Talk:Geoff Clark (politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Australia (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Geoff Clark (politician) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.

Status of rape allegation[edit]

As I understand it, Clark has been found by a court to have caused a rape, but has not been found guilty of rape per se. So does that make him a rapist? The obvious parallel is OJ Simpson's legal status. Joestella 02:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Factually, he is a rapist if he actually did it, regardless of the state of play legally. But, yes, the siutation is similar to O J Simpson, with the added issue that the allegations are 35 years old and wouldn't normally be allowed in court (due to problems with witnesses's memories etc). Because it is a civil case, the matter of fact was decided on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. In other words, the jury decided - based on the evidence presented - that Clark was 'probably' a racist, but there was a 'reasonable' possibility that he wasn't.--Jack Upland 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, freudian slip. I think you meant "rapist", not "racist".  :) JackofOz 07:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Politician?[edit]

In what sense is he a politician? He's never even stood for a public office afaik, let alone been elected. Yes, his ATSIC roles were elected positions, and the voters (indigenous Australians) were members of the Australian public, but he wasn't elected to represent them in any legislative body. This is no different in principle from being elected as a delegate to the 1997 Constitutional Convention. Such people did not become "politicians" by virtue of that election. I'd prefer to disambiguate him from other Geoff Clarks by something like "Geoff Clark (indigenous leader)". -- JackofOz (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking isn't public servant the term? Donama (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
He stood for public elected office, the definition of a politician. He certainly is not a public servant, in that he did not work for the public service and was not apolitical; on the politician/public service divide he is on the same side as John Howard and Kevin Rudd. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not different in principle, but different in magnitude - Clark spent seven years in ATSIC, almost four as chair, and it's what brought him into the public eye. The Constitutional Convention was rather shorter, and I can't think of anybody whose main claim to fame is having been a delegate there. That said, 'indigenous leader' is also reasonable, and might be less likely to require future disambig. --144.53.251.2 (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Almost 3 years on, this question feels unresolved to me. Any current thoughts, now that he's out of the limelight? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
One. The whole reason we're discussing this is to disambiguate; we would prefer to just call him Geoff Clark and avoid picking a pigeon hole.
Two. While it may technically be correct, I really doubt the label of politician is the most effective way to disambiguate this Geoff Clark; I don't think most Australians view him first and foremost as a politician. On rereading the article is it only now clear to me that he is described as a politician because his tenure as chair of ATSIC was an elected office. From this I'd deduce he is not actually notable as a politician but as an indigenous rights activist and public administrator.
Three. Since we have to pick a pigeon hole why not just be specific about what he is notable for: Geoff Clark (ATSIC chair) anyone?
Four. Still, he is technically a politician, and I'm just as happy to leave it as is. Donama (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
You make three good points for why we should change it, then revert to a technicality. Ask 1,000 people in the street who Geoff Clark is, and not one of them will say he is a politician. There'd be various colourful descriptions, I'm sure - but not that.
I prefer your suggestion of Geoff Clark (ATSIC chair) to what we have now. But that's come and gone, and his life and notability are about more than that single period. He was a well-known figure before becoming ATSIC chair. I would like this to move to Geoff Clark (indigenous activist) or something very similar. Any objections? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

New reference: Schwarz[edit]

Another reference (in print) for this is A Question of Power: The Geoff Clark Case by Michelle Schwarz. See edited excerpt. Donama (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"convicted"[edit]

Civil and criminal: Balance of probabilities v beyond reasonable doubt. While in no way being an apologist either way, the fact remains that he was not convicted of the mentioned crime. {(Citation needed}}--Shirt58 (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)