Talk:Chris Coons/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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)

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)

The controversy is not surrounding Coons love for America. It is surrounding his self-identification as a Marxist, the praise of his Marxist professor, and his initial dislike of America. The mention of this article on wikipedia is NOT just to show some nice senior reflection, it's to show a national controversy. The controversy may be misguided, but it is a major part of Coons' public life and needs to be included in what makes him noteworthy. Please stop playing political clean up of biographical information and leave the article accurate. 173.59.121.90 (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but has no one realized that he was jokingly referring to himself as a Marxist? And that his friends had, again, jokingly, referred to him as such because of his drastic transformation? I mean seriously people...come on.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the controversy is necessarily well justified. It may be relevant in showing Coons' political development, but I prefer politicians to focus on issues. Either way the controversy is out there and should be in his wikipedia entry. 128.175.236.9 (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Harry Reid's "pet"

Even though it is kind of weird, mention of Reid calling Coons his pet should probably be in this article. 173.59.121.90 (talk) 02:51, 22 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)

It is one of the most newsworthy quotes about Coons. Even if it is a stupid quote, leaving it out would leave out a major part of Coons' public life. Someone please return this info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Fell Gleaming, but you don't see countless quotes in everyone's articles. IP, sticking it in and letting the reader figure it out is not an encyclopedia's job--if we as editors can't figure out what it means, using reliable sources, then we shouldn't put it in. And besides, we are not a newspaper. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not "countless quotes". It is one quote that for many people is the most memorable thing about Coons. Fell Gleaming is the most NPOV person here because they don't seem to be trying to defend Coons and whitewash any controversy. They are just presenting it as it is. 173.59.121.90 (talk) 02:51, 22 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)

Not only are we informing the reader, but we're giving him or her a link directly to the article, which allows them to draw their own conclusions without being spoon-fed. I'm actually not sure we should be spending as much space on this "controversy" as we are, per WP:WEIGHT. As best I can tell from a look through Google News, discussion of this "controversy" is limited almost entirely to partisan blogs and talking heads, which make poor sources for biographies and encyclopedia articles in general. There seems to be quite a bit of effort by partisans to make this into a notable controversy, if one is to judge by the frothing blog comments that appear on a Google News search, but there isn't really any indication that reputable, independent news sources actually consider this a real issue. We should weight our coverage based on independent, reputable news outlets and sources, rather than on purveyors of partisan talking points. I think your suggestions take us in the wrong direction. MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, we clearly note in the lead sentence that Coons wrote an article in which he referred to himself as a "bearded Marxist". No one with even the slightest familiarity with American political discourse will be at a loss to understand why there's a controversy. MastCell ^Talk 02:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence is good, but then the paragraph goes on to describe only the uncontroversial aspects of the article. It leaves me wondering why in the world is "exposure to classmates with different political opinions" controversial. Why is "a trip to Africa" and "professors who challenged him" controversial? And why is a "return to loving America" controversial? The controversial aspects of the article can be seen in the sources and should be quoted from them as it was before. It would also then be appropriate to source a response to the controversy. BUT Either way it is not appropriate to highlight quotes that are not a cause of controversy which is what has been done. Please return it to the less baffling way it was before. 173.59.121.90 (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mastcell I'm going to explain this to you in a way I think you'll find impossible to not understand -- using an edit to another recent article for analogy. A Holocaust Denier sends out a mass mailing letter. In it he gives a lengthy and heart-warming speech about the many accomplishments of the German people, the struggles they've endured, and how important it is for them to retain their cultural identity. Oh, and somewhere in there he makes the statement "And they never gassed the Jews either!" Should we quote only the nice bits of that letter, and not "cherry pick" the controversial quote?

