Talk:Jenny Durkan

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jenny Durkan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090930115131/http://blogs.thenewstribune.com:80/politics/2009/05/15/obama_names_jenny_durkan_u_s_attorney_fo to http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/05/15/obama_names_jenny_durkan_u_s_attorney_fo

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on calling results at WikiProject Elections

Please participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC Should articles say elections are decided based on preliminary returns?. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"second consecutive openly LGBT mayor"

To re-iterate what I put in my edit explanation: I added "elected" to the lead (first para) - she isn't the second *consecutive* LGBT mayor, there were two unelected interim mayors in between her and Ed Murray (Washington politician). (Bruce Harrell, Tim Burgess (politician)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulie 27 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Instead of just removing the abovementioned "LGBT" and substituting "gay" or "LGB" , instead of doing that, which I am not doing because that would be a provocative edit for someone to make who is neither L nor G nor B nor T nor Q nor I for that matter...but honestly, it would be a more economical use of language to just drop the ding dang "T" because Seattle has had exactly zero consecutive "T" mayors, so why mention "T"? It's like saying, "Jenny Durkan is the second (and not the third or fourth) consecutive gay mayor of Seattle." It's like, why even mention the next two gay mayors after Durkan resigns, those future gay mayors have nothing to do with the current gay mayor. 98.247.86.238 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Bardolph98.247.86.238 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that!

I was looking at an outdated version of the page and reverted what I thought was vandalism. But accidentally reverted the fix. I've reverted my reversion. Faolin42 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of controversies

