Talk:Jack Evans (Washington, D.C., politician)/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Jack Evans (Washington, D.C., politician). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Jack Evans (D.C. politician). 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/20080319205912/http://www.dcboee.org/Information/elec_1996/pri_elec_1996.shtm to http://www.dcboee.org/information/elec_1996/pri_elec_1996.shtm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319205920/http://www.dcboee.org/Information/elec_1996/gen_elec_1996.shtm to http://www.dcboee.org/information/elec_1996/gen_elec_1996.shtm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080702223033/http://www.dcboee.org/information/elec_1998/primary_election.shtm to http://www.dcboee.org/information/elec_1998/primary_election.shtm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409230459/http://www.dcboee.org/information/elec_2000/primary_elec.shtm to http://www.dcboee.org/information/elec_2000/primary_elec.shtm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319210316/http://www.dcboee.org/information/elec_2000/general_elec.shtm to http://www.dcboee.org/information/elec_2000/general_elec.shtm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725222439/http://www.dcboee.org/pdf_files/Summary_2.pdf to http://www.dcboee.org/pdf_files/Summary_2.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041213091909/http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/ to http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/
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) 20:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jack Evans (D.C. politician). 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/20160114073227/http://dcist.com/2010/09/sunday_questions_with_jack_evans.php to http://dcist.com/2010/09/sunday_questions_with_jack_evans.php
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://dcist.com/2013/12/evans_surpasses_1_million_mark_lead.php
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) 10:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Proposed tax break legislation
I removed it. The bill is a proposal, not even a law, lacking even a CFO analysis; and the entry as drafted was strongly POV, synthesizing and selectively presenting information from two different articles and then spinning them in a way to imply that Evans is up to no good. One of the refs didn't mention any financial connection at all, and the other article described contributions to at least one other council member (not mentioned in the text I removed). Indeed the deleted text only talked about the campaign contributions, and Evans's silence on the bills, saying nothing about the arguments - presented in both refs - in favor of the legislation. Wikipedia isn't Loose Lips or the Jack Evans Watchdog. Let's wait 'til this turns into something, eh? JohnInDC (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Whether or not we include something in the article has nothing to do with what garners enough votes on the Council to become legislation. He's proposed something pretty significant and it has generated more media coverage than any legislative effort over the past year, possibly years. We can update it when the legislation comes to a council vote. I'm open to tweaking the language if you think its unbalanced, but the fact that this hasn't been enacted is not a valid reason for its exclusion. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's a proposal. And the guy donated $750 to Evans over a twelve year period. I'm revising the text to reflect the triviality of this sum. You can decide if it makes your spin on it seem more, or less, POV. JohnInDC (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I also noted that the CFO hasn't said anything one way or the other on this, and noted the benefits asserted by the firm. To be more evenhanded. JohnInDC (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think what you've put is alright. Adding more detail for clarity adds a couple sentences, which could be perceived as giving it more weight. But that's always a tough balance. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it warrants any attention, but if the choice is between some & misleading, and more & complete, I'll take the latter. JohnInDC (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- JohnInDC was right in the first place, i dont think this warrants any mention until such time as it goes beyond a proposal. The problem with including material based solely on an uptick in media coverage is that in the case of politicians, their biographies become a middens of minor "scandals" that some paper chose to publicize. A rough test of an event's importance to a biography, would it warrant mention if the biography were about someone from a 100 years ago? In this case, i think, no. Bonewah (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's an interesting concept, the 100 year rule. I'd never heard it before but it seems reasonable. Can you elaborate more on how you see it applied here? A lot of the info in what you deleted probably won't be relevant 100 years from now. The name of the donor who got the tax break, the location of the hotel, and the scale of the development, are all secondary details. But future readers/generations will ask "What were Evans' major legislative initiatives? What did he put forward before the Council and try to get passed?" And the answer is this legislation. If we're using reliable sources and not original research, there's not another piece of legislation he's authored since he ran for Mayor. So some mention of this legislative initiative is important, even if it doesn't become law. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- The only "piece of legislation he's authored since he ran for Mayor" may be significant perhaps if you are trying to establish that Evans is wholly ineffective as a legislator, or that he plays favorites - but not for any objective, NPOV reason. Indeed whether or not this unvetted proposal ever makes it into law, it's not "major" by any stretch. Strip the thing of the innuendo and speculation and you're left with, what - a tax break for a couple of buildings in a city with thousands. If a hundred years from now the question is, "what were his major legislative initiatives?" then the answer (at least for the past few years) would be "none". Let it go. JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- The linked to source even describes this as ".. new iterations of D.C.’s age-old pay-to-play culture that rewards special interests at taxpayers’ expense." I see nothing in the source that indicates that this is in any way noteworthy or remarkable. Bonewah (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to say he plays favorites or say that he's part of a pay to play culture. Those are the article's words, not mine. I'm trying to add his recent legislative initiative. Yes, there are other tax breaks in the city and many of those are written about in depth - see Washington Marriott Marquis and St. Elizabeths East Entertainment and Sports Arena - so its actually a reason for inclusion. Most politicians have their proposed legislation mentioned in their bio, especially if its widely cited - at a national level, legislative proposals even get their own page, like American Health Care Act of 2017. I still don't see why we wouldn't follow that precedent here. This stance has nothing to do with the content of the legislation, just that it exists and has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- my point here is that the sources you offered describe the proposed legislation as business as usual, not something extraordinary. This is not the American Health Care Act of 2017, its not even a law, its just a proposal that got slightly more press than others. Bonewah (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- What I was saying about the AHCA, a piece of failed legislation, is that proposed legislation does merit coverage on Wikipedia, even entire articles. But to your point about the significance of the tax break, it looks like the legislation is connected to his decision to leave his (current) law firm. This is significant and not routine.Bangabandhu (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- I can't see the entire referenced article without a subscription, and doubt others can, so a different source might be helpful. JohnInDC (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- What I was saying about the AHCA, a piece of failed legislation, is that proposed legislation does merit coverage on Wikipedia, even entire articles. But to your point about the significance of the tax break, it looks like the legislation is connected to his decision to leave his (current) law firm. This is significant and not routine.Bangabandhu (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- my point here is that the sources you offered describe the proposed legislation as business as usual, not something extraordinary. This is not the American Health Care Act of 2017, its not even a law, its just a proposal that got slightly more press than others. Bonewah (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to say he plays favorites or say that he's part of a pay to play culture. Those are the article's words, not mine. I'm trying to add his recent legislative initiative. Yes, there are other tax breaks in the city and many of those are written about in depth - see Washington Marriott Marquis and St. Elizabeths East Entertainment and Sports Arena - so its actually a reason for inclusion. Most politicians have their proposed legislation mentioned in their bio, especially if its widely cited - at a national level, legislative proposals even get their own page, like American Health Care Act of 2017. I still don't see why we wouldn't follow that precedent here. This stance has nothing to do with the content of the legislation, just that it exists and has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- The linked to source even describes this as ".. new iterations of D.C.’s age-old pay-to-play culture that rewards special interests at taxpayers’ expense." I see nothing in the source that indicates that this is in any way noteworthy or remarkable. Bonewah (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- The only "piece of legislation he's authored since he ran for Mayor" may be significant perhaps if you are trying to establish that Evans is wholly ineffective as a legislator, or that he plays favorites - but not for any objective, NPOV reason. Indeed whether or not this unvetted proposal ever makes it into law, it's not "major" by any stretch. Strip the thing of the innuendo and speculation and you're left with, what - a tax break for a couple of buildings in a city with thousands. If a hundred years from now the question is, "what were his major legislative initiatives?" then the answer (at least for the past few years) would be "none". Let it go. JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's an interesting concept, the 100 year rule. I'd never heard it before but it seems reasonable. Can you elaborate more on how you see it applied here? A lot of the info in what you deleted probably won't be relevant 100 years from now. The name of the donor who got the tax break, the location of the hotel, and the scale of the development, are all secondary details. But future readers/generations will ask "What were Evans' major legislative initiatives? What did he put forward before the Council and try to get passed?" And the answer is this legislation. If we're using reliable sources and not original research, there's not another piece of legislation he's authored since he ran for Mayor. So some mention of this legislative initiative is important, even if it doesn't become law. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- JohnInDC was right in the first place, i dont think this warrants any mention until such time as it goes beyond a proposal. The problem with including material based solely on an uptick in media coverage is that in the case of politicians, their biographies become a middens of minor "scandals" that some paper chose to publicize. A rough test of an event's importance to a biography, would it warrant mention if the biography were about someone from a 100 years ago? In this case, i think, no. Bonewah (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it warrants any attention, but if the choice is between some & misleading, and more & complete, I'll take the latter. JohnInDC (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think what you've put is alright. Adding more detail for clarity adds a couple sentences, which could be perceived as giving it more weight. But that's always a tough balance. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I also noted that the CFO hasn't said anything one way or the other on this, and noted the benefits asserted by the firm. To be more evenhanded. JohnInDC (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's a proposal. And the guy donated $750 to Evans over a twelve year period. I'm revising the text to reflect the triviality of this sum. You can decide if it makes your spin on it seem more, or less, POV. JohnInDC (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I was able to find a way in and note this quote at the end of the article:
- Evans’ tenure on the D.C. Council and his private career at Manatt and previously at Patton Boggs have sometimes prompted criticism about potential conflicts of interest. Still, it’s not clear that there is any connection between his departure from Manatt and his committee’s handling of the tax break proposals supported by his former law firm colleagues and campaign donor.
Given that the source itself says that the reason for his departure may or may not be linked to potential ("potential") conflicts, I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves to say that it was. I'll be removing the addition. JohnInDC (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Can you be more careful in your edits? The article leaves no doubt that he no longer has an affiliation with Manatt. Why would you remove that? Bangabandhu (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I fixed that. JohnInDC (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree though that I could have been more careful with my original edit. Perhaps you'll return the favor by being more careful in ensuring that the sources say what you represent them to. JohnInDC (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds fine. I did accurately represent the source. There's also no doubt that he left "amid conflict of interest concerns". Whether or not the departure was because of the COI is uncertain, but my contribution was an accurate representation. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree though that I could have been more careful with my original edit. Perhaps you'll return the favor by being more careful in ensuring that the sources say what you represent them to. JohnInDC (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I fixed that. JohnInDC (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Can you be more careful in your edits? The article leaves no doubt that he no longer has an affiliation with Manatt. Why would you remove that? Bangabandhu (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Digi Media
I don't think this section belongs at all - it concerns legislation that Evans introduced, then on his own withdrew, that would have benefitted a firm that had - months earlier and before it was in any trouble with the city - offered Evans's son a job which the son ultimately didn't take. No legislation, no vote, no internship, no connection other than inferential between the job offer and the legislation (plus originally a link to a mislabeled blog source) - I'd take it out altogether. But if it's going to stay in then the temporal and logical disconnects should be made clear. Opening up for comment. JohnInDC (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Is there anything that you think belongs? Seriously, looking at the thread here and the archives, I don't know if you've supported a single addition to this entry. Though I suppose we only talk about the points where there isn't consensus. Anyway, this belongs. You're right to question whether District Digs is an RS (I think it may be self-published), but there shouldn't be any doubt about WP, DCist, or WCP (I will add cite for this). He's introduced legislation and he then went to the Mayor when he couldn't get it through. Any legislative initiative of this nature is notable, especially if its so widely reported. 15:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching the issue with the cite formatting. I can understand you want to get the chronology right but this sentence is a trainwreck and would confuse any reader. I've tried at least to get rid of the passive voice. In 2018 it was learned that, several months prior to Evans's introduction of the legislation and before Digi had run afoul of the city's regulations, Digi had offered Evans's son a paid internship, which never came to pass. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This is Jack Evans. I did not introduce any legislation concerning Digi. Repeat. I did not introduce any legislation and, as such, did not withdraw any. Please check the Council records. The Washington Post also got it wrong. You have got to make this stuff accurate. You can’t assume or speculate or frankly rely on the Post. The section makes no sense and is totally inaccurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:C5C9:6E2B:53FD:BFD9 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, the sentences about my resigning from Metro should be deleted as suggested by John. I am still Chairman of Metro with the full support of the Board. None of those observations are true. Thanks. Rereading the paragraph again, the reference to the Mayor is false. How do I get this stuff removed? Someone please respond. I don’t want to start editing it myself as I did several years ago. But I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B02C:320A:6C2C:FC7E:96B8:E7F8 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- You get it removed by citing a reliable third party source that definitively shows how the Post and other reliable sources in fact "got it wrong". Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable, third party sources tell us - not on what we may personally know or believe, outside those sources. If you try and remove this information with no support other than you personally know better, it'll be immediately restored, and almost certainly result in a block of whatever account or address you're editing from. JohnInDC (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks John. Essentially the entire digi discussion is the result of one person, Jeffery Anderson. His blog is district dig and is his opinion on what events are. The Wash Post article is based on his blog. To correct my bio, I did not introduce legislation. The Post does not say I did. So please correct the bio. Also, you said you would correct the Metro in your comments. Please look at that. Thanks. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.32.13 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Since no one is responding, I’m not sure how to proceed. My bio has again become a City Paper article not an encyclopedia entry. Why do you all think that is OK? And if so, why not apply the same standards to other Councilmember and other elected officials? You have the ability to edit it appropriately. You rewrote it in its entirety 4 summers ago. Please take another look. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.32.13 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- So, per these minutes - http://dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/event_testimony/SUMMARY_of_December_6_2016_legislative_meeting.pdf - the legislation wasn't considered, which sounds like it was withdrawn before it was even introduced. Indeed the City Paper article says "proposed" rather than "introduced". There's not much question that the draft legislation existed in some form, and that it reached some point of consideration, even informally, before not being "considered" (else why mention it at all in the minutes?). I'm going to play with the language here some, and meantime invite comment re whether legislation that may never have existed as an actual bill, and was killed by its own (apparent) sponsor, warrants discussion as a "legislative position" or "political position" or whatever the caption of the section is. JohnInDC (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- A proposed legislation that never came to pass and an internship that never happened? I stand by my position above, this material should be removed as too trivial to mention. Bonewah (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- I would certainly not object to its removal altogether. I cleaned it up rather than remove it because, pending views of others, it just leads to an edit war. JohnInDC (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- FYI, i posted a note on wp:blpn a few days ago about this article asking for more eyes. I dont think there is anything wrong here per se, but i do think it would help to get a few new opinions. Bonewah (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Good idea. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- FYI, i posted a note on wp:blpn a few days ago about this article asking for more eyes. I dont think there is anything wrong here per se, but i do think it would help to get a few new opinions. Bonewah (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Look, if legislation that passed were the threshold for inclusion or notability, most Congressman would have empty pages. The issues you support - and more importantly, the legislation you propose - are the fabric of what makes a politician. This legislation, though failed, has been widely reported, included in pretty much all DC media. With the the hotel tax breaks, I can understand the notability concerns - it didn't make the Washington Post or multiple other publications. That's not the case here. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's not "didn't even pass" but instead "wasn't even introduced". There isn't even a bill. If it weren't for an entry on a council minute page, the thing wouldn't be more than an idea. I like Bonewah's formulation: Legislation that didn't pass and an internship that didn't happen. But - there are maybe more eyes here from BLP, so we can wait to see what they say. JohnInDC (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Can you please explain why you are doing WP:OR on Evans' behalf? The Washington Post, WCP, DCist, and other publications all saw this an notable and noteworthy. They didn't quibble at what point in the legislative process Evans decided it wouldn't get enough votes to pass and killed it. They use the words "propose" repeatedly. Are you really taking issue with whether or not it was formally introduced? If Evans wants to pursue the issue through his own channels he has legions of lawyers at his ready, I'm sure. We follow the Wikipedia policies here. If you want to work on the text, I still think that paragraph is unweildy but I accept where it is. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm trying to work within the spirit of BLP, which counsels caution when it comes to contentious or disparaging material about living people. If one outlet got it wrong and the others picked that up - just postulate that for a moment - do you think that OR trumps BLP and prevents an editor from examining that claim? Particularly for a minor - yes, trivial - event such as this never-legislation that some columnists imply resulted from a never-internship? JohnInDC (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC
- Those publications are reliable and have full time editors who care deeply about the accuracy of their coverage. They would all be more than willing to correct their reporting - if there were any basis for a correction. It's amazing that Evans is seeking a correction from the editors of Wikipedia than from the editors of the publications. I think you know that this is how it should play out and you basically say as much above.Bangabandhu (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Also - I think if you really want to be helpful here you would enlist Evans in our efforts to create thorough entries. Which Councilmember's entries do not have their marital status? I updated Mendo's. Which of his legislative efforts (successful or unsuccessful - but widely reported) are missing? I find it inappropriate and mildly intimidating that Evans is on this page or I would do it myself. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- So in your view, BLP really doesn't come into play until the subject of the contentious material seeks (and I guess obtains) corrections from all the publications who might've misreported something, and, demonstrates his or her good faith by becoming a Wikipedia editor and conforming similar articles to the standards they'd like for their own. I can't go along with that. Now, I acknowledge that we're arguing about a word, and it's a pretty small difference between what was said and what might actually be the case, and it's only a short paragraph; but there's also a mean little insinuation in there about a quid pro quo that may or may not be true because even in the articles it's just an implication, and I think we can do better than, "hey, the papers reported it and we're just putting it out there for people to see!" JohnInDC (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Interestingly, you take out that little snippet - that internship that didn't happen and that no source actually says resulted in the withdrawn legislation - and the paragraph is revealed as the minor episode that it is. There's the BLP issue in a nub. JohnInDC (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- If there were any ambiguity in the publicly reported, reliable sources I could see the value in striking out on your own to try and reconcile them. That isn't the case here. We live in an age when politicians, with less effort than taking a breath and absolutely no evidence, will declare unfavorable coverage to be "fake news". Worse yet, there are well funded minions who do their bidding. Don't be one of them.
