Talk:Mark B. Cohen

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


Untitled[edit]

This article on Mark B. Cohen's life and career is written in conjunction with the Wikipedia principles of Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research. With 154 footnotes already--and more to likely come--this article has to be one of the more intensely documented in Wikipedia. Mr. Cohen's career has been very active and not very controversial. In five of the last seven general elections, for instance, he has had no general election opposition. In the most recent election in which he had general election opposition (2004), he received nearly 80% of the vote. There is obviously a general consensus that he does a good job representing the people of his district.

Reporting the facts of what he has done is not engaging in a promotional tone or violating the Neutral Point of View rule. It is stating the record. Those who agree with the record may be impressed; those who disagree may not be impressed at all. The important thing is that the record cobbled together from numerous sources--books, articles, organizational websites, online archives of the Pennsylvania House and other sources, the Legislative Journal for the House of Representatives, newspapers, etc.--show a public record from sources independent of Mr. Cohen that is worthy of public examination.

Zulitz (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lack of response regarding issues surrounding the NPOV and advertising tone, perhaps we can remove them from the article. Centerone (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Continues to Be Improved; No Response Regarding Issues Surrounding NPOV and Advertising Tone[edit]

Because there has been no response from the original complainant detailing why he or she believes the article violates Neutral Point of View or has a promotional tone, despite the passage of 15 months, and because Centerone has reached the conclusion that the tags can be removed, I am planning to remove the tags. I would note that over 300 footnotes and much additional factual material have been added to the article since the tags were placed, certainly making this article among the most footnoted and detailed in Wikipedia. This article focuses intensely on Mr. Cohen's extremely long (and continuing) record in public service, a record that has aroused so little controversy that he has run unopposed for re-election in the 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 general elections, as can be seen by accessing the biennial editions of the Pennsylvania Manual or the PA Department of State website. Criticisms of Mr. Cohen and praise of Mr. Cohen are both included in the article, generally but not always in footnotes, where they appear to be relevant, but the overwhelming focus is not on what anyone said about what he did,positively or negatively,but about what he has done or attempted to do. His career is an example of both the potential and the limits of state legislative service: the record of a state legislator is certainly of lesser import than that of a governor or US Senator, and nothing in this article seeks to exaggerate his importance or promote him for some other other office. It is merely about stating the record based on the many readily documentable sources, the vast majority of which can be linked to.

Zulitz (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Zulitz, 8:20, 12 November 2012[reply]

Multiple Problems[edit]

This is one of the most exhaustively-cited and longest biographical pages on all English wikipedia, and the vast majority of edits are from someone obviously too close to provide what could be reasonably considered NPOV. There were multiple notices on the user's page years ago that this was an advertisement page for a living person. This should either be nominated for deletion or cut down to something like other state legislator pages with a concurrent lock in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.5.26 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well-cited and detailed, and the problem with this is.. what? As far as whether the person is 'too close' or not.. "It really doesn't matter if he is family or friend if the article meets policy." I am Wikipedia:Agf assuming good faith, and feel that his edits are NPOV. The article might be a bit long, but what are we to do? Dumb down articles to the lowest common denominator so that they're all stubs? Okay, a few cuts could be made here and there, and perhaps the citations don't need to be so long, but it's certainly not advertisement-like in tone. The editor in question has a long history of editing articles dating back to 2004. He has edited many different articles of different types, with a bit of a focus on Pennsylvania politics and people with the surname Cohen, however, he has not neglected others.Centerone (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

question on citation[edit]

Cohen's involvement in Freemasonry is cited as follows:

  • "Valley of Philadelphia Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry Spring 2013, The Il:. Thomas Hopkins, 33rd Degree Memorial Class, pages 1,4"

