Talk:Peter Wall (property developer)

Issues with this article
Various people have put tags on this article, some while it had an "inuse" tag to indicate that it was the object of active editing. This has significantly slowed the writing of the article itself. I do hope to expand it further in the next few days. I see no problem with regards to the subject's notability: he's kind of Vancouver's Donald Trump (the comparison is made in Adele Weder's article, "Sky's the limit for bullish Vancouver developer"), which is perhaps not as notable as New York's very own Donald Trump, but is notable enough. And I can promise that it will not be a puff-piece, though it will be sourced. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm just about done with the article for the moment, at least. As with any biography of a living person, I have attempted to ensure that it does not promote any particular point of view, let alone include any libellous material, and is above all well sourced. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Article tags
I have reviewed the article tags of tone, advertising and quality. I cannot find anything in the article to justify them at present. Please can we discuss issue with the article on the talkpage, rather than tagging without comment? Then, perhaps, we can see what the issues are, if any. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * D'hoh! Two edit conflicts when trying to add a "keep" to the AfD, then it was closed before I could try a third time.  Oh well.  While I agreed with keeping, I can see one or two minor issues in the tone or phrasing used in some portions.  None of these are major issues, just minor items that caught my attention.


 * The second paragraph starts "Wall started in real estate at an early age.", a minor issue, but can we get an actual age or age range? This paragraph start is fairly vague.
 * Hi. This refers to the fact that, from what one can gauge, he started in the business while still at college.  The relevant details and source are below.  (I'm using the lead as an overview, per WP:LEAD.)  On the other hand, I don't want to say "as a student," as that's not necessarily clear.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe phrase it as "Wall left college to start his real estate carreer."? I'm not as well versed on him as you so it may need some additional corrections for accuracy, but that phrasing at least gives the reader an idea of an age range where this took place.  I find "early age" to be too subjective in interpretation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm loathe even to be that certain. The source says the following: "He went to UBC to study pharmacy, but that lasted as long as it takes to dissolve an alka-selzer. His mother gave him $6,000 to build a house in Vancouver. Before she moved in, Wall sold it for $13,000 and 'I discovered right then how easy it was to make money in the real-estate business.'"  It's not at all clear whether or not that means that he left college in order to go into real estate; whether he went into real estate later, prompted by the memory; or what.  I'm guessing the former.  Anyhow, I'll try to change "early age."  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Vancouver real estate" section is the only other section where I would question the phrasing. The first paragraph starts out sounding more like an advert for Mr. Wall.  I may have some free time tonight to do some tweaks, but several paragraphs here come accross more like story-telling rather than an encyclopedia article.


 * Yes, that first phrase is where I come closest to either OR or NPOV (as Tony1 has already mentioned). I felt that it was important both stylistically (to balance what follows) and for BLP issues, so that I don't seem to claim that his rise from immigrant to (presumably multi-)millionaire was just a matter of circumstances.  But I think I can find a source that can help out.  I'd say that overall, I'm more worried about BLP issues than anything else here.  He clearly is a colourful character (more on that in a minute).  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, a minor rephrasing may do it. My biggest concern here is the phrasing "no doubt", which could be tagged as OR.  Regardless of how it's phrased, a source should be listed.  But assuming a source can be found, then instead of "Peter Wall's good fortune, although no doubt due also to his hard work and business intelligence, should be understood in the context of Vancouver's remarkable real estate boom of the 1990s and 2000s."  How about this, which carries a comparable meaning but carries a more neutral tone: "Peter Wall's success can be attributed to his work ethics, business decisions, and Vancouver's real estate boom of the 1990s and 2000s."  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "no doubt" and added sources. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Other than that, the tone of the rest of the article seems fine to me. I am surprised that the only notable controversy is on One Wall Centre; surely someone who has been this successful has irritated some special-interest group somewhere.  But perhaps not to an extent adequate to be a notable criticism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And on other possible controversies, I have found other things, but none that I felt would pass BLP muster: they are either primary court documents or self-published sources complaining about the effects of property development particularly on the Downtown East Side, Vancouver's (and in fact Canada's) poorest postcode. If I find anything I can use with suitable sensitivity, I will add it.  On the other hand, we have him himself quoted as saying he could have been nicer at times.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the info is available, it would be nice to know a little about his relationship with the Ukrainian community in Vancouver. Is there a traditional of philanthropy in Canada? Did he prompt others to do the same? What is the Centre for Advanced Studies (in what?). Has he influenced the real-estate industry, and perhaps its relationship with government? TONY   (talk)  16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good issues. I have nothing about his relationship with the Ukranian community; if it exists, that's part of his private life that he keeps under wraps.  Re-reading a few articles, I wonder if in fact he identifies more with the German community, but this is pure speculation.  His $15million donation was certainly distinctive at the time, but seen as part of a trend of Canadian universities starting to seek out large private donors; since then, UBC has had a $50million gift.  Hmm, perhaps I could get that in.  He's undoubtedly influenced the real-estate industry, though that way may like controversy; I try to get at that with the quotation that some say he drove a price bubble.  But there's lots of disagreement as to whether or not the Vancouver market is in fact a bubble.  Wall himself is, naturally enough, a big booster; others say it's hopelessly unrealistic, and will fall any day now.  I hope perhaps to add something about his relations with government, but nothing very coherent has emerged so far, beyond his calling the mayor a "non-item."  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:DYK
Do you plan on taking this to Did You Know Jbmurray or any other editors?  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  15:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put it in for DYK already. I have this fantasy that it could be FA and DYK at the same time...  Heh.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooohhh Nice. Good luck with that. =D  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  16:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

