Jump to content

Talk:Jack Evans (Washington, D.C., politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 164.82.84.20 (talk) at 15:38, 29 May 2018 (→Other LLCs and clients). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes, I fixed that. JohnInDC (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good idea. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So now I'm a "well funded minion" of Evans. What's your source for that? JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Evans_(Washington,_D.C.,_politician)&oldid=843503931"