Jump to content

Talk:Scott Lee Cohen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 3 September 2023 (Removing conflicting class parameter from talk page of redirect (Task 21)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Businesses

All I could find was newspaper reporting on one of his businesses. If anyone can find something about his cleaning and real estate interests, it would add balances. I don't know which brings in most of his income. Flatterworld (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of domestic abuse and such

I didn't vote for this guy, don't care - except there is a huge difference between accurately recording the fact that he was charged and the case was dropped - and shoehorning every concievable allegation of dirt against the guy.99.144.194.22 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just the legal case that is leading top Democrats to urge him to drop out of the race. The prostitute girlfriend and the allegations regarding both her and his ex-wife are all a part of the story of what is going on here. Wikipedia is not accusing him of having done any of these things. However, other people have, and those accusations are a major part of why he is in the news and his political life is in jeopardy. -Rrius (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that much of this is relevant, critical even, but fishing out the tawdry and unproven allegations does nothing to further our legitimate interest in writing his bio. My argument is simply that the unsubstantited accusations have no role in BLP. Many of them have, and will never be, answered in court because the state found the case too weak to prosecute. Question to you, what level of detail is acceptable/unacceptable? Where is the line? I have no doubt you accept that a line exists, but how would you define it? 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.194.22 (talk)
But we're not sensationalizing in the least, nor are we going into excessive detail. We are merely recording what reliable sources have recorded on the subject. I made some changes to ensure that the paragraph is in compliance with WP:BLP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It doesn't matter whether the allegations are unproven or even false. What matters is that the allegations were made and that those allegations have created a situation where party leaders are calling for him to resign. I am trying to better integrate the calls for his resignation as a candidate with the allegations, but your continual reversions (including multiple violations of 3RR are making that difficult. Now, to answer the question you posed, the answer is that the acceptable level of detail is a summary, such as is included in the article. Recounting the allegations from the pleadings and police reports verbatim would be going too far. It is necessary, however, to convey to the reader why he is being called upon to step aside and, if possible, his response. We do that quite well on both counts.
I take personal affront from your repeated allegations that somehow I and others are "attacking" this guy. I am not; rather, I am protecting the article from becoming a puff piece that glosses over the only truly notable thing about him. It is absurd to call balanced discussions that note a person denies the charges and that he was never convicted of anything "attacks". I think you just need to take a step back and reread what is actually there. -Rrius (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Rrius. It makes little sense to gloss over the main reason why this man is in the news. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken as to our purporse here. The subject is notable, and has a Wiki entry, because he is the legally elected major party candidate for state wide elected office in Illinois. These rumours, accusations and innuendo do not make him notable for a BLP entry at Wikipedia. Political posturing through defamation by recording and repeating the unsubstantiated and legally withdrawn allegations of ones opponents does nothing to further the encyclopedia's goals.99.144.194.22 (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like the article has a fairly appropriate tone and range of content. The subject is clearly notable, having secured the nomination for a prominent state-wide office. However, he failed to fully reveal the details of his past and the press failed to adequately vet his background. When the details became publicly known, the resulting political scandal caused a significant reaction and forced Cohen to withdraw. If the article were to simply drop all of the salacious details, however well-sourced, the reader would be left wondering why someone who had just won a primary election had dropped out. As long as we stay with what is well-sourced, we are generally on safe ground. Ronnotel (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The allegations prompted him to leave the race. His reasons for leaving the race are clearly relevant to the article. The way those allegations are handled here is balanced, in that it addresses his position an makes clear that he was never convicted of anything. Final sentence is completely absurd. No one here is engaged in political posturing. If you don't understand how the allegations are being used and why they are relevant to the project, then you need either need to read WP:BLP and other wikipedia policies or step away from an article that, for reasons that aren't clear, you are clearly emotionally invested in. -Rrius (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emotionally involved? You're a genius, I'm sure society benefits greatly by having a such a prescient force exerting such influence over this resource. Using the argument that the innuendo and unanswered, unsubstantiated allegations are Encyclopedic without limit, without pause, and without consideration as to BLP is absurd. That he withdrew due to pressure over his past and various allegations is one thing - to record the salacious unproven and for many, withdrawn, details is better left to the blogs and National Enquirer's of the world. BLP exists to protect living persons from being MILLSTONED with exactly such rumour, innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations. But this isn't about BLP and what's proper, responsible or encyclopedic