- To the text, I've said if you think that there is undue weight placed on the internship you should wordsmith it accordingly but the topic is widely reported and significant enough that it must stay.Bangabandhu (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- So now I'm a "well funded minion" of Evans. What's your source for that? JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- No from what I've seen you're an astute and committed editor. Original research on Evans' behalf isn't befitting your expertise or consistent with policy. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Nice recovery, Bang, but there's really no place here for needless and baseless personal insinuations, even if you're good at walking them back when called out on them. JohnInDC (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- No from what I've seen you're an astute and committed editor. Original research on Evans' behalf isn't befitting your expertise or consistent with policy. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- So now I'm a "well funded minion" of Evans. What's your source for that? JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Interestingly, you take out that little snippet - that internship that didn't happen and that no source actually says resulted in the withdrawn legislation - and the paragraph is revealed as the minor episode that it is. There's the BLP issue in a nub. JohnInDC (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- So in your view, BLP really doesn't come into play until the subject of the contentious material seeks (and I guess obtains) corrections from all the publications who might've misreported something, and, demonstrates his or her good faith by becoming a Wikipedia editor and conforming similar articles to the standards they'd like for their own. I can't go along with that. Now, I acknowledge that we're arguing about a word, and it's a pretty small difference between what was said and what might actually be the case, and it's only a short paragraph; but there's also a mean little insinuation in there about a quid pro quo that may or may not be true because even in the articles it's just an implication, and I think we can do better than, "hey, the papers reported it and we're just putting it out there for people to see!" JohnInDC (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm trying to work within the spirit of BLP, which counsels caution when it comes to contentious or disparaging material about living people. If one outlet got it wrong and the others picked that up - just postulate that for a moment - do you think that OR trumps BLP and prevents an editor from examining that claim? Particularly for a minor - yes, trivial - event such as this never-legislation that some columnists imply resulted from a never-internship? JohnInDC (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC
- Can you please explain why you are doing WP:OR on Evans' behalf? The Washington Post, WCP, DCist, and other publications all saw this an notable and noteworthy. They didn't quibble at what point in the legislative process Evans decided it wouldn't get enough votes to pass and killed it. They use the words "propose" repeatedly. Are you really taking issue with whether or not it was formally introduced? If Evans wants to pursue the issue through his own channels he has legions of lawyers at his ready, I'm sure. We follow the Wikipedia policies here. If you want to work on the text, I still think that paragraph is unweildy but I accept where it is. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's not "didn't even pass" but instead "wasn't even introduced". There isn't even a bill. If it weren't for an entry on a council minute page, the thing wouldn't be more than an idea. I like Bonewah's formulation: Legislation that didn't pass and an internship that didn't happen. But - there are maybe more eyes here from BLP, so we can wait to see what they say. JohnInDC (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- I would certainly not object to its removal altogether. I cleaned it up rather than remove it because, pending views of others, it just leads to an edit war. JohnInDC (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- A proposed legislation that never came to pass and an internship that never happened? I stand by my position above, this material should be removed as too trivial to mention. Bonewah (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
There are literally hundreds of entries you can make on all Councilmembers pages of ideas that never happened. Again I don’t see one mention on other Councilmembers pages of ideas not pursued. Not for that matter personal details. 5 council members are divorced. Only on my page is it mentioned. Why? Because Bang put it there and no one will take it down. It is clear Bangs purpose over the last four years is to make me look bad. This has got to stop. Half of my biography is inaccurate or trivial and should be removed. I need a senior editor to step in. Please help.
Regarding Digi, there was never any legislation. Without that, there is no story. You might as well include that I went home on February 28th at 5 pm. At least that’s accurate.
Please delete the Digi material and the Metro references. Or else include the many Metro references to all the actions I have taken as Chairman which are set forth in the same Washington Post. You can’t just select a trivial quote from a press secretary and ignore all the other positive quotes. But actually none of it belongs in an encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia not Wikicitypaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.205.9.167 (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The Digi material is still on my page. This is outrageous. Bang, nothing has been widely reported. The only articles are by Jeffery Anderson in City Paper and after he was fired on his own blog. The Washington Post wrote on article on page 5, the same page as the obituaries. Again, no internship and NO legislation exists. I never proposed legislation. As such I never withdrew it. Why is it so important to you Bang that you misrepresent what happened. Why?? You are worse than Don Trump!! Accuracy is critical to Wikipedia l use it all the time but I am beginning to question what I’m reading. Once the General public does, it’s done. Please, you have a responsibility to be accurate. You efforts to make it look like some deal took place are not something that belongs in Wikipedia.
Again, can a senior editor look at my page and edit out the nonsense.
And on the personal stuff, why include that? Again, to paint the negative picture.
I am totally frustrated with how this is being handled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B024:24C7:1929:C57D:2D92:52AB (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I did not propose and then withdraw emergency legislation. At least please remove that. It is just plain false. You have independently verified that I did not do so. As editors you have an obligation to correct the record. You can’t knowingly print false information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B14E:D09D:B01F:424C:5913:2BA2 (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've asked at WP:BLPN for additional comment here. Personally I think the whole section should come out because it's trivial, it's questionable factually (sources notwithstanding), and not a matter of any lasting significance. (I'd note that it was not seen as fit for inclusion back in 2016 when the episode first took place and was reported then - and I bet it doesn't find further mention.) At this point though I'm just butting heads with Bang over it and figure another opinion or two would be helpful. Meanwhile it's not like the statement is scurrilous or libelous on its face - it's at worst an overstatement. Let's see what others bring to bear. JohnInDC (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Except its not trivial. The reasons are listed above and shouldn't need to be rehashed here. Suffice to say that if almost every media outlet publishes coverage, its anything but trivial, regardless of your views on the significance of Digi as a company and the internship/donations as an incentive. Also I note that you've now introduced the point that you're concerned that this issue has no lasting significance - in the same sentence that you note out how its been around for two years already. He does not need to resign or be indicted for something over something in order for it to have lasting significance. One final point, which has also been made above: You seem concerned that Evans and this incident have been misrepresented in media. If that's the case, he can correct it by contacting any of the editors of the multiple publications that covered the story. It is fascinating that he would seek to correct the record here when Wikipedia relies exclusively secondary sources. Why make the case here? Does he think he will find a more sympathetic group of editors than at the WP or WCP? Is he concerned that if he contacted those publications they would print another story, or gather more info about the arrangement between him and Digi? Speculating further: that they might accuse him of claiming "fake news" - denying reality without a shred of evidence? We probably won't know the answer to this and it doesn't affect the content we include in the article, but its interesting nonetheless. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's not worth calling the media and demanding a "correction" for the same reason it doesn't need to be here: It's trivial. Standing by itself it's not worth the phone call. And because it doesn't stand by itself, it's a perfect setup for the Streisand effect - the story wouldn't be, "oh, we used the wrong word, here's the right one" but rather, "Evans is so worked up about coverage of this issue on Wikipedia that he began calling newspapers to change things". You make this very point yourself - contacting the media would make things worse, not better. And finally, as I've noted to you here any many other times, just because the papers report something, doesn't make it "notable" and worth including. We edit. You and I surely have nothing more to say to each other on this though, so I'm content to leave things as they are and let others comment, as they've done before. In the same way it's too trivial to report, it's also, once here, too trivial to amount to an emergency. JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is some self-help that isn't quite so obviously a bad idea. Jack: Go look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. The page is useful, informationally, and may also direct you to a place where you can state your concerns directly. (I haven't read it carefully.) You might find it a more fruitful avenue than pressing your case here. JohnInDC (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC
- It's not worth calling the media and demanding a "correction" for the same reason it doesn't need to be here: It's trivial. Standing by itself it's not worth the phone call. And because it doesn't stand by itself, it's a perfect setup for the Streisand effect - the story wouldn't be, "oh, we used the wrong word, here's the right one" but rather, "Evans is so worked up about coverage of this issue on Wikipedia that he began calling newspapers to change things". You make this very point yourself - contacting the media would make things worse, not better. And finally, as I've noted to you here any many other times, just because the papers report something, doesn't make it "notable" and worth including. We edit. You and I surely have nothing more to say to each other on this though, so I'm content to leave things as they are and let others comment, as they've done before. In the same way it's too trivial to report, it's also, once here, too trivial to amount to an emergency. JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Except its not trivial. The reasons are listed above and shouldn't need to be rehashed here. Suffice to say that if almost every media outlet publishes coverage, its anything but trivial, regardless of your views on the significance of Digi as a company and the internship/donations as an incentive. Also I note that you've now introduced the point that you're concerned that this issue has no lasting significance - in the same sentence that you note out how its been around for two years already. He does not need to resign or be indicted for something over something in order for it to have lasting significance. One final point, which has also been made above: You seem concerned that Evans and this incident have been misrepresented in media. If that's the case, he can correct it by contacting any of the editors of the multiple publications that covered the story. It is fascinating that he would seek to correct the record here when Wikipedia relies exclusively secondary sources. Why make the case here? Does he think he will find a more sympathetic group of editors than at the WP or WCP? Is he concerned that if he contacted those publications they would print another story, or gather more info about the arrangement between him and Digi? Speculating further: that they might accuse him of claiming "fake news" - denying reality without a shred of evidence? We probably won't know the answer to this and it doesn't affect the content we include in the article, but its interesting nonetheless. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
So Bang wins again and another false entry is made to my bio. Everyone agrees that this should be deleted, John, Bone and others. This trivia would never be added to anyone else’s bio. Only Bang wants to keep it because of his obsession with me. Can’t someone have some ethics and take action? Please delete it and see what Bang does? Because this isn’t the last we will here from him. He’s obsessed.
John, thanks for the suggestion. I will try it. Bang is a bully and I can’t stand bullys. Let’s see what I can find out. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B022:C12:9C26:F237:9082:2C7B (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It’s been 9 days and no response from anyone. John and Bone, I tried self help but same result. Another editor will look at it. But nothing happened. I am requesting that the Digi material be removed. It has only one source, Jeffery Anderson, and it appears even he lost interest. Also, why no mention of my pivotal role in metros dedicated funding this week. It was on the front page of the washington post Metro section Thursday and Friday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B161:601A:568:81F5:BD48:2884 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Jack, nothing is likely to change from further conversation on this page. You really should go to the links above to gain an understanding of the policies under which we're (trying to) operate, and, if you want to do it yourself, find a place to post to bring others' eyes here. JohnInDC (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
John and Bang, I did not form a firm with a know lobbyist. He is the registered agent. The firm is totally mine. No partners. Footnote 45 does not indicate such. Even Anderson corrected himself. Please correct my page. Again, it is entirely my firm. Jarvis is only the Registered agent. Thanks. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B023:8E65:D1C9:BDBD:8F4:D771 (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority calls for his resignation.
I removed the following from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority section as it refers to only what people talked about, not what actually happened. For any sufficiently famous person there will be lots of people talking about him or her. Calls for this or that will be commonplace and should be avoided in a biography unless they amount to something more than just talk. Bonewah (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
In October 2017, Evans was the subject of bipartisan calls for his resignation following complaints that he was "inflaming tensions within the region as Metro seeks regionwide support for increased, reliable funding".[1] [2]
References
- ^ Siddiqui, Faiz (12 October 2017). "Rep. Gerry Connolly joins Gov. Hogan in urging ouster of Metro board chair Jack Evans". Washington Post. Washington, DC. Retrieved 12 October 2017.
- ^ McCarthey, Robert (6 October 2017). "Hogan calls for Metro board chairman to resign, accusing him of 'juvenile outbursts'". Washington Post. Washington, DC. Retrieved 12 October 2017.
- I am fine with this edit. JohnInDC (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean when you say its just "what people talked about"? This wasn't some closed door conversation, this was a widely reported policy dispute that was started by Evans' controversial position. This was the original language I proposed, which shows the extent of this dispute. Remember, he doesn't need to be indicted in order for something to have "happened". Bangabandhu (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hm, no, it seemed to start when Hogan offered up gratuitous criticism of Evans in response to a routine inquiry regarding a proposal (not specific to Evans) to reformulate the board. At least, that's how the cited sources reported the dust-up. We talked about this above. Then Evans responded with an ill-advised threatened (not "sought") power grab, which Hogan called "tantamount to" (not "called") extortion. It all took place over the space of a week and then - as far as I can tell - nothing more came of it. My view at the time was that it was premature to include it, but only Bang and I were interested (well, and Evans), and I didn't care to press the point. My view is today the same as it was then and so I agree with Bonewah. JohnInDC (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- What I mean when i say "what people talked about" is this. As editors, it is our job to separate out what is important from what is merely known. It is not enough that something appeared in a RS, it must also be relevant to the subject's biography, of lasting importance, significant. A Wikipedia article is not simply a pile of facts quoted from reliable sources. As such, we need to determine whether a piece of information really helps the reader understand the subject or is merely a dump of everything we could find.