bequeath
Yep, that flickered through my mind as I wrote it, and didn't come back to check ... TONY  (talk)  15:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No probs, and many, many thanks again for the copy-edit. I'm distracted all over right now (with a thread at WP:ANI and all!), but hope to deal with your inline comments soon, too. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PS Passed through Van five times in early 05 and 07 as a staging post to the ski fields. I find it comfortingly similar to Sydney in some ways. Unfortunately, my March work deadlines now stop me from skiing in Canada—very disappointing. TONY   (talk)
 * It's the Pacific Rim, you know! I compare it to Auckland, myself.  :)  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Record?
Just a note. It's still less than 24 hours since I started this article. In that time period, it's been tagged for speedy deletion (three times!), submitted to DYK, submitted and then withdrawn from GAN, submitted to FAC, submitted to AFD, and also become the subject of a fairly lengthy discussion on AN/I. In that order, I think.

Is this a record? ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, user:Giano beats that every few days, with his hands tied behind his back. But I don't know if I've ever seen so much comment on the first day of an FAC. Hardly anyone comments on mine; but I don't envy you. qp10qp (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. It is a little overwhelming, and I've been neglecting the article itself while responding to points raised there.  I'm going to return here later today.  Many thanks to you (as well as so many others) for the magnificent further copy-editing! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

phrase in lead
Regarding this edit. I understand the reasoning, but I included that detail not only because the article goes into it at length later on, but also because at FAC many have claimed that the article is too "promotional." So I didn't want to leave "crowning achievement" without noting the controversy. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But its underdeveloped in that state, hangs and begs the question. How about ''However its construction was dogged by a major dispute with the city council, beacuse..." Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphan
Placing the orphan tag on this article would probably be seen as too controversial, but I did want to point out that the only articles linking to this one, are from Wall's building and school. If Wall is genuinely a "significant figure" in the city, other articles should be mentioning him. --Elonka 14:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they will sometime. You have to give this encyclopedia a chance to develop. I don't think all the local newspapers would keep reporting on him if he wasn't a significant figure in the city. qp10qp (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting comments and queries

 * At the time of its construction, this skyscraper was the highest .... When was it constructed?


 * (his father fell victim to Stalinist repression). When? (I don't expect we know, but the impression is given that it coincide with the emigration. Since they had been in Austria, I presume it was much earlier.) Did he die? Was he imprisoned? If these things aren't known, perhaps the comment could be made a little less extraneous-seeming.


 * What does the Institute of Advanced Studies do?


 * Toronto's Financial Post reported that Wall "obtained an exemption from the bylaw on his promise the tower's windows would be transparent", only for the city subsequently to sue on the basis that "the tower's windows were not transparent, and that the building threatened to be a 'dark, forbidding obelisk' on the highest ground in the downtown core".[8] In turn, Wall counter-sued and offered the city $2–3 million if they would let him keep the dark glass.[29] ... The issue was resolved by the installation of darker glass on the first 30 floors, and lighter glass from floors 32 to 48.[8]. I'm presuming that the city sued for breach of contract of some sort, but what did Wall sue the city for? Only one issue is mentioned as being resolved, but there must have been two cases. Were they resolved out of court? Did he give them the bribe? Did the city just give up? The answer may not be known, but the passage needs to be a little less blurry, I feel, since it raises more questions than it answers.


 * What's a "two-tone tower"? It's difficult to make out two tones from the photo.
 * I presume it is the "installation of darker glass on the first 30 floors, and lighter glass from floors 32 to 48" bit, but I am only presuming here. I keep reading it as 'two-tonne' as well, which is rather disconcerting - a skyscraper should be a bit heavier than that, shouldn't it? Carcharoth (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wall's construction projects have included Capitol Residences, a 42-storey condominium tower on the site of Vancouver's Capitol Theatre, which incorporates an extension to the city's Orpheum Theatre. I'm assuming that it's the Capitol Residences that incorporates the extension rather than the Capitol Theatre. Reading between the lines, I am guessing that the Capitol Theatre had been pulled down before the development was built, but the wording could be clearer, I think.


 * The result was portrayed in The Globe and Mail as an attempt "to bring the tinsel back to downtown". I don't understand this. Tinseltown is Hollywood. Tinsel goes on a Christmas Tree. But this is a symphony orchestra hall in Vancouver. Perhaps a little more needs to be said. Was this once the night-life centre of Vancouver, or something?


