Talk:Evan Montvel Cohen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	Micronesia Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Micronesia, which collaborates on articles related to Micronesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related work groups (nations): Related work groups (territories): Guam work group

Contents 1 Conflict of interest 2 Controversy 3 Is the Michelle Malkin reference necessary? 4 A thing about sources and WP:NPOV 5 www.pacificnewscenter.com

[edit] Conflict of interest

People editing this article might need to take a look at our conflict of interest guidelines and also read about ownership of articles. Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I take it you mean edits like this? Anynobody 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much. If anything on the page is in violation of WP:BLP, we can discuss it here, but unexplained blanking of referenced facts is going to taken as vandalism every time and looks like the pushing of a particular point of view. Katr67 (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I see you appear to have a particular POV as well. I see nothing particularly controversial about the info that you blanked, any chance you'd like to find citations for that info? I'm tempted to revert it back. Katr67 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you see my edit summary about undue weight? You appear to be only interested in the negative information about Cohen, while the anon editor seems to be only interested in promoting Cohen. An encyclopedia article needs to be balanced and include both positive and negative info. Katr67 (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, just what can be sourced. I can stand one or two citation needed tags on an article this size but couldn't find anything discussing this person's activities before or after Air America. Rather than adding a {{fact}} after each assertion needing one the blanking seemed like a better solution, however if I was out to just show negative facts I'd of removed the statement about him buying the Air America idea which currently needs citation). Anynobody 03:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, just seems like a lot of agendas working on this article. But surely there are some reliable sources on his background. Katr67 (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd think so(that neutral, reliable sources exist about him), but the one source I just found to back his claims of operating businesses previously also says he owes them $20k. Anynobody 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Mention of the Air American funding controversy should be included in this article, even if he was cleared of any wrongdoing. People who are looking at this article for information about Cohen are not going to be expecting positive PR or a resume, but a factual encyclopedia article that includes this notable bit of his history. It was reported in the mass media, so it is notable. Katr67 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved this from my talk page;

Your corrections to Evan's history are based on old articles and very biased sources. Kuam is the main competitor on Guam to Sorensen Media Group and often use Kuam news to attack the competition. Also the New York Sun printed a correction to the article you site two days after it was run and John Cook of the Chicago Tribune and Radar magazine ran a piece about David Lambino's sloppy work. Evan was attacked by right and left wing bloggers but no one ever got the facts right. He didn't authorize the loan to himself (the board of Directors approved the loan) and he was only accused of any wrong doing by the blogoshere. Even right wing assasin Michelle Malkin corrected her attackes after the court documents (posted on the web) proved Cohen demanded that the loan be repaid as part of the sale to Piquant. The story is sexier when your version is written but it is not factual. it takes time and effort to sift through and get to the truth but you should work at it if you want to write about a human beings life and character. i work with Evan and know what happened. Leon Colaco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.151.89.144 (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against posting what you're saying, assuming you can back it up with actual proof(references). The article should include all discussion of the issue, including corrections. Anynobody 01:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please also see my response to a similar posting on my talk page. Katr67 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we got the same message, in your case twice. Anynobody 03:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned that above. And they posted it twice, so I deleted the extra one. Newbie mistake. So? Katr67 (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A question about your counter point, 202.151.89.144, (the board of Directors approved the loan) would they be the same board that did all the stuff in this New York Times article? Anynobody 03:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Michelle Malkin doesn't seem to have corrected much as of 2006, Still mentions him as possibly facing criminal charges as of last Sept. follow up which doesn't even mention Cohen. I really dislike Malkin so please provide a link to her corrections, as I am loathe to go digging through her archives again. Anynobody 04:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The banter here in this discussion is interesting but it appears despite your best efforts to stay unbiased you have become biased. In the early days of liberal talk radio, Evan Cohen and Air America became the subject of great interest in the blogosphere. So what was conjecture, speculation, and outright determination to shut down a liberal radio station then leaked into mainstream media - namely The New York Sun. However, The New York Sun retracted its story about Cohen. Cohen did borrow money from the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club but he did it with the consent of the board of directors. The board of directors gave him the loan. He did not give himself the loan. I have done my research and documents indicate that during the sale of Air America Cohen made it a stipulation of the agreement that Piquant LLC pay back the money from the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club. People may not like the fact he received a loan from the group but it was a loan the board approved. Cohen continues to be involved in media projects and all you have to do is look at www.pacificnewscenter.com or www.sorensenmediagroup.com. So no matter what was reported the facts are he asked for a loan from the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club and the board decided to give him the loan, Cohen did not take the money out of the organization himself. It appears Cohen had the intention of paying back the loan because the sale of Air America included a provision that would have the new owners pay back the money. The fact that the author chooses to incorporate an alleged $20,000 outstanding bill from a media competitor in the article could indicate that the author is biased especially since the story cited was written by the same media competitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.20.11 (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to find reliable references to the New York Sun retraction and incorporate that into the article, instead of deleting all currently existing references. If you're having trouble with Wikipedia's markup language, another editor would be glad to assist, and even show you how it's done so you can do it yourself next time. --GoodDamon 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I and others have said before, if you have sources, great! add them. We can help you with the citations. Note again that blanket reverting and blanking of sourced material is almost always seen as vandalism and edit warring is not the way changes get made to Wikipedia articles. It is not necessarily our job to look at the webpages you have provided. If this info needs to be added to the article, just add it. As for my personal bias, for the record I am an absolute bleeding heart, capital "L" Liberal with Green tendencies, but on Wikipedia, I am a Wikipedian first, which means my bias is towards properly formatted, fully sourced articles that follow Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Accusations of bias and censorship usually don't win friends or influence people here. Katr67 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Late to the discussion, but one thing worth mentioning -- Franken was actually very heavily involved in the early financing of Air America. Not sure exactly how, but I believe this has had a fair amount of news coverage. -Pete (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Michelle Malkin reference necessary?