is it? Wikipedia is a game. This IP may make the occasional motion towards responsible editing, as I did here, but rest assured I know that my principle will be trumped by Gamesmenship. The board is yours - you can all hack him up[1] real good now. Have fun, "winners". _99.141.242.233 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment on my intelligence, but it was not a difficult deduction. Anyway, you said, "Using the argument that the innuendo and unanswered, unsubstantiated allegations are Encyclopedic without limit, without pause, and without consideration as to BLP is absurd." Of course that would be true, but no none is making any such claim. The information is being used in a very balanced manner, one in which the fact that the issues have never been tried is made clear. However, you go way too far. The allegations as stated here are expressed in more reserved way than was done in the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times, let alone the National Enquirer. BLP is meant to protect Wikipedia against legal action, not to cover up any information that might reflect negatively on the subject of a biography. In this instance, the fact of the allegations being made is vital to the story, and not saying what those allegations were to protect Cohen would be nothing more than pandering to him. In future, you may want to actually read the policies Wikipedia has instead of making up your own and trying to pass them off as Wikipedia's. -Rrius (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to correct you on your first point. It was not a compliment, it was sarcastic ridicule, it's purpose was to underscore the lack of consideration or logical reasoning when you made such an absurd and unsupported statement that I was somehow "emotionally involved". Allegations are made all the time, yet somehow their mere existence in print does not in and of itself Trump BLP. Except of course here. _99.141.242.233 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord. I was being sarcastic about your "compliment", which should have been plain, but I'll leave it to others to interpret your inability to do so. In any event, your emotional involvement needed no support in my contributions as yours (including your edit summaries for article edits) made the point for me. You are truly blind to be unable to see the difference between repeating allegations for their own sake and repeating them in recounting how they led to something else. You really need to learn Wikipedia policy before going on with your "games". -Rrius (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at your edit history, I may have been unduly harsh to you personally. Your one experience at BLP sees you on the right end of a ridiculous and time wasting debate, and more broadly you do appear consistent in your editing. Many would say this makes you the exception. My criticism - that no one here made any attempt to discuss the very real and obvious BLP considerations that arise when local political blood boils and the blogosphere and press discuss any and all mention of every possible salacious detail still stands. Giving undue weight to individual unanswered and unproven allegations promoted by political foes simply creates an attack page. It is not a neutral bio with such detail shoehorned in at every opportunity. Discussion as to the page's objectives, and the BLP considerations of mill-stoning the subject with "CONTENTIOUS" allegations is very much at the heart of BLP. Just because a rumour or accusation has been printed does nothing to remove our consideration, for purposes of the encyclopedia, of whether the CONTENTIOUS details should be included. Nowhere will you find support for acceptance of every published accusation. I have no doubt a short look into Teddy Kennedy would find numerous factual referenced and notable details blocked on BLP grounds. As I said, Wikipedia is a game, everything is situational and oftentimes based more on relationship management than reason. Precedent, Other Things Exist, Ignore All Rules - also known as Rock, Paper, Scissors. The key being the third party who decides which beats which at that given place and time on the players decision matrix. 99.141.242.233 (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want you to think I have failed to appreciate that you were attempting to tone things down. I note it and am gratified by it. I do, however, take exception to your implication that everyone else who has opposed you is a bad guy. More disturbingly, you have repeatedly attacked the motives of the editors at this article with no basis whatever throughout this discussion. You have acted as though each of the editors who have rejected your position that mentioning the allegations are trying to use Wikipedia to attack vehicle to disparage Cohen (though you have never explained why we would want to do so). I have told you that I find that personally offensive, but you, nonetheless, continued to disregard WP:AGF. Your accusations are unacceptable, and I am surprised at how level-headed everyone has been in responding.
I've actually dealt with BLP issues on more than just one other occasion. You are right that no one discussed the BLP issues before you brought it up. However, you were very confrontational in the way you brought those concerns forward and in the way you have discussed them since. You have repeatedly ignored the point that the allegations are not presented as true, but are discussed as allegations, and that Cohen denies most of them (he does admit to the steroid use, for instance). You have also repeatedly failed to acknowledge that some discussion of the nature of the allegations was necessary to understanding, first, the calls for his withdrawal, and now to discussing his actual withdrawal. Consequently, you have also failed to engage in a meaningful discussion of what level of detail is appropriate in having that discussion. You asked me where I would draw the line, and I told you I would draw it at briefly and even-handedly summarizing the allegations. You never gave that a meaningful response. Perhaps you meant the question rhetorically. If so, I had no idea. Moreover, you have failed to appreciate that the way this article sets out those allegations is far less detailed, not to mention salacious, than the media reports have been.
