilmore (talk)

• Please add the following sentences to the Education section, after the first sentence:

Seattle residents voted in November 2018 to approve a tax to pay for the program. Durkan said that in order to increase the chances that students will succeed, the program also included support to help them decide what college to attend, as well as preparing them for student life, including what to study.^[1]

Durkan used some of the Covid-19 relief funds from the

 Done Duke Gilmore (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1920sportsfan (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@1920sportsfan Edits made (after review). Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]