Read the State Legislative Tracker. New edition available now!

Talk:Washington Income Tax, Initiative 1098 (2010)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Flag of Washington.png
This page is part of WikiProject Washington, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to Washington. Check out the project page.
BallotMeasureFinal badge.png

This page is part of WikiProject State Ballot Measures, a WikiProject including articles about:

To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page

Ballotpedia's Ballot Measures project is managed by Brittany Clingen.

If you have any questions or comments please e-mail


NOTE: In light of recent disputes on this article, a "discussion" section has been created so users can further discuss their concerns on wording, text, sources, etc. Please add your comments below and sign it using four tildes (~).

Technical point: You can indent sentences as little as much as you want in these discussions by adding one or more colons at the beginning of the sentence. This creates an easier-to-read flow. Leslie Graves 14:46, 14 October 2010 (CDT)

Background section

Thanks Bailey. I am also concerned about the deletion of the background section that referenced the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and their determination that Washington has the most regressive tax system in the nation. What it was replaced with is also true, so perhaps we can include both back into the background section. Yeson1098 Yeson1098 10:21am 13 October

The ITEP analysis was removed from the background section because it was placed in the incorrect section. The background section is reserved for either state or measure related historical background. The analysis you added, however, is relevant and was added in this section. BaileyL 15:40, 13 October 2010 (CDT)

Campaign spokespersons

I am confused, it seems my addition of a referenced story about Scott Stanzel leading the campaign against 1098 was removed. Why was this done? this is a fact, why shouldn't people be allowed to read that?

About Scott Stanzel - I see what you are saying. I'm not entirely sure why it was deleted. Although it may have been because it was found to be written in a somewhat bias manner. I will, however, take a look at this again and re-add the facts. This will be done by COB today. BaileyL 12:02, 13 October 2010 (CDT) (please sign your posts by typing ~ ~ ~ ~ (with no spaces) so I know who to address the responses to)
I fixed a mistake I made when I was adding references to my additional of Scott Stanzel to the article. But I fixed it now.

Bailey, the defeat campaign as reposed the non-germane information about John Burbank, should I take it down again or can you (as you previously stated) remove it again? Yeson1098 Yeson1098 October 14 2010

I also added back the argument by Susan Hutchinson that people who make $200,000 a year aren't rich. I know the defeat campaign took that down because they didn't like it, but it is a legitimate part of the discourse on this issue and should be included. She spoke on behalf of the campaign in an official capacity at a meeting of the Greater Seattle Chinese Chamber of commerce. Please don't let them delete this just because they didn't like what she said. Yeson1098Yeson1098
Hutchison's comment does not represent a key argument against I-1098. "Yes on 1098" knows this. There are several comments that I could post from Yes on 1098 surrogates that have been in bad taste, but I have chosen not to because I realize they don't represent the key tenants of the support behind I-1098. The intent of Ballotpedia is to present neutral information on both sides, not to slime each other. Take a look at the page history over the past several days. You'll see that "Yes on 1098" has been editing the page so as to completely slant it. Under "background", for example, they wanted to use their ITEP study instead of the background that is currently in place. They're not even trying to be fair. Thanks for your time. -PoliticoWA
Hutchison's argument is very germane. The defeat campaign was invited to the Chinese Chamber of Commerece, then Susan showed up to debate on behalf of defeat 1098. How does that not qualify her as a spokesperson? Perhaps the defeat campaign just doesn't want to make this argument any more in public since the reaction was so poor. So to recap, this argument was made by Susan Hutchison who represented the campaign at a public event. How is it not fair to include her argument just because the Defeat campaign now has decided that it isn't the way they want to talk about 1098 anymore? She made the statements and they are part of the public record and I have sited it as such. Yeson1098 14:42, 14 October 2010 (CDT) Yeson1098 October 14 2010
Relative to who said what for or against 1098 and whether they said it in an official capacity or not, I strongly recommend that you all try such additions out here on the talk page before adding it to the article. By that I mean, include the actual text of what you propose to add if you have a reason to believe a reasonable person might object to it on one or another reasonable ground. For example, Susan Hutchinson and whether or not she spoke at the Greater Seattle Chinese Chamber of Commerce in an official capacity re 1098. There seems to be a factual dispute about whether that happened. Perhaps she spoke but not in an official capacity (I have no way of knowing.) Since there's a dispute, put the facts here and how you'd propose to present that information if you strongly feel it should be presented. What's the evidence that this happened? Then, consider whether, if it clearly verified that this happened, and in the face of an argument that this isn't a notable pro-1098 position, what would you say to that? Why is it, if you think it is? Putting forth and answering that type of question is what you want to do on the talk page, in the case of a dispute. Leslie Graves 14:46, 14 October 2010 (CDT)
Thanks for your response, Leslie. I'm not disputing that Hutchison did, in fact, say what she said. What I'm disputing is the need to put her comment under the "Arguments" section. As I told "Yes on 1098", I could have easily put Bill Gates Sr's comment about how the 4% property tax cut I-1098 offers "isn't a huge factor" in the Support section, but I chose not to. Why? Because it adds nothing to the issue. I'm sure Gates, Sr. wishes he could clarify that comment, just as I wish Mrs. Hutchison could clarify hers. I'm trying to be fair, here. I wish "Yes on 1098" would work with me a little bit.