I think we're done here. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What do you not understand about the job of a criminal defense attorney?! It is their job to make up whatever argument they think will get their client off. Are you that dense, or are you simply stooping that low to do anything in your power to discredit Durkan. If every former lawyer turned politician had wiki editors like you, nonsense like this would be all you would read on their pages. The client's crimes are not a reflection of the lawyers' character, nor is what they have to say while defending them, as you are trying so hard to make it seem. I can't believe I have to explain this to you. It was noteworthy because of the police office'rs actions. Durkan was never a major part of this story. She was just doing her job. She was never involved in any controversy regarding this. You trying to include this in her biography by twisting the narrative is a subtle but clear attempt to damage her reputation, which amounts to SLANDER. Which is exactly not the purpose of Wikipedia articles. Given your clear and proven bias against this individual (was I already proved on your talk page) I don't think you should be editing this page going forward. Rwnix404 (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Thank you for (finally) taking this to the talk page. In the future, please provide a reason for deleting large portions of sourced material from this or any article in the edit summary. Please note that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason. And please do not use insulting language towards any editors. Absolutely nothing was invented or twisted in this section of the wikipedia article. Citations were provided, which can be checked and verified. It is true that only one of the sources is readily available online, but the others can be found through News Bank's online resources, which you can log into via your local library card number. There may be other resources to find the articles as well, I'm not sure. The article is written in an encyclopedic tone and is neutral, just the facts. It could probably use a copy edit if you think it should be even more neutral, which I would both welcome and appreciate. As far as the subject of this wikipedia article just doing her job, what wikipolicy are you referring to? Please note that the direct quotation from Durkan in the article illustrates the methods she used to do her job, not just the fact of doing the job. It is noteworthy, controversial and in the public interest. The controversy was both the nature of the case and Durkan's arguments, and the fact that the case had to be delayed for political reasons. I'm not seeing any other arguments besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT so I don't know what else can be said. Are you a relative?--71.212.13.9 (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Rwnix404, word to the wise: the higher the horse from which you yell at people, the less likely they are to listen to you. IP, I see that you employ IDONTLIKE it in your third sentence already, which saves me a lot of reading, since it's often a lousy argument, in this case reflecting your own, ahem, ILIKEIT (it's clear some of your edits indicate an animus against mayor Durkan). And let the record reflect that you are obviously lying (yes, strong words) when you say no reasons were given for deletion: here is the reason given by Somville243, and here is the reason given by Rwnix404. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Both of those reasons for deletion add up to IDONTLIKEIT. Please show me wikipolicy. Its the only real argument being made, so how can I not keep referring to it? So I am not obviously lying, please stop continuing to troll. I'm not clear as to why this is interpreted as "slander", and certainly not from that initial edit summary. Have you source checked the cited articles? Do you also believe that this section on this wikipedia page was embellished? And once again, the wikipedia page is written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. If you disagree, please feel free to copy edit. Its truly amazing that you still cannot cite a specific wikipolicy. And I thought you were going to get this IP banned permanently.--71.212.13.9 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC) As for the IP's COI: see [1], [2] (on a journalist who published highly critical information about Durkan), [3], [4], [5], and, directly related to our current conflict, this, part of the SYNTHY material they were warring over yesterday. Individually, these edits (many to BLPs) seem critical but verified; taken together they suggest a clear bias which prompts the IP to insert every negative thing they can find (or construct) in the Durkan article and related articles. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Yes, I'm seeing facts on wikipedia pages and opinions on talk pages. What's your point? Am I preventing another editor from adding other information? Am I deleting flattering content?--71.212.13.9 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Calling bullshit on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Poor argument for retention of content not really about the subject that that uses WP:TABLOID language to salaciously cast subject in a bad light. Please do not place such challenged, negative WP:BLP content in this article again without achieving a consensus. Please cease from your personal attacks, aspersions and insinuations that only someone biased in favor of the subject would remove it. It is quite clear that it is your editing that is biased against the subject. It is so negative, it might even lead a neutral observer to feel you have an axe to grind. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Thanks, Drmies, WP:SYNTH is the word I was looking for. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Please see WP:BLP, WP:CHALLENGED, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Thank you very much User:Deepfriedokra for actually citing examples of wikipolicy in your arguments. I appreciate you having a slightly better understanding of how Wikipedia works and for putting in the effort to find actual policies that you believe apply. That being said the bulk of your argument is, like previous editors above, fixated on this IPs personal motives for contributing to wikipedia. You and other editors seem to be positive about having psychic abilities, however you do not. I explained above that it really doesn't matter what the motivations are so long as the article is written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. You are simply speculating, which is not encyclopedic. Your conversation here shows a great deal of bias itself. Glancing at your user profile, I have to say I'm a bit surprised by your lack of recognizing the contradiction of presuming to know for certain what the motivations of others are, while also complaining about this. Can you not see the contradiction? I don't think it should matter what my personal opinions are, but I will say that, in my opinion, its possible that we may agree on some things, and I am not pleased with extremism or divisiveness. If you must know, I've often had criticism of both the left and the right. So, to get to the point, I believe that the only wikipolicy that relates to all of the speculations which you brought up is WP:COIN, which you only brought up here. That is simply not true. I have never met Durkan or any of her family or staff. I do not work for the government and I have zero political aspirations. Not in a million years. I have zero interest in becoming a government employee. Was this a veiled threat to dox me? And potentially put me in harm's way? Its also worth noting that I have been 100% civil in these discussions. Others have not. Have I