Without disparaging Ms. Malkin, I don't think she qualifies as a WP:RS. She's got too long a history of bad fact-checking and she's certainly not a neutral scholar. Now, her article is being used as a reference for a couple of entirely uncontroversial claims -- that Mr. Cohen's father was professor of history and art at the University of Guam, and that Mr. Cohen worked at Latte Magazine -- but there must be better sources for these statements. --GoodDamon 23:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Aboutmovies couldn't find much on Cohen by Googling for his full name and did the best he could with what was available. I haven't tried searching for Evan Cohen yet for more sources, I'm kinda hoping per the above discussion that the anon/Leon could come up with some. Katr67 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the extent of what's online:

• "Evan Cohen" OR "Evan M. Cohen" +"Air America"
• "Evan Cohen" OR "Evan M. Cohen" +Guam

If we throw out the blogs (both righty and lefty ones), there doesn't appear to be much to work with. Perhaps our anon has some print souces that aren't online that we can use. There may be some other possible search results, but I figure Mr. Cohen is unlikely to be mentioned without also mentioning Air America or Guam, and Evan Cohen is a common name. Witness http://www.evancohen.com/. Katr67 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Evan Montvel Cohen is less common, and how I found sources like the NYT, NY Sun, KUAM etc.

The only reason I linked to Malkin's blogs is because the anon said she had corrected herself. If I could find proof of that it would've been easier to extend extra good faith on some of the other claims made by the anon. I don't think she would make a good source for a WP:BLP article since she is a blogger:

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article

– Reliable sources according to BLP

Odd as it sounds, if this were Michelle Malkin's article, her blog would be acceptable. Anynobody 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I used LexisNexis which provides hundreds of sources (newspapers, magazines, wire services, etc.) and there were only 20 sources. As to Malkin, the source is a newspaper (The Advocate), not her, and newspapers usually do qualify as WP:RS (see WP:V where most of RS has migrated), and in this case for non-contentious claims even a "questionable" source can be used. But feel free to find other sources to source the info. This guy barely meets WP:BIO as it is. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the additional sources, but is there any way you could link to the articles themselves? Wikilinks to the newspaper or medium publishing the source aren't very helpful to anyone wanting to follow up and read the sources themselves. The Malkin piece is her syndicated column, which I was able to find and link to already. However this poses the question, does a column by a pundit qualify as a reliable source the same way as an article by a reporter? I'd be inclined to say no because pundits aren't exactly known for accuracy. (It'd be like citing Ann Coulter as proof that John Edwards is gay.) What does everyone else think? Anynobody 04:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonynobody, LexisNexis is a paid service, so any links AM provides would be of no use to the general public. Links aren't necessary, as newspapers are generally accessible at a local library. On your other question, I believe it's pretty thoroughly discussed at WP:V; in a nutshell, if a newspaper publishes a syndicated column, the newspaper is putting its reputation on the line, just as they do when publishing a news story. It definitely adds to a column's credibility to be published in a newspaper. -Pete (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed links to sources themselves are not required, but there are several reasons why they are a good idea. Primarily since the general public is who Wikipedia writes for and is written by, access to source material allows more participation.

