Talk:Geoff Simpson

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)[1]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)[2]

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 That information you're trying to insert is outdated and POV.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)[3]

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)[4]

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)[5]

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)[6]

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)[7]:

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.

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)[8]

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)[9]

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)[10]

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)[11]

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)[12]

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)[13]

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)[14]

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)[15]

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)[16]

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)[17]

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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

• 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)

You might want to have a look at WP:OWN. It's not a BLP issue - the information is thoroughly sourced and in the public record. I've even found the court docket number (Y80100611, King County District Court), although annoyingly enough the King County court website seems to be down. Someone who lives within a less eye-watering toll call could even phone them up and ask, if they were really motivated to check this. If you think the content could be worded more neutrally then I'm open to suggestions, but it looks pretty neutral to me. It's a bald statement of fact. I reject your argument that it may influence the outcome - there's an equal and opposite (and equally invalid) argument to be made that leaving it out is the same thing. Orpheus (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• This is a fringe issue for which there was no conviction and no evidence that any abuse actually occurred. The way its currently worded goes a long way to presuming guilt. You've also stated above your desire to have this materially rapidly included into this article. Your frequent reverts also indicate that you have a staked interest in including this information in this article in the near time. This is a violation of BLP because it presumes the guilt of the subject in an attempt to defame him ahead of an election in the United States. This man is a very minor political figure and it's highly suspect that you would come here and try to insert such dubious (and previously disputed) material into this article. It would cost nothing to wait 45 hours before reinserting this material, but I'm starting to doubt that you'll ever return to this article after the election is over. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to reword it, go for it. I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth - I didn't say I have a desire to have the material included rapidly. I just don't see any reason not to put it in. It's verifiable and reliably sourced. It doesn't presume guilt in any way, and I can't see how it's defamatory - it was in the Seattle Times! Orpheus (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Orpheus' argument here. We (as in Wikipedia) are just reporting what other sources reported. I do not see any bias in the fact that we are repeating what reliable sources said. You read "not enough evidence" == "he is guilty but we cannot prove it", I read "not enough evidence" == "there is no evidence to assume he is guilty". People reading the article who know the subject (i.e. potential voters in the election) will already have heard of those charges because that is what happens in election campaigns. They come here to read up on the subject and we should provide them everything we know, not remove parts of the article just because some of us think it "biased". Because if someone is biased to a subject, they may naturally consider all negative information as an attempt to vilify "their" candidate. But that cannot be our standard for inclusion. So if you say that after the election we can insert the material, you are saying that the material itself is not POV but inserting it now is. But material can never be POV just on some days...either it is POV or it's not. Regards SoWhy 12:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cumulus Clouds requested page protection for this page, which was rejected by the admin("protecting this page effectively takes your side"). Furthermore, User:Cumulus Clouds has stated that he or she "I don't care what happens to this article after the election" and has reverted with the edit summary of "do not reinsert this until after the election." I also believe that we have consensus on the language above, and that User:Cumulus Clouds is trying to game the system and stall until after the election. --HoboJones (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, Cumulus Cloud, has it occurred to you that anyone researching Mr Simpson on Wikipedia will probably read all of this, and wonder why someone was making such a determined effort to keep it out of the article? It's known as the Barbra Streisand effect. Orpheus (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, I was forthright in my request for page protection and stated that I was involved in the dispute. The administrator acknowledged that and declined based only on those grounds. And for the record, this information is POV regardless of the date. The impact it will make is more significant now than it will be in 36 hours and thus this debate is more important now than it will be at 8 PM tomorrow. Inserting this material into this article is a ridiculous attempt to undermine Geoff Simpson's credibility. He was never charged and this event is not a major event in his life or his political career. Certain elements are trying to make it seem that it is and thus are coloring Mr. Simpson's history very negatively. This is also a BLP issue because the wording suggests that he is innocent though unable to be prosecuted. Previous versions of this section quoted the prosecutor's assertion that Simpson couldn't be charged based on a lack of evidence, and this was clearly biased since it came from the very person trying to convict Geoff Simpson of domestic violence. No weight was (or is presently) given to Simpson's defense and the wording continues to presume that the event actually happened, where we have absolutely no evidence that it did. All the reliable sources so far use the same quote or refer to the same originating report, but none provide any credible evidence that this thing ever happened. I will continue to object to its inclusion in this article over the next day and a half and, now, probably beyond. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Seattle Times, and The Daily Herald of Everett, Washington all reported on it, which is enough to satisfy WP:RS. We have been trying to get you to discuss language, but you never engage in consensus. I have followed WP:AGF to its limit, and I don't think you're negotiating in good faith.--HoboJones (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with HoboJones, please continue to engage in some good faith discussion and follow consensus. --Banime (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Delay Mention of a Politician's Arrest Until After Election?

RFCpolicy:Is it appropriate to delay inclusion of a politician's arrest until after the his election? The arrest has been covered by multiple, reliable, third party sources. 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• In my opinion, anything that meets the five pillars should be eligible for inclusion in an article, regardless of the timing. As SoWhy said above, if something is POV now then it'll be POV after the election, and vice versa. If this was a story the mainstream media had refrained from reporting on then I would agree that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. That is most emphatically not the case here. The arrest is public record. The dropping of charges is public record. I cannot see any reason to take the information out at all, regardless of whether an election is forthcoming or not. Orpheus (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with User:Orpheus.--HoboJones (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• I disagree with User:Orpheus. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Cumulus Clouds. The Seattle PI, and Seattle Times covered the story. Voters in the 47th district have a right to know about it. Clouds is trying to help Simpson get re-elected. Malemailman4 (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • That's awesome. You've been registered for less than a week now and have already gone to work on the pages of several Democratic challengers in various races this fall. As soon as I can figure out whose sockpuppet you are, you'll get blocked. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Note: User:Cumulus Clouds has been blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR.--HoboJones (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• I have to agree with User:Orpheus in this case. Also, may I remind everyone to WP:AGF please. Thanks!--Banime (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• If it has a valid cite, put it on. Those who seem most anxious here to keep bad stuff out, are most anxious elsewhere to put bad stuff in. Collect (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't you have election results you should be cowering from right now Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Both of you, please be civil and assume good faith please. Thank you, either way (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Puffed election bio

Depuffed a bit - but this was nearing an embarrassment as a hagiography. Collect (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Geoff Simpson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104110513/http://www.leg.wa.gov/History/Legislative/Documents/MembersOfLeg2011.pdf to http://www.leg.wa.gov/History/Legislative/Documents/MembersOfLeg2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407183607/http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/representatives/pages/Simpson.aspx to http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/representatives/Pages/simpson.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727190619/http://www.pseclassified.org/PSE_Blog/Default.aspx?p=school_crosswalk_safety_gets_significant_early_support to http://www.pseclassified.org/PSE_Blog/Default.aspx?p=school_crosswalk_safety_gets_significant_early_support
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807120423/http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/members/simpson/bio.asp to http://www.housedemocrats.wa.gov/members/simpson/bio.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004383294_weblawmaker30m.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004384750_simpson01m.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/361298_legislator01.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080601/NEWS03/147588895
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vote.wa.gov/Elections/General/Results.aspx?o=de7ee74c-73fb-4de3-bbf3-67ff9893ea94
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326201723/http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID=26&JurisdictionTypeID=5&JurisdictionID=63452&ViewMode=Results to http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID=26&JurisdictionTypeID=5&JurisdictionID=63452&ViewMode=Results

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)