- Jack Evans is a politician, and, as such, is regularly going to be criticized publicly. There will undoubtedly be 'calls for his resignation' or articles critical of his business connections or whatever. As editors, we need to demonstrate why any one particular comment about Evans, good or bad, is of lasting significance before we include it in his biography. Obviously, i feel that the above line is not of lasting importance and your response has done nothing to change my mind. Bonewah (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hm, no, it seemed to start when Hogan offered up gratuitous criticism of Evans in response to a routine inquiry regarding a proposal (not specific to Evans) to reformulate the board. At least, that's how the cited sources reported the dust-up. We talked about this above. Then Evans responded with an ill-advised threatened (not "sought") power grab, which Hogan called "tantamount to" (not "called") extortion. It all took place over the space of a week and then - as far as I can tell - nothing more came of it. My view at the time was that it was premature to include it, but only Bang and I were interested (well, and Evans), and I didn't care to press the point. My view is today the same as it was then and so I agree with Bonewah. JohnInDC (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean when you say its just "what people talked about"? This wasn't some closed door conversation, this was a widely reported policy dispute that was started by Evans' controversial position. This was the original language I proposed, which shows the extent of this dispute. Remember, he doesn't need to be indicted in order for something to have "happened". Bangabandhu (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
"Calls for resignation"
I reverted Bangabandhu's first addition of this material on the ground that it's so far, just news of the week, and in development, and better included when it's resolved; if Evans resigns under fire, we note that; and if he doesn't resign then the addition is, in fact, just the quotidian reporting of some criticism by local politicians. Bang restored it, saying that the dispute had been "going on for some time" and including an article from a week earlier. It's all the same thing IMHO, possibly just a tempest in a teapot (we don't know yet), but rather than edit war I've left it in but pared it down to the essential facts - there are calls for his resignation - and to remove a couple of over- and misstatements, like, Hogan didn't call one of Evans's actions "extortion" but said it was "tantamount" to it (which is different); also Evans didn't actually exercise his veto power over the Purple Line but rather, said he might; and Hogan's initial call for Evans's resignation wasn't related to LaHood's suggestion about a federal agency at all, which just gave Hogan occasion to air his views. As reported in the cited article, "The governor’s office urged the chairman’s resignation in a two-sentence, written statement when asked for a routine response to the LaHood plan to replace the Metro board with a temporary, five-member reform body." Let's leave it simple at this point until something actually happens. JohnInDC (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- The issue deserves a lot more discussion than one line, especially considering the earlier discussion of Metro issues, none of which rise to this level of significance. The sentence you chose to quote from the WP doesn't make sense to me, editorially or diplomatically. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- LaHood suggests a federal board to avoid regional infighting. Nothing about "Evans". Hogan seizes the opportunity to attack Evans personally and call for his resignation, complaining about Evans's "juvenile comments". That's Part One, from an October 6 article, here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/lahood-defends-plan-to-scrap-metro-board-we-need-new-blood-new-thinking/2017/10/06/9079a51a-aa39-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.f39bcc9c2011 . LaHood's recommendation - as reported anyhow - had nothing to do with Evans. In Part Two, a week later, reported here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/evans-threatens-to-block-transfer-of-metro-land-needed-for-purple-line-unless-md-backs-board-changes/2017/10/11/535f22aa-aec5-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.0a40f18094e4 Evans (improvidently) said he might exercise veto authority over a piece of the Maryland-based Purple Line project unless Maryland votes on a matter in a way that Evans and the District favors. Following this, Hogan renewed his call for Evans's resignation, which was echoed by a Virginia Democratic representative, whose criticism was paraphrased in the article, and which I quoted, namely that Evans was "inflaming tensions within the region as Metro seeks regionwide support for increased, reliable funding." Again, the LaHood thing did not relate to Evans personally, except when Hogan chose to make it that; and the "veto" issue is inside baseball, hard to understand out of context, and much better summarized in a general way (and indeed relating even better to LaHood's concerns) about regional tensions and infighting, as I did. If and when something comes of it, then we say more. Meantime, what is it? Regional sniping, out of which maybe possibly nothing ever comes. JohnInDC (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Calls for an oversight board and the resignation of the current board (which Evans' chairs) go back a lot further - here's one from two months ago. It might be too much detail to get into the jurisdictional veto, but there is some explanation needed for why Evans and his board are being called to resign. That part you've excerpted from the article doesn't do it. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- That article has nothing to do with Evans as Evans but rather the contention that the board should be replaced by another body. That's something that would appropriately be included in the Metro Board article (is there one?) - but as for an article about Evans? No. Don't confuse the two. "Jack Evans" got asked to resign personally, twice - once by Hogan in what appears to be a personal / political spat and then once by a Representative after Evans overreached, and nothing has come of either. Don't confuse Board issues with Evans's biography. It's fine as it is. JohnInDC (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, there is an article. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. I could've checked that first I guess. If you want to add material there about these ongoing discussions about restructuring the thing - the larger context in which these couple of Evans-related events take place - feel free. But that's the place for Board issues, not here. JohnInDC (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- That article has nothing to do with Evans as Evans but rather the contention that the board should be replaced by another body. That's something that would appropriately be included in the Metro Board article (is there one?) - but as for an article about Evans? No. Don't confuse the two. "Jack Evans" got asked to resign personally, twice - once by Hogan in what appears to be a personal / political spat and then once by a Representative after Evans overreached, and nothing has come of either. Don't confuse Board issues with Evans's biography. It's fine as it is. JohnInDC (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Calls for an oversight board and the resignation of the current board (which Evans' chairs) go back a lot further - here's one from two months ago. It might be too much detail to get into the jurisdictional veto, but there is some explanation needed for why Evans and his board are being called to resign. That part you've excerpted from the article doesn't do it. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- LaHood suggests a federal board to avoid regional infighting. Nothing about "Evans". Hogan seizes the opportunity to attack Evans personally and call for his resignation, complaining about Evans's "juvenile comments". That's Part One, from an October 6 article, here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/lahood-defends-plan-to-scrap-metro-board-we-need-new-blood-new-thinking/2017/10/06/9079a51a-aa39-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.f39bcc9c2011 . LaHood's recommendation - as reported anyhow - had nothing to do with Evans. In Part Two, a week later, reported here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/evans-threatens-to-block-transfer-of-metro-land-needed-for-purple-line-unless-md-backs-board-changes/2017/10/11/535f22aa-aec5-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.0a40f18094e4 Evans (improvidently) said he might exercise veto authority over a piece of the Maryland-based Purple Line project unless Maryland votes on a matter in a way that Evans and the District favors. Following this, Hogan renewed his call for Evans's resignation, which was echoed by a Virginia Democratic representative, whose criticism was paraphrased in the article, and which I quoted, namely that Evans was "inflaming tensions within the region as Metro seeks regionwide support for increased, reliable funding." Again, the LaHood thing did not relate to Evans personally, except when Hogan chose to make it that; and the "veto" issue is inside baseball, hard to understand out of context, and much better summarized in a general way (and indeed relating even better to LaHood's concerns) about regional tensions and infighting, as I did. If and when something comes of it, then we say more. Meantime, what is it? Regional sniping, out of which maybe possibly nothing ever comes. JohnInDC (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This is Jack Evans. I cannot believe that Bang is still editing my page. As usual, he tries to make me look bad. Why? Because he lives in my Ward and doesn’t like me. The Metro issue he writes about is minor compared to what I deal with. However, if he wants to write about it report that Governor Hogan blinked and supported my reorganization of the committees. As a result, I didn’t veto the purple line. Hogan was angry he lost and reacted accordingly. Whose being childish now? Why don’t you print this. It’s all in the Post article. Jack
Also please remember, Bang was writing about my kids hamsters!! This whole Metro stuff should be deleted. FYI. I am not resigning.
Yesterday I was elected to a third term as Chairman of the Metro Board. The first time ever. The front page of today’s Washington Post Metro section reflects this. Please add to my bio. Also, I have been credited with leading the fight for dedicated funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B014:A750:39C3:F0D6:D409:3BEA (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Name
Who is editing my Wikipedia page. Someone changed my name. How do I find out?
- If you click on the "view history" tab in the top right you can see the list of recent editors. I reverted the change until the editor provided a source. Is that not your given name? I had never seen you mentioned that way until it was on here. Bangabandhu (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
It is the name on my birth certificate but I have never used it. No one calls me that including my late parents. It is absurd to refer to me that way. Please change it back. Thanks. Jack. Also, still no mention of my election as Democratic National Committeeman. It is the first time I won a city wide election and I carried all 8 wards. It is cited in my Council Bio. I’d appreciate your including it. Thanks. Jack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B014:85D4:74CA:8A36:3E67:959C (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC) I can’t find the View History. What am I doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B014:85D4:74CA:8A36:3E67:959C (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Who is MCMcBride? Why is he/she changing my name? Pretty weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B014:85D4:74CA:8A36:3E67:959C (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Glad you found the history tab. I'm not sure what answer you're looking for as few Wikipedia editors disclose their real names. You can see what info the editor has volunteered about him/herself if you click on their name in the View History tab. Though clicking on "contribs", which shows their previous edits, is often a better way to see what they're really about. Advise using a computer for this, it renders a lot differently on a phone.
- Now that you know how to view page histories, what do you think should be added to pages like Events DC or Initiative 77? You were involved in the Washington Marriott Marquis deal - that entry is stunning in its detail, but its tough to know where to begin in updating it, do you have any suggestions? Bangabandhu (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Before I get involved in a new project, I would like my page fixed. Please return my name back to the way it was and add my DNC victory to my page. These are facts that should be reflected in an encyclopedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B028:AB66:68B1:6870:4864:7B20 (talk • contribs)
- I read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Names to say that the use of a subject's full legal name is the proper way to start an article, as jarring to the ear as that may seem in some cases. JohnInDC (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it only seems to apply to me. John, can You explain how I find view history? I can’t find it anywhere
- What other pages are you seeing where the given name is missing? Let's get those updated and accurate, too. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Separate Section for Controversies?
Currently, the controversies from Evans' tenure are wrapped up in the section about his political positions. I think it'd be better (especially for the NSE Consulting stuff) to be separated out. Thoughts? Sdkb (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Now, a political position is not a "controversy" merely by being "controversial". But in the case of NSE (which certainly involves political positions), the issue seems to be that the political aspect may have been colored by the personal. In which case it may be appropriate to treat it separately. JohnInDC (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, Wikipedia discourages controversy sections. See WP:CRITS Bonewah (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ah well then let’s don’t. I don’t feel that strongly myself. JohnInDC (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think the article does a good job of including any controversies into the main text, and creating a separate controversy section would be a bad thing. However, it might be a good idea to move the digi stuff from "political positions" up into the "political career" section, since I believe it would fit better there. It's not really a story about any political positions, so I've gone ahead and done that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is a good revision. And nice to see new editors on the page. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think the article does a good job of including any controversies into the main text, and creating a separate controversy section would be a bad thing. However, it might be a good idea to move the digi stuff from "political positions" up into the "political career" section, since I believe it would fit better there. It's not really a story about any political positions, so I've gone ahead and done that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ah well then let’s don’t. I don’t feel that strongly myself. JohnInDC (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, Wikipedia discourages controversy sections. See WP:CRITS Bonewah (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
BLPN
I think some more experienced eyes would be useful, so I've made a section on the BLP noticeboard. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Other LLCs and clients
I think lots of readers would ask the question - besides NSE, what other firms/entities is he serving from his council role? So this addition, which sources almost verbatim to the WP, is critical. Evans refused to name his other clients, claiming protection by attorney-client privilege Bangabandhu (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- No. We've been through this before. The Post article is about Digi Media, and NSE's interactions with it. The Wikipedia article section is about Digi Media, and Evans's actions (well, in fact non-actions in every case) relating to that firm. It's not a place to raise dark innuendo about sinister things that Evans might be doing, because you suppose lots of readers might the question who Evans's other clients are (or might be - a qualifier from the source that your addition inexplicably twice revises). If his declining to answer violates a law or rule of the District - then that might be worth reporting. But the question wasn't asked by an investigator, or the Ethics Committee, or any other official body. Instead, a journalist asked him to name other clients he might have. He's a private lawyer in addition to councilmember - you expect him to just offer up a client list to every journalist who asks? And there's something sneaky about it when he doesn't? This is just like when you insisted readers needed to know his salary numbers. I'm taking it out again and I ask that you leave it out until consensus can be reached on it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- While we're at it - I'm not sure why you think it's significant or important to include mention of the "prominent lobbyist" as "registered agent" for the firm. The appointment of a third party agent is probably a requirement for doing business. The position is a ministerial one, for the purpose of accepting service of any legal documents that may be filed involving the firm. Yes, this factoid is in the article, but as I've said many times before - as editors, we edit, and don't simply repeat everything that sources say just because they said them. I've left it in here because anyone who knows what a "registered agent" is and does will understand that it's meaningless, but I'd be interested in your explanation anyhow, because the article - like any article - would be improved by the removal of stray and collateral information. JohnInDC (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Look, I don't know the intricacies of campaign finance disclosure and conflict of interest requirements, but I know what's significant and what's been reported. We've gone to some length to try and accurately reflect his current employment status, which is tough to keep straight and current considering how frequently its changing and the array of clients. The names/identities of his employers are vastly different than a discussion about the specific amounts he's receiving from any of these clients, and I don't understand how you could conflate the two. If Evans had said "I don't have other clients" or, as most of the Council has said "I work for the citizens of DC and don't take outside employment" we would put that in. Instead, he's asserting attorney-client privilege and not disclosing that information, which belongs in the article of any elected official. There's no POV with that statement, its a fact. Now, you're right that in the context of the article about NSE it may make a long para even longer. It belongs in the discussion about earlier employment, and I'm going to put it there. I don't get your point about registered agent; you don't know what role the high profile lobbyist or the intricacies of their arrangement and it is conjecture to assume that because some registered agents may play minor roles that all do. But we know that it is notable and needs to remain. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, I object. The fact that he has - sorry, may have, external clients, is not against the law, or against any regulation that anyone has identified in any of the sources, and he is not obliged to provide confidential client information to a newspaper reporter who happens to ask a question. He may have other clients - he may not. All we actually know is that he didn't answer a question that he didn't have to. Any "other clients" - if in fact they exist - were not a subject of the Post article, or any ethical investigation, or any other inquiry that you have described, and absent an actual suggestion of conflict or wrongdoing (versus your naked surmise) in connection with these maybe-other-clients, the observation has no place here. Indeed if as you concede, you don't even know what the regulations are then how can you say that what Evans says or doesn't say is significant? You can't. As for registered agents - I told you what registered agents do. I even wikilinked it. And if that's not enough, here's the actual law in DC. You effectively admit you have no idea why you want to include this snippet except that it may be telling. Of something. Somehow. Certainly its significance wasn't reported. Your take on it is pure speculation, and is purely insufficient. Do not add any of this material back in without consensus. JohnInDC (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Now - if we have a reliable source that identifies an actual problem with Evans having private clients, and his reluctance to disclose this confidential information to - well, someone who has a right to ask; if that issue becomes a reported matter of public interest - then let's please revisit this. Likewise if a reliable source reports that lobbyist Jarvis was undertaking far more extensive activity on behalf of NSE Consulting than what registered agents do under the law - that he was, in fact, more than registered agent and that's a problem - let's revisit that too. But until there are such articles - no. It's speculation, and innuendo, and no more. JohnInDC (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with JohnInDC, there is no need to include information about questions not answered or speculation. There is way too much effort to include every bit of minutiae about Evans that one can find in the media. Just because something appears in a reliable source does not mean that it must or should be included here. Please be ready to answer why any given piece of information is relevant to a high level biography aside from the fact that it appeared in a newspaper. Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're missing, or what I'm missing, but we're way off on this. Employment is a significant issue and noteworthy on every biography, especially a politician's biography. This isn't an issue unique to Evans - every DC Councilmember has their employers listed. The question of whether it should be allowed generates significant coverage in articles solely devoted to the topic of outside employment. John, I don't understand what difference it makes whether Evan's employment is legal. It's irrelevant, really, and I can't believe you went to the lengths of looking up the legislation. Again, this is far from trivial. It is certainly not the minutiae of the amount that he's making or how many hours he's putting in, just that he has additional, outside employment that he will not disclose. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I havent been following too closely, but i dont think you are accurately representing the disagreement at issue here. This is not about Evans' employment. Bonewah (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Bang, you need to be able to explain the significance of this information without using the terms "might" or "we don't know", which merely flag your own speculation. JohnInDC (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, also. I looked up the legislation - confident in what it would say - only to refute the skepticism you'd expressed at my black-letter explanation of what registered agents do. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, OR to refute uninformed speculation is no vice. JohnInDC (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Bang, you need to be able to explain the significance of this information without using the terms "might" or "we don't know", which merely flag your own speculation. JohnInDC (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I havent been following too closely, but i dont think you are accurately representing the disagreement at issue here. This is not about Evans' employment. Bonewah (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're missing, or what I'm missing, but we're way off on this. Employment is a significant issue and noteworthy on every biography, especially a politician's biography. This isn't an issue unique to Evans - every DC Councilmember has their employers listed. The question of whether it should be allowed generates significant coverage in articles solely devoted to the topic of outside employment. John, I don't understand what difference it makes whether Evan's employment is legal. It's irrelevant, really, and I can't believe you went to the lengths of looking up the legislation. Again, this is far from trivial. It is certainly not the minutiae of the amount that he's making or how many hours he's putting in, just that he has additional, outside employment that he will not disclose. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with JohnInDC, there is no need to include information about questions not answered or speculation. There is way too much effort to include every bit of minutiae about Evans that one can find in the media. Just because something appears in a reliable source does not mean that it must or should be included here. Please be ready to answer why any given piece of information is relevant to a high level biography aside from the fact that it appeared in a newspaper. Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Now - if we have a reliable source that identifies an actual problem with Evans having private clients, and his reluctance to disclose this confidential information to - well, someone who has a right to ask; if that issue becomes a reported matter of public interest - then let's please revisit this. Likewise if a reliable source reports that lobbyist Jarvis was undertaking far more extensive activity on behalf of NSE Consulting than what registered agents do under the law - that he was, in fact, more than registered agent and that's a problem - let's revisit that too. But until there are such articles - no. It's speculation, and innuendo, and no more. JohnInDC (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, I object. The fact that he has - sorry, may have, external clients, is not against the law, or against any regulation that anyone has identified in any of the sources, and he is not obliged to provide confidential client information to a newspaper reporter who happens to ask a question. He may have other clients - he may not. All we actually know is that he didn't answer a question that he didn't have to. Any "other clients" - if in fact they exist - were not a subject of the Post article, or any ethical investigation, or any other inquiry that you have described, and absent an actual suggestion of conflict or wrongdoing (versus your naked surmise) in connection with these maybe-other-clients, the observation has no place here. Indeed if as you concede, you don't even know what the regulations are then how can you say that what Evans says or doesn't say is significant? You can't. As for registered agents - I told you what registered agents do. I even wikilinked it. And if that's not enough, here's the actual law in DC. You effectively admit you have no idea why you want to include this snippet except that it may be telling. Of something. Somehow. Certainly its significance wasn't reported. Your take on it is pure speculation, and is purely insufficient. Do not add any of this material back in without consensus. JohnInDC (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Look, I don't know the intricacies of campaign finance disclosure and conflict of interest requirements, but I know what's significant and what's been reported. We've gone to some length to try and accurately reflect his current employment status, which is tough to keep straight and current considering how frequently its changing and the array of clients. The names/identities of his employers are vastly different than a discussion about the specific amounts he's receiving from any of these clients, and I don't understand how you could conflate the two. If Evans had said "I don't have other clients" or, as most of the Council has said "I work for the citizens of DC and don't take outside employment" we would put that in. Instead, he's asserting attorney-client privilege and not disclosing that information, which belongs in the article of any elected official. There's no POV with that statement, its a fact. Now, you're right that in the context of the article about NSE it may make a long para even longer. It belongs in the discussion about earlier employment, and I'm going to put it there. I don't get your point about registered agent; you don't know what role the high profile lobbyist or the intricacies of their arrangement and it is conjecture to assume that because some registered agents may play minor roles that all do. But we know that it is notable and needs to remain. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- While we're at it - I'm not sure why you think it's significant or important to include mention of the "prominent lobbyist" as "registered agent" for the firm. The appointment of a third party agent is probably a requirement for doing business. The position is a ministerial one, for the purpose of accepting service of any legal documents that may be filed involving the firm. Yes, this factoid is in the article, but as I've said many times before - as editors, we edit, and don't simply repeat everything that sources say just because they said them. I've left it in here because anyone who knows what a "registered agent" is and does will understand that it's meaningless, but I'd be interested in your explanation anyhow, because the article - like any article - would be improved by the removal of stray and collateral information. JohnInDC (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Bonewah is right that this issue is getting muddied and I'm lost on references to Goldwater, etc. I'm only talking about text that describes his outside employment. Right now the text is at best misleading, certainly outdated and not consistent with existing sources. It reads (references omitted but sound) "During his time on the D.C. Council, Evans has also worked as an insurance executive for Central Benefits Mutual Insurance Co., and from 2001 until 2015 was of counsel attorney at the Squire Patton Boggs law firm. In October 2015, Evans became Counsel to the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. He resigned from the firm in November 2017." This implies he doesn't have outside employment or that he hasn't taken any jobs since November 2017. Not true, based on the most recent (May 2018) coverage. "Evans declined to name other clients he might have, saying the information was protected by attorney-client privilege. " For the sake of an accurate entry, some version of this text needs to be added. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Earlier this week, to address this issue, I was thinking of adding a sentence to the intro saying that Evans was now engaged in the private practice of law, but then realized I didn't have a source for that. All we know is that Evans formed a company called NSE Consulting. That's it. We don't know what it does, who its clients are, or even if there are any clients. We don't know its income (if any - so far, all that's sourced is $0) but if it tops $200 then Evans will be required to report it on his financial disclosure form. Evans resigned from Manatt in November 2017. We have no sources pointing to any other income, activity, employment or clients since then - except for the one Digi Media thing that in the end, didn't happen. Evans may be busy outside, he may not, and absent an RS for one or the other we should say nothing on it. Again, as I said before, "We Don't Know", all by itself, without RSs reporting on the lack of information as newsworthy (e.g. Trump's tax returns) - is insufficient to include here, stray bits of information that may have found their way into publication. JohnInDC (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- You're right that its difficult to characterize his outside business dealings. What does his role in NSE Consulting make him? An entrepreneur? Small business owner? We have no sense of the full scale of NSE, so we don't know if its fair to call it small. Consultant? Lobbyist? That's conjecture and not consistent with the wording from sources. What is clear is that his outside employment did not end in 2017, as the entry suggests. So let's go with something that accurately reflects the Washington Post's language "In 2018, Evans refused to disclose other employers, citing attorney-client privilege." Bangabandhu (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Clients aren't employers; neither is a company that you own. "Outside business interests" might be the proper term, but then, hey. That would include stock ownership too, which of course presents all kinds of potential conflicts. Yet you don't see councilmembers' stockholdings (which I think are available via their financial disclosures) reprinted in Wikipedia articles - nor do you see random, non-RS musings about stocks that they may own, or which their spouses may own, or any of that. Same for debts. We know absolutely nothing about NSE's business, income, clientele, or level of activity, and Evans is under no obligation to provide it to a reporter. Again - "might" and "we don't know" aren't reason enough to include non-facts. JohnInDC (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- (EC)Then we should append to the sentence about his employment something like "in DATE Evans formed a company called NSE Consulting" and leave it at that. Speculating about his clients is, in my opinion, right out. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- And further - if we add that sentence under the general subject of "Employment", we do not in that same place add that NSE didn't cash checks for work it didn't do in connection with Digi Media. JohnInDC (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I see where you are on this, but I'm not sure you actually understood what I was suggesting. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- And further - if we add that sentence under the general subject of "Employment", we do not in that same place add that NSE didn't cash checks for work it didn't do in connection with Digi Media. JohnInDC (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- (EC)Then we should append to the sentence about his employment something like "in DATE Evans formed a company called NSE Consulting" and leave it at that. Speculating about his clients is, in my opinion, right out. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Clients aren't employers; neither is a company that you own. "Outside business interests" might be the proper term, but then, hey. That would include stock ownership too, which of course presents all kinds of potential conflicts. Yet you don't see councilmembers' stockholdings (which I think are available via their financial disclosures) reprinted in Wikipedia articles - nor do you see random, non-RS musings about stocks that they may own, or which their spouses may own, or any of that. Same for debts. We know absolutely nothing about NSE's business, income, clientele, or level of activity, and Evans is under no obligation to provide it to a reporter. Again - "might" and "we don't know" aren't reason enough to include non-facts. JohnInDC (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- You're right that its difficult to characterize his outside business dealings. What does his role in NSE Consulting make him? An entrepreneur? Small business owner? We have no sense of the full scale of NSE, so we don't know if its fair to call it small. Consultant? Lobbyist? That's conjecture and not consistent with the wording from sources. What is clear is that his outside employment did not end in 2017, as the entry suggests. So let's go with something that accurately reflects the Washington Post's language "In 2018, Evans refused to disclose other employers, citing attorney-client privilege." Bangabandhu (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
If you must include this, please make it accurate. I made certain changes and Bang reversed them. 1) The registered agent is a lawyer 2) my office circulated a notice of intent. Nothing was introduced so nothing was withdrawn. 3) District Dig is a blog, not a publication. It is an opinion piece and as such is not factual, only speculation. It can not be relied upon. 4) I was a delegate at the 2016 Democratic convention for Hillary, and Chair of her campaign. That is public record. 5) I was an Elector in 1992, 2004, and 2016. That is public record. 6) The Mayor did refer to me as “Mayor of Metro”. That was in the Washington Post.
Why not try and make this accurate instead of trying to imply that I am a shady character?
Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:B181:BC38:1218:C67F (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- 1) Source uses the term lobbyist not lawyer. 2) "Notice of intent" is not mentioned in article, introducing legislation is. 3) We discussed whether District Dig is reliable for inclusion in Wikipedia and determined it is not, none of the text is sourced to DD 4) Give link or reference to said "public record" and it will be included. 5) Same as 4. 6) If we're going to include random quotes from policymakers we should include Governor Hogan's office which said your outbursts are "juvenile" and that you are "outrageously unfit to serve on the board and should resign immediately". Suggest running for mayor again if you want to stroke your ego, Wikipedia isn't the place for it.
- Please don't edit the text. Its known you have no regard for egregious conflicts of interest so that's unlikely to stop you. But you're just mangling it. For example its BakerHostetler without a space, click on the link to see. -Bangabandhu (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Bang, you just can’t help yourself with the personal attacks on me and other editors. Your comments reflect a personal bias against me and should disqualify you from editing my bio. You have been trying for years to make it look shady. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not Loose Lips. Otherwise it would be called wikicitypaper. The changes I make are for accuracy. You know the truth but choose to ignore it. “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story.” I intend to keep fixing my bio and welcome others to try and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:9C80:9FA8:5180:323E (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- While you're here, what edits do you suggest to the Mayor's entry? Its recently been the subject of some discussion. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no interest in editing anyone else’s bio. Just mine. In a show of good faith can you add 1) delegate to the 2016 convention, 2) Chair of Hillary’s 2016 campaign, 3) member of the Electoral College in 1992, 2004, and 2016, and 4) lawyer/lobbyist since it makes no sense to have your registered agent be a lobbyist. Thanks for your consideration. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:9C80:9FA8:5180:323E (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Bang, thanks for adding the 2016 items. I would try to add the Electoral College information but I don’t know how to cite it. Can you help. That information is certainly more relevant than half the stuff in my bio. Probably 3/4’s. Again I was an elector for Nill Clinton in 1992, John Kerry in 2004, and Hillary Clinton in 2016. Thanks again. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:B498:5CB4:59E2:AE58 (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've added the part about electors. Wilmot is a lot of things - a Washingtonian, African American, campaign donor - but we don't put those in because its not in the source, lobbyist is the term the WP uses.
- You've mentioned before that you read other pages on Wikipedia, why not suggest some improvements to what you're seeing? Wikipedia relies on editors. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I’ll take a look. But OH MY GOSH!! Dave Wilmot isn’t the Registered Agent for NSE. Bill Jarvis the lawyer is!! Now I see the issue. You are correct about Dave but he has no connection to NSE. Check the records and if you agree it probably should be deleted Thanks again for your help on the above issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.69.49 (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Right, Jarvis was the agent, Wilmot represented Digi. Both are lawyers, male, lobbyists, and campaign donors, right? Tough to keep all the connections straight. I'm open to adding Jarvis' name as it would help readers (like myself) but might put undue weight to Jarvis' role. Or is it significant enough that you think it should be added? Bangabandhu (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC
No I would not add his name. Again I would delete the whole sentence because it is so inconsequential. I assume it is included so the reader will think something is shady when we all know a registered agent is required by DC law. It is basically a formality. But thanks again for the other changes. One other change I would like you to consider. Would you consider deleting the reference to my second marriage? Thanks.
- There are lots of reliable sources from mainstream publications describing that relationship. You're a public figure and its of interest to readers. Suggest in the future using the tact of the mayor. There are only vague, gossipy, and unusable references to her relationships, which is why her personal section is so sparse, even after the adoption. If you did an interview or invited coverage from a reliable source about your current status we could include that which would give the sentence about Seiver less weight. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It was a personal request, a favor. I’m not trying to argue one way or the other. Again, I would appreciate you taking another look. Thanks. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.20 (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's phrased a bit poorly now - maybe it could be pared to something like, "His second marriage ended in divorce" - but I agree with Bang. It's pretty stock biographical stuff. JohnInDC (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I could live with that. Removing Michele’s name is a nice gesture. Right now it is the first thing you see when you google my name. I would be grateful if you both made such a change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:BD9C:229E:57C5:4961 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Bang, is there any particular reason you think the name of his second, & ex-, & WP-non-notable wife has to be in the article? Anyone following the sources would find it easily enough; and I'd like for all of us to agree on this small edit. JohnInDC (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia shouldn't be used to support the personal narrative that the subject believes is in vogue. There's no concern about the first wife's name, possibly because her passing puts him in a favorable light. And when everything was copacetic in the marriage he was eager to talk about it and their life together. What I would support is the creation of a Personal Life section at the bottom of the article where the two marriages are discussed. Right now combined with the education/upbringing section which isn't necessary or all that common compared to other entries. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are right. The article shouldn't reflect the ebb and flow of the subject's feelings. And so Evans's earlier enthusiasms are as irrelevant as his more recent feelings. I'm asking the abstract question, does policy require or suggest that the name of the non-notable, second, ex-wife must be, or is routinely, included? It's not abundantly clear to me. (As for his first wife, it would be kind of weird to mention their marriage, and the children she bore, and her poignant and untimely death, and not name her. Don't you think?) JohnInDC (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia shouldn't be used to support the personal narrative that the subject believes is in vogue. There's no concern about the first wife's name, possibly because her passing puts him in a favorable light. And when everything was copacetic in the marriage he was eager to talk about it and their life together. What I would support is the creation of a Personal Life section at the bottom of the article where the two marriages are discussed. Right now combined with the education/upbringing section which isn't necessary or all that common compared to other entries. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
John, I’m not sure why Bang is not responding. Can we proceed with your suggestion? Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B018:2C11:8D14:A7C5:47F8:13F1 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- He hasn't edited anything in 2 days, and while he and I disagree on about 85% of everything we discuss, I'd like to give him a chance to respond. JohnInDC (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC
I agree.
- What, we only agree on 15%?! Is that of the total text included or by the number of edits? Anyway, I've updated and given appropriate prominence to his personal life. Their relationship was entirely notable; its reported multiple times in the Washington Post. Note the contrast with notability of other CM's significant others - its very tough to find anything on Cheh or Mendelsohn's relationships, past or present, for example. I included the Post's coverage of the relationship, with a more accurate date than we had before and changed her name from Price (name from her first marriage or maiden name?) to Seiver. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with using her name. I was asking as a personal favor, nothing more. But although Mary Cheh and Anita Bonds are both divorced, there is no mention of it in their Bios. We need to be consistent. I don’t mind having a separate catagory but I like Johns approach better. “His second marriage ended in divorce”. To say they split in 2014 is just crass. No one would use those words. Bang please, compromise on this for me. Thanks Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:A45B:36B:3D52:E81A (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC) John and Bone, I thought Bang was attempting to be reasonable but I was clearly wrong. In addition to making matters worse by adding to my personal bio, he is using terms like split. He also deleted that I was the co-chair of President Obama’s 2012 campaign. And that I attended the 2012 convention. I have read all of my fellow Councilmember’s bios and none contain the level of trivia and insulting language that mine does. It really needs to be cleaned up. That I got the most names on a petition in 2014 or that my second wife was an interior designer when none of this is included for anyone else is just not professional or frankly not fair. I respectfully request that you take a look and conform it to my colleagues. Thank you for you help and consideration. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B018:2C11:B0CC:50ED:74E6:C75E (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I tweaked the language a bit to make it a bit less colloquial. I left in her name because we haven't got consensus to take it out, but otherwise I think it's a bit better. JohnInDC (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I also took out the years because we don't have a source for the date of the divorce. We know they were separated in 2014, and that by 2016 they were divorced, but nothing in between, and given the choice between awkward & too detailed phrasing to accommodate the sources, I went with the more general statement. Because in the end - who cares about the particular years? JohnInDC (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks John. It reads better. But we will never have consensus because Bang will never agree. Your argument for deleting the name which you made above is right on point. And neither Mary Cheh nor Anita Bonds, my fellow Cluncilmembers, mention that they are divorced. If it doesn’t matter for them, then why me. Again, my bio has way too much irrelevant stuff. Please delete the name. I’m sure everyone else will support that. Thanks. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B018:2C11:68B6:601F:3D1E:F6EE (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- To respond to the point above, it's fascinating that you're upset about the use of the verb "split". What was your reaction when Heil used it in her Washington Post headline? Anyway I am fine with the way it stands now and think that the dates are unnecessary detail.