I must disagree with your point about (most) syndicated columns. Usually they tend to be somebody's opinion rather than actual news. Others with syndicated columns, like Malkin's, include Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and of course, Ann Coulter. The reason goofs by these people aren't tied to a paper's reputation are because besides not being news, the papers have the option to drop a column. (Syndication in media is like an À la carte, the paper can simply buy a different one.) Anynobody 00:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree that it's good to include links to sources where possible, and apologize if my poorly-chosen words seemed to imply otherwise.

Ann Coulter did not say that John Edwards is gay in a newspaper column; she said it at a private event. This example underscores the significance of a publisher's reputation. -Pete (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, pobody's nerfect :)

That is very true, about the Edwards quote, however Ms. Coulter is prone to that kind of language in her writing as well. She, like the others (including liberal pundits) "shoot from the hip" whenever they speak or write and (usually) aren't fact checked by anyone but their readers. Whereas reporters generally do have a fact checking/editorial process which they have to follow. Anynobody 04:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If this source is a column, then I would agree it is not a WP:RS and should not be included. The way it was presented in LexisNexis was as a news story. Again, I've never heard of this author before, so if the piece is a column then the source should be removed and the sentences tagged. Neither item sourced is contenious, and I believe I saw the same info in other sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A thing about sources and WP:NPOV

If the Malkin column stays then all relevant information about this guy in it also has to come with the good stuff. The very essence of WP:NPOV is that we do not selectively use or filter sources, especially out of their own context. In this case the Malkin piece is downright scathing if you read it, yet if it stays as we're citing it now one could get the impression that she was actually writing a favorable article about him. In short, either it's all in or it's all out, anything else is selective sourcing to create an illusion of neutrality. To illustrate the context issue, imagine a critic reviewing a movie says: "It's a good thing they had barf bags with this piece of #%@%, if they didn't it would suck to be the person cleaning it up, not much fun. The movie itself was worse than that." Yet the movie trailers quote it as "It's a good...piece of...fun." Anynobody 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Malkin column should stay, myself. Good riddance to bad rubbish, as far as I'm concerned. Let's find a neutral source for those claims, or if that's not possible, remove those claims since the source for them now is terrible. --GoodDamon 05:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, in a word, no. That's not how NPOV works. With your example, that is altering the source to make it say something that it did not say. In this case that would mean something like using the info to make it appear Cohen was really rich when in reality he was really poor. That and your example fail WP:ATT. NPOV means you take the biased source (all sources are biased) and pull out the useful info, and present it in a neutral manner. So yes, you do filter the sources somewhat, just not the opinions/views. For instance, this person's dad was a professor and he went to X college, which if it is considered "good stuff" so would his name and year of birth. These are all just background items. Good stuff would be something like "Cohen was named humanitarian of the year" or "Cohen took over a failing bank and returned it to profitability saving the whole town" yeah, wooooo!

As to the selective use here, the rest of the article by this Malkin person appeared to mainly cover the other info lower in the story, which was already cited, and thus I didn't alter what was already in the Wikipedia artilce. I was simply trying to reduce the undue weight problem the article had. Tthat is the majority of the article covers the Air America story, which appears to be about 2-3 years of this person's life out of 40ish? I have no personal stake in this and until today had no idea who any of these people were/are (except Al Franken who I remember from SNL), whereas from the outside viewer it looks like you have a negative view towards this person, and the anonIP has a positive view. I'm trying (and the outside editors) are simply trying to get this to the middle, you know WP:NPOV. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Aboutmovies I'm sorry but you seem to have missed my point entirely. To help make it clear I'll cite the parts of WP:NPOV which relate to what I said above and also respond to your concerns. You said: NPOV means you take the biased source (all sources are biased) and pull out the useful info, and present it in a neutral manner. Can we agree that useful information is that which relates to the article's subject and that how bias is seen depends on the person perceiving it?
WP:NPOV#Neutrality and verifiability says A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. When you take a source, and remove what parts you perceive to be biased and include parts that you believe do not, it's doing exactly what NPOV says not to do ...reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively. If a source is reliable, then everything in it relevant to the subject should be included. I agree that all sources contain some form of bias, but by sorting what you or I think are biased "parts", we're just adding MORE bias by taking an already biased source and adding our biases.

WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves also relates to how an sources should be used. Not every subject or person can be presented neutrally; take as examples Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or for someone alive Dennis Rader. There really isn't a "neutral" way to write his article without expressing a POV that he is, to say the least, not a good guy unless we ignore "bad" things he's done to neutralize it.

What I'm saying in short is, we do not determine the POV of an article, the sources do and should not tamper with them lest we include our biases on top of the inherent bias of a given source.

(PS: WP:ATT isn't a policy or guideline so you may want to avoid quoting it as such.) Anynobody 03:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't say WP:ATT was a policy. However, it is a summary of two policies, but the point can also come from WP:V (which is similar to ATT, which is why there is a lot of proposed merges in the RS, ATT, V policy/guideline area). "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made" That is also a quote, and so there is no confusion, WP:V is a policy and I am quoting it as such. So, to take your original movie review example, the selective editing to make an article say something it does not would fail WP:V, an official Wikipedia policy.

I love the whole "let the facts..." stuff, which is exactly what I did with the guy's biographical info that was available in the article (note this is a biography so biographical info needs to be included). I did it in a dry and neutral tone, that is I didn't say "X went to college here which is an awesome/horrible college" or with the political info I didn't say he was a "major player in Guam politics" or anything close to that. It was basically he was involved in campaigns. No "every campaign he was involved in he was highly regarded as a political strategist" or anything else vaguely related to being POV.

With presenting things neutrally, yes you can to some extent. With Hitler, you simply add the facts, and they will speak for themselves (roughly 6.5 million Jews dead in the Holocaust and millions of other minorities/political opponents). No need to say Hitler was an evil person. But at the same time, you also have to include things like Volkswagon, the autobahn, and various technological advances made due to his policies. Otherwise, if we go by what you want, we could simply take sources that are only negative of a subject and thus we must write a negative article about that subject. Again, the only reason for the Air America info from the article being omitted, is that saga was already covered, but feel free to add anything additional from the source into the article in a NPOV manner.

Lastly, with your example that started this thread, you actually seem to do that in the article. Since you added: He had operated several business on Guam before moving to the mainland, one of which owed a local TV station $20,000. Whereas the source says: "It should be pointed out that KUAM maintains it is owed $20,000 by a now-defunct advertising agency previously run by Cohen. Cohen denies he owes the money." So a neutral treatment would be: ...a local TV station $20,000, which is disputed. Or something along those lines (you know, how the article was trying to put it in neutral terms by adding the last sentence) that does not say the $20,000 owed is a fact, since clearly it is in dispute. NPOV says you present both sides (owed/not owed), here you did not. I'm beginning to think the anon editor here might be right and this will need to go to RFC. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may make a comment here... I don't think the anon is exactly right. What s/he's done so far is systematically whitewash the article, remove references, and make claims without supporting them. I don't say that to be harsh, I think the anon simply doesn't yet understand Wikipedia policies and procedures, and has probably never tried to write an encyclopedia article before. The anon has some personal knowledge of the article subject's current situation, and has attempted to insert that understanding into the article in ignorance of policies such as WP:OR and WP:CITE. As for the anon's facts themselves... If recollection serves, s/he's right, but doesn't know how to put those in an encyclopedia.

On the other hand, Anynobody is also not exactly right. I agree with your interpretation of the guidelines more, insofar as I think your interpretation will result in more accurately conveyed facts in a more neutral tone. If we were to follow Anynobody's reading, I could dig up opinionated, negative articles on any uncontroversial subject, from philanthropy to exercise -- and using those articles, I could fill the Wikipedia entries for each with all sorts of well-referenced bias that makes it look like neither is good for anything.

