Misplaced Pages

Talk:Geoff Simpson: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:52, 2 November 2008 editHoboJones (talk | contribs)3,934 edits →Arrest: alter propsoed language, remove quote from prosecutor in an offer for consensus← Previous edit Revision as of 01:14, 3 November 2008 edit undoCumulus Clouds (talk | contribs)6,434 edits →ArrestNext edit →
Line 69: Line 69:
| coauthors = Associated Press | title = State lawmaker charged with assault | work = Seattle Post-Intelligencer | date = 2008-04-30 | url = http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/361298_legislator01.html?source=rss | accessdate = 2008-10-27|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5bthl7Dyn|archivedate=2008-10-26}}</ref> On May 2, 2008, Simpson took a temporary leave from his chairmanship of the House Local Government Committee until his "legal issues are resolved."<ref name="dropped" /><ref name="temporaryleave">{{cite news | last = Postman | first = David | title = Rep. Simpson takes temporary leave of committee post | work = The Seattle Times | date = 2008-05-02 | url = http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/2008/05/rep_simpson_takes_temporary_leave_of_committee_post.html | accessdate = 2008-10-27|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5bthtpnzm|archivedate=200-10-26}}</ref> On May 28, 2008, the prosecutor in the case dropped the charges against Simpson.<ref name="dropped">{{cite news | coauthors = The Associated Press | title = Domestic violence charges against legislator dropped | work = The Daily Herald (Everett, Washington) | date = 2008-06-01 | url = http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080601/NEWS03/147588895 | accessdate = 2008-10-27|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5bthpz0Qr|archivedate=2008-10-26}}</ref> Simpson said that he would resume both his re-election bid and his committee chairmanship. <ref name="dropped" /> | coauthors = Associated Press | title = State lawmaker charged with assault | work = Seattle Post-Intelligencer | date = 2008-04-30 | url = http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/361298_legislator01.html?source=rss | accessdate = 2008-10-27|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5bthl7Dyn|archivedate=2008-10-26}}</ref> On May 2, 2008, Simpson took a temporary leave from his chairmanship of the House Local Government Committee until his "legal issues are resolved."<ref name="dropped" /><ref name="temporaryleave">{{cite news | last = Postman | first = David | title = Rep. Simpson takes temporary leave of committee post | work = The Seattle Times | date = 2008-05-02 | url = http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/2008/05/rep_simpson_takes_temporary_leave_of_committee_post.html | accessdate = 2008-10-27|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5bthtpnzm|archivedate=200-10-26}}</ref> On May 28, 2008, the prosecutor in the case dropped the charges against Simpson.<ref name="dropped">{{cite news | coauthors = The Associated Press | title = Domestic violence charges against legislator dropped | work = The Daily Herald (Everett, Washington) | date = 2008-06-01 | url = http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080601/NEWS03/147588895 | accessdate = 2008-10-27|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5bthpz0Qr|archivedate=2008-10-26}}</ref> Simpson said that he would resume both his re-election bid and his committee chairmanship. <ref name="dropped" />
{{Reflist}} {{Reflist}}

*Let me re-establish the fact that I don't care what happens to this article after the election. Orpheus - there is no good reason to add this information into this article 48 hours before Geoff Simpson faces re-election. You can wait until afterwards and clear any concerns about attempting to influence the outcome. There is no hurry to add this information. This is both a BLP issue and a POV issue and if one or both of you want to seek mediation, go for it. I will continue to remove this information for another 48 hours and then I will probably desist from editing this article altogether. ] (]) 01:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:14, 3 November 2008

WikiProject iconUnited States: Washington Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.
WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