- I'm not in the business of randomly deleting text without a reason. The source for your DNC attendance reads "1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2016 delegate to the Democratic National Convention" You need to take that omission up with whomever wrote that source text, not impulsively change it on Wikipedia.
- Your comment about Cheh and Bonds' bio is really helpful. I didn't know Cheh was married to an NYT reporter, I will add that. I couldn't find a single thing about Bonds' partner, past or present, other than that she describes herself as a widow. I'll update her page with that info and include a section on her personal life. Maybe you can find a source that mentions Bonds' partner? Anyway, thanks for that contribution! What else do you think is missing from pages you're reading? Bangabandhu (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure what source you are looking at but the fact is I was a delegate at the 2012 convention and the co-chair of the Obama campaign. Again, that is public record. Your being difficult for no reason on something that is very minor. Also, no one agrees with keeping the name. Yet you persist. It should be deleted. You made your case, but John’s is more persuasive. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.205.9.139 (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Jack you've got a lot of potential as a Wikipedia editor but you need to quit deleting things without explanation. That you just don't like it there isn't a valid reason for its exclusion. Seiver's name is mentioned in lots of articles in mainstream sources, depending on what you mean by "public record" its more of the public record than your DNC attendance. Its easier if you stop that before someone puts a lock on the page which requires time editors like you and me could spend doing other things like making meaningful contributions to the project.
- If you click on the blue or purple text where the years are listed above you will see the dates. We can't take your word about your DNC service, it needs to appear in the source. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I will fix the source on Monday. It is my Council web page. But on Michele’s name, no other editor agrees with you. Majority rules. You need to accept this and move on. You suggestions are good and I will follow up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:D4C4:320C:7E7B:B740 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Also, Cheh and Bonds are divorced and there is no mention of this. We need to be consistent. Finally a question. When you google my name, my marriages are right there. That is not the case for anyone else. How do I move them to a different spot or delete them? I can’t figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:D4C4:320C:7E7B:B740 (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am restoring to John's version, his language without the dates is acceptable - "His second marriage, to Michele Seiver, ended in divorce".
- I can't find anything on Cheh or Bonds' divorce. Try Googling "Mary Cheh divorce" or "Anita Bonds divorce", I get nothing. If you didn't write it here I would have thought that Cheh was wedded and Bonds was just widowed. Its unlikely to change unless you find a source. What else is missing from their entries?
- There are experts on search algorithms but I'm not one of them. Sometimes results are tailored to the user based on their interests and previous queries. Potentially you were searching for divorce a lot so it knows to bring those sites higher in your results. When I google your name I don't see anything about divorce but lots of stuff around ethics - not all of which are in this article. You might try using another search engine and seeing what comes up, I recommend DuckDuckGo, it doesn't show results based on search history. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I saw you changed some of the wording around religion. We discussed that at length a couple years ago and carefully wordsmithed it to conform with the source. If you want it to say you're a member at both churches we need a source. Potentially that could be in your council bio. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. But actually John’s language was “His second marriage ended in divorce.” You added Michele. John, you stated you were waiting to hear from Bang. He wants the name. What do you think it should say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:5C31:D4C1:86F5:3D8C (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Keep in mind, I am not interested in adding to Mary’s and Anita’s bio about their divorce. I am interested in deleting mine because it is irrelevant and it is in conformity with my colleagues. John, your up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:5C31:D4C1:86F5:3D8C (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Bang, John, please check my official Council Bio. It has been updated to correct certain items and to add current information. Please use this to update my Wikipedia Bio. Thanks. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:4194:629:B1A9:1B (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- I added the year. For further, later discussion, we might reconsider whether or not the Council bio is, in fact, a reliable source. We talked about it a while back. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the year. Please consider the other suggested changes. I am a member of the churches not just attending. I was the co-chair of Obama’s campaign. I was responsible for Metros dedicated funding success. A lot of my bio comes from the Council site. It only makes sense to include all of it. I saw you updated my bio again 5 hours ago with minor irrelevant stuff from the City Paper which we know is a totally unreliable source that is largely speculation and gossip. Please at least include my suggestions which are absolute facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:DD21:1FB3:39A6:C2ED (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC) To whoever is editing my Wikipedia bio, please refer to my official City Council bio to both correct and update my Wikipedia bio. Since there is so much interest in my bio, and there is for reasons I have never understood, you all have an obligation to get it right. As I have said previously, half the bio should be eliminated as trite and insignificant. Bang wants it there to try and present a negative picture and so be it. But let’s at least get it right. Thanks. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B046:CFBC:D001:EE86:9755:A902 (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- I changed the wording around your church membership. If another editor feels strongly about putting in something around your Obama fundraising I am open to the discussion but think that it borders on triviality. I added the part about serving as an elector because it seems more significant and something that readers and constituents would want to know. The para already seems overly detailed to me. Jack, when you check out your colleagues' pages, do any of them have their fundraising activities listed? Incidentally, its curious that you're not asking to include anything about the position for which you're currently campaigning on Tuesday's ballot - National Committeeman. Or are you waiting until it becomes official? Bangabandhu (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually I was the co chair of Obama’s campaign. It had nothing to do with fundraising. You have listed all the other campaigns I was the co chair of except Obama. Any reason?
Thanks for bringing up the National Committeeman. I was elected yesterday with 64% of the vote, and won all 8 wards. It is an important position and should be noted in my bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:4528:3CC4:2F06:6D12 (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Someone else can add it. Your WP comments about Tuesday's referendum are appropriate for your race, too “It’s not really the will of the people; it happens to be the will of the 17 percent of people who showed up and voted” Bangabandhu (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you serious. No not every comment I make in the press should be in my bio. Unless you want a 100 page bio. Bang in all seriousness, why are you intent on making me look bad? Have I done something to offend you? Have we crossed paths? What satisfaction do you get from this behavior. You are the cause of all of this back and forth. No other Vouncil bio has any of this crap in it. Positions on minor issues from long ago. Investigations started by fired journalists and disgruntled individuals that lead nowhere. I have provided legitimate places to get accurate facts. I also direct the editors to the most recent issue or The Georgetowner for an article on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.20 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- That quote wasn't for inclusion in the article. It's to draw the contrast between how you're proud of the results from your own race, but dismiss the results from the contest you don't like as illegitimate - even though they were on the same ballot, on the same election with the same low turnout. Are you really going to overturn 77? I voted no, but I respect popular democracy. I think I know the answer to this, considering what you've done on previous referendums that you disagreed. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
As you know, I cannot overturn initiative 77. It would take 7 votes on the Council and the support of the Mayor. Essentially, an initiative by voters is identical to a law passed by the Council. It becomes an Act and is sent to Congress. After 30 days, it becomes law. If the Council wants to change the law, someone can introduce a bill, have a hearing, and bring it to a vote. Persons elected to public office represent the people and are elected to use their best judgement. Sometimes a majority of people don’t agree with their decisions. That is the basis of President Kennedy’s book “Profiles in Courage”. Taking unpopular stands in the best interest of the whole. I do not support 77. I believe it will have a negative effect on our City. I took an oath to act in the best interests of our City. Therefore, yes, I would vote to overturn 77. Incidentally, Ward 2, my Ward, did not support 77. so one can argue I am doing what my constituents voted for. I know you have become very cinical. I have not. I believe in our form of government and have done my best to rebuild our City. Many times in the face of great criticism. And false and misleading information. Witness most of your postings on my bio. But none of that will stop me from doing what I think is right. I hope this helps. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:75DB:B6E5:211D:8050 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds so noble, but you don't really believe that what you're doing is courageous, do you? You're no more honorable than any lawyer working on behalf of their client. What's reprehensible, and possibly criminal, is that your client isn't the citizens of your ward or the district, as it should be with any elected official. Instead its Patton Boggs, NSE, Wilmot - actually, we don't even know, because you haven't fully disclosed all your interests. I realize that its far too great of an ask for you to stop accepting corporate or LLC donations. But why don't you renounce outside employment? The six figure salary is more than adequate for most of your colleagues. Doing so might make your claims to be working in the public interest somewhat plausible, or at least not laughable. Did you offer the same platitudes when you overturned (oh, sorry, when you lead the vote in the council to pass new legislation to annul) the referendum on term limits so that you could serve ad nauseum?
- Anyway, please think twice about voting to pass new legislation overturning 77. I have no doubt that your donors oppose it but the people have spoken. I may start a Wikipedia entry about it, perhaps you will contribute. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Bang, your anger and bitterness always comes out. Seriously, is your life so boring that you spend all your time editing my bio and obsessing over my actions. Very sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:5DE4:D7F7:E9F6:620C (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
To John, Bone or other editors, please refer to my Council bio to update my Wikipedia bio concerning my election as Democratic National Committeeman. Also, update my Metro entry concerning dedicated funding from my Council bio and The most recent Georgetowner article. Thanks Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.20 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's amusing that the one WP reference about the race (that I could find based on a quick search) is a letter to the editor basically making the same point about hypocrisy between the results of 77 and the Committeeman race that I made above. Jack, I am going to make a bold suggestion: give the position to Batchelor. Think about it - that would be genuinely courageous and magnanimous. You can convincingly allay concerns that you're in this solely for your ego, donor's interests, and personal benefit. It will generate national coverage and overshadow all of the recent stories about your ethics inquiry. You can send a powerful message about party unity and the importance of new, diverse leadership. You will retain huge influence and mentor the new guard. You will get more support outside of Ward 2 than you've ever had and can lay the basis for a positive legacy after you retire. And let's be realistic, too, about what happens if you continue in the role - if you were really going to be effective about getting fiscal and legislative autonomy - or even statehood - on the party agenda, you would have made real progress already. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Bang, thanks for your comments. Can anyone else be of assistance? The information requested is readily available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.21 (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome! While we're waiting, this entry about our boycott of Andy Harris' district (Click Here) is badly in need of updating. What would you add? What actions are you planning to take against the reelection of Andy Harris, who yesterday received the Republican nomination again by a wide margin? Bangabandhu (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, please see today’s front page of the Washington Post Metro section for an article on me and Metro. I was re-elected to a third term as Chairman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.22 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the 'ethics controversy'
Greetings. It's come to my attention that this article's subject is trying to remove information regarding the ethics controversy, which they feel is inaccurate, gossipy, and/or implies wrongdoing on their part. I have invited them to participate on the talk page and have assured them that we will take their concerns into consideration. To be clear, just because an article subject has a COI does not mean we should dismiss their concerns entirely nor receive them in a hostile manner. This is still a BLP and we need to be incredibly strict as to how we present unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. As of now, information on the 'ethics controversy' is taking up nearly a third of the "political career" section, despite having little information of substance. As an uninvolved observer, this appears to be undue weight, with unnecessarily frivolous details (what the subject is describing as "gossip") that seem to imply that ethical violations did indeed take place, when there is no indication that such allegations are credible and are in fact under an open investigation. It seems clear to me that the section should be trimmed, and all the bloated details be simplified and condensed into maybe one sentence, so that the article does not appear to be assigning inappropriately significant weight to unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct. @Evansjack1: While we discuss this, please refrain from editing the article. If any information is flat out incorrect and without a reliable source, we will remove it. If we cannot reach a resolution here, we can try other means of dispute resolution and invite wider community input. Swarm ♠ 21:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Found it. Thank you. Originally, John and others wanted to delete the entire section. Bang, my nemesis, insisted it stay and has continued to expand it. He believes every negative comment about me wherever published be on my bio. An inquiry is taking place an should be finished shortly. Only then if a finding is made should something be added. Until then there is nothing to add. Also, there are numerous statements in my bio that make no sense. That I attended the Trump inauguration. Who cares. So did the Mayor and some of my colleagues. The whole discussion around the attorney general and paid family leave is irrelevant. And on and on. My bio should be half it’s size. Thanks for taking a look but be prepared for a big fight from Bang and Largo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B003:9239:603A:7BCC:32FF:75CE (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that this section was simply too long, and contained unnecessary details: the subject received a check but never cashed it, the subject's son was offered an internship but did not accept the offer, etc. Maybe when the inquiry is finished if these details are deemed important, they can be reinserted, but for now there's no need to have a such intricate and useless information. I've made some cuts [1] Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I support these edits. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, @Swarm: how much of the previous discussions here did you review? Of course, additional input is welcome, but the above suggest that Evans may have been treated unfairly or ignored. In fact, we've gone to great lengths to incorporate his views; his comments have been encouraged and this page has already changed extensively to accommodate his feedback. He will accept nothing less than a paean. The current version (or, what existed before the recent changes) was the result of careful wordsmithing and exhaustive discussion. That's not to say it can't be improved, but that background is important, and we can save a lot of time if we review previous discussions rather than covering the same ground over again. What is unfortunate is that this attention is in response to a noticeboard incident; the page has already been reviewed multiple times at BLP. It seems that disruptive editing has served to successfully canvass his way to a sympathetic (and possibly poorly informed) audience. Bangabandhu (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, let's be clear, I'm not a "poorly informed" "sympathetic audience" who was "canvassed", I'm an uninvolved administrator and I'm here right now to make sure that a) BLP policy is taken into consideration and b) an article subject who is involved is provided due consideration when they say that things in their article are factually inaccurate or inappropriate, because as of right now I don't see either of those things happening, and the "careful" and "exhaustive discussion" has resulted in a bloated paragraph being assigned to document unsubstantiated allegations that are pending investigation. This situation can be summed up in 1-3 sentences. Swarm ♠ 11:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Found it. What’s left is not correct. I know it’s hard to understand but I never proposed legislation and as such never withdrew any. Why staff circulated a notice of intent. We never filed anything and as such it never moved forward. There is really nothing to write.