What you've done is actually far more distorting. Coon's statement about "loving America" wasn't the bulk of the article, with one small quote about distrusting it. The bulk of the letter was controversial statements, and only one tiny bit said anything nice. Now, I hope you understand why your version is unsalvageable. We tell the reader what the controversy is. We don't try to hide it by censoring out the controversial remarks from the controversy. Let the reader judge for himself. Fell Gleaming ^talk 12:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we disagree about which particular quotes are "representative". I don't think cmoparing people to Holocaust deniers advances the cause of rational discourse here, to say nothing of the obvious violation of Godwin's Law. I would favor an approach that does not involve any cherry-picking of quotes, because inevitably they will be unsatisfactory to someone or other. Are you committed to featuring these quotes, or are you open to an encyclopedic summary? And if you want to "let the reader decide for himself", why do you feel compelled to edit-war your selected excerpts back in? Why not briefly summarize the controversy and link to the article, so that the reader can truly decide for himself? MastCell ^Talk 23:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mastcell, your continued misrepresentation of my comments does make it difficult to AGF. Please tell me where in that last post I compared anyone to a Holocaust denier? As for the specious argument of "not cherry picking any quotes", if we round up every remark or printed statement Coons has generated in the past 25 years, we can fill several hundred-page volumes. Do you suggest we include each and every one of those? Or perhaps we could be good editors, and select only what is notable to place within his entry? Fell Gleaming ^talk 03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In the last post, your analogy compared Christopher Coons to a Holocaust denier. Or maybe you compared me to someone intent on whitewashing Holocaust denialism. Either way, like I said, those sorts of analogies aren't conducive to rational, productive discussion. Obviously, I think I'm being a "good editor" by selecting quotes that represent the article "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" (as WP:BLP requires). You apparently disagree. My point is that we can represent this "controversy" neutrally, responsibly, and accurately without resorting to quote mining. We can do this by using encyclopedic summary style. You didn't answer my question, choosing instead to remain on the attack, so I'll ask again: are you committed to selecting quotes as part of discussing this controversy, or are you open to an encyclopedic summary? MastCell ^Talk 03:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Our job is to represent the controversy in a neutral manner. To do so, we must first establish what that controversy is. What is the controversy? Coons wrote a piece that was highly critical of the US. Now, we could do what is standard practice in a Republican's article, and simply paste in some attack-dog op-ed text from a "reliable source" like Huffpo. Or we could be neutral, and use Coon's owns words to let the reader judge exactly what the meaning was. To do the latter, we have to include the controversial quotes that created the controversy. We don't say "Coons wrote an article that concluded he loved America and, oh by the way, he says it was all just a joke". That's not an accurate, neutral representation. I hope you can see that. Fell Gleaming ^talk 03:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But you're not actually using Coons' own words, nor are you "letting the reader judge". You're picking the most inflammatory aspects of the article and presenting them out of context. That's actually misleading the reader - you're arranging quotes and language to convince them that Coons is anti-American and that he's hiding something, without actually coming out and saying it. Coons' article is fairly nuanced. The (reputable) popular-press coverage recognizes at least some of this nuance. Your edits, on the other hand, fail to accurately represent the popular-press sources, because they cherry-pick only the aspects that advance your chosen narrative. That's not respecting the reader or "letting the reader decide" - it's the opposite. MastCell ^Talk 03:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The article explains the rather dramatic change from "Republican fanatic" and founding member of the Amherst College Republicans to an Amherst Democrat. It is not a declaration of Marxism and anti-Americanism, as selective editing has made it appear. Reading the full article makes this clear. Coons appeared on MSNBC to make this clear. The entry as it stands is still promoting this manufactured controversy. Quotes selected should briefly advance the transformation narrative, include Coons statements and a link to the full text for partisans to read in what they will.Skalpel (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you read one of the two sources linked below Skalpel? There is considerably more to this story than the Coons campaign is letting on at this point. Fell Gleaming ^talk 03:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Our goal is not Expose Teh Truth about Chris Coons' sekrit Marxism, nor to provide an echo chamber for partisan op-eds. (At least, those aren't supposed to be our goals). We're trying to write a serious, encyclopedic biography. If there's "considerably more to this", then at some point the reputable news media will pick it up, and we'll have sources. In the meantime, can we tone down the activist edge? MastCell ^Talk 03:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, and now Wash Po isn't reliable any more? For a politician, what matters most of all is their exposure to controversy. Any political analyst will tell you same. An "encyclopedic" entry that whitewashes out the controversy in a politician's life is meaningless. We're not writing Albert Einstein's bio here, after all. Politicians exist by public opinion. This is why opinion pieces are so crucial to complete political coverage. Fell Gleaming ^talk 04:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify? You mentioned two sources "linked below". I see the American Spectator and the Washington Times linked below, not the Washington Post. MastCell ^Talk 04:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting piece on Coons

Take a look at this. I'm too busy right now to add it. Maybe someone else can? Truthsort (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The American Spectator is a partisan outlet most famous for its scurrilous hit piece on Anita Hill (since disowned by its author) and its years-long, $1.8 million campaign to unearth damaging information about Bill and Hillary Clinton ([7]). I think we should probably avoid lowering the bar with regard to our sourcing for this article. Can we stick to reputable, independent news outlets and other high-quality sources as much as possible, given that this is intended to be an encyclopedia? MastCell ^Talk 05:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

