Talk:Chris Coons

Coons Described Himself as a "Bearded Marxist"

In an article for his college newspaper, “Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist” Coons, then 21 years old and about to graduate from Amherst College, chronicled his transformation from a conservative college student who had worked for former GOP Delaware Sen. William Roth and had campaigned for Ronald Reagan in 1980 into a cynical young adult who was distrustful of American power and willing to question the American notion of free enterprise.

Like it or not, this article is a part of the Coons campaign just as some of the statements of his opponent are part of her campaign.

Some people have been deleting (censoring) what may be considered controversial or negative information about Coons. His connection to Marxism has been in the news a lot and is therefore relevant to Coons as a current public figure. Leaving this out would greatly neglect what has made Coons famous in the past few days and would contribute to making this article inaccurate. Please stop removing this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been removing biased and misleading references to this article, not censoring. Coons concludes in the article, “I spent my senior year reexamining my ideas and have returned to loving America, but in the way of one who has realized its faults and failures and still believes in its promise.” That summarizes the article nicely. Do you believe what people are writing here is consistent with that statement? 71.204.200.114 (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

First person

Referring to Mr. Coons as "Chris" is far too intimate. @grog_beta (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Marxist

I have added the category American Marxists as he is (or at least was), by his own statements, a Marxist as NUMEROUS sources show.See [[1]] and [[2]] and [[3]]. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the category as it does not adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy and seems aimed at producing a political end by using inflammatory language. Mishalak (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it belongs. Why not? What is the reason for excluding it? Dwightschrute1010 (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article he apparently says that his Republican friends regard Kenya as a place that causes people to become bearded Marxists, not that he himself was one. Furthermore there is the question of style. It is no more encyclopedic or neutral to refer to the candidate as a "Bearded Marxist" than it would be to call Sarah Palin "Mama Grizzly" in a mocking way even though she refered to herself that way. This is a reference work, not a political screed. Referencing the original article with context is entirely appropriate and encyclopedic. For example it could be noted in the Political section of his biography that he was a Republican until his experiences in Kenya caused him to reconsider his positions and jokingly referred to himself as a bearded Marxist. Mishalak (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any "joke" in Coons' lengthy essay in which he states he realized (sic) that the American system doesn't work and he became a self-styled "Marxist". A full link to the essay would be welcomed. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Well put. Dwightschrute1010 (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Being a Marxist, or discussion someone's claims of Marxism is not inflammatory. If that were true, then Mishalak had better get his Democrat ass over to the page on Karl Marx and start removing sections. The only people who view the Marxist label as inflammatory are people who know just how crazy their candidate is but are afraid to talk about it. This page is for WORLDWIDE viewing, not just for Americans. Since more countries in this world are socialist and quasi-socialist than not, it is far more likely that calling someone a Capitalist would be far more inflammatory and incendiary than calling someone a Marxist. If there really is a perfectly rational explanation surrounding his being labeled as a Marxist, which their seems to be as indicated above, then there is no better way to communicate it than to display it in a section dealing directly with that topic. Put the post back in and tell Mishalak to stifle it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.187.168 (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should call him a Marxist, but at least we can list that he wrote an article with that title. That is more NPOV and it is relevant because it is a now famous article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.148.66 (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Favorite

Took the ambiguous statement "According to polling and pundits he is seen as the favorite in the race." and moved it to here. Whoever put it in should come up with some kind of supporting evidence beyond what Keith Olbermann told them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.187.168 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of well sourced material

I'm a little surprised by this edit [4]. This isn't intended to be a summary of the entire campaign, but rather an interesting and highly notable controversy that has received substantial coverage. Care to explain your reasoning, Mastcell? Fell Gleaming^talk 20:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. First of all, the sourcing is poor: an op-ed from the National Review, a piece from the Huffington Post, and a piece from FoxNews. Of the three, the FoxNews piece is the only one that stands up at all. That's hardly "highly notable" or "substantial coverage". You yourself have been quite active in criticizing people who add these sorts of poor sources to Christine O'Donnell ([5]), so I'm a bit surprised that you would turn around and rely on them heavily when editing the biography of her political opponent. That's the sort of thing that gives the appearance of partisan and agenda-driven editing.

Secondly, the section is intended to summarize the campaign in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. To devote the entire substance of the section to this poorly-sourced and (thus far) obscure "controversy" fails that goal. If you're interested in developing the section as an actual overview of the campaign, then let's talk, but it's not meant to be a dumping ground for various partisan factoids and talking points.