Poll error

Definitely for/definitely against mistake on the Elway poll number was my bad.--Andrew

ITEP study

The Defeat1098 response to the ITEP study didn't seem appropriate to me. It was too long, was unsourced (except for one citation it was entirely lifted from the Defeat1098 website), and was not written in a neutral POV. Would it make sense to structure this something like A: Tax System Analysis by ITEP A.1 Arguments disputing ITEP tax system analysis report (a more sourced and summarized version of the previous post with a more neutral voice) A.2 Arguments supporting ITEP tax system analysis report (section to be added later by 1098 supporters) Andrew 10:25, 14 October 2010 (CDT)

Thanks for your commentary Andrew! You are correct about the Defeat1098 response. It's been brought to the attention of the contributor. But if the section is summarized and written in a neutral manner as per Ballotpedia guidelines then it can be re-added. Additionally, I'll be editing and reviewing the page either this evening or Friday. BaileyL 10:38, 14 October 2010 (CDT)

Just another issue for the admins to sort out. Andrew posted the ITEP study under "tax system analysis". I responded by posting the Defeat 1098 campaign's response to the study, because the income tax proponents have used the ITEP study exhaustively while debating for a state income tax. Andrew then thought he would post his own response to the Defeat 1098 campaign, thus creating an entire new section on the page. I think everyone can agree that the only thing this will result in is an infinite back-and-forth on the ITEP study, which isn't needed on this page. I'm leaving it up to the admins to decide what to do, but the bottom line is that the ITEP study was posted and the Defeat 1098 campaign responded. I think it makes sense to leave it at that. Thanks. -PoliticoWA 00:22, 18 October 2010 (PST)

Personal rebuttals by users should NOT be added to the main article (even when using sources to support their arguments). They can, however, be added to this discussion page. BaileyL 10:06, 18 October 2010 (CDT)
I moved the information concerning the Washington State study and the breakdown of the 13.1% figure into the main section on the study. I still feel that the inclusion of lengthy quoted material from a Defeat1098 blog is problematic. I particularly feel that it would be appropriate to insert a note to the effect that the blog misquotes the ITEP study. The ITEP study does not claim that the bottom 20% pay 13% in sales and excise taxes. The correct figure is 4.4% which is subject to the general sales tax rate of roughly 9%. I tried to indirectly make this point by putting this in the main section, but this may not be apparent to the reader. Hence I'd argue for something putting some note to this effect after the Defeat1098 blog. I have not done this since I thought I should first propose it on this page. Is it okay to quote factually incorrect material from Defeat1098?Andrew 11:37, 19 October 2010 (CDT)
Could whoever wrote the immediately preceding comment please sign it. Thanks. When arguments are put forward, there are rebuttals to those arguments, rebuttals to the rebuttals, etc., and some of it involves factual disputes, it can get a little weighty in the main article and at that point, it might be advisable to split some of it into a separate article as Bailey recently did here Colorado Proposition 101, Amendments 60 & 61 (2010), opposition, arguments relative to measures in a different state. Leslie Graves 10:58, 19 October 2010 (CDT) Leslie Graves 10:55, 19 October 2010 (CDT)
FOLLOW-UP: Okay, so what I have done for the "reports and analysis" section is create a page that highlights more reports, analysis, rebuttals and responses. I've left only the basic summaries of the reports on the main article and moved responses to the new page - Washington_Initiative_1098_(2010),_reports_and_analysis. BaileyL 13:03, 19 October 2010 (CDT)