 * For Vancouver, some felt it showed that "if Mr. Wall has his way, laid-back Lotus Land is in for some flamboyant changes". I wanted to copyedit this but wasn't quite sure of the intent. Is "laid-back Lotus Land" the way Vancouver is known, or something? "For Vancouver" seems the wrong grammatical start to the sentence. And this is such a particular, even peculiar, comment that I can't believe it was something "some felt". It might be better to attribute it in-text to the journalist.
 * Lotus Land redirects to Vancouver (I pointed this out at the FAC), but the Vancouver article doesn't explain the term. I found this, which quoted from this (subscription only): "In the 1980s, the city's fame as a world-class skiing and sailing destination grew quickly, equalled only by its reputation as North America's most thriving hard-drug port. Ironically, the moniker 'Lotusland' - a 1960s stereotype of the city, and British Columbia in general - remains despite Vancouverites' transparent desire to live hearty, healthy, clean lives. "Vancouver has consistently been rated one of the most livable cities in the world by international surveys", states City Hall's Web site. Climate, livability and a unique brand of friendliness are routinely cited as proof of civic superiority." - if that can be verified, should be added to Vancouver. Carcharoth (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Just found Lotusland (a botanical garden) which has the unreferenced statement: "Lotusland is the name given to Vancouver, British Columbia by author Pierre Berton in 1961." - maybe with that clue this tidbit can be firmly anchored in the Vancouver article. There are certainly enough websites around when you search for "lotus land" and "vancouver". Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

