This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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)
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. --188.8.131.52 (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)