BLP concerns

I re-added the material you (referring to User:Cumulus Clouds) removed in Geoff Simpson, which is fully sourced and legit under WP:BLP, since it is a well-publicized allegation against a public figure. The article was only unstable due to the efforts of User:Truthteller47th, who has been blocked for that vandalism. --HoboJones (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of some blanking and BLP-related vandalism from a Simpson partisan (who since has been blocked). First of all, inclusion of the allegation does not violate WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, since it is only 1 paragraph and the rest of the article discusses the subject's biography. This does not violate WP:BLP, since all facts are supported by rock-solid Reliable Sources. This respects Misplaced Pages:BLP1E#Basic human dignity by only reporting details that received significant news coverage in the media. This respects WP:Libel, since nothing in the article says that Simpson actually committed a crime. Per Misplaced Pages:BLP1E#Well-known public figures, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article.") Also, there is balance in the article, since it includes public expressions of innocence by Simpson. If you want to remove the allegation, you will need to establish consensus on the talk page.--HoboJones (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, and now I've reverted your edit. That information you're trying to insert is outdated and POV. Geoff Simpson was exonerated of those charges. You are, of course, choosing not to include that information because it's not helpful to the bias you're trying to insert. Until a neutral statement can be agreed upon, the information cannot be included. Most importantly: this serves as your (referring to User:HoboJones) WP:3RR notice for this article. If you revert it again you will be blocked from editing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yea right. It clearly violates BLP provisions because it does not tell the full and complete story concerning Simpson's exoneration. This would be part and parcel for compliance with that protocol. Instead, you and other Republican operatives have tried to insert the text into this article to try and smear Simpson ahead of the election. The arrest has nothing to do with his political career and recieved very little press coverage. It would therefore be giving the incident undue weight to dedicate half the article's space to an allegation that was later debunked. Until a balanced statement can be written that is included within the larger context of a well written (and well sourced) biographical entry, this paragraph has absolutely no place in this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A 3RR 'Final Warning"? Are you kidding? I reverted BLP violations from a now-blocked vandal, and you accuse me of violating 3RR? It is time for consensus, my friend. Please see WP:WELLKNOWN, which governs allegations against well-known public figures. "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article." Therefore, this allegation should be included in the article. And, if the subject is exonerated, that fact should be included too. Now, I am unable to find a WP:RS (I have searched google news) that attests to this. Can you find one so we can add it to the article? Cheers! --HoboJones (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The burden is on you to find documentation to include text that would otherwise violate BLP. Saying you were "reverting a vandal" or "complying with BLP" by reinserting poorly sourced text is a pretty transparent attempt at inserting your POV. Find more sources or don't reinsert the text, that's the bottom line. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's some non-BLP violating and RS-backed language. It includes the arrest, Simpsons's denial of the charges, his leave of absense from his committee chairmanship, the dropped charges, and his resumption of re-election bid and chairmanship.HoboJones (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC):

On April 27, 2008, Simpson was arrested and charged in King County District Court with fourth-degree assault and interfering with a domestic violence report after an altercation with his ex-wife. Simpson immediately declared the charges "unwarranted" and predicted his exoneration. On May 2, 2008, Simpson took a temporary leave from his chairmanship of the House Local Government Committee until his "legal issues are resolved." On May 28, 2008, the prosecutor in the case dropped the charges against Simpson, saying that he "no longer believes there is sufficient evidence to proceed with the charges." Simpson said that he would resume both his re-election bid and his committee chairmanship.

  1. ^ "WA lawmaker charged with assault". Seattle Times. 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-10-26. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  2. Heffner, Emily (2008-05-01). "Official faces domestic-assault charge". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2008-10-26. Retrieved 2008-10-27.
  3. "State lawmaker charged with assault". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 2008-04-30. Archived from the original on 2008-10-26. Retrieved 2008-10-27. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ "Domestic violence charges against legislator dropped". The Daily Herald (Everett, Washington). 2008-06-01. Archived from the original on 2008-10-26. Retrieved 2008-10-27. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. Postman, David (2008-05-02). "Rep. Simpson takes temporary leave of committee post". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 200-10-26. Retrieved 2008-10-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help)
No. You use soft language when you talk about dropping charges, saying not that Simpson wasn't guilty but including a quote from the prosecutor saying there wasn't enough evidence. Again, this presumes guilt but cites a lack of evidence for trying the case. You also spend a lot of time talking about his temporary resignation of committee posts to try and give weight to the charges, for which there was none. You can try rewriting it again, but I strongly oppose this draft. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not my "soft language," that is the prosecutor's soft language. He is explaining why he dropped the charges. --HoboJones (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it's soft language because it equivocates on the factual basis of Simpson's innocence. If you want to include this in the article you're going to have to another way to phrase this, other than "he's innocent because the prosecutor couldn't find a way to try the case." Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no "factual basis of Simpson's innocence." The prosecutor didn't say "He is innocent." The prosecutor said" There's not enough evidence to take this to trial." There is a difference, and I have the WP:RS to back up my claim.--HoboJones (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The prosecutor has an inherent and irrefutable bias in the case, they are the agent who is attempting to take the case to trial. Trying to hide behind the assumed authority of their message is another weak attempt to insert a POV. Simpson is innocent of those charges. Trying to frame that within the context of the prosecutor's statement on the issue is a blatant BLP violation. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. But, for the sake of consensus, would you agree to the language above with "saying that he 'no longer believes there is sufficient evidence to proceed with the charges.'" removed?--HoboJones (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
No. There is no evidence that an altercation actually took place, so putting that in the opening sentence is both original research and a BLP violation. None of the sources support that. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If you continue to forum shop for friendly opinions, I'll report it and we will enter arbitration on this. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
My message is asking for help in writing consensus language. It is limited, neutral, nonpartisan, and open, and therefore permitted under WP:CANVASS. Please, stop making threats and contribute to the consensus. You have yet to write a counter-proposal to my proposed language. Do intend to badger me with arbcom threats, accusations of being a "Republican operative", wild POV accusations, and ultimatums into giving up?--HoboJones (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to suspend your attempts to insert that text into the article until after the election. This would serve both as a sign of good faith and would absolve you of any concerns about trying to influence the outcome of the election. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I resolutely reject every one of your bad faith accusations against me. But, I will accept your offer to keep the article as-is until after then election and then insert the consensus language I proposed earlier. --HoboJones (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Expansions