-qp10qp (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Some recent edits for review (31/05/2008)
OK. That's probably enough for now. Following an objection, I'm going to let some of my edits settle in and see whether people like the changes or not. Please comment on the following edits, which were, I think, the most substantial of my recent changes: Will add in edit summaries in next edit. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (rephrase first sentence to make clear he was around before the 1990s - feel free to rephrase the detail) (LEAD)
 * (bring Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies into the lead) (LEAD)
 * (quite a major reorganisation of sections and material to address biography section concern and to unify disparate philanthropy and honours bits) (STRUCTURE CHANGE)
 * (Vancouver real estate: make this lead sentence of this section more neutral)
 * (merge first two paragraphs of the lead and then completely rewrite to try and get a better balance) (LEAD)
 * (Childhood and early career: this is how I would put the early childhood and career sourcing stuff - state up front in article)
 * (Other construction projects: clarify Capital Residences bit - horrible promotional websites provide the info)
 * (or rather, this is the version that doesn't try to say in the first sentence what he is famous for, but leaves it for a few sentences later) (LEAD)
 * Objections were here and here. The last edit listed above was in response to the latter objection. I'll step back now and see what others have to say. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your last 24 articles on the basis that they substantially change the tone and direction, and weaken - IMO - the article and that the article was then substantially different to the one submitted for FAC. Maybe I reverted some good edits; but 24 consecutive edits to an FAC against the will of the nominator is some liberty. Ceoil (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "against the will of the nominator"? I realise there is an etiquette involved here, but could you suggest a more productive way to work instead of blanket reverting my changes? Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil, I'm trying to work out which version you reverted to, so I can re-incorporate my minor changes. Can you remember which version you reverted to? Carcharoth (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * S'OK. I found it. You went back 23 revision, not 24, which is what was confusing me. Carcharoth (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. So missed one! Drat ;-) The most substantial change I saw was weakening the lead and the claim of notabilty that qp10qp established. I do agree that the article needed to be toned down, but not squashed. Ceoil (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm slowly working my way through the edits and restoring ones that I think were uncontroversial. I will then post in more detail about my reasoning behind the other changes (as I listed above). Hopefully this will allow some consensus to form, as I'm not happy for the changes I listed above to stay reverted without some discussion first. Carcharoth (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that, as I suggested before, I disagree rather strongly with all these edits, even the ones you thought might be uncontroversial, and that you added back in after Ceoil's revert. Again, I do appreciate your thought and attention to this article and its FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible for you to be more specific? That is the third time (see the two links I gave above to your previous objections) that you have said (to paraphrase) "I disagree, but thanks for the thoughts". That is not actually a productive dialogue. If you could say why you disagree, that would be more productive, as then we might actually get somewhere. For instance, I have laid out on this page (see below) my reasons for my proposed changes. This took me a not inconsiderable amount of time. I did this in the hope that people would actually say something about my proposed changes. I can't reasonably expect others to say something if they don't have the time or an opinion, but you clearly do have an opinion, though it is one that you are not explaining. Though I think there is an onus on you to say something more than what you have said, in reality your time is your own as far as responding here goes, but I hope you understand how frustrating it is to have a "thanks, but no thanks" response when I'm perfectly happy to engage in discussion. At the moment it looks like this to me: (1) I make a set of changes; (2) You object without providing a reason; (3) I suggest discussion; (4) Someone else reverts; (5) I accept most of the reverting and lay out my reasoning on the talk page as well as apologising on your talk page; (5) You reiterate your objection, and again do not provide a reason. That can't be the right way to approach this, surely? I've done my bit by explaining why I think edits like this would help - I'm now asking (reasonably, I think) that you do your bit by explaining your views and objections. The whole point about the wikipedia editing model is it breaks down when people don't engage properly on talk pages when a set of edits are disputed. Given your objection, I'm not currently going to re-add the changes I've proposed below, but I will add them if it becomes clear that there is consensus to add them and there is no explanation of your objections. Can't you see that your "thanks, but no thanks" response (and no further discussion) stymies further progress and inhibits editing? If there is no discussion, we will never really get anywhere. Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've been out all day.  A friend is in town, and in any case I needed something of a break from all this.  Moreover, I felt everything was happening rather fast.  Withdrawing the nomination should take the pressure off, too.  I would certainly be prepared to go through your edits one by one, and try to explain the problems I have with them.  That would be a slow process, and I'd do it slowly.  I hope you would have the patience with my slowness.
 * In the meantime, let me copy over the suggestion I've made on my talk page:
 * At the end of the day, I think that there are three possible ways forward:
 * First, that we just leave the article alone, and it is what it is.
 * Second, I invite Carcharoth (or whomever) to work on it as they see fit, and to bring it back to FAC at some point in the future. I would be happy to play no further part in the editing, though of course I would want to be able to comment at FAC, as at other FACs.
 * Third, perhaps Carcharoth (and others) could allow me, and I would also hope to ask other editors such as Ceoil, Tony, Awadewit, Laser brain, Qp10qp‎, and others who seemed to believe in this approach, to try again: to bring the article back to the way it was and to continue working on it, along the same lines, and to take it again to FAC so we can try to have the debate again, and this time take it to its conclusion.
 * I am happy with any of these three outcomes. Any one of them could be concurrent with going through your series of 24 edits, if you wanted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to produce sandbox versions to demonstrate various subtle points I am trying to make. I don't want to do this though if no-one else has the time to discuss the points I'm trying to make, as it will take me a fair amount of time to do this. Carcharoth (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said a number of times, I too am concerned about the time issues involved. But if you do want to go through all these edits one by one, then as I've said I'm happy to do so.  Perhaps some enlightenment will result.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Now to give you more feedback, and to repeat some of what I've already said at my talk page: I felt I was as clear as possible at the FAC regarding what I was trying to do with this article. I can restate or give you diffs if you would like. What I was trying to do was something different from the way in which the majority of Wikipedia articles, particularly so-called "biography" articles are written. (I say "so-called" because there seems some confusion as to whether these articles should be seen as biographies, and what that means; you picked up on one person's comment that there shouldn't be a "biography" section in a "biography" article, but didn't pick up on my response that Template:biography includes precisely such a section!) My main problem with the entire series of your changes was not only that, in my view, the article went downhill at each stage; also, and more importantly, you were rewriting it to conform more closely to standard Wikipedia practice. This went against the entire intent of this article, and its FAC. I would have far rather you had simply opposed at FAC than, in effect, render the entire discussion moot by transforming the article into something entirely different from the article that was originally nominated to FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was fully aware that you were trying to produce a 'different' sort of article. This should have been clear from my comment here: "I hope from this it is clear what kind of structural change I am attempting - mainly to split up and redistribute the disparate elements that had been collected under "biography". I'm aware that this is moving away from Jbmurray's aim that this not be a strict biographical article, but I thought that at least an attempt to show the alternative should be made.". However, despite what I said there, I don't think casting this as an either/or "biography" structure or "contextual" structure approach helps. Things should be more flexible than that, and the approach should depend on the article, and may need to change as the article's content changes. No-one should ever be trying to shoehorn content into a formulaic template - the templates are only a starting point. My point, if you read what I said under the "structure" section below, is that the "biography" section should be dropped or merged with others if there is nothing substantial there. Compare "Background - Wall Financial Corporation - Vancouver real estate - One Wall Centre - Current construction projects - Media coverage - Philanthropy and honours" with "Biography - Wall Financial Corporation - Vancouver real estate - One Wall Centre - Other construction projects - Philanthropy". What I did, as I've said below, was to break up the biography section and move the bits that were there in relevant sections (I've explained in detail below). In some ways this is more contextual than your approach. I keep reading this 'Biography' section, and I can't work out why much of that stuff is being said so early. Why talk about his salary before you've talked about his company? Why talk about the philanthropy both here and later on? Why talk about the money he made and give the anecdotes before you've explained how he made his money? I think you are thinking that this was all established in the lead section, but give that the lead section is a summary, everything in the lead section should be re-introduced in the article without assuming that the reader knows it already. If you view the lead section as more of an introduction, that might be a reason why you feel you can launch into the anecdotes without properly explaining the history. Does any of this help us understand each others views better? Carcharoth (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So would you like to go ahead and revise the article as you see fit? It sounds like it.  This would accord with what I've framed as option two.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to do it in a sandbox. I think if we both step back, we can realise that both versions (and any other versions that chop and change and present in a different manner) are not wildly different and still have the same content. Given that you have invested more in the article, I'm happy to defer to you, but I would probably bring my points above up at any future FAC, but not to the extent that I would actually oppose - I would just want to see some reasonably satisfactory attempt to rebutt those points. BTW - the Hong Kong dollars vs Canadian dollars issue towards the end of the FAC never got addressed. Would you know which is meant in the "$1 million" bit about Hong Kong emigrants? Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do what in a sandbox? (Heh, the mind boggles.)  Please, it would help if there were clarity here.  As I said at the time I first objected to your transformations of the article, I have no doubt that there are many points of agreement on principle.  But in practice, we've seen that there is much divergence.  I am more than happy to defer to you, and let you choose option two of the three I presented.  And as I've said before, I'm happy to have such discussions at FAC, and indeed happy for your to oppose if you felt so inclined.  (To repeat, I would have far rather you had opposed in the recent FAC, even though I recognize that in changing the article you were acting in good faith.)  On the detail, now you mention it, the figures cited in the NYT are probably in US dollars, which should be made clear no doubt whoever actually goes ahead with the revisions.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Partial restoration after blanket revert
I've painstakingly restored some of the changes that were blanket reverted. Please see here. I've separated them out to make clear what changes were made, but the diff I've provided is a global diff across the four edits I made. The changes were mostly date contexts. I hope those changes are relatively uncontroversial. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Beyond what I said above, I am, however, prepared to talk through each of your various changes. This will take time, but now that the FAC has been withdrawn, we have time.  We could start with one of the edits that you considered uncontroversial, and that you therefore re-reverted in the face of Ceoil's revert.
 * I find the addition of the dates in this change wholly unnecessary. It is most obviously unnecessary to add the date of the New York Times article.  Anyone interested can click down to the footnote to see the date the article was written.  Moreover, I don't see what material difference it makes to know that the article was written in 1997.  Likewise, though perhaps less obviously, for the point that the article is trying to make (which is about the Vancouver real estate boom, not about the history of Hong Kong), it's not particularly relevant whether than handover took place in 1997, 1998, or indeed 1996.  If anyone is interested in such details, there is a wikilink that will explain to them all about that event, its background, its impact, or whatever.  All the dating that's necessary for the purposes of this section of this article is already present in the phrase "the 1990s saw."  Repeating that information, by adding twice "in 1997" (in fact, each time you also introduced a typo, by putting "In 1997" rather than "in 1997") is a distraction that breaks up the flow and weakens the article.
 * Let me also make a more general point at this stage. It seems to me, Carcharoth, that you are somebody who takes delight in distraction.  In some ways, you're the ideal Wikipedia reader: you follow the wikilinks, you surf around, you like picking up new pieces of knowledge.  This is marvellous.  But I strongly believe that a Wikipedia article, while allowing for and even encouraging precisely the sorts of reading that you enjoy and find beneficial, should also be focussed and to the point.  Here, in this case, you have weakened this article by adding surplus information that does not help the reader, but is in fact liable to confuse him or her.
 * Tomorrow, I am happy to continue, and to move on to another of the edits you considered uncontroversial, to explain the problems I had with it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a debatable point whether contextual information should be provided in the body of an article, in a footnote, or behind a link to another article. In my view, it depends on how relevant the information is to the context. You say that the "1990s" bit is enough. I don't think it is, because there is a nearby reference to a 1989 event. I tend to provide information rather than leave it for readers to follow a link, mainly because I recognise that not everyone follows links like I do. Also, it is important to consider those who are reading printed or offline versions of an article. It is my view that articles should try and be self-contained as much as possible. If an article is improved by specifying a person's nationality, their years of birth and death, their profession, the date or location of an event, and so on, then we should put that information in the article and not trust people to either know stuff already, or ask them to keep following links to find contextual information that the authors of the article have failed to provide. Does that make sense to you? I realise it is a balancing act, but I wanted to make clear that I do carefully consider whether such context is needed, and I don't think it is acceptable to respond to reader's hypothetical questions with "go and read this other article I've linked to", if you get my point. Carcharoth (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of what you say here. In particular, I absolutely agree that it is better "to provide information rather than leave it for readers to follow a link" and that "articles should try and be self-contained as much as possible."  In fact, I completely dislike it when I am in effect forced to click a wikilink to understand something... not least of course because there is no guarantee that the linked article is any good or not.  But more to the point, wikilinks should be optional sources of further information, not required sources of essential information.  I'm pleased that we're so much in sync on this important point of principle!
 * OK, but here's the disagreement. I do think that the sentence's opening phrase ("In particular, the 1990s saw...") makes it crystal clear the period we are talking about.  Again, I don't think that the precise date of the handover or (still less) the date of the newspaper article are necessary information.  For the following sentence, I think that it is quite enough to say "panic after the Tiananmen Square killings of 1989..."  In two successive articles, you have more than enough information to date the general period during which events in Hong Kong started to have significant repercussions on the city of Vancouver.  All the more so in concert with the many other dated references in the article, starting with its very first sentence, "in the 1990s and 2000s."
 * While we're at it, then, another point about your revisions. I felt that cumulatively (as well as individually, in this small detail that we're discussing now), they made the article unfocussed.  Cumulatively, they took the spotlight off the fact that the events and actions that gave Peter Wall impact, notability, and importance, almost all took place in the 1990s and 2000s.  I know that at FAC many concerns were raised about events in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s (date of birth, what happened to his father, arrival in Canada, university days, starting out as a developer).  But these periods are, as we know, sparsely documented; and that's also because they're frankly relatively unimportant.  What makes Peter Wall a figure who deserves to have an article about him in Wikipedia is what he did in the 1990s and 2000s.  I think that your revisions, by removing the centrality of that point, seriously undermined the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing of sentence
Does anyone object to me restoring this edit, which changed the lead sentence of the 'Vancouver real estate' section? It changed it from: "'Peter Wall owes his success not only to hard work and an ability to anticipate the market but to the favourable economic and social conditions of Vancouver's 1990s and 2000s real-estate boom.'" to: "'Wall's success has been attributed to his ability to anticipate the market, and to the favourable economic and social conditions of Vancouver's 1990s and 2000s real-estate boom.'" The reasoning hre is that it removes the vaguely PEACOCKy term "hard work" and makes clear that we are looking to sources to explicate his success, rather than stating editorial opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitol Residences sentences
Does anyone object to me restoring these edits, which changed the Capitol Residences sentences from "'Wall's construction projects have included Capitol Residences, a 42-storey condominium tower on the site of Vancouver's Capitol Theatre, which incorporates an extension to the city's Orpheum Theatre.'" to "'Wall's construction projects include Capitol Residences, a 42-storey condominium tower under construction on the site previously occupied by Vancouver's Capitol Theatre. The new tower, scheduled for completion in around 2009-2010, will incorporate an extension to the city's Orpheum Theatre.'" The change was made because the tower is still being built, and this was not clear from the original version of these sentences. Since towers are built from the ground up (usually), it is possible the extension to the Orpheum was built first and has been finished, but I found pictures from July 2007 of a building site, so maybe not. Carcharoth (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Early biographical material sourcing
This change probably needs some debate. The proposed change is this edit, which changes where-ever the early biographical material ends up from: "'Wall was born to a German Mennonite family in Ukraine, and he spent his childhood in Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Austria.'" to: "'Details of Wall's early life are sparse or not a matter of public record. From two newspaper articles from 2001 and 2002 it is known that Wall was born to a German Mennonite family in Ukraine, and he spent his childhood in Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Austria.'" The reasoning behind this is that it was mentioned at the FAC that there needs to be some explanation or statement about not much being known about Wall's early life. This may not be the best way to do this, but it was an attempt and it would be good to have it discussed here. I believe there was an earlier parenthetical statement covering this in an earlier vesion of the article, and this may be a better way of handling it. Hopefully someone will provide that alternative for review. Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Two versions of the lead section

