Talk:Mark B. Cohen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
Mark B. Cohen is part of the WikiProject Philadelphia, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Cleanup done
Lot of reformatting. I removed a bit of the "I love Mark Cohen" NPOV from the article which was just a bit over the top for my taste, but the spirit of the article is still there. There was a lot of extraneous information in the article which frankly could go since its covered somewhere else. If anyone has any questions about the edit, we can certainly discuss it here.Montco 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The editing removed praise of Cohen, but inserted criticism by a reporter who has criticized many public officials. The reporter's journalistic ethics were attacked by the Columbia Journalism Review when he smeared a legislator (Daylin Leach) who had satirized him, at http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/6/cooper1.asp.
The criticism of Cohen certainly violated NPOV, and was ignored by the opposition Republican Party--which stuck with its decision not to nominate an opponent to Cohen after the criticism occurred, allowing Cohen to run for re-election unopposed--and by Cohen's Democratic legislative colleagues, who promoted him on December 5, 2006 to Whip contingent upon the Democrats having a majority of the legislature in January, 2007.
The best way to meet the NPOV standard is to print neither praise nor criticism and let facts which have had important public impact speak for themselves. I should have deleted Michael Race's praise of Cohen (inserted by the original author), and I am content to have you delete it. User:Zulitz/Zulitz 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have any issue with praise as long as its verifiable and by an independent source. The Inky article is at least an independent source. If you want to insert the Race comment back in, I don;t have a problem. But I would offer some context for the praise. I don't have the news article so its hard for me to do that for you (or for the original author). If you have other articles in the paper offering him praise for work on a certain issue, by all means put it in. Criticism is just as legitimate as praise. And you'll find that in many articles out here. There is a problem (and I am not accusing you of this at all) that when criticism of a politician is put into an article (take Re. DeWeese as an example), supporters of that person are more content to attack and delete the criticism rather than write a quick note about some good things the person has done. Again, if a politician has been credited with some good things, that's fine. If he has been criticised as long as its factual, then that's ok to me. In the end, if we want to agree to leave the article factual (and patrol it to ensure that it stays that way) I am fine. Montco 04:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