Your defense of the edit - that it's "well sourced" and thus shouldn't be removed - has similarly been addressed by you yourself, at Talk:Christine O'Donnell. Again, it's disconcerting: you're making the exact arguments here that you've just dismissed at Christine O'Donnell. Anyhow, regardless of the concerns raised by this sort of double standard, we should either make an effort to develop an encyclopedic campaign summary, or defer the whole thing to the relevant sub-article. I prefer the latter but am willing to work on the former approach if you are. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

" An "obscure controversy"? What planet are you posting from? Simply because MSNBC chooses not to broadcast something doesn't make it obscure. And I'm unsurprised you distort my arguments-- reliable sourcing is a necessary but not sufficient component to inclusion, which I specifically state in the O'Donnell article. In this case here, the fact the material is well sourced is far from the only reason it should remain. This is the largest controversy facing Coons at present. Now, can you explain why this article has been carefully scrubbed of all negative material, while blissfully winking at the reams of it in his opponent's entry? If you're going to support this edit, you need to explain why Coon's own papers that outline his political views are not relevant to an article on a politician. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally, if you're using my O'Donnell argument to justify this, then the material deserves to be reinserted on that grounds alone. The material I was speaking about on O'Donnell is still in the article. In fact, I inserted much of it myself. I was simply pointing out that reliable sourcing -- in itself -- does not solve the notability issue. However, a politician's own college papers on his political views are most certainly notable. In closing, I have to say how shocked I am that an administrator will distort someone's viewpoint to this degree. My initial post specifically notes that the material is both interesting and notable. The "well-sourced" bit was merely to forestall your inevitable (yes, I saw it coming) attempt to attack the messenger, rather than the message. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see you've moved the material to its own section and reinserted it. But at least the sourcing is a bit better. I'm still concerned about the axe-grinding tone, though. Do you think this is a fair and representative summary of this source? You seem to have mined two of the most inflammatory quotes from the article and removed its context.

The article also states, for example, the explanation that the paper was about Coons' "transformative experience" in Africa, and that his disillusionment with the Republican Party stemmed largely from witnessing firsthand Reagan's accommodation of South African apartheid. It also concludes by noting Coons' conclusion that despite a recognition of America's faults, he continued "loving America". I'm not saying we cherry-pick those quotes instead of the ones you've chosen, but I do question whether you're fairly representing the actual article content. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against adding additional information if you feel its unbalanced. However I have to note the following. I chose the Politico source specifically as the "softest" reporting I could find on the event. And even Politico entitled their article "Coons took 'Bearded Marxist' Turn". It's also important to remember that this is notable not because his college newspaper article was outstanding, but simply because of the controversy it is engendering today. We note what's notable. Finally, you are mischaracterizing the source somewhat. The "his disillusionment with the Republican Party stemmed largely from witnessing firsthand Reagan's accommodation of South African apartheid" bit is from Coon's campaign manager a few days ago, not what Coon's himself said at the time. Clearly damage control.

However, if he actually did include that he “had returned to loving America.” then I agree it would be unbalanced to leave that bit out. Do you want to insert it? Fell Gleaming^talk 22:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a marginal improvement (a better option, of course, would be to write actual balanced and encyclopedic coverage of the campaign, or refer readers to such coverage). But I'd rather let this thread lay for a day or so to see if we get any additional input. Sometimes outside editors are put off by a rapid back-and-forth between two parties, and I think it would be useful to get more eyes and ideas. MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

to respond to the latest editor, the text states quite accurately that Coons wrote a paper entitled "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist". I realize that now, 20+ years later, the Coons campaign is disavowing this, but the material is accurate. Saying he "never described himself as a Marxist" after that title is, I believe, a bit disingenuous, but the point is moot anyway, because the article does not claim that. The reader is free to form his own opinion. Also note that "MediaMatters" own opinion on the subject that this was all "a joke for his Republican friends" cannot be treated as established fact. Finally, if you don't believe Coons is under fire for these remarks, you haven't been paying attention to the political sphere. Fell Gleaming^talk 09:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Coons campaign is not disavowing the article, and I surely hope it doesn't in the future. Please read the whole article, available at MediaMatters: http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.mediamatters.org%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Fitem%2F20100920-coonsamherst.pdf. The satirical title comes from “My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe the strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear-thinking Americans and sends back bearded Marxists.” It is a fact that it was “a joke for his Republican friends”. He is not even sporting a beard, too! The article explains his “shift” from “somewhat of a Republican fanatic”, a “proud founding member of the Amherst College Republicans”, to an “Amherst Democrat” a year later. In the article he concludes, “I spent my senior year reexamining my ideas and have returned to loving America, but in the way of one who has realized its faults and failures and still believes in its promise.” This is fair and neutral, but do you really want to devote so much space to this? My personal opinion is that it is still unimportant given the scope of a biography and that it occurred 25 years ago. “Paying attention to the political sphere” would be essentially watching Fox News, Glen Beck and reading right wing blogs. Isn't that what we call biased and partisan? If everyone insists on including this article, let's keep it positive and neutral, include the full text, and let readers decide if he is a closet Marxist.Skalpel (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A link to the full article is certainly appropriate. Given it was a full page long, I hope you're not advocating putting the entire text into the article. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A link to full text, of course. Whoever writes this should focus on the change of parties, not anti-American or Marxist sentiments that are being read into it.71.204.200.114 (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've readded it with a link to the full text. By the way Mastcell, I don't see anywhere in the article the bit you say that he "had returned to loving America". Did I miss it? Fell Gleaming^talk 20:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