 * Version 1 :"Peter Wall is a property developer in Vancouver, Canada who, in the 1990s and 2000s, played a significant and controversial part in the city's real-estate boom. He has been described as 'a leading contributor to Vancouver's 'City of Glass' reputation' during a period in which the city's skyline has been transformed, along with its economic and social profile. Rejecting the label 'developer', Wall has stated that he 'just make[s] some money investing in business ideas and projects'."


 * "Wall emigrated from Eastern Europe to Canada as a child, shortly after the Second World War. During the 1990s, when Vancouver was changing from a provincial port tied to the British Columbian lumber industry to a major multicultural gateway for immigrants from around the Pacific Rim, Wall and his company Wall Financial Corporation helped revitalize the city's downtown area. In the process, Wall benefitted from and propelled a property boom that continues to this day. His career has earned him both criticism and praise."


 * "Wall has been described as the city's 'ultimate business maverick' in the press, which depicts him as a colourful, flamboyant character. The controversial award-winning hotel and condominium tower, One Wall Centre, is regarded as his crowning achievement. At the time of its construction, this skyscraper was the highest in Canada west of Toronto, and it remains Vancouver's tallest completed building. Wall is also known for his legal scrapes and for his personal and public generosity. He fought a protracted legal battle with the city over the excessive height of One Wall Centre. He has been a significant donor to his alma mater, the University of British Columbia, in 1991 making what was then the largest donation in the university's history."


 * Version 2 :"Peter Wall is a property developer in Vancouver, Canada. Born to a German Mennonite family in Ukraine, he emigrated to Canada from Eastern Europe in 1948 as a child, and has been active in the Vancouver property market since the 1960s. During the 1990s, Wall and his company, Wall Financial Corporation, helped revitalize the city's downtown area during a period when Vancouver was changing from a provincial port tied to the British Columbian lumber industry, to a major multicultural gateway for immigrants from around the Pacific Rim. In the process, Wall benefitted from and propelled the ongoing property boom. He has been described as 'a leading contributor to Vancouver's 'City of Glass' reputation' during a period in which the city's skyline has been transformed, along with its economic and social profile."


 * "Rejecting the label 'developer', Wall has stated that he 'just make[s] some money investing in business ideas and projects'. He has been described as the city's 'ultimate business maverick' in the press, which depicts him as a colourful, flamboyant character. The controversial award-winning hotel and condominium tower, One Wall Centre, completed in 2001, is regarded as his crowning achievement. He fought a protracted legal battle with the city over the excessive height of One Wall Centre, but at the time of its construction, this skyscraper was the highest in Canada west of Toronto, and it remains Vancouver's tallest completed building. Wall is also known for his personal and public generosity. He has been a significant donor to his alma mater, the University of British Columbia, and in 1991 made what was then the largest donation in the university's history, leading to the foundation of the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies in 1994."