So in summary, I think Anynobody is right about the anon trying to cover up everything negative in the article, and you're right in your reading of policy. --GoodDamon 23:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think the anon’s editing is proper, what I was trying to say was that where the anon claims biased by Anynobody, I think the anon is correct based off of the edits by Anynobody. Normally I disregard anon editors, but when that anon writes: “The fact that the author chooses to incorporate an alleged $20,000 outstanding bill from a media competitor in the article could indicate that the author is biased especially since the story cited was written by the same media competitor.” And since Anynobody misrepresented what that article said, I have to go with the bias claim.

As to who knows the policy better, take your pick. I’ve got 16,000+ edits, nine GA articles (two are bios), and one FA article for my accomplishments. I’ve never been blocked for edit warring, nor been the subject of an RFC. But that’s my credentials. Anyeverbody has been blocked for edit warring, had other issues, and even Jimbo disagrees with Anyeveybody’s interpretation of policies. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(I'm going to reply in the order of your posts to keep things clear.) Aboutmovies:Sorry, I didn't say WP:ATT was a policy... indeed not in those words, nor did I say you definitely thought it was a policy(or guideline) however you did say your example fails WP:ATT. which implies it is something which must be passed. (Instead you'd be better off citing which of the two policies it summarizes you mean. I'm not trying to demonstrate superiority or engage in a pissing contest, but we seem to be misunderstanding each what other "means", so I want to be as clear as possible.)

You also seem to think I'm criticizing your editing style in this thread, which I'm not. What I'm saying is that if a source says X,Y,Z (assume each to represent a relevant fact) and we only include X because adding Y or Z would make the article sound too positive/negative is actually going against WP:NPOV. (If we keep the Malkin column, and only use it to back a certain part of this guy's history while ignoring other relevant aspects it would be a sort of violation by omission re:WP:NPOV)

Also you appear to think what I'm saying is meant to be taken in an extremely literal manner: :With presenting things neutrally, yes you can to some extent. With Hitler, you simply add the facts, tells me you thought I was saying that nothing good can be said of people like Hitler, which I did not mean to imply. Instead I meant that the overall impression one gets when reading about "bad people" is a negative one because that's what the facts dictate.

GoodDamon you seem to think I'm out to ...dig up opinionated, negative articles on any uncontroversial subject, from philanthropy to exercise -- and using those articles, I could fill the Wikipedia entries for each with all sorts of well-referenced bias that makes it look like neither is good for anything. Your example assumes that I would also ignore parts or entire sources, which is exactly what I'm arguing against. (If I was out to push one POV, I'd accept the Malkin column as a gold mine and would have added it myself or reverted "nice" edits. Take a look at the Revision history of Evan Montvel Cohen and you'll see that's not the case. As you said, the anon has been whitewashing this article. When looking at the link I provided be sure to see what the article looked like before I started editing here.

Aboutmovies just because I choose not to argue my opinion with Jimbo, doesn't mean I'm wrong. (Heck he thought the WP:DRV was closed, which it isn't as of this post Wikipedia:Deletion review/Barbara Schwarz.) Anynobody 02:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the edit history. First we have this edit where the summary comes across as biased (not to mention the commentary is not in line with WP:EDITSUMMARY, FYI not a policy), and where you seem to hide only positive/neutral info in the article while adding sources for the negative info, as well as the misrepresentation I pointed out earlier. For an example, you added the NY Sun as a source, yet it covers his college info in more detail than the source I used, yet you decided not to include that info. Again, this is a biography, so things like that (thus a resume type feel of the article in some respects you complained about) need to be included. So, your edit summaries and actual edits tend to show a bias against this guy.