Fraudulent signatures

I did a major overhaul of the "Path to the Ballot" section. The previous version suffered from excessive focus on the ballot fraud issue, which was described by investigating officials as an isolated incident of one individual that didn't implicate the campaign. I think it arguably doesn't bear mention at all on this page, but I put in some text describing the incident and making it clear to the reader that this was an isolated incident.Andrew 02:17, 16 October 2010 (CDT)

I understand what you are saying Andrew. However, on Ballotpedia the ballot measure articles highlight not only arguments by both the support and opposition as well as the ballot text scheduled to appear on the ballot but we also note the history of the measure which includes lawsuits and signature verification to name a few. Therefore I have re-added the section on fraudulent signatures. These type of sections are not unique to the I-1098 article, they can be found in other ballot measure articles. For example in Colorado we are monitoring case regarding ballot measure contributions. I will, however, keep your comment in mind for future ballot measure policies. Maybe creating another article on these type of matters might be best with a link from the main article. I'd have to discuss it with staff. BaileyL 09:57, 18 October 2010 (CDT)
Bailey, I understand that you are trying to chronicle the history of the measure, but I feel that this case is entirely different from the Colorado case that you cite. The Colorado case is central to the history of that measure and involves allegations of an organized and concerted fraud on the part of the sponsors of that measure. I am not aware of any credible allegations that this is the case for I-1098, however. By devoting such a lengthy section to this matter, this section creates the mistaken impression that the I-1098 is a major campaign issue and is similar to the Colorado incident, when it is clearly not. This is reinforced by the section headings "Path to the Ballot"-->"Fradulent Signatures"-->"Criminal Charges Fired" which create the impression from a quick check of the index that this is a major issue and is likely to confuse the reader that this was connected to the campaign. I would also argue that the section is repetitive. There is a high amount of overlap between the discussion of this incident in the "Path to the Ballot" section, the "Fraudulent Signatures" section and the "Criminal Charges Filed" section. Could you please reconsider your ruling on this matter?Andrew 00:59, 19 October 2010 (CDT)
On this question, we have a set of guidelines for the "Path to the ballot" section, which are available here: Writing:Path to the ballot. There's the Colorado case mentioned here, but there are dozens of articles where part of the path to the ballot story has to do with petition circulator issues, which is why writing about that is standard. Andrew writes, "By devoting such a lengthy section to this matter, this section creates the mistaken impression that the I-1098 is a major campaign issue and is similar to the Colorado incident, when it is clearly not." With this in mind, instead of removing the information, I'd encourage cutting it down/summarizing it, making sure that key points are mentioned, and reducing the usage of subsection headers that show up in the Table of Contents, while still telling the story. Someone might also be inspired to add the information to the article on BP about fraudulent signatures. Finally, if the information is not yet in this section about which petition drive management company was hired to collect these signatures, it would be great if someone looked that up off the campaign finance reports and included that information, as well as how much in total they were paid. That would allow 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs#Washington to get a start on getting filled out. Leslie Graves 10:54, 19 October 2010 (CDT)
Follow-up: The section has been summarized to include only the bare facts about the case.BaileyL 12:52, 19 October 2010 (CDT)

Endorsements vs. editorials

PLEASE be careful when adding articles to the "endorsements section." The endorsements section is there to highlight which newspapers/websites/blogs approve/disapprove of measures according to Ballotpedia guidelines. Some of the articles recently added to this section are not "endorsements" and are instead "columns" or "editorials" by sole staff members. A staff member may have a different opinion than that of the whole newspaper. Please be careful. Editorials can be added under "Additional reading." If you still have concerns about this, please contact me. BaileyL 10:05, 18 October 2010 (CDT)

FOLLOW-UP: In order to reduce the large size of the article (to make it easier for the page to load for others) and retain the information on this page, I've reduced the number of media endorsements on the main article and created a separate page dedicated to endorsements and editorial positions, that can be found here: Washington Initiative 1098 (2010), media endorsements. Feel free to add new endorsements to this page. We also have a chart monitoring the endorsements, here - Endorsements of Washington ballot measures, 2010.
Additionally, in light of recent articles added as endorsements that are in fact columns and editorial opinions and not full endorsements, a new section called Editorial opinions has been created.

Note from Leslie Graves

Hello everyone. Bailey Ludlam is otherwise engaged today. I notice that there's been a fair amount of back-and-forth on this article today. Here are a couple of general editing principles to keep in mind:

This discussion page has been protected from further postings.