The main changes I made were:
 * Making clear in the first few sentences that he was around before the 1990s, bringing in the 1948 date, the 1960s date, and the early biographical information, rather than relegating this to later in the lead. One of my objections to version 1 of the lead (this only became clear as I rewrote it) was that it jumped into the 1990s to say why he was famous, then jumped back in time, and then jumped forward again. I felt this was disorientating, hence the rewrite.
 * I also tried to address repetition in the lead section. In particular, the phrases "significant and controversial" and "both criticism and praise" were clashing in many of my attempts to rewrite the lead. One version, similar to version 2, had the lead sentence as:"'Peter Wall is a property developer in Vancouver, Canada. His role in the city's ongoing real-estate boom of the 1990s and 2000s has earned him both criticism and praise.'" ...with the rest as before. This could, of course, be replaced with the "significant and controversial" sentence - see version 3 below.
 * I also removed the phrase "legal scrapes" and merged the legal skyscraper material with the earlier skyscraper material, and then expanded the philanthropy points made in the final sentences of the lead section, including a mention of the university center named after him (as benefactor).
 * Finally, I moved the explication of the 1990s boom material to come before the quote, which avoided a repetition of the dates for the period (the 1990s bit), and also allowed the first paragraph of the lead to finish on the "City of Glass" quote. I also changed the order of the sentence to put the emphasis on Wall and his company, rather than Vancouver, the forest industry and the Pacific Rim, making the sentence a bit more active.

Anyway:


 * Version 3:"Peter Wall is a property developer in Vancouver, Canada who, in the 1990s and 2000s, played a significant and controversial part in the city's real-estate boom."


 * "Born to a German Mennonite family in Ukraine, he emigrated to Canada from Eastern Europe in 1948 as a child, and has been active in the Vancouver property market since the 1960s. During the 1990s, Wall and his company, Wall Financial Corporation, helped revitalize the city's downtown area during a period when Vancouver was changing from a provincial port tied to the British Columbian lumber industry, to a major multicultural gateway for immigrants from around the Pacific Rim. In the process, Wall benefitted from and propelled the ongoing property boom. He has been described as 'a leading contributor to Vancouver's 'City of Glass' reputation' during a period in which the city's skyline has been transformed, along with its economic and social profile."


 * "Rejecting the label 'developer', Wall has stated that he 'just make[s] some money investing in business ideas and projects'. He has been described as the city's 'ultimate business maverick' in the press, which depicts him as a colourful, flamboyant character. The controversial award-winning hotel and condominium tower, One Wall Centre, completed in 2001, is regarded as his crowning achievement. He fought a protracted legal battle with the city over the excessive height of One Wall Centre, but at the time of its construction, this skyscraper was the highest in Canada west of Toronto, and it remains Vancouver's tallest completed building. Wall is also known for his personal and public generosity. He has been a significant donor to his alma mater, the University of British Columbia, and in 1991 made what was then the largest donation in the university's history, leading to the foundation of the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies in 1994."

I hope some of my points above can be incorporated into whatever lead is eventually used. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Structure change
This structural change I left until last to dissect, because it was the most complex and far-reaching change. In hindsight, I shouldn't have made this major change without discussing it here (on the talk page) first, though I was responding in part to some concerns expressed at the FAC, and to my own comment that I might try and action this point myself. I apologise unreservedly for making the change and causing distress to anyone. Hopefully, having said that, we can now discuss it amicably. First of all, it should be stressed that the changes are nearly all structural. I moved material around and changed and added new section headers, but did not add much new material (if any) at all. This was done to break up the "Biography" section (this was the concern mentioned at the FAC - that a biography section did not seem right in a biography article). Even without that, the biography section in version A contained material that seemed better suited elsewhere: (1) I moved the "highest paid executive" bit to the section about his company and career; (2) I moved the UBC philanthropy and honorary degree bit to the philanthropy section and changed the title of the section to cover "honours"; (3) I moved the characterisation and anecdotes bit to a new section, which I called "personal life" - not the best of section titles, but I feel that this material should go in its own section later in the article - tell the reader the stuff about his company and the Vancouver real estate up front, and then cover his "public persona" - it is the former that is encyclopedia, not the latter; (4) The remaining material formed part of an introductory section which I retitled "Childhood and early career". This does highlight that we don't know much about his early career, but this could possibly be addressed by merging the childhood bits into the lead section (most of it is already there), or just titling the first section "Early career" and moving swiftly (with a footnote to explain why - lack of sources) from childhood to university to first property dealings to founding the company in 1969. If more is available about the early years of the company, this section could continue up until the company was renamed Wall Financial Corporation, and the section of that name could carry on from there. In other words, the logical layout for this article is, I think : Note the suggested change from 'other' construction projects - the previous, completed, projects should be dealt with chronologically under 'Wall Financial Corporation', and the new suggestion of 'Media coverage' to replace the previous suggestion, seen in version B, of 'Personal life'. Another possibility is 'Public life'. If there are concerns that the material at the 'Personal life' section of version B is bringing all the newspaper stories and anecdotes together, well, that should raise the question of whether such 'characterisation' is needed (and how much) and if so whether it should be presented in one section or weaved into the article - I think the latter was Jbmurray's approach for version A, but I'm not sure on that.
 * Version A
 * Version B
 * Early career
 * Wall Financial Corporation
 * Vancouver real estate
 * One Wall Centre
 * Current construction projects
 * Media coverage
 * Philanthropy and honours