[6], last 4 words of the article. MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, no. I saw that before, but it was unclear in what context it was meant. Read what Coons wrote. The second link in the article, the one to his article that actually appeared in the college paper. Do you see where he ever said that? Fell Gleaming^talk 21:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit: NM, I see it now. I'm going to balance out the quotes with that bit also. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It still reads as a string of cherry-picked quotes, many seemingly selected for their inflammatory nature and not necessarily representative of the actual article. I've taken a stab at rewriting the section based on the actual content of the cited sources, and in a more encyclopedic summary tone. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Come now, this is far from acceptable. You deleted every single quote that's notable or controversial, and the only one you left is the one entirely at odds with the rest of the article, that misleads the reader into thinking that's the tone the article had. You've whitewashed out the entire controversy. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Since someone has helpfully linked the article itself, it seems unnecessary to string together numerous quotes from it. Moreover, I suspect our views on which particular quotes are "notable" or representative of the article may differ. For example, I felt that you had cherry-picked the most inflammatory quotes and presented them out of context, as someone would in, say, an attack ad rather than an encyclopedia.

More to the point, I don't see how I've "whitewashed out the entire controversy". The paragraph begins: "Coons has come under fire for a paper he wrote in college, entitled 'Chris Coons: the making of a bearded Marxist'." That seems like an unvarnished and encyclopedic lead-in and summary of the controversy. Per WP:NPOV, our goal is to describe controversies rather than engage in them. If you want to add that Coons has been "targeted by Republicans" over the article (quote from FoxNews), then I think that would be a fine addition to our description of the controversy. I don't see our role as intentionally selecting "controversial" quotes from the piece and highlighting them - in fact, that seems like exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be doing on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. Our job as editors is to inform readers. The first sentence does that....but then your new summary makes it sound like his article was about nothing but "A transformation to a Democrat who came back loving America!" Cue string music and fuzzy bunnies jumping around. The controversy exists because of what he said in the article. You've excised out everything controversial, giving the reader the false impression there was nothing controversial. You've ignored every single quote -- and there are bushels of them -- that could possibly make Coons look bad, and chosen the one quote entirely at odds with the spirit and tone of the article. Utterly misleading. Anyone who reads your synopsis and doesn't happen to click through to the entire text will rightly say, "gosh, he didn't say anything controversial at all, there's nothing to this!". Even the softball reporting of Politico didn't take the whitewashing nearly so far. Surely we can do better than them, no? Fell Gleaming^talk 01:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It was more accurate presentation of the article earlier focusing on the controversial parts. The new version sugar-coats it making one wonder why there is even a controversy worth mentioning and is clearly meant to downplay the controversy and therefore seems to be politically motivated. Either don't mention it at all or accurately portray the controversy. Playing political clean up and defense is not NPOV and should be avoided. Fell Gleaming and Mastcell you should put it back to the previous condition.

Harry Reid's "pet"

Even though it is kind of weird, mention of Reid calling Coons his pet should probably be in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, disagree. How is what a third party says in an offhand remark part of your biography? Besides, what was Reid saying? He says "He is my pet; he is my favorite candidate." My guess is he corrected "pet" candidate with "favorite candidate". Anyway, this is meaningless trivia and belongs in an attack ad, not a biography.Skalpel (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you open the page of most well-known political figures, you'll find countless quotes about what other people have said about them. Such material is notable if the person making the statement is themselves notable, or the statement itself has engendered controversy. For this statement, it is true in both cases. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your take on what Reid meant? BTW, Turdblossom isn't in Rove's bio. 71.204.200.114 (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what Reid meant, and it's not up to me -- or any other editor -- to decide. We should just put in the quote and let the reader decide the meaning, if any. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)