poked at User:Rwnix404 in an attempt to coax that editor into losing their temper? Have I made any personal attacks or called anyone names? Have I used intimidation tactics like threats to dox a user? All those things have been done to me. There's no reason not to be civil about this. You seem to be experienced enough to know that, so please be your best self. This will come to a conclusion, and remember Wikipedia:It's not the end of the world, its only wikipedia. If you think that a major politician is concerned about their wikipedia page, I think you're taking this all way too seriously. I do not agree that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is, in your words, BS. You yourself have had to talk down User:Rwnix404 from making emotional arguments that lack wikipolicy. The initial reasoning for the edits in the Edit Summary were not encyclopedic and did not cite wikipolicy. Clearly WP:IDONTLIKEIT is far from BS. The fact that you yourself have listed wikipolicy above is a perfect indication that you agree with me on this, otherwise you would not have listed wikipolicies. Furthermore the accusation of this section being slander is absurd. It is fully sourced by "Seattle Times" articles, so if you are certain that this was slander in 1992 please take it up with them. So I'll spell out my arguments about why this content should be included, then address all of the wikipolicies that you listed. I'll also propose a compromise. The content is significant to Durkan's legal career because it is one of the first instances where she received press coverage, and followup articles went on for months covering the entire trial. It is controversial due to the nature of the alleged crime, the specific arguments made by Durkan, and the cases relationship with major US events. It is notable as a very early example of Durkan's relationship with alleged police misconduct, which is relevant to her mayoral career. It is an example of Durkan's success as an attorney for high profile cases. It relates to racism, sexism and the sexual abuse of minors. Durkan was interviewed by journalists in 1992, establishing her notability at that time. It is clearly a notable event in Durkan's biography and legal career. WP:TABLOID: specifically, according to you, the language used, which I assume you mean to be the tone. Can you cite an example? I would disagree and say that the section is written in a neutral tone. Original reporting does not apply, it is fully cited by reliable news sources. News reports does not apply. This was a major story with several follow ups over the course of months, and involving notable government employees. Furthermore Durkan was not well known at the time, but that has clearly changed. Who's who does not apply since the people mentioned in the section are also mentioned in the articles more than once. This was not a "flash in the pan". A diary does not apply, the articles were certainly not celebrity gossip. WP:BLP: Focusing on the three core content policies, Neutral Point of View is present. It is written in a neutral tone. If you disagree please explain. I am also open to a copy edit if you wish. Verifiability is clearly present. I've already given instructions on how to find the articles, but here's a link: https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.spl.org/apps/news/easy-search?p=WORLDNEWS . If you know of a better way to directly link to these articles I would be grateful to know what it is. Please feel free to fact check these articles. No original research is present. Again please feel free to fact check these articles. WP:CHALLENGED: Please read the articles and fact check them. WP:UNDUE: 2,405 bytes out of 71,198 in the entire article. That's 0.033779% of the article. 212 words. I believe that the section is concise and without too much detail, but I am open to a copy edit. Its placement is chronological. No images are used. Just the facts, in a neutral tone. WP:SYNTH: Please read the articles and fact check them. No trickery was utilized, just the facts. WP:OR: Please read the articles and fact check them. Not a single instance of original research is present. Suggestions for a compromise: I am open to a copy edit, so long as it maintains the existing neutral tone. I am also open to a new banner above the section, allowing readers to know that editors like yourself have questioned the inclusion of the content. I intend to put this section back into the article, unless you make better arguments. I challenge you to be civil and make arguments using wikipolicy, and to not insist on focusing on individual editors. That's the correct way to go about this. But good luck to you and happy editing.--174.21.174.34 (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Also, this IS 71.212.13.9. I didn't even know that the IP was changed. I believe that my internet provider does that occasionally. I assure you I'm no hacker and have no intention of sockpuppeting. Please feel free to include 174.21.174.34 in the same short term ban as 71.212.13.9. This was not intentional.--174.21.174.34 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Also, from User talk:Drmies#Jenny Durkan Page you wrote "My advice would be to report at WP:COIN, or if they are editing libelously, WP:ANI for a more thorough discussion than a Judge Dredd-esque fly-in and blasting." What did you mean by that precisely? Judge Dredd is a fictitious law enforcement officer known for violent and unconstitutional methods. Does anyone have a conflict of interest in regards to law enforcement?--174.21.174.34 (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @Deepfriedokra: Looking forward to your response whenever you have the confidence to do so.174.21.174.34 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC) No, Dredd is exactly who I don't want to be. Perhaps that was not clear to you. That's why other experienced users and admins should look at what looks like your negative conflict of interest. You seem to be focusing on casting aspersions and making personal attacks instead of making policy based arguments in favor of including the challenged content. Hope that's confident enough for you. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Great. I applaud your integrity. So you do not have a conflict of interest. Neither do I. And I was merely asking a question, the same question that you seem to be asking. I look forward to your full response. Do you need more help locating the articles?--174.21.174.34 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Alrighty, I guess Deepfriedokra is not interested in backing up his statements (come on, you didn't even chuckle? It was a little funny). @Drmies:, would you care to actually read the articles and report back so as to reach consensus? Or are you just going to make threats?--174.21.179.79 (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @Drmies:, anything new to add? At the very least could you list all of the one million ways that I am wrong? Alphabetically please. And I emphatically deny all rumors about once having kicked an aardvark.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC) @Sjö:, any interest?--174.21.179.79 (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Yooohoooo, Columbo and Kojak, if you're not too busy kicking undesirables out of your backyards, do you have anything else to say? Consensus by default due to radio silence is certainly not ideal, but I'll accept it. I realize that Columbo attempted to get more feedback from other users, but since concerns of COI have been raised I don't understand the specific places that were selected. How about this: User:Cote d'Azur and User:Ingratis, I respect your contributions to Morris dance. Any interest here?--174.21.179.79 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of controversies continued