The citation is not clear about what is being referred to? Is it a Scottish Rite magazine? The Minutes of a valley meeting? A program from the degree conferral? Or something else? Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a program from the degree conferral. User:Zulitz
OK... thanks. I am not sure whether that qualifies as a Reliable source under Wikipedia's rules or not. I have asked for guidance at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Citation at Mark B. Cohen.
Note that I am not really questioning whether he is a Freemason (its reasonable that he might be)... it's just that this is a Biography of a Living Person ("BLP" in wiki jargon) and we have very strict rules for sourcing in BLP's. There are people who think being a Freemasons is a negative thing, and so we should not say he is one without the best of sources to support it. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more question... the issue of whether the program qualifies as an RS or not may hinge on whether it is "accessible" by the general public or not. Where did you find it? Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's available at Ancient Order of the Scottish Rite, which is located in the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, which is well located across from Philadelphia's City Hall, is open to the public and is widely used for both large numbers of Masonic and some non-Masonic events. I'm sure anyone can see and/or pick up a copy at the Ancient Order of the Scottish Rite headquarters there. The Masons are not a secret society; much information about individual Masonic Lodges can be found on the Internet; they are merely an organization that has some closed meetings. Reporting that he is a Mason is hardly libelous, and there is no reason why it should not be reported as part of a long article which reports many non-universal consensus things Cohen has been involved in. User: Zulitz Zulitz (User talk: Zulitz talk]])

Are you sure its available? Is that how you got it? Or are you just assuming that its available?
I have to say that the idea goes against my experience (as a Mason). My experience is that Masonic bodies don't just hand out event programs to any Tom, Dick or Harriot who walks in off the street and asks for one. It isn't a question of secrecy... but one of respect for privacy. Many Masons would consider their membership in any organization (not just the Masons) to be private information. They would object to the organization (any organization) making their membership public. Most Masonic groups that I belong to respect that desire for privacy... and would at least give current active members a chance to "opt out" of any public lists of members. It's simple courtesy.
And... Given that a nut job just stabbed several people in his Church because he thought they were Masons (see here), I can understand why actual members of the fraternity might be somewhat reluctant to have their membership made public. You never know what people will make of that information. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it turn out it was not considered a reliable source after all (both citation and statement have been removed). To better understand why it was removed, you might want to review the relevant policies that apply... WP:Biographies of living people, WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Feel free to contact me (or the Admin who removed the material) if you have any questions. Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it accurately and with extensive documentation details an extensive 39 year career in the Pennsylvania legislature--one of the longest state legislative careers of any state legislator anywhere now serving-- which is ongoing. Nothing in this article is untrue. It has "substantial encyclopedaic content." It has to be one of the most extensively documented articles in Wikipedia, both because of Mr. Cohen's long tenure and because he is a public figure whose activities have often been referred to in both Philadelphia media and Pennsylvania media, and occasionally referred to in media outside Pennsylvania and in books on various subjects. Praise and criticism are both generally dealt with in footnotes. The overwhelming majority of the article deals with what Mr. Cohen has done and attempted to do. It is all objectively stated and footnoted: the fact that he has done and attempted to do a lot of things does not make this article promotional. It is an objective account of an extremely long career culled from articles, books, websites, and other publicly available sources.

It is ironic that the previous complaint to this article just a couple of days ago alleged that that potentially negative material about Mr. Cohen was being posted; that potentially negative material was then deleted by the complainant. If the current complainant sees offensive promotional material, he or she can delete that material in the traditional manner: deleting the article as a whole is a gross overreaction to an article whose comprehensiveness should be more widely emulated. State legislators are public officials whose actions should be known by the general public; a stub should not be the typical article about a state legislator as it all too often is.

User: Zulitz Zulitz 3:52 p.m., May 2, 2013

If you are referring to my comments about his Masonic membership, the problem was not that the information was potentially negative... but that the potentially negative information was supported by a source that was considered unreliable. That double-whammy made it a violation of both our WP:Verifiability policy and our WP:Biographies of living people policy.
It is important to note that there is no problem with adding potentially negative information in our articles on living people (indeed a well balanced neutral article will include such information)... it simply has to supported by solidly reliable sources.
As for the deletion prod... I would also object to deleting this article. While the current article may have problems, the subject is clearly notable enough for an article on him to exist. The solution is to fix the problems with the article, not delete it. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia projects/classes?[edit]

Surely this article has long since moved beyond start class to the various Wikipedia projects. Also, is it me or is the level of importance box messed up under biography/politics where it displays the voting box graphic and not the mid-level importance box? Perhaps we could move it into the good article review process eventually in order to get some 3rd party reviews and input..? Centerone (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely no longer a "Start" class article. And sending it through the GA review process would be helpful. There is a lot of really good information here (thanks to the efforts of Zulitz)... but there is also a lot of fluff. GA would help to tighten things up, and separate the "wheat from the chaff". Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the GA review process. One of its requirements is article stability. As Mr. Cohen continues to serve in elective office, and continues to do things that are noteworthy, it is hard to promise stability, as new events and new postings lead new people to be be interested in this article and create a continuing dialogue which, however worthwhile, inevitably includes changes to this article. I also think that an article which is one of 500,000 or so BLP's is not subject to the same questions of eminence as an article which is one of perhaps 100 biographies of BLP's in politics or government. Mr. Cohen does not hold statewide office or federal office, and thus some would undoubtedly think he was not worthy of the honor of being profiled in a GA article. User: Zulitz Zulitz (User talk: Zulitz talk) 6:21 pm, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well... a local politician might not rate FA (Featured Article) status... but our goal is to bring all articles up to GA (Good Article) status. GA has more to do with the quality of the article than the importance of the subject. As for stability... "Stable" does not mean the article has been "frozen in time"... obviously as new events occur the article would be updated to account for them ... Stability really means the information and sources already in the article (as of when it is given GA status) are likely to remain stable. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It needs quite a lot of work for GA. As a biography, it ought to start with the subject's early life and education, then go through the career. Career achievements can be mentioned, as can both sides of any controversies. (There must be some controversies in the career of any politician.) Only mention political stances taken if they are unusual for a Democrat of his type or have received much press attention. At the moment it is too long and contains too much detail of political positions, too few biographical details. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be great if we could have politics free of any personal controversies? Mark appears to be one of those types of politicians. The most controversial thing that I'm aware of that he's done seems to be his political viewpoints. He's supported medical marijuana - which isn't terribly controversial when studies and polls have shown that approximately 76% or more people support it, and when it was brought to his attention how his constituents felt about the year of the bible resolution that was passed, he made an effort to get a resolution passed about that. I believe he may also support marijuana legalization in general (but he didn't put forth this bill), and glbt rights. If an article is judged by the lack of controversies.. a lot of people may never have complete articles. Maybe this is why some people have thought the article is NPOV or advertising like. He doesn't seem to do much that is negative, unless you disagree with his positions. Centerone (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it should have the main controversies. It just shouldn't waffle on. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting the article down[edit]

I'm going to cut it down a lot, which will result in a much better, more usable article. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State websites - archives?[edit]

The address listed http://www.pahouse.com/cohen/ now points to the new elected representative's page. Is there anywhere that the old page was archived that we can now point to? The other external link http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/BiosHistory/MemBio.cfm?ID=268&body=H now points to a historical bio. Centerone (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting this thing down to size[edit]

This article has received significant attention for being too long (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/05/can_larry_krasner_live_up_to_progressives_expectations.html). It appears to have been written largely by the subject or someone close to the subject. It appears to rival Barack Obama's page in length. Is ANYONE opposed to me cutting this article down to size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.220.241 (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to my prior comment: It doesn't fully matter if this information is valid and properly-cited. It offers facts about the subject that (a) are unnecessarily extensive for a state legislator, considering that pages of this length are typically reserved for very, very important subjects and (b) may double as political advertisements of a sort. So I, responding to user: NewEnglandYankee's kind request, will move forward with cutting some of the fat unless I get a compelling reason not to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.220.241 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing this here. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should actually sign into your account, Mr. IP Editor. Centerone (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as it "rivaling Barack Obama's in size"... uhmm... Mark Cohen had a 42+ year political career. Of COURSE it's detailed. But, uh, Barack Obama has what? 469 references to Mark's 308? Barack Obama has what? At least 10 different articles covering different aspects of his political career. Mark has what... ONE? Try comparing apples to apples. Centerone (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the editor who reverted this IP's changes and suggested that the user come here. I don't see how the fact that this is an IP address affects the substance of his or her comments. Is the article too long only if a registered editor says so? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There a history of politically motivated edits to this article when he was running for office. The subject is currently running for a judgeship. The IP editor seems to be an experienced Wikipedia editor, so I question why they wouldn't sign into their account to make the changes or state their position. It seems suspicious to me during an election season. Centerone (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with part of the above allegation. Some of IP's edit summaries were not "this sounds non-NPOV or like peacocking" but along the lines of "this makes the subject of the article sound good" when they were objective facts about accomplishments, bills, etc. If someone does something "good" than a neutral recording of the deed will make the doer sound "good". JesseRafe (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the IP thinks this article is too long they should have seen it before the 25Kb I took out in January 2014 and the 45Kb I took out in Sept '15. It doesn't matter whether they are signed in/registered or not, the article is a undue long still. However, what the IP editor did in indiscriminately deleting large passages and whole sections was in appropriate. I'll take another stab and paring it down. It's a quite burdensome task hence my previous large breaks, but I guess I'm due for another round. JesseRafe (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on this task, then. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. That's another ~15K and all I can do for now. The problem is that the original writer of the prose had such a dense style and relied on direct quotations and providing context for refs as plain text within the refs themselves. There's a lot of good content here that shouldn't be deleted, but finessed, a little at a time. I made a dozen or so small edits to show that each one would have an explanation and be non-controversial, also should someone disagree could be undone on its own. I urge the IP to follow a similar approach, because large deletions of BLPs almost always get full restoreds. JesseRafe (talk)
I've removed a few more sections that I didn't think were notable. Feel free to restore if you have any criticism. I think we're making good headway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.80.16 (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I have this highly problematic article on my watchlist, but I do. I certainly applaud any effort to make it read a little less like a political manifesto ("a major threat to Pennsylvania workers" – sez who?) and a little more like an encyclopaedia page. The opinions of this person are only of any interest insofar as they have been discussed in independent reliable sources. Thanks to the IP editor for starting a discussion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, but more cuts are needed[edit]

Hi! I'm the IP editor who started this (I got an account at the encouragement of others). We have cut a significant amount of fat from the article, but I do think that we need to go further--we can't just cut obviously unnecessary things. We also have to cut information that is valid but useless. This article shouldn't be a one-stop shop for his entire life; if someone wants to write a research paper about Mr. Cohen, they can look at newspaper sources--we don't need to provide everything right here.

I would add this graph to the records: https://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph/graphwrite.aspx?ID=3ffe5bd0fff246a5a72887e77da4e004&r=80039.0775989&file=png.

As that graph shows, this article exceeds in length the article on John Quincy Adams, who clearly is of significantly greater importance than Mr. Cohen. It is roughly double the size of the article on Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, and about eight times the length of former Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai.

Isn't that insane? How could an article on a state senator be longer than the page of a president?

Again, we do not need to have everything about Mr. Cohen in this article.

Having said that, I will, unless others provide a justification for not doing so, be a bit more ambitious in cutting this article down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusStevens (talk • contribs) 02:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next time try to remember to sign your comments. You do so by ending it with four tildes ~ next to each other. No, the length of this article isn't really insane. What part of this are you missing? It's been stated before. Mark Cohen has a history of public service that extends more than 42 years. Pat Toomey is what? 12 years? Mike Turzai is what? 16 years? Mark Cohen served during a time where there is tons more media coverage and political activities than there was during 1700s and 1800s. This really is NOT a race. This is not a contest to measure who's _blank_ is bigger. Your opinion of what is 'useless' may be different than someone else's. I present as evidence, the fact that someone thought to include these things in the first place, and that they were included in the article for a long time, while referenced from reliable sources. Centerone (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you have betrayed yourself, by naming your account after Thaddeus Stevens.. a man who " was a member of the United States House of Representatives from Pennsylvania and one of the leaders of the Radical Republican faction of the Republican Party during the 1860s." It's clear here that your attempted gutting of a well-liked and relatively successful democratic member of the legislature is politically motivated, as I previously suggested might be the case, and as Jesse Rafe noted in your edits. Centerone (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Mark B. Cohen. 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) 11:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark B. Cohen. 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) 05:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mark B. Cohen. 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) 10:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs trimming for length trimming[edit]

About 40% of this page's length is the refs. They're absurd. I put in three separate bursts of energy trimming the bloat off this page in the past 4 years, paring off 25K, 30K, and 25K bytes in each episode, but it becomes too unmanageable, not just for the article's length, but in the weeds: reading and finding which sentences one wants to edit, move, or delete becomes untenable because of the hundred word ref descriptions. (Also, cute that "verylong" was added now at 116.7kB, it was 216.3kB when I first edited it on 9 January, 2014‎, and resting at about 220-240kB since 2012. If anyone wants to take another stab at trimming the article down to a more manageable length, both in word count and browser scrollbar maintenance, as a veteran of this Augean Stable, that's where I'd suggest directing first efforts. A lot of them are prose explanations of events or rules. Some of them are quotes from PDFs, which I guess are useful? Or should we just have a bare URL link to the PDF? What about the deadlink newspaper clippings, what standard should be applied so we don't indiscriminately lose information? JesseRafe (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mark B. Cohen. 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) 04:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark B. Cohen. 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) 01:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some trimming[edit]

Hey, I just got rid of superfluous information in the labor section. I really do think that this page needs more trimming. I think the refs would be a good area for future focus. Thoughts? --ThaddeusStevens (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just continued the cuts. I removed an unnecessary section on a very minor library controversy in 2009 (in no other Wikipedia page would it merit mention: Wikipedia pages are NOT biographies!) and some more unnecessary stuff. Nothing too big. Thoughts? ThaddeusStevens (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing Campaign to Gut the Article[edit]

I have a significant issue with Thaddeus Stevens' continued gutting of the article. I don't mind _some_ of his edits, but continued removal of huge sections at a rapid pace with just "removing fancruft" and other vague comments as descriptions, when removing large sections and multiple sentences covering numerous topics, is troubling, especially when it's previously been pointed out that he's an editor with a seeming biased intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_B._Cohen#Good_work,_but_more_cuts_are_needed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_B._Cohen#Cutting_this_thing_down_to_size Centerone (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centerone, thank you for your comments and for your continued engagement with the article. Believe me, I am not editing with any bias. (My username is Thaddeus Stevens solely because I admire his political courage; it's not a Republican-vs-Democrat thing.) I only came upon this page because it was alluded to in a Slate article. I believe strongly that the content that there was simply far too much content on this page. Wikipedia is not a repository for non-notable knowledge; if someone wants to write a biography of Mr. Cohen, they can definitely do so, but they shouldn't be able to get all their information from Wikipedia. I simply don't think that it's right for a politician to be able to add in a self-adulatory biography for himself (assuming, of course, that "Zulitz" was Mr. Cohen, as seems evident from the uncanny amount of non-public information that he was aware of about him, though I won't make that case unless you object to this thesis) replete with trivial details about every single cause he ever advocated, every reference made to him in a newspaper, every committee he ever served on, etc. I think that if you look at the page now, it is considerably more readable than it was before my most recent round of edits. But if you can point out a few specific examples of edits that you'd like to see reversed, we could definitely find room for agreement. ThaddeusStevens (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_B._Cohen&oldid=1206737729"