- About this, its been discussed before. In summary, its the Washington Post's description. Bangabandhu (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
But there are bigger problems with the page. The fact that I attended the inaugural parade is silly. The discussions about naming my second wife. The paragraphs on paid family leave and the attorney general are meaningless. My election as Democratic National Committeeman and my contributions to Metro are noteworthy. I could go on and on. Thank you for taking a hard look at everything. Please make it a Wikipedia page not a gossip page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B003:9239:603A:7BCC:32FF:75CE (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- All these points have been discussed at length; I can link to those diffs if necessary. Bangabandhu (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
One point to keep in mind here. This isn't "the" ethics controversy. Its "an" ethics controversy - the only one that Evans hasn't expunged from this page, but far from the only one that exists. The Digi episode is only the latest and it may appear to have have undue weight only because the others aren't described. To take one other controversy, for example (I can provide full cites if necessary but I think seasoned editors would agree this deserves mention in some form). "In 2005, Evans created JackPac, a PAC to fund his mayoral campaign. Following an inquiry from the Office of Campaign Finance, Evans closed the fund and repaid personal expenses he had paid from the account." Its routinely mentioned in reliably sourced bios but not wikipedia, see here here here here among many others. Bangabandhu (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks JohnInDC & Red Rock Canyon. Now, we have the article's subject insisting that "proposed and withdrew legislation" is an inaccurate description, and that instead his "staff circulated a letter of intent". Now, we can look for more sources, but in my view, we can lump this in with "unnecessary frivolous detail" and simply remove it. I think we can simply sum this up in 1 or 2 sentences stating simply that the ethics board opened an investigation into allegations of lobbying" with the details following in brief. We don't need the whole run-up. Swarm ♠ 11:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Swarm. Red Rock, would you care to take another crack at it? I’m not in a place where I can easily edit. JohnInDC (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe, restore your prior version but note that the issue centered on Evans’s “personal” dealings with the firm? JohnInDC (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Id like to go on record as saying i agree with swarm's comments at the beginning of this section. I feel, and have felt for some time that potential BLP issues have not been taken seriously, that the subject's concerns have been largely ignored, and that the article is bloated with minor 'controversies' that are of no lasting significance. I have actually posted a message to BLPN twice asking for uninvolved editors to look at this article and im glad we are finally getting a wider audience to look at this. Id like to add that "its sourced" is not the beginning and end of the discussion as to whether or not to include something. Reliable sourcing is necessary, but no sufficient to inclusion in Wikipedia, especially in a BLP. I disagree with Bangabandhu above that what is here now is the result a through discussion, and would be happy to re-discuss as necessary. If i have time tomorrow ill go over the article and make some edits, but i feel that continued attention by previously uninvolved editors is a vital first step to resolving this situation. Bonewah (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- +1. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Id like to go on record as saying i agree with swarm's comments at the beginning of this section. I feel, and have felt for some time that potential BLP issues have not been taken seriously, that the subject's concerns have been largely ignored, and that the article is bloated with minor 'controversies' that are of no lasting significance. I have actually posted a message to BLPN twice asking for uninvolved editors to look at this article and im glad we are finally getting a wider audience to look at this. Id like to add that "its sourced" is not the beginning and end of the discussion as to whether or not to include something. Reliable sourcing is necessary, but no sufficient to inclusion in Wikipedia, especially in a BLP. I disagree with Bangabandhu above that what is here now is the result a through discussion, and would be happy to re-discuss as necessary. If i have time tomorrow ill go over the article and make some edits, but i feel that continued attention by previously uninvolved editors is a vital first step to resolving this situation. Bonewah (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe, restore your prior version but note that the issue centered on Evans’s “personal” dealings with the firm? JohnInDC (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Swarm. Red Rock, would you care to take another crack at it? I’m not in a place where I can easily edit. JohnInDC (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Bone, thanks for taking a look. I’ll add the following items I think should be deleted or added: 1)no need to put in the introduction I ran for Mayor and lost twice. It is addressed in the article 2)add “and co-chaired the 2012 Obama campaign 3) add”in 2018, was elected the Democratic National Committeeman from Washington, DC 4)delete that in 2017 I attended the parade for the inaugeration of President Trump 5)I worked at Manat from 2015-2017. No need to say I resigned 6)there is no need for a section on my Constituent Services Fund. What’s the point. Most people have them 7)Digi should be deleted. There was no internship, no business relationship, checks were returned, and no legislation was proposed, introduced or withdrawn. 8)under Political Positions, the discussions on the Attorney General and the Paid Family Leave should be deleted. They are too detailed and not quite accurate. 9)in the Metro section, it should be added that I was elected Chairman for a third consecutive term. No one else ever has. See my Council bio 10)under the Personal section, Michele’s name should be deleted
Thanks again for your consideration. I think this will make it a real bio. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B029:2173:AC65:D80:B198:EF91 (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- If there are 3d party sources for the additions (#s 2, 3, 9), then let's add them. I agree with #10 (second wife) and am indifferent to #4 (Trump parade). It looks like Digimedia (#7) will remain, in shorter form. The rest - #s 1, 5, 6, 8 - don't strike me as a statement of BLP concerns but rather, as a wishlist. I'd leave them all as is. JohnInDC (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
John, I disagree with your assessments of 1,5,6 and 8.They are minor incidents included to make me look bad. They don’t appear in any other members bios. As far as #7, Digi, it is incorrect in its current form. It mentions the internship and the checks without saying they never occurred. References to these should be deleted. References to #’s 2, 3, and 9 are all in my Council bio. #4 is just silly. I actually have attended all inauguration parades since 1992. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B029:2173:AC65:D80:B198:EF91 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Jack, I've been with you on almost all of this, but you're overreaching. You ran for Mayor twice. It doesn't make you "look bad" to say it in the intro as well as the body; indeed the intro is only supposed to repeat the body. As for Manatt, there's nothing sinister or insidious to report that you "resigned" from the firm. Likewise there's no Wikipedia policy concern with reporting reliably sourced political statements or positions you've taken, under "political positions"; and as for "constituent services", it seems to be reliably sourced and true. You may not like seeing it here, but IMHO reasonable people can differ on whether it's appropriate to include. It's a far cry from reporting in detail, as with Digi, on things that didn't happen, that led to an ethics investigation that hasn't concluded anything. JohnInDC (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
You have and I appreciate it. My only point is that the issues I raise don’t stand the test of time for an encyclopedia. What I pay for with my Constituent Fund seems trite. Same with resigning from Manat. I also resigned from all my other jobs. Why single that one out. Same with the Mayor’s elections. Why put that in the into instead of something more important. I’m just asking that the page be written like a normal page and not with all this trivia. It could and should be reduced by half and be factual, not opinionated. Anyway, I’ll look forward to Bones and your edit. Thanks. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B029:2173:AC65:D80:B198:EF91 (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC) I do all of my editing on my I phone. I edit the Wikipedia page on the page and attempt to converse with you all on the Talk page. You are the ones who keep moving around. Remember, I don’t do this for a living. I’m just trying to fix my page. And again, the Digi stuff is just wrong. Show me anywhere where it says I drafted anything. What’s wrong with you guys. I have never seen more obsessed people. I intent to keep st this until it is accurately presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:78B5:FDD6:A99:A8C6 (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
revisions, point by point
Lets start a new section to cover the possible issues discussed above. We can always break one out to a new section if the discussion becomes unwieldy.
- 1)no need to put in the introduction I ran for Mayor and lost twice. It is addressed in the article
- 2)
add “and co-chaired the 2012 Obama campaign - 3)
add”in 2018, was elected the Democratic National Committeeman from Washington, DC - 4)
delete that in 2017 I attended the parade for the inaugeration of President Trump(struck 28/Aug/2018 no objections at this point) - 5)I worked at Manat from 2015-2017. No need to say I resigned
- 6)there is no need for a section on my Constituent Services Fund. What’s the point. Most people have them
- 7)
Digi should be deleted. There was no internship, no business relationship, checks were returned, and no legislation was proposed, introduced or withdrawn.(struck 28/Aug/2018 covered below) - 8)under Political Positions, the discussions on the Attorney General and the Paid Family Leave should be deleted. They are too detailed and not quite accurate.
- 9)
in the Metro section, it should be added that I was elected Chairman for a third consecutive term. No one else ever has. See my Council bio(struck 28/Aug/2018 no objections at this point) - 10)
under the Personal section, Michele’s name should be deleted(struck 28/Aug/2018 covered below)
Bonewah (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Added #2 above. This seems incontrovertible. If anyone has an issue with this, feel free to undo and discuss here. Bonewah (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- on #1, im ambivalent on this one. Ill leave it in and defer to others. Bonewah (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- on #3, also incontrovertible, added. Bonewah (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- on #4, agree, deleted as trivial. Im not going to strike this one yet as the first two seem uncontroversial, i cant imagine anyone seriously complaining, this one someone might. Bonewah (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- on #5, also ambivalent, we could change the language to 'Evans was Counsel to the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips between 2015 and 2017", but i really dont care either way. Bonewah (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- re #9, it already says that Evans was elected three times, the fact that no one else has seems too trivial to mention. Bonewah (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- re #10, what is your thinking there? Marriages are a standard part of any biography and, at a glance, it seems well sourced. My opinion is that this should be left in. Bonewah (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think if the subject doesn't want his ex-wife's name appearing in his biography, we might as well honor that wish. She's not notable in her own right, so a presumption of privacy might suggest that we just leave her out. As for the Digi media, I think it's important that we mention it and the ethics inquiry. However, I think we should take out the bit about the internship and the check. The amount of text necessary to explain the details of this internship offer that wasn't accepted and a check that wasn't cashed will only bloat this section to the extent that it takes up too much space in the article.
- As for the issue of proposing and then withdrawing emergency legislation, here's what the Washington Post has to say:
In December 2016, Evans asked Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) to place emergency legislation on the agenda for the council’s next meeting that would have legalized the type of signs Digi Media wanted to install. However, Evans did not move ahead with the bill because it did not have the votes to pass. Evans said he brought forward the legislation at the request of lobbyist David Wilmot.
- And this is from the Washington City Paper:
I don't know how to square that with the subject's claim that he didn't propose the legislation. Maybe that terminology means something specific in the context of city council meetings, so perhaps we should rewrite that line to better reflect the terminology used in the news reports. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Evans drafted emergency legislation that would have legalized Digi's signs, but ultimately withdrew it.
- on wife's name, Wikipedia shouldn't be used to support the personal narrative that the subject believes is in vogue. There's no concern about the first wife's name, possibly because her passing puts him in a favorable light. And when everything was copacetic in the marriage he was eager to talk about it and their life together. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Look, I really don't care about whatever drama the subject may have had with his ex-wife. I don't care because it's completely irrelevant, just like the name of his ex-wife. There's no reason to include the name of a non-notable person when the subject has asked for privacy. Having the name here contributes nothing, we could just change it to "Evans married a second time and divorced after four years" and lose nothing of encyclopedic value. Also, I don't see how mentioning the passing of his first wife "puts him in a favorable light." That's actually a pretty messed-up thing to say.
- On the issue of the ethics investigation, the subject claims that he never proposed anything and the Washington Post made that whole story up. Here, I think the correct thing to do is to go with the Post's version. Multiple reliable sources all support what's written in the Post, and the subject has presented no sources contradicting that story. I think this section would be better to write as closely following the language in the sources as possible. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Back in February I dug up the Council minutes, which (to my eyes) suggest that Evans is correctly describing the circumstances, and the City Paper blog and the follow-on Post story got it wrong. See this diff, with the included link. But sources is sources, and my efforts and interpretation are OR, and I agree that following the sources is the better course, particularly when the issue doesn't present an inherent BLP problem. JohnInDC (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- What gives you any reason to suggest that including his name entails "drama"? If you don't want to speculate on motive, that's understandable. But the relationship was entirely notable and well reported. The divorce, arguably, was notable too. This was not passing coverage. That notability doesn't suddenly turn off when someone asks for it.Bangabandhu (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- on wife's name, Wikipedia shouldn't be used to support the personal narrative that the subject believes is in vogue. There's no concern about the first wife's name, possibly because her passing puts him in a favorable light. And when everything was copacetic in the marriage he was eager to talk about it and their life together. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks fo taking a look. On #5 you could create a new sanction called “Legal Career”. Evans first Job was at the Securities and Exchange Commission in the Division of Enforcement from 1978-1984. From 1984-1988, he was an attorney for Epstein, Becker and Green, from 1988-2000 for BakerHostetler, from 2000-2015 for Patton Boggs and Squire Patton Boggs, and from 2015-2017 for Manatt Phelps. He also worked for Central Benefits from 1998-2004.
As far as the Digi legislation is concerned, the Washington Post couldn’t get it correct. My sole action was to circulate a Meomorandum of Intent on December 1, 2016. No other action was taken and the legislation died. Nothing was withdrawn. In order to have proceeded, a bill had to be filed on December 5. That wasn’t done. So there was nothing to vote on or withdraw on December 6th. That’s it. Any other explanation is incorrect. I did not asked the Chairman anything. That is made up by the Post.
Finally, please delete the information in #1,4,6, and 10.
It is all trivia and adds nothing long term.
Thanks again. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B006:96E3:B024:3CC6:1358:122 (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing worse than being accused of something you didn’t do. That is the case with me and Digi. If there is introduction/proposed legislation, there is no story. John has proved beyond a doubt that my version is correct. Sometimes the papers get it wrong. As such, please delete the Digi section. What sense does it make to have a false entry on the page. This is an encyclopedia not the City Paper!!
I feel like we are not making any progress. I thought with the new editors, changes would be made. Yet we are just rehashing all the old positions. Michele ‘s name should be deleted. It should read “his second marriage ended in divorce.
The reference to the 2 Mayor’s races should be deleted from the intro. It makes no sense. Tne WMATA section should be changed to what is in my official Council bio. The way it reads now is silly. The board issue was resolved. Come on guys. This is our final chance to get this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B006:96E3:B024:3CC6:1358:122 (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- On the digimedia subject, whether the legislation was proposed but not passed or not proposed at all, either way it seems trivial. If the Board of Ethics finds something of note, we can revisit this, but as it stands, we are reporting something that never came to anything. Why? Bonewah (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- What are your thoughts on including mention of Mueller's investigation in Trump's bio? Sure, Trump might be totally absolved, much like Evans. But practice is that a subject's indictment is not a requirement for a prominent, widely discussed investigation of wrongdoing to be included in their page.Bangabandhu (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- An investigation involving a sitting president is vastly different than one of a local council member. In this case, the investigation is neither prominent nor widely discussed, and, as such, should be excluded until such a time as it is more relevant. Bonewah (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, they hold different offices and are scrutinized by different parties, but the principle is that ongoing investigations are included. Please tell me if I've got this right: You think that his role as a DNC Committeeman, which has no mainstream media coverage and is sole sourced to his "official" bio (which we know he wrote) is more prominent and deserving of inclusion than the ongoing ethics investigation, which has had several articles in the Washington Post devoted solely to the scandal? Those stories are in addition to other media coverage not in the current cites, namely here and here, among others. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is exactly what im talking about when i said that being sourced is necessary, but not sufficient to inclusion. For all we know, investigations of this type are totally routine or unremarkable. Until you can demonstrate that this is really a 'scandal' of any real note, then no i see no reason why it should be included. Biographies are for things of *lasting* significance, not what is merely reported at the moment. *If* the investigation amounts to something, then we should report it, if not we should not, but at this point we cant say if its noteworthy or not. Bonewah (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. As we’ve said many, many times - just because something can be sourced, doesn’t mean we include it. We’re not a Compendium of Everything. JohnInDC (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't misrepresent what I'm saying, I'm not arguing that it belongs solely because its been widely cited. If the number of sources were the sole basis for inclusion, we'd include mention of Jack's parking, something for which he's well known and has been discussed in the Washingtonian ("Evans, whose free-form approach to parking regulations has been well-documented..."), broadcast media ("...has been caught parking illegally for years"), public radio ("A veteran politician known for occasionally illegally parking..."), Georgetown media, the City Paper, and DCIST, GGW among, others. I'm not suggesting that, though others might. I'm saying that it belongs because its significant. What do you mean that "all we know, investigations of this type are totally routine or unremarkable"? If you don't want to take significance based on the extent of media coverage, base the significance on the way that the articles describe the inquiry. He's one of only two Councilmembers with an ethics inquiry. Yes, the ultimate result may be anything from a complete dismissal to a criminal indictment. We will update the text appropriately whenever the situation changes. Maybe he'll be tried, acquitted, and there will be new charges that emerge - what's valuable about Wikipedia is that we can reflect all of those changes - not delete them because they're not totally resolved, which they never will be. Pages are updated even after the subject's death, as we come to view their life differently over time. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Checks that were never cashed; an internship the didn't happen; and legislation that was withdrawn without a vote. If the ethics investigation concludes there was no problem, then this segment will report three things that didn't happen, and a Board of Ethics investigation that found no wrongdoing in them. Which IMHO isn't worthy of inclusion at all. That's why I think it's premature to say anything at all at this point. That being said, there seems to be consensus to include at least some mention of this, so okay - but it's certainly as detailed now as current knowledge warrants. JohnInDC (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Lobbying on behalf of a company, whose founder was later
imprisonedindicted on federal charges, to change the law to allow them to put up signs non one wants. Appealing to the mayor for executive action when Council colleagues aren't supportive of the change. Creating your own company to receive their cash. Really, it makes election-related payments to a porn star for her silence seem anodyne. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)- Your points about his parking actually illustrates my point nicely. His supposedly bad parking habits make the papers. Why? Because they are super relevant to who he is? No. Because thats the way local reporting works. His ethics investigation also made the papers. Why, because it is super relevant? Not necessarily, but rather because thats the way local reporting works. You mention the way the articles describe it, which articles specifically? Bonewah (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're misunderstanding me. I raised the point about the parking to show the difference between it and the Digi ethics investigation. They're both well sourced, but one has a much higher level of significance. All of the "way the articles describe it" is directly copied from the articles themselves, just click on the links.Bangabandhu (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Bang, it ‘’did’’ include the parking, which you insisted was “well-sourced and relevant”, until other editors concluded, despite the sourcing, it was trivial. This is not a new discussion! JohnInDC (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a new discussion, but now that we've got new eyes on this, others might want to weigh in on the parking. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- And im perfectly willing to work with those new editors assuming they weigh in. I do not, however, see anything in the sources that change my mind. What specifically in the sources provided do you think proves the overwhelming significance of this material at this time? Bonewah (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine, I'm not going to push. I just wanted editors to be aware that there's a strong basis for its inclusion in some form. Among his constituents, he's known much more for his parking than he is about his role as "committeeman" or "Obama fundraiser". Bangabandhu (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- And im perfectly willing to work with those new editors assuming they weigh in. I do not, however, see anything in the sources that change my mind. What specifically in the sources provided do you think proves the overwhelming significance of this material at this time? Bonewah (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a new discussion, but now that we've got new eyes on this, others might want to weigh in on the parking. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Your points about his parking actually illustrates my point nicely. His supposedly bad parking habits make the papers. Why? Because they are super relevant to who he is? No. Because thats the way local reporting works. His ethics investigation also made the papers. Why, because it is super relevant? Not necessarily, but rather because thats the way local reporting works. You mention the way the articles describe it, which articles specifically? Bonewah (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Lobbying on behalf of a company, whose founder was later
- Checks that were never cashed; an internship the didn't happen; and legislation that was withdrawn without a vote. If the ethics investigation concludes there was no problem, then this segment will report three things that didn't happen, and a Board of Ethics investigation that found no wrongdoing in them. Which IMHO isn't worthy of inclusion at all. That's why I think it's premature to say anything at all at this point. That being said, there seems to be consensus to include at least some mention of this, so okay - but it's certainly as detailed now as current knowledge warrants. JohnInDC (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is exactly what im talking about when i said that being sourced is necessary, but not sufficient to inclusion. For all we know, investigations of this type are totally routine or unremarkable. Until you can demonstrate that this is really a 'scandal' of any real note, then no i see no reason why it should be included. Biographies are for things of *lasting* significance, not what is merely reported at the moment. *If* the investigation amounts to something, then we should report it, if not we should not, but at this point we cant say if its noteworthy or not. Bonewah (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, they hold different offices and are scrutinized by different parties, but the principle is that ongoing investigations are included. Please tell me if I've got this right: You think that his role as a DNC Committeeman, which has no mainstream media coverage and is sole sourced to his "official" bio (which we know he wrote) is more prominent and deserving of inclusion than the ongoing ethics investigation, which has had several articles in the Washington Post devoted solely to the scandal? Those stories are in addition to other media coverage not in the current cites, namely here and here, among others. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- An investigation involving a sitting president is vastly different than one of a local council member. In this case, the investigation is neither prominent nor widely discussed, and, as such, should be excluded until such a time as it is more relevant. Bonewah (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- What are your thoughts on including mention of Mueller's investigation in Trump's bio? Sure, Trump might be totally absolved, much like Evans. But practice is that a subject's indictment is not a requirement for a prominent, widely discussed investigation of wrongdoing to be included in their page.Bangabandhu (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
For those new to the discussion, you can see what I have been dealing with for 4 years from Bang. There is not one statement in his recent posing that is true. I did no lobbying, no one has gone to prison, no law was changed, no appeal to the Mayor was made, no company was created to receive cash. One can wonder why Bang is so obsessed with creating a negative page instead of an encyclopedia page. I don’t know and since Bang won’t reveal his/ her identity, I can’t even guess. The point being If I am prohibited from making changes to my page, Bang should be barred as well. If that were done, this discussion could be finished today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.22 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Lobbying for Digi: "MacCord comes recommended by Evans, whom he has known for 20 years..." - MacCord indictment (I thought he was sentenced, but I guess that hasn't happened yet - or at least it's not available): "The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Seattle-area based outdoor digital signage advertising company and two of its senior executives with stealing more than $2 million from retail investors." - Appeal to the mayor: "Bowser’s move came on the heels of “emergency” legislation introduced in December, then withdrawn, by Councilmember Jack Evans, who similarly was willing to undermine Racine." - Creating a company to receive funds: "Digi Media Communications wrote two $25,000 checks on Aug. 11, 2016, to NSE Consulting, a company Evans had established less than a month earlier".