They're far less partisan than the Huffington Post, which is used as cites for literally thousands of articles. Fell Gleaming ^talk 12:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone proposing to use the Huffington Post as a source in this article. I'm certainly not. Please try to use talk pages to discuss actual article content, per the talk page guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Any source that exerts editorial control and performs due diligence fact checking is a reliable source.... whether or not a particular editor considers it a "partisan outlet". And I find your raising a pseudo WP:WAX argument to be pointless Wikilawyering. I'm not pointing to "some other article", I'm pointing out consistent and standard usage across many thousands of articles. Fell Gleaming ^talk 16:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was mentioned by the Washington Times.[8] Truthsort (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But don't you know, the Washington Times is a blatant partisan outlet? Why, the mere fact they mentioned something derogatory to Chris Coons proves it! Fell Gleaming ^talk 18:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on the Washington Times as a whole, this particular piece is clearly partisan opinion, rather than news, and as such I think we should set the bar a bit higher. Really, we can do this; we just need a little bit of restraint and commitment to using reputable, high-quality news sources rather than looking for op-eds and blogs that support our personal political views. MastCell ^Talk 23:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As per standard practice, such opinion pieces are included by citing the source of the opinion itself, i.e. "Jennifer Harper of the Washington Post says...." Fell Gleaming ^talk 03:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, standard practice is that we assess whether a source adds anything of encyclopedic value to an article. If we decide that including a partisan op-ed is essential to someone's biography (a relatively rare situation to begin with), then we need to use inline attribution. But I'm still not clear on whether you think this piece is a suitable source for a serious encyclopedic biography. More generally, I think we don't do ourselves any favors by lowering the bar to partisan op-eds, particularly in biographies. We're better off with reputable news items. I want to encourage you to take as hard a line on this here as you do on, say, Christine O'Donnell. MastCell ^Talk 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"If we decide that including a partisan op-ed is essential to someone's biography (a relatively rare situation to begin with)" Oh really? How many counter-examples must I provide before you recant that statement? At rough guess, I would say at least 90% of all major Republican politicians and candidates have anywhere from one to 30+ such negative op-ed sources in their articles. Care to place a small wager on that? Of course, among Democratic candidates, I'd say the percentage is closer to the 5% or less margin. And for the last time, before you again suggest hypocrisy, I urge you to look at the O'Donnell article, which contains probably a good 20 of these sources alone, of which -- other than properly representing exactly what the source says -- I have not removed from the article. I do wonder why if you find this one relatively mild source so objectionable, you lack all outrage for the situation there, which is conservatively (no pun intended) several orders of magnitude worse. Fell Gleaming ^talk 03:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, the proper place to address your concerns about Christine O'Donnell is at Talk:Christine O'Donnell. That other articles have poor sourcing standards does not excuse your effort to lower the bar here. MastCell ^Talk 03:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Again-- you keep bringing O'Donnell up, not me. And this wikilawyering argument isn't going to hold up. This isn't just a few articles we're talking about. A consistent standard applied to a wide number of political biographies is sufficient grounds for inclusion here. Having one standard for members of one party, and a second standard for members of another just makes Wikipedia into a laughingstock. Further, your entire objection of "poor sourcing" is based on a fallacious understanding of WP:V. A source is reliable if the facts it supports are accurate. If the fact we're support is "Soandso from XYZ Media has this opinion", then Soando's article in XYZ media is the most authoritative source possible. Period. Fell Gleaming ^talk 04:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As you know, verifiability is one (but not the sole) criterion for inclusion. We can verify that a partisan talking head holds a certain opinion by referencing his op-eds, but that doesn't make his op-eds appropriate sources for a biography. In any case, I'm not finding this a particularly productive discussion. If you have concrete proposals about content on this article, I'll listen; otherwise I'm going to cease participating in this thread. MastCell ^Talk 04:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd

Mastcell, you claim we shouldn't use op-ed sources in bios -- yet here you are on record advocating this op-piece attack piece in the Fred Singer bio: [9]. I find such inconsistency rather strange. Can you explain? From the usage you suggest there, it seems you not only want to use it, but you want it in the lede, and not even identified as opinion. I find this rather disturbing Fell Gleaming ^talk 04:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I invite anyone who extends any credibility to your accusations to click through the links. I invite you to take up any concerns about my editing through the usual channels. Which don't include this talk page. If you haven't looked at the talk page guidelines yet, please do so. MastCell ^Talk 04:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My concern is for the argument you are advancing on this page. You claim op-ed sources aren't valid in bios...yet you yourself have used them. I invite you to either explain the discrepancy, or drop the argument you're using to advocate against inclusion of the American Spectator source. Fell Gleaming ^talk 04:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

county executive career

Well, I added content about his career as county executive and it was removed citing the erroneous idea that sources with a political bent cannot be used. Truthsort (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

They can be used, but sources with a particular political bent should not be the only sources for a biography, unless perhaps no better sources exist. Incidentally, were you aware that the Washington Times removed the piece you cited from their website, for unstated reasons ([10])? That's not encouraging in terms of using this article as a reliable, encyclopedic source.

Questionable sourcing aside, The edit in question seemed to inflate a partisan talking point (using partisan sources) into the central aspect of Coons' political biography. I don't think that picking out partisan criticism is a good basis for an encyclopedic biography, particularly as I'm confident there are better sources out there. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Increasing taxes generally doesn't belong in Coons' or any politician's biography, even if The Wilmington News Journal is used as a source. The reason is that you can't talk about raising taxes except as a biased political attack. Taxes are raised for a purpose, such as balancing budgets, schools, parks, services, etc. The biography should include these positive achievements, but why would the tax increases used to pay for these things be included, except as an attack?Skalpel (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it works now. You seem to have this idea that NPOV means "no point of view". That is not the case. The idea that we cannot mention that politicians raise taxes is preposterous. I guess we should just remove any mention of raising taxes on George H. W. Bush's article then, right? We are required to mention things that a politician did while in office and in this case we have sources that show him raising taxes. Instead of this constant "oh there just partisan talking points", maybe you should start looking at this like verifiable evidence of some of his work as county executive. Truthsort (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Raising taxes is not an accomplishment; it's an implementation detail not relevant in a bio. For G.H.W. Bush, it is appropriate only in the context of a possible reason why he lost support of many conservatives and lost the election. That view should have a neutral source too. Coons' bio should also not include “cutting millions in wasteful spending and restoring fiscal responsibility to county government.” Also, Washington Times and Examiner are sources for attack ads, normally not anyone's biography.Skalpel (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but before you said mentioning raising taxes in political articles was not allowed. I give a good example and now you have changed you mind. Now you seem to suggest that only accomplishments can be mentioned. We are not here to write puff pieces. As far as I know, no one has disputed the accuracy of what he did as a county executive. It would be unencyclopedic to not mention what he did. Also, the two newspapers you brought up are not the "sources for attack ads" in this case. Truthsort (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Talking about tax increases with no context derives from the biased view that it is significant and inherently wrong. Coon's accomplishment was that he balanced the budget. Of lesser importance is how he did it, by cutting spending and raising taxes. The article you wanted to include was from a biased writer, Brian York, in a biased publication, the Washington Examiner. York did not reference a neutral, reliable source.Skalpel (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to discussing a politician's record on taxes, but we need to start with reputable, independent, reliable sources. The sources mentioned so far are op-eds written by political opponents of Coons - that's not a good basis for an encyclopedia. Can you think of any biography in, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica that's based on partisan op-eds? So if we want to cover this, what decent sources can we find? Let's start there. MastCell ^Talk 00:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The article by Brian York is a biased attack in an op-ed. I contend that it will not be possible to write anything but an attack if the focus is on taxes. If the focus is correctly on balancing the budget, taxes become a minor part of the story, except to partisans. Anyway, here is the full story from a reliable source. I will add it if you all want it: "To balance the budget, Coons has spent $64 million in surplus funds accumulated under his predecessor and made more than $100 million in spending cuts over six years, such as cutting $3.3 million in grants to nonprofits. Coons also got employees to agree to a 5 percent pay cut for two years in lieu of layoffs and increased the property tax rate by 54 percent since taking office in 2005 to keep the county out of the red. While New Castle County’s property taxes remain among the lowest in the region, Coons’ property tax increases have raised the total county tax bill for a home with a taxable value of $100,000 by $246.80 per year."Skalpel (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Whacks the Right