@Drmies:, come on now Doc. We're not done just because you refuse to discuss. WP:OWN. What specific objections do you have to the more recently deleted content, and what reactions do you have to my response to the deletion of the earlier deleted content? If you refuse to discuss, you are the one who's being disruptive and edit warring. And I'm sorry if you can't handle some light-hearted teasing, but given your behavior how can I not?--174.21.179.79 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

And just to clarify, of those who have been involved: two have been (unnecessarily) banned, one has indicated that they are not interested in becoming involved, one (who only made one edit in the article) has not responded. That leaves the two of us, alone at last. Let's discuss. I call for a vote on whether or not we should discuss. I vote AYE.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

(Gavel bang, gavel bang). Approved, the Ayes have it! Hurray! @Drmies: now that we have consensus for discussion, we'll have discussion for consensus for consensus or consensus for no consensus, provided consensus is reached. My argument is that both huge portions of content should be reinstated. What are your specific concerns?--174.21.179.79 (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I read your silliness and I'm not going to play along. Stop pinging me. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

What's up Doc. I would love to respect your informal request to stop pinging you, but I just need to clarify: are you no longer interested in being WP:INVOLVED? Just answer that and, given your response, you'll never hear from me again.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the loaded question. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Alrighty. Not really, it was a serious question. You haven't really responded to my response to Deepfriedokra's specific wikipolicies. Nor have you indicated if you have actually read the news articles that were sourced (as you also stated that you did not bother reading my responses earlier on this talk page). I did get an apology from Deepfriedokra, which I take as a retraction of most of the wikipolicies that that editor listed. I fully responded to any other complaints. What do you have to say? I'd also like to point out that this discussion was initiated by the deletion, not the inclusion, of said content. That content had been in the article for several weeks and was not deleted as soon as it was first added. Therefore you and others should have immediately taken your concerns to this talk page and not edit warred. I am now attempting to have a civil discussion with all involved editors. I even attempted to reach out to uninvolved editors, alas, to no avail. You have been given ample time to respond and have not done so, but instead insist on edit warring. I believe that you should show gumption, mettle and true grit by not running away from a fight, but instead take my (and the great User: Origamite's) example and charge towards an argument. I look forward to your response.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I agree with User:Techie3 and think that Someville243's ban should be lifted. As Sawant once said of Alex Tsimerman (paraphrasing), "I fail to see the crisis."--174.21.179.79 (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Ping-ping Doc. I assure you, I'd love for this to be resolved. So ok, I'm waiting to hear back from you in regards to your reasoning for wanting to delete content that was already in the article for a fair (although not substantial) amount of time. When this began, your reasoning appeared to be both a personal attack and a presumption of knowing exactly what I was thinking, soothsayer style. Those are not encyclopedic reasons. Deepfriedokra (may I suggest adding ghost pepper hot sauce and a dash of whole cumin to that recipe?) listed actual wikipolicies, all of which I addressed. So, can you please make a better case for your initial objections with actual wikipolicy examples, comment on my response to Deepfriedokrawithhotsauseandcuminandmaybeafriedeggontheside's objections (for instance do you believe that the content was fabricated?) and reiterate precisely why you believe that this content should remain deleted? Also, the other content is, in your words, excessive. Alrighty, I think that once again that's just IDONTLIKEIT, but I can compromise. Would you object to a shortened version? I am giving you every possible chance to have an actual conversation about this topic, and frankly I consider your sulking to be childish. You stopped actively participating as soon as I responded to actual wikipolicy arguments, so I'm sorry but right now you are making yourself look like a bit of a crybully. If you refuse to participate in a discussion then this talk page is consensus, so please do not blindly revert edits.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Okey dokey then. The above user has indicated that they are not interested in being WP:Involved anymore, to the extent of extremism. Pity, I was looking forward to dismantling their unlettered arguments. So, of those initially involved, two are not interested in discussing (and backing up their reckless accusations), two have been needlessly banned, one has not responded since only one edit, leaving just lovely little me. But rest assured I will continue to attempt to reach out to uninvolved editors before calling for consensus. But in the end, consensus there shall be.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC) @El C: and @Techie3:, you have both been marginally involved on semi-related pages. Any interest in weighing in on this discussion?--174.21.179.79 (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)