- Jack you continue to believe that you have been treated unfairly. The edits to your page are no different than what would happen to anyone else. I've asked you many times, what other entries are not edited the same way? You once pointed out that Cheh's divorce was not mentioned so info about Cheh's husband, including his full name, was added. I'll ask again. What's missing from pages you're reading or have read that leads you to believe the editing of your page is different than any others? Bangabandhu (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, Bang, not one of those quotes establishes the claims you've made for them. It's either your own inference, or misunderstanding of what the sources say. "Recommending" someone is not "lobbying". "Indictment" isn't jail time, or even guilt. The quote doesn't say why Bowser did what she did, and the fact that NSE was formed 2 months before Digi wrote checks to it says nothing about why the firm was formed. JohnInDC (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- I corrected myself about imprisonment vs. indictment, though I still think I read about his sentencing even though I can't find the cite now. The inferences are legit and supported by text. Anyway, this is the talk page. The language in mainspace is much more guarded and doesn't say that he started the company only to receive Digi funds, though I'd be shocked if that weren't the case considering the timing. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Rather than describe them as “legitimate”, it’d be more accurate to say that they’re not irrational. Yet even so they all go beyond any sourced, reported fact, and it’s not responsible for you to claim or imply, as you did above, that they are established fact. BLP applies on Talk pages too. JohnInDC (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, you're right. I actually wasn't aware of that and thought that Talk was for fleshing out how BLP applies.Bangabandhu (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks to you too. JohnInDC (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, you're right. I actually wasn't aware of that and thought that Talk was for fleshing out how BLP applies.Bangabandhu (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Rather than describe them as “legitimate”, it’d be more accurate to say that they’re not irrational. Yet even so they all go beyond any sourced, reported fact, and it’s not responsible for you to claim or imply, as you did above, that they are established fact. BLP applies on Talk pages too. JohnInDC (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- I corrected myself about imprisonment vs. indictment, though I still think I read about his sentencing even though I can't find the cite now. The inferences are legit and supported by text. Anyway, this is the talk page. The language in mainspace is much more guarded and doesn't say that he started the company only to receive Digi funds, though I'd be shocked if that weren't the case considering the timing. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, Bang, not one of those quotes establishes the claims you've made for them. It's either your own inference, or misunderstanding of what the sources say. "Recommending" someone is not "lobbying". "Indictment" isn't jail time, or even guilt. The quote doesn't say why Bowser did what she did, and the fact that NSE was formed 2 months before Digi wrote checks to it says nothing about why the firm was formed. JohnInDC (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Where are Swarm and Red Rock on these issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.22 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
You just proved my point. Not one statement you made was true. You were unable to cite anything to support your claims which were all false. You need to be banned from editing my page. I appeal to the outside editors to take action against Bang. He has a grudge and there is no place for that here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B009:CFE1:C9CD:5DC8:8D79:96A4 (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Why do you keep on logging out of your account to write on here from anonymous IP addresses? Bangabandhu (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
John, if you won’t let me delete the Digi section at least make it accurate. I did not propose then withdraw legislation. And I know if you can’t say that, then nothing makes sense. But it never happened. Also, it sounds like my son took an internship and I took 2 checks. Please fix it. I don’t care how. But fix it. Same for you Bang. You have a responsibility to be accurate no matter how much you don’t like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B009:CFE1:257C:6179:AB16:BBF9 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agree that it was misleading as written. I fixed it by removing detail and making it more general, in lieu of adding additional detail to explain that the internship didn’t happen and the checks were returned uncashed. Others may disagree and they’re welcome to rework it, but I do think less is more here, particularly in light of comments by Swarm and Red Rock. JohnInDC (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- It seems like you either add unnecessary detail and caveats which actually give undue weight to the topic you're trying to wordsmith - or, what you've done now, which is just to excise key elements of the text. The NSE consulting needs to stay in there. The internship is also important, but less so, and does need to be in addressed in a way that makes it clear that an offer was made but no deal (that we know of) occurred.Bangabandhu (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I had taken out the language about the internship and the checks, since they both ended in nothing, but the text did not make that clear (thereby leaving the reader with a misimpression) and consensus was to make this section shorter, rather than longer. Since you've restored those details, I've noted the outcomes. Again, I think that those details - since they came to nothing - add nothing to the general discussion and would omit them altogether. But if you insist on including them, then I insist on noting how they ended. JohnInDC (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- There are ways to do that without adding the undue weight of another sentence. Which is what I've tried to do on my latest. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I had taken out the language about the internship and the checks, since they both ended in nothing, but the text did not make that clear (thereby leaving the reader with a misimpression) and consensus was to make this section shorter, rather than longer. Since you've restored those details, I've noted the outcomes. Again, I think that those details - since they came to nothing - add nothing to the general discussion and would omit them altogether. But if you insist on including them, then I insist on noting how they ended. JohnInDC (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- It seems like you either add unnecessary detail and caveats which actually give undue weight to the topic you're trying to wordsmith - or, what you've done now, which is just to excise key elements of the text. The NSE consulting needs to stay in there. The internship is also important, but less so, and does need to be in addressed in a way that makes it clear that an offer was made but no deal (that we know of) occurred.Bangabandhu (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
John thank you. But again it is totally wrong. I did not draft emergency legislation. Period.. All we did was circulate a Notice of Intent. I have no idea who drafted the legislation but I do know it wasn’t me or my staff. As I said, without the legislation, there is no story. That’s why it keeps being mentioned. Why not just state the truth. I circulated a Notice of Intent which was not acted upon. Second, the investigation does not involve Digi. Read the official posting by Bega in June. It talks about lobbying my colleagues on a matter involving my law firm. Period. Please please get it right. I know it makes no sense but those are the facts. Thanks for your efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.205.1.253 (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Jack, we go by what the reliable sources tell us. I’m trying to stay within them and respect the BLP policies here too. What I can’t do is just adopt your unsourced description of events - even if it’s all in fact true. JohnInDC (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks John. I just have never seen the Bega inquiry characterize that way. The only information I have is what Bega stated on their website which the Post quoted. Anyway, what you posted is an improvement. One final request. Can you change the WMATA section to reflect what is in my Council bio? Contrary to Bang’s assertion, I don’t write my bio. The bio is cited several times on my page and is accurate. No one except probably Bang can take issue with citing the bio. I would do it but am trying not to amend my page per your request. Thanks. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B009:CFE1:257C:6179:AB16:BBF9 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Can you write from the same account that you're using to edit? Why would you sign out and then login again without the same account? It makes me think there may be different IP authors here. John, will you refrain from engaging with him until he writes from his account? There's no legit reason for the behavior. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe he edits sometimes from a phone, sometimes from an iPad and sometimes from a computer. Maybe 2 iPads. Maybe one of the devices is logged in and others aren't. I agree it's confusing, but it's hardly suspicious or sinister. General digital unsophistication explains it much more handily, don't you think? I mean, this is a guy who after 2 (3? 4?) years doesn't indent comments or sign them, and has trouble finding Talk pages. JohnInDC (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that he might not get technology as well as others, that's fine. And its not worth trying to determine intent. But he can obviously log in to his account, so he can use that account on here, too. I don't want to spend time parsing the regs on Sockpuppetry, but I think they support what I'm saying. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- They don't, but now that his main account is blocked, editing from an IP is block evasion. JohnInDC (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that he might not get technology as well as others, that's fine. And its not worth trying to determine intent. But he can obviously log in to his account, so he can use that account on here, too. I don't want to spend time parsing the regs on Sockpuppetry, but I think they support what I'm saying. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe he edits sometimes from a phone, sometimes from an iPad and sometimes from a computer. Maybe 2 iPads. Maybe one of the devices is logged in and others aren't. I agree it's confusing, but it's hardly suspicious or sinister. General digital unsophistication explains it much more handily, don't you think? I mean, this is a guy who after 2 (3? 4?) years doesn't indent comments or sign them, and has trouble finding Talk pages. JohnInDC (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've trimmed the "Digi Media" section as was discussed above. Evans's blanking of the content was disruptive, no doubt, but there's clear agreement that the section was inappropriate as written and needed to be trimmed, so I've reduced it to one sentence summarizing the investigation and one sentence stating that he denies the allegations that are being investigated. This is reasonable inclusion per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The frivolous details should absolutely not be reinserted. There is no policy-based reason that it would be remotely appropriate to include that level of frivolous detail unless there's intent to imply something about the subject that is otherwise unsubstantiated. Swarm ♠ 06:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. The edits are good, and I particularly agree with your observation about "implications". JohnInDC (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Those edits look good to me as well. Can we be done with this part and move on to the other points still open? Bonewah (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm glad that we'll all be able to put more time into other pages than this one. Though I support a streamlined version of that paragraph, I don't understand any justification for excluding mention of NSE Consulting. This is a company he started. That's a fact. We report, without qualification or hesitation, all of the companies he's worked for - regardless of how long he worked there or what he did. Why wouldn't we include on he started? What in WP:BLP could possibly justify its exclusion? The fact that we can't wordsmith it in a way to make it not have WP:UNDUE does not seem like an adequate justification. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'd exclude the name of the company on pure editorial grounds. It's just clutter. It's a minor detail, it's it adds nothing to the brief explanation of the issue, and the name of the firm is available, in the refs, to anyone who cares enough to read further. Again - just because it's sourced and true, doesn't mean it merits inclusion. JohnInDC (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- This was my line of thinking as well. I couldn't figure out a clean way to factor it into the sentence, and didn't think it particularly essential to that content specifically. If the concern is simply including the information as relevant context to the article overall, perhaps it could be mentioned elsewhere as general information? Swarm ♠ 22:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t think that’s necessary or helpful. What we know about this company, we know from the handful of articles reporting on the Digi Media matter. The firm has no known clients, no known income or activity, and no known importance other than in that regard. Finally as I’ve noted above, the fact that we know nothing about the company is not a reason to talk about it - other than to suggest there is something untoward or suspicious at hand. JohnInDC (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you're being consistent here. How are you to infer the extent of NSE Consulting? The reporting that we know if is that he formed the company around the time that he was offerred checks. Maybe he accepted other checks and the Digi ones are the only ones discussed. And we don't know what, exactly, he was doing with any of the law firms when he was of counsel. Maybe he had lots of work, maybe they just had him on the webpage for credibility and contacts. Whatever, the fact is that employment and employers is added. Fine if you believe there is undue weight to include the uncashed checks, though I think it belongs. This is pretty much where we when we discussed it before the recent round of revisions.Bangabandhu (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Again, yet again Bang, our own conjecture - “we don’t know” or “it might be” is no basis for inclusion. We know ‘’nothing’’ about NSE except it was formed shortly before this episode, and, never cashed any checks. Punto. And anyhow so ‘’what’’ if Evans formed a company, or instead had the checks made to him personally? It’s not like the company’s ownership was a nested tangle of holding companies designed to obscure his role - and no source has suggested that it was. For what actual, specific reason do you insist that the company is so significant that it must be named in the article text? JohnInDC (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- It seems like you're almost deliberately misunderstanding me here. I brought up the point about inferences to show that you were making inferences about the significance of his other work experience. I'm saying we should stick with what we know, which is that he started an LLC called NSE Consulting. You don't know this - The firm has no known clients, no known income or activity, and no known importance other than in that regard. I think that could very well be the case, but really its just that none has been reported.Bangabandhu (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Did you actually just say that it's incorrect to say that "NSE has no known clients, income, etc." because we don't know? JohnInDC (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- There's no reason to get into the epistomology of this any further. The bottom line is that we include what we're certain of, which is that he created an LLC called NSE Consulting.Bangabandhu (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Aw, Bang, just quit. Please? We don’t include ′′everything we’re certain of′′. We include it if it’s certain ′′and′′ if it’s important, and you’ve offered zero on the latter. How many times must we make this point to you? JohnInDC (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- There's no reason to get into the epistomology of this any further. The bottom line is that we include what we're certain of, which is that he created an LLC called NSE Consulting.Bangabandhu (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Did you actually just say that it's incorrect to say that "NSE has no known clients, income, etc." because we don't know? JohnInDC (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- It seems like you're almost deliberately misunderstanding me here. I brought up the point about inferences to show that you were making inferences about the significance of his other work experience. I'm saying we should stick with what we know, which is that he started an LLC called NSE Consulting. You don't know this - The firm has no known clients, no known income or activity, and no known importance other than in that regard. I think that could very well be the case, but really its just that none has been reported.Bangabandhu (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Again, yet again Bang, our own conjecture - “we don’t know” or “it might be” is no basis for inclusion. We know ‘’nothing’’ about NSE except it was formed shortly before this episode, and, never cashed any checks. Punto. And anyhow so ‘’what’’ if Evans formed a company, or instead had the checks made to him personally? It’s not like the company’s ownership was a nested tangle of holding companies designed to obscure his role - and no source has suggested that it was. For what actual, specific reason do you insist that the company is so significant that it must be named in the article text? JohnInDC (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you're being consistent here. How are you to infer the extent of NSE Consulting? The reporting that we know if is that he formed the company around the time that he was offerred checks. Maybe he accepted other checks and the Digi ones are the only ones discussed. And we don't know what, exactly, he was doing with any of the law firms when he was of counsel. Maybe he had lots of work, maybe they just had him on the webpage for credibility and contacts. Whatever, the fact is that employment and employers is added. Fine if you believe there is undue weight to include the uncashed checks, though I think it belongs. This is pretty much where we when we discussed it before the recent round of revisions.Bangabandhu (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t think that’s necessary or helpful. What we know about this company, we know from the handful of articles reporting on the Digi Media matter. The firm has no known clients, no known income or activity, and no known importance other than in that regard. Finally as I’ve noted above, the fact that we know nothing about the company is not a reason to talk about it - other than to suggest there is something untoward or suspicious at hand. JohnInDC (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- This was my line of thinking as well. I couldn't figure out a clean way to factor it into the sentence, and didn't think it particularly essential to that content specifically. If the concern is simply including the information as relevant context to the article overall, perhaps it could be mentioned elsewhere as general information? Swarm ♠ 22:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'd exclude the name of the company on pure editorial grounds. It's just clutter. It's a minor detail, it's it adds nothing to the brief explanation of the issue, and the name of the firm is available, in the refs, to anyone who cares enough to read further. Again - just because it's sourced and true, doesn't mean it merits inclusion. JohnInDC (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. The edits are good, and I particularly agree with your observation about "implications". JohnInDC (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Parking