That should pretty much cover everything. The alternative first section titles of "Early history" or "Background" would be more accommodating to any early biographical information if that ever arises. As I said for my comments on the lead section, I hope some of my points above can be incorporated into whatever structure is eventually used for the article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Updated 14:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Wall vs Wall
Might seem a bit pedantic, but one of my edits lost in the blanket revert was changing "Peter Wall" to "Wall". In my view, it is normal to refer to someone in the body of an article about them as "Wall" (the surname), though I suppose if this gets repetitive, the full name can be used instead. Normally, the full name is only used when there is potential for confusion with someone else of the same name. At the moment there are 7 instances of "Peter Wall" versus 28 instances of "Wall" (I may have inadvertently included quotes, which of course should be quoted verbatim). I suspect this is too minor a point of style to worry most people, so I didn't restore my edit, as I thought it better to address the issue through the entire article after discussion. So, any thoughts on this? Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth: agreed fully, and done. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Father
(his father fell victim to Stalinist repression)

Since about four people have queried this (in JackyD's case it is one of only three objections), I have removed it and placed it here. It can go back in when an unproblematic form for the information has been found. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe if we qualify that the info offered is unclear and that the source only says that his father "fell victim to Stalinist repression"[1]. Ceoil (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures (downtown and satellite and buildings)
I've been looking for some pictures that might illustrate the article (I didn't realised Vancouver was featured!). What do people think of Image:Downtown-vancouver.jpg or Image:Vancouver Panorama.jpg (Is One Wall Centre visible in those pics)? I think One Wall Centre is the tall one at centre left in Image:Vancouver Panorama.jpg. For satellite pics, see the one in Lower Mainland - not strictly right, but it does illustrate/explain Wall's "BC -> Mainland -> Vancouver" quote very nicely, IMO. Other than that, we need people in Vancouver to go out and take photos. My wishlist would be: Capitol Residences (still under construction); Hastings Racecourse, Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies. I'm not going to push the issue of a photo of the subject of the article, but all the above requests can be used on other articles, and, if there is room, on this one as well. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That photo seems a good idea. qp10qp (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A very nice find, well done. Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern is that it might be seen as giving the impression that all the buildings are due to Wall. I suspect that photos of the Institute and a building site at one of his projects, might be better still. I'm not going to add this picture just to stretch the point of addressing a FAC concern, because, IMO, it doesn't actually address the FAC concern. But others could add the picture and see how they feel about it later. Carcharoth (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, most university centres named after someone have some dedicatory plaque. I have a prediliction for taking photos of such things, so I'm biased in that respect, but that is another idea for a relevant photo. Carcharoth (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The "giving the impression" concern can be dealt with by adding a qualifying caption summary. I really like the image, its so grainy it could be a painting, and the cloud is very captivating and atmospheric. Maybe the plaque is a little off center - by which I mean that the only img of the subject in a bio article being a statue smacks of second prize. Ceoil (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe in the 'Vancouver real estate' section, it shouldn't be too close of the other photo, and this section is more general in ideas. With a good caption, it should be okay. Cena rium  (talk)  17:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Added. It felt silly to say "most of the buildings weren't built by Wall". That should be obvious. The plaque photo idea probably would be too laudatory. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its well described as is. Ceoil (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Extent of Vancouver real estate section
How much of the history of the Vancouver real estate market is relevant to this article? The following is copied and partly paraphrased from a user talk page disucussion:


 * The NYT Hong Kong edition article mentions the post-1989 panic along with a range of other factors, including the handover and economic stuff, and makes the point that many are undecided. The title of the article is, after all "For Many From Hong Kong, Vancouver Is a Way Station". I don't have a copy of Delany, but I've looked at the Georgia Strait article, and that mentions both the handover and an economic factor: "Tens of thousands of people moved from Hong Kong to Vancouver in the late 1980s and early ’90s, concerned about the future of the then-British colony, which was going to be returned to China on July 1, 1997. In the late ’80s, there was also an investment boom from Hong Kong, triggered by concerns about what would become of the colony’s capitalist business culture after it reverted to China." Later in the article, Wong's three factors specifically mentions the late 1980s stuff and the economic investment that was happening even before Tiananmen Square. The Peter Wall article doesn't seem to mention this pre-Tiananmen Square stuff at all. For example, Expo 86 seems relevant, along with Li Ka-shing and Yaletown. Does anyone have any ideas on whether this should be added, how to phrase all this, and what other sources might help consolidate this? Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Peter Wall (property developer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060427052443/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/special/census/2001/stories/20020313-pe-sullivan.html to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/special/census/2001/stories/20020313-pe-sullivan.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Date of birth
Anyone have a reliable source for his date of birth? -- &oelig; &trade; 08:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)