As to selective inclusion which you have both done and argued against, that is how we write the articles. If 14 sources say X did Y, we do not repeat X did Y 14 times in the article. One or two sources suffices. Also, trivial things like X gave a speech to the local chamber of commerce on 6/12/1999 would likely be excluded as not the type of thing we would include. So we always pull out the relevant, useful info and present it in a neutral manner. Now, if editors only present one side by only including info supporting that side (and or removing the content that supports the other side) then there is an issue with NPOV. But if an article already has one side, and an editor is simply adding the other side then you cannot possibly believe that is NPOV. Otherwise the article would have to remain a POV violation from the original version. For instance if only negative information existed about Cohen from the beginning, no one would ever be able to add any positive or neutral info without violating NPOV according to your interpretation. Again, Air America info from the newspaper article published in The Advocate was left out because the Air America topic was already covered in the article under oddly its own section titled Air America. For at least the second time, if there is anything still in there you want to add, feel free to add it. Had I added the cited background info and the Air America info was not already in the article or I reduced it to hidden comments, that would be a violation of NPOV. But, in itself, leaving parts out of a source is not a violation of the neutral point of view. NPOV, it is exactly that, present the information in a neutral point of view. That means you have to be selective in not only what info one uses but also then the language in which it is presented. If parts are repetitive with other info already in and cited in an article, there is no need to add it a second/third/fourth/fifth time. Once is enough. If the information is not relevant to the topic, then it can be excluded, it is not required to be included just because other information from a source is used. I used a source on another article that misspelled the persons name, but I did not add it to the article simply because I used other info from that same source. If the information is clearly wrong (i.e. later corrected or covered in later sources) it can be excluded. For instance a false report of someone dying would not be used to say X died on Y date, though that article might be used for background material that is often included in an obituary. False information can be excluded, we do not need to keep it just because the source is used somewhere else in an article.

Example: Under your theory, if I were to take a biography on Abraham Lincoln, and then use it to add a single sentence to a paragraph about his speech abilities that said his voice was high pitched. Assuming everything else in the book was already covered, you would say this is NPOV because other useable info was omitted. Under my interpretation, that’s fine. Also under my version, your first example about the movie review fails not under NPOV, but under that’s not what the source said, so you do not even make it to NPOV. You cannot take a source and make it say something that it did not. Which is not what we are talking about in this case. The article clearly said his dad was a professor and Cohen graduated from the college (though with the NY Sun article info that needs to be corrected to attended). There was no editing to make the article say something it did not already say, i.e. “...O.J. Simpson... bilked money... from... Latte Magazine” which I can edit the quote to say, but that is not what the article said. That, and your movie review fail WP:V. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We're talking past each other and I think I know why; when I said If the Malkin column stays then all relevant information about this guy in it also has to come with the good stuff. that I was talking to or about you, since you added the ref. Am I right? Really, if that were the case, I'd of identified you directly. I was talking about having to include information like Air America radio host Al Franken, punctuating his discussion with nervous laughter, called Cohen a "crook" on his show last week and confessed to his left-wing audience that "I think he was robbing Peter to pay Paul." That is relevant for several reasons, which are probably very obvious so I won't patronize you by explaining.

If the Malkin column stays then all relevant information about this guy in it also has to come with the good stuff. Means that for one or two "nice" things to say, we also have to include some very "negative" things. That's all I'm saying here.Anynobody 06:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(PS You'll notice, in the thread above about actually keeping the Malkin source, I'm against it. So please don't think I was saying the article needs more negative information.)Anynobody 06:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. With the Franken comments, yes that topic should be covered, but again in a neutral, and for the size of this article in a summarized version due to WP:UNDUE, manner. For example, “Air America political pundit/employee/DJ/talent Al Franken called Cohen a crook on air when discussing the financing of the network.” Honestly, I don’t think it really adds much to the coverage of the topic since it is just Franken’s opinion and I doubt he was involved in any of the financing activities. He probably has as much insight as the janitor at the complex.

No, in that you still are saying if a source is used, then everything in it has to come in. That’s where we disagree. The best examples I can come up with this are this: Let’s say the first draft of the Nixon article was 99% Watergate info. Then the next editor comes along and adds the first 50+ years of his life, you know the where he was born, where he went to school, who were his parents, his first job, his time in the US House, his rise to national prominence with the House UnAmerican committee, his time as VP, his first run for the White House, time as CA gov, and first trip to the White House, with all this information coming from the definitive biography on Nixon, one that includes chapters of info about Watergate. Under your interpretation of NPOV, what that editor did in the hypo, violates NPOV because that editor did not include the negative info about Watergate. An even better example. Let’s say there is an article on Jeffrey Dalmer and it has a single ^{[citation needed]} in it, with everything else sourced. An editor comes along and using a source that contains tons of negative and positive info, sources the tagged statement. Because that editor did not include all relevant information, then under your theory that is a violation of NPOV. Which ironically is actually close to the situation we are in, as you highlighted the edit above. You commented out some background info (which you also claim BLP means that is what needs to be done, but here too that is not correct, only contentious info needs to be removed per the template at the top of this page and the policy/guideline), which you said you were doing until it was sourced. I provided a source for one of those items and added another bland/neutral item on his family (had the dad been a construction worker I would have written that as long as it was covered in the article). Can all relevant info from a source be added, yes. Does it have to, no. Your concern about people manipulating sources is covered under other guidelines/policies. And if someone were to simply cherry pick only the good info from sources (or only use positive sources) and place that info into an article to where that was then the only info in the article, then that would be non-NPOV.