I have expanded this article considerably. Among my expansions includes a table of electoral history--complete with refs and archived URLs, since the search function probably has a volatile web search URL pattern. It is ready for the results of the 2008 election. -HoboJones (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Arrest

I see the arrest story has been the subject of a recent content dispute, so I haven't been hasty in adding it back. However, the fact that he was arrested is a matter of public record with wide news coverage - I can't see how it can be omitted from the article completely. Orpheus (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above was a bit ungainly, so I refactored it, per Misplaced Pages:TALK#Good practice. We have a consensus to add the above suggested consensus text after the election on Tuesday, Nov 4th. --HoboJones (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I see that - but I disagree with that consensus. I think the information should go into the article now. I've used your wording from above and added a bit to make the presumption of innocence clear. Orpheus (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus to add this material until after the election. On November 5th, I will not oppose inserting it into this article. Misplaced Pages has no deadline and there is absolutely no reason to rush the insertion of this material before the election. Doing so is a pretty transparent attempt to directly influence the outcome of that election and will be immediately reported to the BLP noticeboard. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? There doesn't appear to be a wide-ranging consensus, and particularly not one that outweighs Misplaced Pages policy. I have no interest in whatever election this fellow is running in, nor do I have any interest in US state-level politics in general (I live in Australia). Saying I'm trying to influence the outcome of an election is verging on incivil and I would ask you to kindly desist. I don't see any reason not to include a well-sourced event in this individual's life, which is a matter of public record. Orpheus (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
False. You can't add this: "his innocence legally established." Innocence and dropping the charges are two different things. Dropping the charges means there is no trial. Innocence legally established means that the trial was completed with a non guilty verdict. Also, User:Cumulus Clouds, you and I had a deal--we use the language above and add it after the election. If this continues, I am asking calling for mediation.--HoboJones (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - I was going for a phrase that would point out that there were no adverse findings against him. Do you have any alternative suggestions? You're a little bit wrong, by the way - under legal systems with a presumption of innocence, having charges dropped is exactly the same legally as being found innocent in court, with the exception that double jeopardy doesn't apply.
Regarding the deal, it's not really appropriate for two editors to strike a bargain and then claim it binds other editors as well. Personally I think the incident should be mentioned in some way, and I don't see any reason to wait until after the election. I'm open to arguments either way in working towards a consensus, of course. Orpheus (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Orpheus (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, a reasonable position to take. So how do you feel about the language I proposed in the above section?--HoboJones (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

On April 27, 2008, Simpson was arrested and charged in King County District Court with fourth-degree assault and interfering with a domestic violence report after an altercation with his ex-wife. Simpson immediately declared the charges "unwarranted" and predicted his exoneration. On May 2, 2008, Simpson took a temporary leave from his chairmanship of the House Local Government Committee until his "legal issues are resolved." On May 28, 2008, the prosecutor in the case dropped the charges against Simpson. Simpson said that he would resume both his re-election bid and his committee chairmanship.

  1. ^ "WA lawmaker charged with assault". Seattle Times. 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-10-26. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  2. Heffner, Emily (2008-05-01). "Official faces domestic-assault charge". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2008-10-26. Retrieved 2008-10-27.
  3. "State lawmaker charged with assault". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 2008-04-30. Archived from the original on 2008-10-26. Retrieved 2008-10-27. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ "Domestic violence charges against legislator dropped". The Daily Herald (Everett, Washington). 2008-06-01. Archived from the original on 2008-10-26. Retrieved 2008-10-27. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. Postman, David (2008-05-02). "Rep. Simpson takes temporary leave of committee post". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 200-10-26. Retrieved 2008-10-27. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help)
  • Let me re-establish the fact that I don't care what happens to this article after the election. Orpheus - there is no good reason to add this information into this article 48 hours before Geoff Simpson faces re-election. You can wait until afterwards and clear any concerns about attempting to influence the outcome. There is no hurry to add this information. This is both a BLP issue and a POV issue and if one or both of you want to seek mediation, go for it. I will continue to remove this information for another 48 hours and then I will probably desist from editing this article altogether. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Categories: