Talk:Jenny Durkan

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jenny Durkan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add 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.

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. --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I was looking at an outdated version of the page and reverted what I thought was vandalism.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
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, 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, (on a journalist who published highly critical information about Durkan), , , , 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. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Thanks, Drmies, WP:SYNTH is the word I was looking for. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Please see WP:BLP, WP:CHALLENGED, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. -- Deep fried okra ( 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 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 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)
 * 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, -- Deep fried okra  ( 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)., 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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
, 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! 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) and, 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) any interest in weighing in. I'm merely making a good faith effort.--97.113.252.12 (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Oh great, again. 97.113.252.12 is 174.21.179.79. I did not make this IPs first contribution.--97.113.252.12 (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC) User:SounderBruce, User:AlsoWukai, User:Bri, User:Therequiembellishere, any interest in this discussion?--97.113.252.12 (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In one last good faith effort to actively welcome debate and differing opinions (unlike the example of the admin whom must not be named) I have followed the example of Deepfriedokra by reaching out to four other pages. However Deepfriedokra made some reckless accusations about COI concerns (which the user later apologized for), so in that aspect I am not following the users example and instead am reaching out to editors from 4 completely unrelated pages that are unlikely to have COI conflicts, and yet are, hypothetically, apt for a good and healthy debate. Specifically Talk:John McEnroe, Talk:Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, Talk:Pacers–Pistons brawl and Talk:Modern flat Earth societies. I'll give it a few days now. To any new, uninvolved editors: In a nutshell this article had a subsection in the "Controversies" section in regards to Jenny Durkan being a defense attorney for an Everett police officer in 1991/1992 who was accused of molesting a 15 year old and attempting to pressure the 15 year old and a 16 year old for sexual favors. Durkan's defense was to accuse the teenagers of lying, although the police officer openly admitted to "joking" about sexual intercourse and, when initially interrogated, admitted to frisking the 15 year old for a routine traffic stop. The content was fully sourced and had been in the article for several weeks. The initial arguments for deleting the content was a vague and inaccurate accusation of slander. More vague accusations were made, such as the content being fabricated and not supported by the cited sources, as well as personal attacks and presumptions of knowing what the agenda of the initial poster of the content (me) was. Eventually, after several requests by myself, actual wikipolicies were listed. Once I began to fully defend the content against all accusations, some involved editors apologized and others became silent and unwilling to to discuss further or defend their now discredited points. And one (two) were indefinitely banned for, in my opinion, minor reasons. Most of this can be found above, as well as on some talk pages that can easily be found from the involved editors. Many big egos and thin skins appear to be involved, which unfortunately means that excessive hubris prevents them from wanting to admit being wrong. Happy editing.--97.113.252.12 (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The content removed (again) in this edit was grossly excessive (the article is not about her family, there is no good reason to delve into the father's past or the non-notable siblings' careers) and at least a little tendentious, inappropriate for a BLP. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ummmmm, welcome back. OK then, if you now seem to be willing to explain your reasoning for edits and reverts like any other editor is expected to do, please answer this (in regards to the initial content in question): Do you still think that the content is fabricated and a lie? And if so do you think that I, the compiler and editor of the content, am lying? Or are you suggesting that the two teenage girls were lying? You were quite aggressive and vehement about "lies", so I would hope that you recognized the irony in regards to the actual circumstances of the disputed content. Please have the courage to answer that question since you seemed to have no issue with making the accusation.--97.113.253.30 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In regards to the "Early Life" section revision: Of course there is good reason to go into the father's political career. Durkan is a politician, her father was a politician, many of her siblings are involved in local politics as lawyers and lobbyists. Its completely relevant. The deleted content included a quote explaining the very relevant background from which a politician came from. You're just being silly here.--97.113.253.30 (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out that this seems to be other case where your limited understanding of how things work here is IMO part of the problem. If you want to demonstrate that those details are important in relation to Jenny Durkan, you should find sources about Jenny Durkan that discuss those details. Those sources mostly seem to be about someone else (her father, mother or siblings) which I assume briefly mention Jenny as their well known daughter or siblings. It may barely be acceptable to use such sources to clarify certain biographical points like although frankly I'm surprised we really need a source from before she was born. I suspect we don't and it can be replaced hopefully with one about Jenny Durkan (or at least the family in general) if someone tries. Once you start going into more than basic biographical details, you really need sources about Jenny Durkan which demonstrate why these details about her family are so important to the article on Jenny Durkan. See also WP:BLPNAME. Nil Einne (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked again and there was one source about Jenny Durkan, that about a possible COI if elected. That still seems fairly insignificant. If there is evidence that this possible conflict of interest became significant when she was elected, then this could probably be mentioned albeit in the mayoral (or whatever) section and not in the personal life one with only enough details to establish why there was an issue as established by the sources. I saw there was one source which I guess about the family in general comparing to the Kennedys. The problem is "never quite" is significant here. Unlike the Kennedys where a large number of them are notable, only her father seems to be. Nil Einne (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a separate issue. There are plenty of sources that specify the importance of the Durkan family in regards to Jenny Durkan's notability. It looks like you looked over the deleted content, so I'm sure you saw that it was more detailed info on Martin Durkan's career, a list of the siblings and their career choice, and the Kennedy quote. To be clear, some of the sources were added by other users. I don't know the wikipolicy, but there are certainly many other examples of someones siblings being listed and family background briefly mentioned. Sure, some of the sibling's careers are not relevant, but several are related to politics. Really it just gives a fully picture of the background of the article's subject.--174.21.161.199 (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Nil Einne, here's an example of a Featured Article that goes into the background of its subject to some detail: The Man in the Moone. Are there also issues with this article? Would it be synthesis and undue to include this content since it does not relate directly to the book? I'm positive that I can find other examples.--97.113.228.118 (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * W. R. van Hoëvell and here's an example of a Good Article that uses the word "controversial" without specifying "according to whom", and which seems to be written in a non-encyclopedic tone: "...and perhaps too important...".--97.113.228.118 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There were 6 biological Durkan children and 1 informally adopted child. There were sources that supported that.--97.113.228.118 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Call for Consensus

 * Alright, let's get this over with. Call for consensus to keep content that was deleted from this article, []. This content was first added to the article on July 1, and remained there until an edit war began on August 2. It was removed without first going to the Talk page to discuss. (NOTE: this is only in regards to this content. Another large section of content was later removed from the "Early Life" section, but that is not the content being discussed). Anyone can read above for the rest of the details and silliness, including strange paranoia, reckless accusations, and bizarre beliefs in psychic powers. Blah, blah, blah, this conversation could be dialogue right out of Burn After Reading. (Note: If you think an editor is so subtle and subliminal at "cheating" that their method of cheating is to not cheat at all and play by the rules...please seek therapy).


 * This content passes Notability, which is the main reason that I believe that it should stay. It is also concise and written in a neutral tone, but copy edits are welcome. I could list other reasons, but let's start with this one to keep this short(ish). The most unfortunate thing about this content is that most of the sources are not easily available online from the publishers website, but ALL can be found online via News Bank (see above and on Involved editors talk pages). Plenty of other editors have been given ample time to weigh in, but seem uninterested or backed away once challenged. Great efforts were made to discuss and have a fair dialogue, which were mostly ignored. Too bad, that's what wikipedia is all about. This attempt to reach consensus (informally) began on August 2, so I think that 3 days from now when the discussion is over is a reasonable amount of time for this vote to be open. Let's just wrap this up.


 * Keep--97.113.253.30 (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no controversy except in the head of the one editor who refuses to accept the arguments from other editors WP:ICANTHEARYOU, perhaps in the hope that when other editors tire of repeating themselves this editor can claim victory. As has been said before, there is nothing controversial about a defense attorney doing her job defending someone, as long as that is done within the legal and ethical framework. It could be included in an article about the defendant, if there was one, but not here. WP:NOTABILITY doesn't apply, since it is about the creation of a separate article. Sjö (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've received an apology [] from the only editor who listed actual wikipolicy instead of opinions, so I can hear you. You're just being selective of what you hear. An attorney just doing her job is both not an encyclopedic reason and certainly not a reason for something not being controversial. I listed the reasons why this was noteworthy earlier (you had every opportunity to discuss earlier), which are that it was one of the first instances of Durkan receiving wide press coverage at a time when she was not very well known, that it was a news story with several follow up articles that went on for months, that the nature of the alleged crime was notable, that the case related to other political events going on in 1992, that the specific methods of Durkan's legal arguments were noteworthy, and that it was an early example of a successful win in Durkan's legal career. If it was neither controversial nor noteworthy, why was there so much press coverage at the time? The prosecuting attorney attributed his loss of the case to the defense teams (Durkan's) skill at litigating, so it does relate directly to Durkan. Could you not hear me when I asked you to discuss? (Also note, same editor, my internet provider keeps changing my IP address)--71.212.0.34 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, sticking with the Burn After Reading analogy, obviously I'm J.K. Simmons. Someville243/Rwnix404 is clearly Brad Pitt (for so many reasons), Drmies is George Clooney, Deepfriedokra is Frances McDormand. Who do you want to be? I guess you could be Richard Jenkins. (Are there no Tilda Swinton's out there?)--71.212.13.61 (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

---This text was moved by me, Sjö, from my user talk in order to keep the discussion in one place---
 * Question of cognitive abilities and the laws of physics --

In regards to Talk:Jenny Durkan, how is it possible for something to simultaneously be only in an individuals head and also in newspaper articles? One thing can not simultaneously be in two places at once.

Here are the sources:

I'm skeptical about whether or not you have actually read them. Please do. Your arguments hold no weight, and the arguments of previous editors have been disproved. Previous editors have most certainly not been repeating arguments, they have remained silent after their arguments were disproved. You yourself were asked to weigh in and remained silent--97.113.230.46 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You also say "There is no controversy except in the head of the one editor" and then go on to say "It could be included in an article about the defendant". Soooo, there is controversy or there is not? Your contradiction makes no sense.--97.113.240.209 (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * One more thing: as a civil servant (although from a different country), would you consider yourself to have a COI issue on this article? Just a question, not an accusation. But your contradictions and lack of logic give me pause, so I'm asking.--97.113.240.209 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

---End of moved text---


 * First of all, stop your condescending and frankly abusive attitude. Second, your arguments are weak and not supported by wikipedia policy. Your arguments for this being a controversy boils down to WP:OR and the idea that I have a conflict of interest is farfetched. Sjö (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you said that this content could be included in a hypothetical different article. You are not being consistent about whether you believe that it is or is not controversy. And simply reading the articles and fact checking them would disprove your claim of Original Research, I've already received an apology for that claim earlier in Deepfriedokra's talk page. As far a COI, fine, I'll accept your response on good faith. But you are a civil servant, so it was not a farfetched question. I'm sorry if you feel condescended to but that's how debates work, and you keep contradicting yourself and can't seem to be able to make up your mind.--174.21.175.167 (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Please actually take the time to read the news articles. I realize that you are a civil servant who appears to spend a good deal of their time hard at work on wikipedia, but if you find the time to make accusations of Original Research, I'm sure that you can take the time to fact check and back up your claims. It makes no sense for you to make such a claim without reading the articles, and you know it.--174.21.175.167 (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How can something both be and simultaneously not be? Your sense of wikipolicy seems to be derived more from mysticism than from logic. That is simply not encyclopedic. It is instead medieval and, frankly, scatterbrained. Please come up with a better argument and be consistent with your statements. And please read the articles and identify where you believe that Original Research has occurred. Otherwise your reasoning is simply unacceptable.--97.113.228.184 (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Also, yes it's me again. I have no control over my IP address.--97.113.228.184 (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And since every other editor has been so open and casual about personal opinions instead of actual wikipolicy or logic, I will add that it would be appropriate and respectful to those two innocent and attacked teenage girls to have this content back in this article in time for Women's Equality Day on the 26th.--97.113.228.184 (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is that you are the only one supporting inclusion of this event. Consensus is clearly against it, so I suggest that you drop it and move on. Sjö (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, its currently just us. Another bottom line is that you are making a claim of Original Research and have neither backed it up nor indicated if you have actually read the articles. If you have not read the articles how do you know that Original Research exists or not? I'd be willing to drop it if you could indicate that you are not making reckless and baseless claims. Are you able to rise to this challenge?--174.21.181.46 (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC) And just to be clear, if all you had done was make a valid argument about why the content was not notable (or some other policy based argument) I'd feel, given numerical consensus, compelled to accept it. BUT you're making accusations of the content being fabricated, which I do not accept and insist on you backing up. This has already been disproved, so please don't just keep repeating the same lies in the hope that they will be accepted as truth. It's amazing that no one here seems to want to win a fight fairly but me.--174.21.161.152 (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , please either read the news articles, fact check the content and give examples of Original Research OR retract your false and already disproved claim and come up with a better argument. If you do neither I will take it to the ANI board. It is not acceptable for you to falsely accuse an editor of lying, be it through ignorance (not having read the articles) or malicious intentions. Or are you suggesting that the two teenage girls were lying in 1992?--71.212.16.199 (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * (Saw this at ANI) Looking at those articles, they are almost not at all about Durkan, and rather about the officer's conduct. I don't see this as a controversy that revolves around Durkan, but instead around a corrupt police officer. I agree with Sjo's conclusion that to try to make this about Durkan is verging on OR. Unless you find an article that explicitly and substantially faults Durkan, and not the officer, including this material is undue weight. Also, from a non wiki-speak based pov: I think we as a society often forget that defense attorneys are not endorsing their clients alleged actions, and that everyone is entitled to a defense. Our job here is not to write about every single bad thing a person has done, we're not a gossip site. We write about the cases that go above and beyond normal. Back on a wikispeak note, this should likely get a formal RfC header, and a neutral RfC question. Something like "Should the Controversies section include a paragraph about the 1991 police officer molestation case?" If you folks agree I can make up an RfC here, please ping me if you would like that. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * IP: I have never claimed that the content is fabricated or that you are lying. I do oppose including the section because there is no controversy and, as I said before, "there is nothing controversial about a defense attorney doing her job defending someone".
 * CaptainEek: I don’t think we need an RfC as it’s only the IP that wants to include the section. AFAIK RfCs are best used when there are many editors discussing and it is not obvious what the consensus is. Sjö (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment the one source that is available online doesn't mention Durkan. I guess some of the others do, but I don't see why there's any confusion over the WP:OR claim when sources which don't mention Durkan need to be used. To be clear, I have no doubt that Durkan did represent the officer, but that's beside the point. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude Defense attorneys by the nature of their jobs often defend bad people. But in the U.S., accused people have a constitutional right to be defended by an attorney. The coverage of this case was primarily about the accused officer and only secondarily about his attorney. I see no reason why this single case from 28 years ago belongs in this biography of a living person. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  19:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree with some of these statements, as Durkan is prominently featured and interviewed in some of the articles. The articles in which she is not specifically mentioned merely give additional context to the case, and its not as though the content was paragraphs long. Sjö, despite your contradictions thank you for at least acknowledging that, as had previously been suggested, the content was fabricated or a lie made up by me. And the content is written in a neutral tone and never stated that just being the attorney was what was controversial. User:CaptainEek, do you really not believe that the August 14, 1992 article prominently features Durkan? Or that it is not about the defense strategy? Because it took so long to get feedback or for involved editors to discuss, yes I do request an RfC. Absurd accusations were made, and as soon as I made counter arguments to specific wikipolicy based complaints, most involved editors refused to comment. That makes no sense to me, so yes I request the RfC, provided that those who comment actually read the articles.--97.113.249.101 (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that article is anything but routine coverage of a criminal trial in a local paper. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, but does it not describe the defense team's strategy? Just because the news article is written in a neutral tone and is not an editorial does not mean that the content of the news article is not noteworthy.--174.21.186.160 (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? This is an article on Durkan. It's not an article on the sexual assault case. Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional context sounds a lot like WP:Syn. If the article doesn't mention Durkan, then you need a very good reason why it's mentioned in this article where the subject is Durkan, not the police officer. Also by August 14th do you mean this source [//archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19920814&slug=1507364]? If so, well at least it mentions Durkan. However it only mentions Durkan the context of the case against the officer. There is zero commentary on her actions or on her as a person. Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it is technically Synth, which isn't necessarily a bad thing on wikipedia, according to WP:Syn. The synthesis does not create a new meaning. One article is about the defendants past performance record, which is used in one sentence in the content. One article describes the initial incident and the charges brought against the defendant before the trial began, which seems necessary to me. The other three are about the trial and prominently feature Durkan. Huh, its been a while since I've checked, but when this content was first added to the article most of the news articles were not available on the Seattle Time archive. Thanks so pointing that out to me, wish I'd been made aware of that sooner. Commentary, as in editorializing, no there is not. But that article does describe the methods of Durkan's defense strategy, so she is prominently featured. I'm quite certain that you could find innumerable content on wikipedia where the source is not directly about the subject of the article but is instead about a small aspect of the subject which does not focus entirely on the article's subject. As I said above, this was one of the first instances of Durkan receiving major press coverage, so it is relevant to her legal career and public image. There is also zero commentary about Durkan in the deleted content, just facts written in a neutral tone. Is the ultimate problem that this section is included in a section titled "Controversies"? Given the nature of the alleged crime that seemed logical, but if that is the only problem it could be moved to the body of the article.--174.21.186.160 (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC) I should also point out that the information in this source (which does not mention Durkan) is also mentioned in other articles, so it could be removed as a source if its really necessary. But my main question is: what would the objections be to moving the content from "Controversies" to "Private practice"?--174.21.186.160 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you need to re-read the page. Original sythesis is always a bad thing. The source says absolutely nothing about Durkan, and you seem to be coming up with an intepretation that the alleged wrong doings of this officer are somehow related to Durkan based on a source that doesn't mention her. I'm not sure it it's worth engaging further if you're still confused by this point. Maybe try re-reading the policy and then ask for help somewhere appropriate like WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk. As long as you're confused about such fundamental policy, this isn't going anywhere. BTW "" comes to the obvious, but in any case, let me repeat again that I saw no coverage of Durkan in that article. The coverage was only about her in the context of the defence. Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I do not believe that I am confused because I also read this: What SYNTH is not. So, I would also wager that, with the exception of most stub articles, 100% of Wikipedia articles technically have some synthesis. But, all of the five articles were about the court case to some degree, they were not random, unrelated articles about someone incidentally involved. I see no issue here and think that I was just being unclear. As far as providing a source for it being "one of the first cases...", for my exact wording on this talk page, no I can't. BUT, great question: can I supply a source for the case being noteworthy in regards to Durkan? Yes I can, see below.--71.212.0.103 (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

OK User:CaptainEek and User:Nil Einne, here is my proposal for a compromise: Given that the use of the word "controversy" seems to be an issue and that utilizing two of the sources that do not mention or directly relate to Durkan's legal career is an issue, I propose condensing the content to two short sentences, removing the two sources and any content derived exclusively from them, adding this citation, and moving the entire content to the "Private Practice" section between the current 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.


 * How about this: In 1991 Durkan and attorney Jeff Robinson defended Everett police officer Robert Eric Whidbey against charges of of third-degree child molestation and two counts of first-degree extortion. Arguing that the testimony of the two teenage plaintiffs were inconsistent, Durkan and Robinson won the case in August 1992; it was considered a noteworthy victory in Durkan's legal career.   I'll work on adding the urls as well.--71.212.0.103 (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it is WP:DUE and the new source doesn't support that the trial is more noteworthy than the other cases that the article mentions. Sjö (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it has to be more noteworthy? In the new source, it is worthy of being noted. Literally. And if its worthy of being noted, it is DUE. It was given due weight in 1995. Its right there in print. Do you think if it is reinstated in this new way, then all other cases mentioned in "Private Practice" will have to be considered UNDUE?--174.21.161.199 (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Also, you said above that the reason you opposed was because you thought that it was not a controversy. Its right there, you said it. Are you simply going to change your reasoning no matter what? Is it noteworthy of me to point out your inconsistency? I'm just doing my job.--174.21.161.199 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's not more noteworthy then why are we including it? There are four cases mentioned there. Are you suggesting we include all four cases? And that was in 1995. Per our article, she resigned from that executive counsel position in 1995 and it sounds like she continued in private practice after that until at least 2007 (I suspect 2009) and then possibly continued after her role as a US attorney ended (albeit I assume mostly ending after being elected mayor). An article from 2009 or now, assessing her most significant cases may very cases in private practice may very well come up with a different list. As for those other cases mentioned in the private practice section, the reason seems to be because they are WP:notable events in Wikipedia terms as they are mentioned in other articles. Still if after analysing the sourcing you feel they should be removed, I wouldn't be opposed to removing them since the sourcing in relation to Durkan does seem poor as most of it looks to me to be more about the case (but do note I haven't checked the sourcing) and the travel ban one is probably also part WP:recentism. Although I'd note that the one example I looked at [//crosscut.com/2017/01/immigration-ban-washington-state-trump-behind-the-scenes-deportation] did seem to focus on D
 * Miy niame es Monsieur LeLerge un aye am e reeale Froonchmon. Aye theenk zat Monsieur Aye Peey es vary smaart un ansume un ee es correkt. Ze cunteent jood bey encluuded un aye vuut Wee Hon hon hon. Aye em reeale en nuut ay suukpuupeet. Hon hon hon.--MonsieurLeLerge (Nil Einne (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, we should include it because it is noteworthy. Is there a criteria for how noteworthy something must be in comparison to other noteworthy things? And sure, if someone wanted to include all of the cases I see no reason to oppose. In 1995 it was considered noteworthy. Wouldn't it be synth-y to only rely on more recent sources to determine what was considered noteworthy during that time period? And significantly longer, perhaps technically, but its still only two sentences, so you could also say that the other cases could be expanded. I did not add any of that other content in "Private Practice" so I couldn't say. Basically what we have is a very brief description of a case that received notable press coverage over the course of months and was identified as noteworthy 3 years later. The sources are solid for the accuracy of the content and the notability, and it is written in a neutral tone. UNDUE seems like a hard argument to make given how short the content is. I think its an acceptable compromise.--174.21.161.199 (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd like to point out that for a long time, including just recently, one of the arguments for deleting the content was that Durkan "was just doing her job". I'd like to now use that argument and say that in this case she was just doing her job so well that it was considered a noteworthy victory. Is the counter argument now that "she was just doing her job" is not a good enough reason to include?--174.21.161.199 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Nil Einne, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marble_cake&diff=prev&oldid=949567524 Here's an example of something that appears to be UNDUE and not directly about the topic of the article. If this should not be deleted, why should two sentences about a legal case be deleted? Does this not create BLP issues for Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow?--97.113.228.118 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Any comment User:Nil Einne? Has your opinion on UNDUE changed since that edit? In which case shouldn't this article and the article on a BLP be reexamined by you?--97.113.236.141 (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, two sentences would not be the longest topic in that section. The paragraph about Gregoire is three sentences. So, its not UNDUE. You're really reaching here. And this court case is more relevant to Durkan's legal career than Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow is to marble cake. BUT marble cake is more delicious than Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow...never mind how I know.--97.113.236.141 (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, what a coincidence. User:Nil Einne, you must add this: http://theneedling.com/2020/07/20/durkans-defunding-police-plans-just-very-realistic-cake/ --97.113.253.203 (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point about the 1995 issue. It's now 2020. Jenny Durkan has probably been in private practice for 10-15 years more since 1995. The four allegedly noteworth cases she participated in in 1995 may no longer be noteworthy at all anymore. Your only argument for inclusion is that it was one of four allegedly noteworthy cases she was involved in in private practice as according to a single not very good source. That is clearly a very poor argument for inclusion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, no its not my only argument for inclusion, thats just the source for the last part of the 2nd sentence. I don't think that I am missing your point, and you didn't answer my question about if retroactively deciding what was noteworthy in 1995 is Synth. Are two of the three sources for the marble cake thing good sources? You really seem to be inconsistent.--97.113.228.113 (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User:CaptainEek and User:Nil Einne, I really do appreciate your input. What do you think about this proposal for a compromise? I admit that I'd prefer if the content was reinstated as it was, but I've tried to listen to your constructive comments and I believe that I have taken them to heart. I would love to hear what your thoughts are on this compromise.--174.21.161.199 (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose including the material, as UNDUE and not directly relevant. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? From WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery." Additionally, the new source is complimentary of the content.--174.21.161.199 (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC) If this is not directly relevant, is everything else in the "Private Practice" section directly relevant? Or the entire article? If this is UNDUE, what else in the article is UNDUE? And please specify how it is UNDUE since all of the reasons listed in the provided quote do not apply.--97.113.236.141 (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC) There appears to be quite a bit of UNDUE and not directly relevant content in The Coral Island, and, just for instance, the sentence "The Coral Island – still considered a classic – was republished by Penguin Books in 1995, in their Popular Classics series." seems to have issues. Does the source state that? And according to whom?--97.113.236.141 (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

So the conversation has changed after receiving valuable feedback from User:CaptainEek and User:Nil Einne. Consensus to include the deleted content in the "Controversies" section is withdrawn. The question is now: '''Should a significantly shortened version of the content that is fully sourced be included in the "Private Practice" section? Specifically: ''In 1991 Durkan and attorney Jeff Robinson defended Everett police officer Robert Eric Whidbey against charges of of third-degree child molestation and two counts of first-degree extortion. Arguing that the testimony of the two teenage plaintiffs were inconsistent, Durkan and Robinson won the case in August 1992; it was considered a noteworthy victory in Durkan's legal career.'--174.21.161.199 (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC) To be clear, this new proposal came from the collaborative efforts of other users who were able to articulate their concerns. Specifically User:CaptainEek and User:Nil Einne, I thank you both. The only new concern that I am reading is UNDUE, which on the one hand is a questionable concern for content that is only two sentences and on the other hand is being raised by some users whose editing history contradicts that reason. I fail to see what the issue could possibly be at this point. If you like I could list more examples from other articles. Is there another reason for opposing? Perhaps the two teenage girls?--97.113.236.141 (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC) And, as several others have pointed out, Durkan WAS just doing her job. She did it so well that a police officer who openly admitted to one charge and initially admitted to another during interrogations was found not guilty. That is, objectively, impressive and noteworthy legal work. Is there a reason that this noteworthy case should be silenced? Please share, don't be shy.--97.113.236.141 (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I still oppose inclusion of this content. I've articulated several reasons why. Several others have given other reasons. I think it's clear whatever consensus there is, is against inclusion of this content. I am unlikely to participate further. Please don't ping me again IP. I leave it open to other editors to ping me if they really feel it's necessary Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Nil Einne don't run away over spilled cake. Your articulations are inconsistent.--97.113.228.113 (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you don't have a reliable talk page I'll post this here. Pinging someone when they have asked you not to is generally considered WP:Harassment. Please don't do it again. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Nil Einne but I want to hear more about the cake. It could be our cake. It could be delicious, I think it tastes like army boots.--97.113.228.113 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Miy niame es Monsieur LeLerge un aye am e reeale Froonchmon. Aye theenk zat Monsieur Aye Peey es vary smaart un ansume un ee es correkt. Ze cunteent jood bey encluuded un aye vuut Wee Hon hon hon. Aye em reeale en nuut ay suukpuupeet. Hon hon hon.--MonsieurLeLerge (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Meri Monsieur LeLarge for your vote. I also think that you are smart and handsome. I almost feel like your role here is to make yet another point that will go over everyone's head. Oh well. User:Nil Einne, I've lost track of how many times I have been told "this is your final warning or else", so I'm getting a bit bored with that threat. But I think that I have adequately made it clear to everyone what it is that you are all fighting so hard for, as well as your lack of certain debating skills and blatant hypocrisies. But to reiterate the first point: You are all attempting to silence the allegations of two innocent children, who's victimizer openly admitted to pressuring the 15 year old child and the 16 year old child to have sexual intercourse with him (and who's attorney Jenny Durkan openly admitted to him having done so) and who initially admitted during interrogations to putting his hands on the 15 year old child for a routine traffic stop that lasted an hour. That second admission was somehow stricken from the record with the help of Durkan's legal skills. THAT is what you are all fighting for, so congrats. Now I could also add that the case received national press coverage, but I'm sure you would argue the technicality that this source does not mention Durkan. And another source about the "Dynamic Duo" of Durkan and Jeff Robinson mentions the case just before it started and, for lack of a better phrase, cheered them on in hopes that they would win the case But of course that was 1992 and this is 2020 and today we don't see mainstream journalists giddy at the idea of young people being harmed by the police and going out of their way to kiss the asses of powerful people from well connected families. So much has changed since then, of course. But at any rate, User:Nil Einne, you were saying something about a final warning. Ok, how about this: Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah, Marble Cake, Marble Cake, Marble Cake, Neener, Neener, Neener. Still no? OK how about this: User:Jimbo Wales, who's snatch do I have to lick to get banned for life? OK [--97.113.228.113 (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Washington Mutual criminal investigation
I think this section is WP:UNDUE, since there doesn't appear to be any significant criticism in reliable sources. Even the Seattle Weekly source that criticizes her doesn't make it the main point of the text and the critique is rather mild, mentioning that "other federal prosecutors were just as tame". Unless there are other sources that mention this as a controversy, I think the section should be deleted. And, while it is not related to the question of DUE, I would like to point out that a prosecutor does not have to always prosecute everyone they investigate (somewhat unlike a defender who does her job by always defending her client). The prosecutor has to believe both that a crime has been committed, and that there is a reasonable chance of getting a conviction. If a prosecutor does not believe that they can reach a conviction, not filing charges is "just doing her job". Sjö (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for Updates to Article
I have a personal and previous professional connection to Jenny Durkan. As recommended on the Contact Us page of Wikipedia, I am submitting proposed edits to the article here for volunteer editors to review. I have tried to comply with Wikipedia policies to the best of my ability, especially Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of Views. Please let me know if I can help in any way.


 * In the Lead, paragraph three, first sentence, please change:

FROM

Durkan has received criticism for her response to the George Floyd protests in Seattle, and her handling of law enforcement in the so-called Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

TO

Durkan has received criticism for her response to the George Floyd protests in Seattle and her handling of protesters and law enforcement in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

Explanation: adds the words “of protestors” as this reflects what the body of the article, and the source actually says. Jenny Durkan It also corrects a typo in the current sentence. Thank you for your consideration. 1920sportsfan (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * In the “2011 raids on medical marijuana dispensaries” section, please change sentences two, three, and four:

FROM:

The targeted dispensaries were accused of "flagrant violations" of laws because DEA officers believed that "the shops were fronts for illicit drug dealing and revealed that agents were looking for evidence of drug conspiracies, money laundering and guns." Durkan stated her belief that many medical marijuana users were "fakers". Marijuana activists protested the raids.

TO:

The DEA’s search warrants suggested the dispensaries were involved in illicit drug dealing and money laundering; Durkan stated the raided shops were “operating well outside the medical provisions” and that they had only targeted flagrant dispensaries.

EXPLANATION: replaces the dead link. Focuses on how Durkan as the prosecutor explained the DEA’s actions. Eliminates the claim that Durkan stated Medical Marijuana users were ‘fakers’: this is a characterization by a journalist but Durkan did not say it so it should not be represented as a statement from her. WP: BIASED. The characterization is also out of context of her saying that some uses are legitimate. I propose moving the protests to sentence one of this section, detailed in #5.


 * In the “2011 raids on medical marijuana dispensaries” section, please ELIMINATE sentence five:

That same year Durkan urged Washington governor Christine Gregoire to veto a bill that would have legalized medical marijuana, writing that the bill would "authorize conduct contrary to federal law, and thus would undermine the federal government's efforts to regulate the possession, manufacturing, and trafficking of controlled substances."

REASON: this does not have anything to do with the 2011 medical marijuana dispensary raids or her career as U.S. Attorney. WP:COATRACKING


 * I've rewritten and renamed this section. I consider a discussion of the letter to Gregoire to be relevant in establishing context for later events. Durkan stated she would uphold federal law and then supported action on the basis of federal law.  I've also cleaned up the quotations and citations; there were several incorrect statements.  Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Re: bullet points two and three in Request Edits above, while the content in the section is fine, for the following reasons, it should be divided into two subsections, not lumped together as Jenny Durkan. It also needs a new source for the first paragraph.


 * 1) The new source recently added in the newly written first paragraph is a law firm blog post, which is not a reliable source. WP:RS

The blog post does contain a copy of Durkan’s letter, but it’s not sufficient by itself to create this paragraph under WP:NOR WP: PRIMARY. I located a reliable secondary source, though – and it will allow the entire paragraph to be saved, except the direct quotation marks need to be removed, since they are not used in the source. Here is the citation/source to be added:. The existing citation should probably be removed since it’s a law firm blog, but since it does have a copy of the primary source document (letter), some might want to keep it as a back up.
 * Since the Spokane Statesman-Review source is not available for free online, I am excerpting the relevant text here:


 * However, the second paragraph needs to be a separate subsection, with a title such as:


 * “2011 DEA raids”


 * The second paragraph refers to raids initiated by the DEA (not Durkan) and are unrelated to the letter she wrote at the governor’s request explaining proposed state legislation conflicted with federal law. The DEA raids were caused by criminal behavior – money laundering, selling guns illegally and selling illegal drugs (e.g. Oxycontin and pounds of marijuana to drug dealers) unrelated to medical marijuana dispensaries selling cannabis to medical patients. These “medical marijuana” stores being raided were fronts for serious criminal behavior in no way legalized under state law.  This severe criminal behavior had nothing to do with the state law legalizing selling medical marijuana to medical patients. Furthermore, none of the sources say that the raid happened as a result of Durkan’s opinion that the medical marijuana bill could be a violation of federal law.


 * Putting both these events under the subsection “Medical marijuana legislation” directly implies causality or connection, when there is none, and none reported in the media. WP:NOR. User: Mary Mark Ockerbloom says in Talk she has combined them this way “to provide context” for Durkan’s later prosecution of those arrested by the DEA. But the DEA raids and prosecutions were for severe criminal behavior that would not have been legalized even if the proposed state law Durkan opined against had been passed.


 * Especially in the context of a BLP, where Durkan’s career is what counts, it makes no sense to try to connect these two events. This is a BLP and Wikipedia needs to be especially careful here. WP:BLP.   1920sportsfan (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * In the Career section, under U.S. Attorney, 2012 May Day Response sub-section, please change the first, second, and third paragraphs:

FROM

During the 2012 May Day protests in Seattle, masked individuals identified as "black bloc" members vandalized a federal courthouse. By law, destruction of federal government property in excess of $100 is considered a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. In July FBI agents raided the house of several suspects in Portland, Oregon.

The Department of Justice and Durkan's office brought the suspects before a federal grand jury, but were unable to obtain confessions from them. Durkan then asked Judge Richard Jones "to imprison the activists, some for up to five months, in an effort to force them to testify against their peers in the Pacific Northwest’s radical left." Emily Langlie, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office in Western Washington, said of the DoJ's actions: "It’s not punitive, it's coercive."

The suspects were held in solitary confinement at the SeaTac Federal Detention Center. The Seattle Human Rights Commission condemned this action, stating, "There is simply no credible reason for their continued detention in solitary confinement...in an environment known to cause serious and lasting psychological harm."

TO:

Durkan’s office headed the prosecution of the vandalization of Seattle’s William Kenzo Nakamura U.S. Courthouse during the 2012 May Day protests. Four individuals called before a grand jury because they might have information about the protests refused to testify even after receiving immunity. The individuals were jailed by U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones because they refused to comply with his order that they testify. Durkan received criticism for her part in the process. A spokeswoman for Durkan’s office stated the incarcerations attempted to “compel them to answer questions they are required by law to answer” and not to punish them.

EXPLANATION: The existing language is more about the event than Durkan’s role. WP: COATRACKING There is already a full Wikipedia page about the events -- Seattle grand jury resisters. What is here, misrepresents the events -- a grand jury investigates; it does not seek confessions. Moreover it omits the key fact that they were jailed by the court for contempt of court, for the refusal to obey the Judge’s order to testify. The direct quote attribution to Durkan’s office asking for imprisonment for up to five months is false -- this is a restatement of the events from the voice of the writer, not a request from Durkan’s office as portrayed here. The proposed replacement is more concise and focused on Durkan’s office. Represents both criticism and defense of the action. Replaces openly slanted/opinionated sources, more with neutral and higher quality sources, The Seattle Times and Los Angeles Times.


 * B) Re: the fourth and final bulleted Request above, the original Request Edit is now out-of-date because User: Mary Mark Ockerbloom has written a new version of the “2012 May Day vandalism response” subsection in “Controversy”, expanding it. I think there are some big problems with these edits, explained below – and I hoped other editors might join a consensus conversation about them.  Here is her new version:










 * This subsection is now a retelling of the entire 2012 May Day protests in Seattle. Aside from the parts just about Durkan, the rest could be moved to the articles 2012 May Day protests or Seattle grand jury resisters to remove the WP:COATRACKING. As it stands, the section gives far too much weight to this single event. Also, the repetition of criticism of Durkan and degree of WP:COATRACKING cumulatively adds up to a WP:NPOV problem.


 * In addition, multiple statements fail WP:BLPRS because of the extensive use of articles from The Stranger, a Seattle-based ”alt-news” publication. These include paragraph 2, sentence 2; paragraph 4, sentences 2-3 and 5-7. The Stranger is openly hostile to Durkan. It has published pieces that call Durkan  | “chickenshit”, a | “corporate simp”, and which mock her for having police guard her home in response to death threats |. The articles in question here are also written from a highly biased point of view. Given the open hostility of The Stranger toward Durkan, while it may be acceptable as a source for attributed statements of opinion, in the case of establishing facts for biography of a living person, where the standard for verifiability of “contentious material” is very high, WP:BLPRS, I think it should not be allowed here. Yes, an author in a reliable source can sometimes have a POV or bias and facts from their story still be used on Wikipedia, but only if the underlying source is  well-regarded for accuracy. In this case, stories and opinion pieces about Durkan in The Stranger are indistinguishable and the publication is an open political opponent to Durkan, using articles to call for Seattle residents to | vote against her. It should only be used, if at all, only as attributed statements of opinion, as per. WP:RSEDITORIAL


 * Apart from The Stranger other disallowed sources include a HuffPost piece written by a contributor – NOT a staff journalist – named Kris Hermes. According to WP:RSP, HuffPost contributor pieces are not reliable sources. This is reference #65 (used twice), the second sentence of paragraph two and first sentence of paragraph three. There are also two primary sources (#64 and #73 ) in the section.  Many of the Coatracking sources do not even mention Durkan.


 * For these reasons, I’d again propose the section be rewritten to focus just on Durkan, not the entire event, and only with the use of reliable sources. I have expanded the request to include specific criticism of Durkan’s office that comes from The Seattle Times, instead of The Stranger.




 * Thanks.1920sportsfan (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. 1920sportsfan (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Each of you has made recent changes to this article based on this talk page proposal, which I have updated to remove the answered requests. I am pinging to see if any of you might have time in completing the above requests for an independent review.  Thank you for your consideration. 1920sportsfan (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these suggestions. I have rewritten the final section incorporating many of your recommendations.  I felt that more context was needed in some areas and have expanded the section in several places to address this.  Happy New Year, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Some responses to the Request Edit in the subsection about the “2012 May Day Protests” have, in my opinion, pushed some of these subsections further into problems with WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACKING. I am hoping User: Mary Mark Ockerbloom  and other editors will read my objections, which I posted below the fourth bullet point above. There is another issue, regarding “2011 raids on medical marijuana dispensaries.”  I have posted  an explanation above bullet point two. I’ve tried to offer constructive alternative suggestions that take into account the work by User: Mary Mark Ockerbloom. I am pinging all the editors who have contributed to this specific Request Edit proposal before some of the answered items were removed from the proposal since they had not been  marked as “Done”. |dif (before some of the answered items were removed from the proposal.)
 * 1920sportsfan (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard Discussion
BLP noticeboard

Proposals September 2022
I have a personal and previous professional connection to Jenny Durkan. As recommended on the Contact Us page of Wikipedia, I am submitting proposed edits to the article here for volunteer editors to review. I have tried to comply with Wikipedia policies to the best of my ability, especially Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of Views. Please let me know if I can help in any way

Covid response Mayor Durkan was half-way through her term when the first recorded U.S. case of Covid-19 appeared in the Seattle area on January 19, 2020 and the first recorded U.S. death on February 29. Covid response was a central part of Durkan’s remaining term. Under Durkan, as of March 2021, Seattle's response to the pandemic resulted in the lowest deaths per capita of any other large metropolitan area in the United States. By March, Durkan, in collaboration with other area officials, implemented some of the first mask mandates in the U.S.. They also set up four testing facilities in different parts of the city, which tested up to 6000 people per day by mid-December 2020 and had completed 463,000 tests between June and December of that year. On March 17, 2020 Durkan signed an emergency order prohibiting the eviction of small businesses and nonprofits for 60 days or until the end of the emergency. The City Council and Durkan had already halted most residential evictions In May 2020, Durkan closed more than 20 miles of city streets to most vehicles in order to enable more socially-distanced biking and walking. To help families in economic distress from Covid shutdowns, in May 2020, Durkan’s administration sent $800 supermarket vouchers to households enrolled in subsidized child care and food programs, later extending the voucher program to other households. The administration also opened additional shelter spaces with more distance between beds and provided supporting services at hotels commissioned to house homeless persons during the Covid crisis. Durkan’s administration also provided $10,000 grants to 250 small business by May 24, 2020. When she left office in December 2021, about 90% of Seattle's eligible residents had received at least one dose of the Covid vaccine and about 50% were fully vaccinated.
 * Please add as a new section under Mayor of Seattle section, between the “Workplace conduct” and “Homeless in Seattle” subsections. The Covid pandemic and mayor’s response dominated the second half of Jenny Durkan’s mayoral term, and there were many dozens of high-quality reliable sources covering it. She also received substantial national press coverage because of her success in Seattle’s response., [] In order to give the bio WP:DUE weight regarding these events (and not just controversies), a substantial new section is warranted.

Since the Seattle Times is behind a paywall, I’ve posted excerpts below.

Seattle Times, February 29, 2020

King County patient is first in U.S. to die of COVID-19 as officials scramble to stem spread of novel coronavirus

Seattle Times, December 30, 2021 Mayor Jenny Durkan leaves a mixed legacy shadowed by crisis

Seattle Times, November 19, 2020 Coronavirus testing sites in Seattle stretched beyond capacity as people seek pre-Thanksgiving results

Seattle Times, December 30, 2021

Mayor Jenny Durkan leaves a mixed legacy shadowed by crisis

Seattle Times, December 13, 2020

1 in 4 Seattle residents have used the city’s free coronavirus testing sites

Seattle Times, March 18, 2020

Seattle mayor orders coronavirus moratorium on evictions of small businesses, nonprofits

Seattle Times, May 7, 2020

Seattle will permanently close 20 miles of residential streets to most vehicle traffic

Seattle Times, Aug. 27, 2020

See the city on foot with these 3 walks through Seattle’s Stay Healthy Streets

Seattle Times, May 24, 2020

Mayor Jenny Durkan in crisis mode as Seattle confronts coronavirus, homelessness, failing West Seattle Bridge

Seattle Times, May 24, 2020

Mayor Jenny Durkan in crisis mode as Seattle confronts coronavirus, homelessness, failing West Seattle Bridge

✅ Duke Gilmore (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please revise an inaccurate date in Education section, the first paragraph, first sentence:

In 2020 Durkan signed an executive order to create the Seattle Promise College Tuition Program, which increases free access to college for Seattle public school students.

To:

On November 19, 2017, Durkan signed an executive order to create the Seattle Promise College Tuition Program, which increases free access to college for Seattle public school students.

EXPLANATION: This is just a mistake. The source in the article is from 2017, so obviously couldn’t report on 2020 events. I also added a second source, from the Seattle Times, a stronger publication.

Since the Seattle Times is behind a paywall, I’ve taken the relevant excerpts below.

Seattle Times, November 29, 2017

Jenny Durkan takes step on free-college promise on 1st full day as Seattle mayor

✅ Duke Gilmore (talk)


 * Please add the following sentences to the Education section, after the first sentence:

Seattle residents voted in November 2018 to approve a tax to pay for the program. Durkan said that in order to increase the chances that students will succeed, the program also included support to help them decide what college to attend, as well as preparing them for student life, including what to study.

Durkan used some of the Covid-19 relief funds from the American Rescue Plan to extend the program in 2021.

EXPLANATION: The section is incomplete based on events that followed, as reported by The Seattle Times.

Since the Seattle Times is behind a paywall, I’ve posted the relevant excerpts below.

Seattle Times, November 29, 2018

'''Seattle high-school graduates will get 2 free years of community college. Here's how it will work'''

Seattle Times, June 3, 2021

Seattle offers more support for students in tuition-free community-college program

✅ Duke Gilmore (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

1920sportsfan (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @1920sportsfan Edits made (after review). Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)