So I don’t think we are that far apart, but I doubt you will ever accept my interpretation of how NPOV works, and for the examples given above I cannot except your version. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly how something is phrased can keep any particular piece of information from being blown out of proportion, however please consider that no matter how much non-inflammatory verbiage one includes the overall nature of facts will come through. (In other words, nicely calling someone a crook won't mitigate the POV expressed in calling them a crook.)

I'm sorry to say that you're still misunderstanding me. I'm not advocating we include everything from the article, rather everything relevant from it. See I really did say that. (Understanding that I don't mean this should literally be pasted into the article, there is material in Malkin's article related to this topic which I'm including simply for convenience.)

Cohen reportedly told the Gloria Wise Boy & Girls Club executive committee last year that he needed money to cover medical expenses for himself and his father" a businessman in Asia," according to the New York Sun, who was said to be "gravely ill." There's just one small problem with the sob story about Cohen's dad, though. He has been dead since 1991.

Given its direct relationship to the Air America scandal, it ought also be included (if we keep the article), though it makes him look even worse. Here is another example of relevant info, among some which I don't think belongs in the article.(I've crossed out that which I wouldn't include.(Because there is no mention of his father in the article, there really isn't a point in mentioning his possible disappointment Anynobody 04:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)))

According to Fran Magbual, a family friend of the Cohens whom I interviewed this week from Hawaii, Marvin Montvel-Cohen was an art and anthropology professor at the University of Guam. Magbual's father also taught at that school. Cohen's deceased father "was a simple, nice man. Well respected," Magbual told me. Another old friend of the Cohens, Gail Stone, also knew Cohen's father in Guam, where she grew up. "I'm glad he's not alive to see this," Stone told me by phone from Hawaii. Stone lived next to an accountant who worked with Cohen the younger at a Guam publication called Latte Magazine. According to Stone, her neighbor was fired after calling attention to financial irregularities involving Cohen.

We really aren't that far apart, I fully agree, we're saying the same things. The issue here appears to be mostly related to mis perception of motives. Anynobody 01:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm going off here is:

"If the Malkin column stays then all relevant information about this guy in it also has to come with the good stuff." (emphasis added)

"In short, either it's all in or it's all out, anything else is selective sourcing to create an illusion of neutrality." (emphasis added)

So, again, of your first stated theories on NPOV (maybe you've changed from that position), even if it is already covered, it must come in. Again, under my theory, if it is already covered, then it does not have to be repeated. If you want to add what you are quoting, then that works under my theory, since it is not already covered (for at least the third time, if you want to add something more from the source, do so).

Lastly, I am still waiting for you to address the $20,000 issue.

Add what you want, but do so in a neutral manner: "Certainly how something is phrased can keep any particular piece of information from being blown out of proportion, however please consider that no matter how much non-inflammatory verbiage one includes the overall nature of facts will come through. (In other words, nicely calling someone a crook won't mitigate the POV expressed in calling them a crook.)" That is, exactly letting the facts speak for themselves. Put it in the neutral manner and the reader will then decide for themselves that someone is a or is not a crook. We do not call them a crook, we simply describe actions and the reader will then decide. If a source calls them a crook, we let the reader know the source called them a crook. But we do use the "non-inflammatory verbiage" in the article. Its not about if negative information or positive information should be included, it is about how its included and phrased. Like NPOV says, you do not need to say Hitler is evil, it will come out even from a neutrally worded article. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Aboutmovies (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, since I didn't emphasize any part of the two statements you're going off of, wouldn't it make more sense to drop the unintended emphasis and focus on the whole idea being expressed? (Or just asking, "what do you mean by that?" rather than assuming I'm quoting some personal crank theory.) Either all the relevant info is in or it's out (because the column isn't a WP:RS as addressed in the thread above. Non-reliable sources can have relevant information too, but just being relevant isn't enough.) Only including some of the relevant information is being selective.