A newly registered editor has twice inserted information about Evans's parking proclivities. While sourced, in my view this information is trivial and gossipy. Indeed in earlier iterations the article was weighed down by a lot of silly, small scale stuff, and the parking material - along with a lot of other similar material - was removed after discussion. Whether we add it back is of course open to discussion - but given the history of this page, it needs to be discussed if it's in fact going to be added again. It can't be by fiat. Here is the place, then. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Here is the relevant prior discussion on the parking issue. JohnInDC (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, this is the aforementioned new user. Speaking in defense of my edits, I would agree that the act of parking illegally is generally trivial when considered by itself, and I'm aware of the fact that Washington D.C. Councilmembers are allowed to park in spots otherwise considered illegal when conducting official business. However, I would argue that Evans's history of illegal parking stems beyond the trivial and gossipy and is noteworthy to his political career for two reasons. First, Evans has continued to park illegally in the city on numerous occasions despite receiving significant local press and criticism for his actions. Second, when confronted in person about his actions, he has on at least one occasion chosen to respond with inflammatory ("Why do you care?") and condescending ("if I park illegally, that opens up a spot for you") statements towards a resident and constituent, rather than apologize - an interaction that was recorded on video. If this repeated pattern of behavior is not noteworthy enough for a politician of Evans's stature to warrant inclusion, I would argue that the bar is too high.Yung wun105 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming to the Talk page, and thanks for your comments. I'll paraphrase what I said about this earlier. These are parking tickets. A councilmember parks illegally and gets huffy when challenged. That's the beginning and the end of it. He doesn't punch anyone, or have their property taxes raised, run them over with his car, or keep a firetruck from getting to a hydrant. The tickets themselves are either dismissed, or paid. It's annoying to his constituents (some of them anyhow), and his response is puerile, but it's a petty abuse of power - emphasis on "petty". It's small-change, hyperlocal, and as such beneath mention in the article. IMHO. JohnInDC (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with JohnInDC. The sources confirm what he is saying "Members of the D.C. Council are always parking illegally, but they're rarely as obvious as Ward 2's Jack Evans was on Thursday night." "Evans is hardly the first member of the DC Council to be criticized or spotlighted for flouting the District’s traffic and parking rules" This is trivia. Bonewah (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's the new poster again - had some account issues. I think Bangabandhu made some great points below, but I'd like to respond as well. First, I completely agree that parking illegally is generally a trivial offense in the "grand scheme", particularly if done inadvertently on a one-time or rare basis. I stated that in my original post on this page. However, no matter how trivial illegal parking may be, it still happens to be illegal. People are not supposed to park in these spots for a reason.
- I agree with JohnInDC. The sources confirm what he is saying "Members of the D.C. Council are always parking illegally, but they're rarely as obvious as Ward 2's Jack Evans was on Thursday night." "Evans is hardly the first member of the DC Council to be criticized or spotlighted for flouting the District’s traffic and parking rules" This is trivia. Bonewah (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming to the Talk page, and thanks for your comments. I'll paraphrase what I said about this earlier. These are parking tickets. A councilmember parks illegally and gets huffy when challenged. That's the beginning and the end of it. He doesn't punch anyone, or have their property taxes raised, run them over with his car, or keep a firetruck from getting to a hydrant. The tickets themselves are either dismissed, or paid. It's annoying to his constituents (some of them anyhow), and his response is puerile, but it's a petty abuse of power - emphasis on "petty". It's small-change, hyperlocal, and as such beneath mention in the article. IMHO. JohnInDC (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, this is the aforementioned new user. Speaking in defense of my edits, I would agree that the act of parking illegally is generally trivial when considered by itself, and I'm aware of the fact that Washington D.C. Councilmembers are allowed to park in spots otherwise considered illegal when conducting official business. However, I would argue that Evans's history of illegal parking stems beyond the trivial and gossipy and is noteworthy to his political career for two reasons. First, Evans has continued to park illegally in the city on numerous occasions despite receiving significant local press and criticism for his actions. Second, when confronted in person about his actions, he has on at least one occasion chosen to respond with inflammatory ("Why do you care?") and condescending ("if I park illegally, that opens up a spot for you") statements towards a resident and constituent, rather than apologize - an interaction that was recorded on video. If this repeated pattern of behavior is not noteworthy enough for a politician of Evans's stature to warrant inclusion, I would argue that the bar is too high.Yung wun105 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- If Evans had been caught bending the lines of his D.C. Council parking privileges a couple times in the past to, say, pick up some dinner or run an errand, I'd completely agree that it's gossipy and hyperlocal to include it. However, this abuse of power has been a consistent pattern from Evans, to the point that Washington D.C.'s CBS affiliate WUSA 9 dispatched an undercover camera to record him repeatedly illegally parking near his home in 2015. And despite this, and numerous other press sources covering his behavior, he has continued to engage in this behavior. For a local politician, I'd argue that this is not trivial or gossip - it is noteworthy and warrants inclusion in documentation of their political career.
- Second, it's true that Evans did not use the bully pulpit of his office to retaliate against the bystander who confronted him by raising his property taxes, and did not assault him or run him over with his car. But if you watch the full video of the interaction, you'll see near the end that Evans does accuse the bystander of harassment and threatens to "call somebody", despite the fact that the recorder is not harassing him and is doing absolutely nothing illegal, only confronting an elected official doing something that he himself freely admits is illegal. And referring back to the CBS source above, you'll see that Evans was employing the same dismissive "why do you care?" rhetoric to the press in 2015 that he uses in the recent incident. Again, for a local politician who conceivably interacts closely with his constituents on a daily basis, I'd argue that this repeated pattern of contempt and condescension for those who question him on this issue is noteworthy. And based on the repeated coverage this issue has gotten, it seems that there are plenty of people who do see this repeated behavior - and Evans's attitude towards it - as more than a "petty abuse of power."Yung wun106 (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- That earlier discussion is important, because it was focused on single incidents of when he'd parked poorly or tried to get tickets dismissed. A single incident, or even many incidents, on their own is trivial. But that's long been surpassed and Evans' parking is now part of his reputation. He's more known for it than many other thingsin his bio. Look at how mainstream media refer to his parking (again, not a single incident, or even many incidents, but instead his reputation) - quotes are verbatim from the article - The Washingtonian: ("Evans, whose free-form approach to parking regulations has been well-documented..."), CBS: ("...has been caught parking illegally for years"), NPR: ("A veteran politician known for occasionally illegally parking..."). Any seemingly trivial act becomes noteworthy when it's done to the extent that its part of someone's reputation. Evans' wikipedia editing, for example, is trivia. If he became an editor of note (and there are some individuals notable for their wikipedia'ing) we could include that. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Im not seeing much here that changes my mind. Yea he got some local coverage for his parking, but that still falls in the 'well sourced trivia' category if you ask me. Show me something if lasting importance and ill reconsider, but for now, im strongly in favor of simply leaving it all out. Bonewah (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- You've raised this issue about lasting importance before. What constitutes lasting importance to you? In the long run, we're all dead. Ozymandias, everything changes over time, etc. But anyway - This isn't passing coverage, its gone on for the better part of a decade or longer, depending on how you measure it. The coverage is lasting and related to his reputation and identity - its not dependent on any single incident. It's what he was known for years ago and that reputation has only grown. You don't ask these questions about his religious affiliation, for example, even though we have not indication that's remained what it was from the last time that it was reported, or that he attended the church frequently enough for it to merit inclustion. Or look at it from another angle - check out the discussion of traffic issues in Marion Barry's bio, which has a lot more topics to cover than there are for Jack Evans. Also it amuses me that you would call NPR and CBS local coverage. What do you want, a NY Times article on his parking? Does he need to run over a diplomat for it to make international coverage, would that do it? Bangabandhu (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Lasting importance ultimately comes down to editor judgement, but to me it comes down to the question, 'does this help the reader understand the subject and do so in an unbiased way?' There are lots of things you could say about any subject which are true, and perhaps well sourced, but do little to nothing to advance your understanding of a subject. For example, lets say that Evans was an avid golfer. Lets also say that he was fairly good at it, regularly shooting par or below on 18 holes. Now this fact might get reported many times over the years, say as part of charity golfing events for example, but it really isnt useful in understanding Evans. The fact that he is good (in this hypothetical) at his chosen hobby is trivia and should be avoided even if you could source it to several major news outlets. In my opinion, the subject of his parking habits is in exactly the same category, true but trivial. As far as i can see, his parking habits have not lead to anything more than scowling from the local media. Several of the sources you cited mentioned that most of the people in his position do it, and that at most he has paid his tickets when he got them. All of this points to 'true but unimportant'.
- As to your amusement that i would call CBS and NPR local, i would hasten to point out that the CBS link you provided is to CBS's *local* affiliate. This article appears in their local section and even has the word local in the URL. And the NPR article you are so impressed with? It literally contains only one sentence about his parking and i presume the only reason why you didnt quote the whole thing is that the part you left out directly undercuts your claim that this is so important... "...in spots where his special D.C. Council license plates save him from being ticketed.." If anything, all this has done is reinforce my belief that this material doesnt warrant inclusion. Bonewah (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're missing a good part of the significance of the parking issue. He's Chairman of WMATA, so parking and transportion has a special importance. To continue your analogy, it would be like if he were the Minister of Sports, in which case we would definitely be talking about his golfing. I'm not the first one to note the relationship between his driving habits and his role in public transit, "In Washington, WMATA board chairman and city councilmember Jack Evans is notorious for parking his car illegally – occasionally even blocking bus stops. Given this behavior, it’s not surprising that he threatened to force Maryland to halt construction of its badly needed Purple Line over a bureaucratic spat. In general, public sentiment that Evans is out of touch with riders has fueled harmful negativity surrounding the transit agency." Also - if there were years of articles related to his pastime, I would encourage its inclusion even if there weren't this larger significance. For example, Ivanka's art collection does figure into her her entry, George W. Bush's hobby of painting is discussed, etc. And yes, you have a point about the NPR article, but its really not worth arguing over a single source when there are just so many articles discussing his parking. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- In the example you gave, i still would not be talking about his golfing. And there is simply no comparing very important people like presidents with minor figures like a local council member.Bonewah (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Parking has special importance because you're linking it to the larger topic, transportation, and then you're noting that Evans has involvement in the oversight of regional transportation (a completely different segment of it)? If you keep stretching things that thin, they're going to snap. That you've made this association establishes that your quest to include and highlight this information amounts to the insinuation of your personal, tenuously constructed take on the situation to readers of the article. Largoplazo (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand what seems so strange to you about that point. He's got oversight of public transportation, doesn't use it, and flaunts the laws of his chosen means of transportation. I quoted an author who made the same connection (before everyone gets upset, I'm not suggesting that as a usable ref). If you think its a tenuous connection, he has weighed in directly on parking legislation - when he "planned to propose a rollback of parking meter charges on weeknights and Saturdays...". Bangabandhu (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Repeating your feeling that they're connected doesn't make it any less a subjective judgment than it was the first time. Anyway, trivia like proposing changes to parking regulations also falls short of being worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article. I mean, that's what legislators do, get involved in legislating and evaluating mundane facets of civic management. This isn't legacy-level material. Largoplazo (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand what seems so strange to you about that point. He's got oversight of public transportation, doesn't use it, and flaunts the laws of his chosen means of transportation. I quoted an author who made the same connection (before everyone gets upset, I'm not suggesting that as a usable ref). If you think its a tenuous connection, he has weighed in directly on parking legislation - when he "planned to propose a rollback of parking meter charges on weeknights and Saturdays...". Bangabandhu (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're missing a good part of the significance of the parking issue. He's Chairman of WMATA, so parking and transportion has a special importance. To continue your analogy, it would be like if he were the Minister of Sports, in which case we would definitely be talking about his golfing. I'm not the first one to note the relationship between his driving habits and his role in public transit, "In Washington, WMATA board chairman and city councilmember Jack Evans is notorious for parking his car illegally – occasionally even blocking bus stops. Given this behavior, it’s not surprising that he threatened to force Maryland to halt construction of its badly needed Purple Line over a bureaucratic spat. In general, public sentiment that Evans is out of touch with riders has fueled harmful negativity surrounding the transit agency." Also - if there were years of articles related to his pastime, I would encourage its inclusion even if there weren't this larger significance. For example, Ivanka's art collection does figure into her her entry, George W. Bush's hobby of painting is discussed, etc. And yes, you have a point about the NPR article, but its really not worth arguing over a single source when there are just so many articles discussing his parking. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- You've raised this issue about lasting importance before. What constitutes lasting importance to you? In the long run, we're all dead. Ozymandias, everything changes over time, etc. But anyway - This isn't passing coverage, its gone on for the better part of a decade or longer, depending on how you measure it. The coverage is lasting and related to his reputation and identity - its not dependent on any single incident. It's what he was known for years ago and that reputation has only grown. You don't ask these questions about his religious affiliation, for example, even though we have not indication that's remained what it was from the last time that it was reported, or that he attended the church frequently enough for it to merit inclustion. Or look at it from another angle - check out the discussion of traffic issues in Marion Barry's bio, which has a lot more topics to cover than there are for Jack Evans. Also it amuses me that you would call NPR and CBS local coverage. What do you want, a NY Times article on his parking? Does he need to run over a diplomat for it to make international coverage, would that do it? Bangabandhu (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Im not seeing much here that changes my mind. Yea he got some local coverage for his parking, but that still falls in the 'well sourced trivia' category if you ask me. Show me something if lasting importance and ill reconsider, but for now, im strongly in favor of simply leaving it all out. Bonewah (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)