Finally, on the substance, you are just wrong. You have repeatedly put forward BLP as supporting your position, but you have failed to recognize what that policy says. Let's assume Cohen is "not generally well known", which triggers a higher standard than people who are well known. BLP says, "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability." I and others have noted over and over again that this is relevant to his withdrawal from the race, which is in turn a large portion of why he is notable. As such, the allegations are clearly relevant to his notability. It goes on, "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care... Any such potentially damaging information about a private person may be cited if and only if: (1) it is corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources; (2) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and; (3) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth." As to condition one, we have that in the various Tribune and Sun-Times articles. We have already discussed the second element, which leaves us with three. It has been stated over and over again that the information is presented as allegations with Wikipedia taking no stance on their veracity. Those are the guidelines, and this information clearly falls with in them. I understand that your personal preference is for a stronger stance against any kind of allegation of misconduct, but that is not the policy. The other policies you mention, Otherstuff and Ignore all rules, simply have no bearing here. The grounds for inclusion are strong. -Rrius (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled across Alec Baldwin, this is how we described the details of his divorce, "They filed for divorce in January 2001; it was finalized in February 2002. Since then, the couple has been locked in a contentious public custody battle. ABC News reports that Baldwin's temper was a factor in the divorce.". I've no doubt we're all quite familiar with the often referenced and frequently reported taped message[2] he left for his child, or the more recent allegations of a suicide attempt[3] for which he blamed his ex. Sometimes we use BLP to protect beyond all reason - and sometimes we eviscerate. Let's just try not to pretend we are neutral. The Game is simply to do whatever you want, an academic detachment to neutrally inform the reader is hardly a faint whisper in these hallways teaming with biased thugs. _99.144.243.71 (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone it down. You're not winning over any hearts and minds by calling us "biased thugs." I for one am not personally biased against Mr. Cohen; I am not a Republican and I am not an Illinoisan. Please think this over again. Neutrally recording that which is reported by reliable sources is not the same as a political attack, and it's not a BLP violation. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a general indictment of current Wikipedia culture, it was not directed at anyone in particular. More specifically this edit[4] illustrates my concerns here. You'll notice it adds two lengthy laundry lists (note: I did not object to, or remove the "GF"'s accusations) of unanswered, unsupported and contentious allegations - while at the same time notably changing the tone, tenor and frame of another paragraph through its pointed removal of significant information. Compare this: "His ex-wife, in a joint appearance on TV in support of Cohen, has refused to answer specific questions about charges raised during their divorce, citing ongoing legal proceedings.", a passage that was an accurate summation of a notable event, to this well considered manipulation: "His ex-wife has refused to answer specific questions about charges raised during their divorce, citing ongoing legal proceedings." Those three edits, all contained within a single Diff exist only to paint a picture - they do nothing to assist in our encyclopedic understanding of the subject. Their purpose appears to be nothing more than the furtherance of a political objective. _99.144.243.71 (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How dishonest; I didn't add a thing. I was reverting your deletion of sourced, relevant information as stated in the edit summary. You have continued your uncivil nonsense, and I for one am done with it. Your concerns have been raised, discussed, and largely dismissed. When are you going to stop? I won't discuss any of this with you further until you raise something new. If you choose to take that as license to do as you please with the article, I for one will simply revert with an edit summary directing attention to this discussion. -Rrius (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How irresponsible; Your edit did add - and subtract. You changed the encyclopedia. Please share how your mealy-mouthed excuse for your action somehow absolves you of responsibility for removing the accurate, informative, and neutral modifier, "in a joint appearance on TV in support of Cohen,". Blaming another editor for words that you added, and deleted, simply because you chose to allow an editing tool to do your thinking for you is not a defense for the misdemeanor of not considering your own actions and the words it produces under your authorship. 99.144.243.71 (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Now G, this might fairly be called vandalism (even though Cohen is a nutcase). 98.82.22.52 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Lee_Cohen&oldid=1173620625"