Regarding the $20 grand, forgive me if this sounds condescending, but given that Cohen's notability rests on poor or shady monetary dealings made in the conduct of business, a source outright saying he owes them $20,000 sounds awfully relevant considering:
1)This business venture ended in controversy regarding money, just like Progress Media Inc.
2) Since we mention him as having operated several businesses on Guam, we're obliged to say how any of them ended, good or bad that are mentioned in our sources. In the KUAM article, it happened to be bad. Anynobody 06:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Unintended like here where you capitalized ALL?

With the $20,000 grand it says: "It should be pointed out that KUAM maintains it is owed $20,000 by a now-defunct advertising agency previously run by Cohen. Cohen denies he owes the money." So they say yes, he says no. You wrote it as if it was a fact. That would be like saying O.J. killed the two people. One jury said he did, the other said he didn't. NPOV says, you present it as such. So a neutral treatment would be: ...a local TV station asserts Cohen's former company till owes them $20,000, which is disputed by Cohen. That presents both sides. Your version presents one side. I never said it was relevant, I said it needs to be altered to meet NPOV, as you may have read above where I quoted the same passage from the KUAM article with a proposed solution. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also looked at this issue and it appears that the words "self-granted loan" is also inflammatory and not unbiased as the editor claims. Cohen asked for the loan and the board of directors granted the loan to Cohen. He couldn't just give himself the loan. If the board felt it was inappropriate then the board should not have given him the loan. It also appears regarding, the sale of Air America to Piquant, that Cohen wanted to repay the loan based on the stipulation that Piquant must repay the loan. As for the KUAM report alleging he owes money ... you have to consider the source. A KUAM reporter wrote the story and KUAM is a direct competitor of Sorensen Media Group. Cohen works for Sorensen Media Group. I agree with Aboutmovies the edit must follow NPOV guidelines because it is my hope someone would remain neutral when posting or submitting information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magahet (talk • contribs)

Aboutmovies is this some kind of joke? I ask for three reasons,1) The link you provided is to a conversation on GoodDamon's talk page from over a month ago, 2) It was about a different article entirely 3) It also includes the word you seem to keep missing, relevant. The actual statement is ALL relevant information not ALL. Of course I'm happy to explain what I was talking about on your talk page or something, but talking about a dead guy's biography here seems to be misusing the talk page.

You wrote it as if it was a fact. That would be like saying O.J. killed the two people. So change it, you're acting like I've actually reverted your edits or something. However I wrote it that way because it asserts quite plainly that he owes them the money. Here though, is where you are making a mistake by assuming from the edit in question that I have a problem including the fact that he denies owing the money.

Magahet, you are correct that the board granted his Air America loan, however they were also granting themselves a lot of money too. The overall issue is that Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club was supposed to use its money for things necessary to run the actual clubs. A lot of this money came from local government grants, meaning it was taxpayer money. Granting loans to employees and buying themselves Volvos was not what the grants were for. I had intended on correcting that myself once I was able to figure out why Aboutmovies insists on focusing on minutiae, ignoring context, and acting like I'm edit warring with him/her. Anynobody 07:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Joke, no. The comment you made months ago was read months ago (notice the posts on GoodDamon by me before and after your comments), and demonstrates your view of what NPOV means, which is the entire point of this string of posts. This along with the above posts tends to show you want all relevant info from source in an article. Right? Next, it does not matter what article we are talking about, unless you have some idea that NPOV changes by what article we are talking about, as I assure you it does not change. NPOV stays the same no matter what article is being edited. As to missing "relevant" nope, didn't miss that. What I've been saying is: relevant or not, some info from a source can be excluded, you know where it has already been covered. I covered this in my initial post here. If something has already been covered in the Wikipedia article, we can exclude that same relevant information from a source, if it is not covered (for at least the third time now) feel free to add any new info from the source you think has not been already covered in the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] www.pacificnewscenter.com

I'm a bit concerned about this source, being part of the Sorensen Media Group, should we treat it as a sort of self published source? The rules say it's ok to use such sources in articles like this, but makes me wonder if a source which normally caries fully reliable information is handled differently when discussing its executives. For example would we give the same weight to articles from FOX News if Roger Ailes were caught up in some kind of mess like this where his position would allow him the unique opportunity to more or less report on himself? Anynobody 07:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)