The conservative media would like us to know that they think that this article, in comparison with that of Christine O'Donnell, is something of a whitewash. A great surprise to us all, no doubt. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt we can expect an influx of new editors motivated by pieces like this. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I cannot say I'm surprised someone would pick up on this article. I have attempted to add content about him raising taxes, only to have editors repeat ad nauseam "oh but it is biased!" Truthsort (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that's not quite what happened, is it? You suggested including a series of low-quality, one-sided partisan opinion pieces, and other editors (including myself) felt that doing so would lower the sourcing bar. I suggested we find better, more reputable, more encyclopedic sources addressing Coons' tax policy, and all of sudden you could hear a pin drop around here. That's a pretty simple test of whether you're here to write an encyclopedic biography or push a partisan agenda, and the results so far are disappointing. MastCell ^Talk 02:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, actually it is. Once again reiterating that their partisan even though that does not automatically make it unreliable. Now your making baseless claims of them being "low-quality". As far as them being "opinion pieces", why that is not actually true. These two articles are not coming from the opinion editorial section of the newspapers. Coons nor have democrats disputed this. Neverless, I found this source about his executive county career.[11] Truthsort (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are seriously proposing to use a blog as a source here, please take a look at Wikipedia's policy on biographical articles. Do you think this meets the sourcing guidelines there? MastCell ^Talk 06:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The blogs.delawareonline.com source is actually not a blog. It is part of the Wilmington News Journal and is there to fact check candidates. I quoted it above myself and, without doing original research in the county records, it is about as good as you'll find now. Again, the unbiased focus is balancing the budget, not taxes. We could say: In his six years in office Coons balanced the New Castle County budget with a surplus in fiscal year 2010 by cutting spending and raising taxes. [12] He maintained an AAA bond rating for New Castle County throughout his term.[13].Skalpel (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPSPS. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. The blog is fine in this case. However, that press release you have is hard to analyze and does not even mention Chris Coons. Truthsort (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

25% of article devoted to 25 year old college paper

That seems absurd to me. It's worth mentioning, but not at such undue length. – OhioStandard (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It irks me too. At first it read as an attack ad, and through various compromises and edits, the result is a mess. Shouldn't take more than 3 sentences to cover it with a link to full text.Skalpel (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this is clearly undue weight and WP:RECENTISM (and not all that recent anymore, even). Briefer mention would be appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. harej 04:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Christopher A. Coons → Chris Coons — The Delaware Senate candidate is overwhelmingly known as "Chris Coons", not "Christopher A. Coons". See his campaign website Chris Coons for U.S. Senate and various media reports from the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the BBC. The Celestial City (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Support per nom and per WP:COMMONNAME. If he himself doesn't use his full name, there's no reason why we should. PC78 (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Support -- seems like he's a Bill Clinton type, best known by the less formal version of his name. Also, I note that there's no other Chris Coons who has a bio, hence no confusion. JamesMLane t c 20:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Support for all the reasons listed above. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Taking office?

A change was made to reflect that Coons was taking office in November 2010, but then reverted back to January 2011. Since this was a special election, doesn't Coons take office immediately after the results have been certified? GoingBatty (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Aha - found a quote: "Coons will be sworn into office in two weeks..." - will add citation in article. GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Order of precedence help

After Mark Kirk was sworn, I have attempted to edit the "least senior senator" section from this article to his; I have updated 92-98 to reflect changes, but someone with more wiki fu will need to update Kirk's article and may need this template before making him 99th. Thanks. 75.204.127.229 (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Republican Senate seat"

The article states that "Coons was the only Democrat to pick up a Republican Senate seat in 2010." Since Coons won the seat that was previously held by Joe Biden (a Democrat) and held in the interim by Ted Kaufman (another Democrat), I don't understand how that sentence can possibly be true. It should be deleted. I will go ahead and do so, unless anyone objects.140.251.125.56 (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Matt

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Coons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124055949/http://www.jeffersonawards.org/board to http://www.jeffersonawards.org/board

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Coons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Political Positions

In the section on Political Positions, only gun control is mentioned. Surely he has some other views. Indeed, I heard him talk tonight about the excessive power recently exercised by the executive branch in military actions in the 21st century. Somebody who knows about Coons should fill out this section in a balanced way. ---Dagme (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Kavanaugh confirmation

Way too early to write about such gossip/recentism, but https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh/under-pressure-trump-orders-fbi-kavanaugh-probe-causing-week-delay-idUSKCN1M8174 is quite focused on Chris Coons. --Nemo 14:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Israel Anti-Boycott Act revert question

See Talk:Cory_Booker#Israel_Anti-Boycott_Act_revert Freelance-frank (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

New lead image

Following suit with Dick Durbin and Bernie Sanders, these outdated official portraits from a decade ago should be replaced with recent images. Here's some potential replacements and let's vote as to whether we should change the image. I personally prefer B, E or G. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Option A (current; 2010)
Option B (2016)
Option C (2017)
Option D (2017)
Option E (2018)
Option F (2019)
Option G (2020)