Talk:Steve Cooley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Please do not post information that is inaccurate. The section "Flirting With Higher Office" needs to be removed. Legalprofile 20:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

OK, recent edits to this article do not meet encyclopedic standards. Please read WP:LIVING and WP:NPOV if you're not already familiar with those policies before editing this article further and please, please help me neutralize the language here. It still needs further work to remove point of view edits. This article is not a place for critics of this person to make a partisan case. - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed these two paragraphs entirely:

Steve Cooley's office was unsuccessful in the prosecution of Robert Blake for the murder of his wife Bonnie Lee Bakley. Following criminal trial, the Bakeley's family filed a wrongful death civil suit against Blake. Robert Blake's civil trial was not without controversy as well. Brian Allan Fiebelkorn, a defense witness with evidence and an alternate theory of who killed Bonnie Lee Bakley, testified that Steve Cooley sent an intimidating LAPD detective named Ron Ito to interview him. A secretly recorded tape by the LAPD detective of one of Fiebelkorn's interviews seemed to prove Fiebelkorn's claims of police intimidation. M. Gerald Schwartzbach (Robert Blake's criminal attorney) and Brian Allan Fiebelkorn, filed a formal complaint against the LAPD and detective Ron Ito.

Steve Cooley was preparing to run as a Republican in the 2006 election to replace the termed out California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer. However, following Robert Blake's acquittal, where Cooley publicly called members of the jury who acquitted him "incredibly stupid" and refused to apologize for it [1], Cooley dropped out of the race citing he wants to finish out his term as Los Angeles County District Attorney which runs until 2008 [2]. Since his term ends in 2008, Cooley is a possible Republican candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles in 2010.

The former because it has no direct statement about the subject of this article. It's all about other people. And the latter because it's all speculative and the first citation is merely describing what he said and doesn't support the tone or conclusions in that paragraph and the second citation is from an op-ed opinion piece. If you'd like to add a opinion view and then please specifically present it as one notable person's opinion and not established fact. Best to include any opposing views as well. - Owlmonkey (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

cnnfox added these paragraphs back without adding meaningful comments here first. I still believe these paragraphs above are not encyclopedic quality, potentially libelous, and not appropriate for this article. Let me explain further, the Robert Blake paragraph only barely mentions Cooley. It's all about the Blake case and issues and Cooley's office in general - not him. The one place it does mention Cooley directly is accusing him of ordering police intimidation. That's libelous, and cannot be included in an encyclopedia unless it's uncontrovertibly and backed up by neutral, third-party citations. The citations listed in that paragraph do not support that claim adequately. The next paragraph about his running for office is simply original research and the links do not back up the claims. The cnn news article states that he did not apologize for his claim, not the implied connection between that comment and his dropping out of the 2006 election. It's using the citation to back something up that the citation does not. And citing the op-ed piece on the armeniandiasporo forum bulletin board isn't a neutral, third party source suitable for an encyclopedia either. just because some editor has an opinion doesn't make it worthy of an encyclopedia article. - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the part about him being the first Republican DA since the 1930's - this is not true, since Evelle Younger was DA in the 1960's and early 1970's and was a Republican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.208.134 (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. - Owlmonkey (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

CNNFOX Edits

I appreciate OWLMONKEY's efforts to uphold the integrity of wikipedia and the paragraph in question concerning the Robert Blake controversy. However, the referenced news article citations ARE third party and neutral sources (Linda Deutsch, lead reporter for the Associated Press). Further, the referenced paragraph does not make a claim of Cooley "ordering police intimidation"; rather, it states that Cooley sent an LAPD detective to interview Fiebelkorn. That detective was intimidating, according to Fiebelkorn's testimony under oath. The aforementioned is recorded Court testimony, and the actual tape recording of that interview is now public record, as it was submitted as evidence in open court. In fact, this matter is part of the pending appeal of the Civil Trial verdict against Robert Blake, which is due for oral arguments this January 15, 2008.

Thank you for discussion. I do agree that AP news articles are generally neutral and third party. My issue with the first robert blake paragraph that you added back isn't that all these things occurred or are citable facts, just that they're not really that notable for Cooley. I can only imagine that every L.A. district attorney historically has cases their office wins and loses, and cases they are criticized about. All high profile LA cases go through that office. Unless something is specifically done by or said by the DA then any particular case wouldn't be that notable for an encyclopedia article about them, except to list perhaps the notable cases that were prosecuted under his/her term and link to articles about them. One exception here is that he called the jury stupid, for which law professor Laurie Levenson at Loyola Law School in L.A. was quoted, "Cooley's words are unprofessional." OK, he said something unprofessional about the jury. But is even that really notable? Doesn't seem so to me, any major city DA probably gets comments like that occasionally.

Then the second paragraph about blake added back seems less to be about Cooley and more about Schwartzbach, Fiebelkorn and Ron Ito. The only link to Cooley there is that his office asked the LAPD to interview someone and there was a claim it was intimidating. I'm sure the DA's office asks the LAPD to interview people every day. So what's notable about that? And why is that specifically about or controversial to Cooley in any way? The facts are interesting and citable, sure, but my issue with the second paragraph is just that it doesn't seem that notable for this article in particular, and would probably be better served on an article specifically about the bakley murder or pages about Schwartzbach, Fiebelkorn or Ron Ito if they existed. It seems out of place here to me, and by being here implies that Cooley had more of a hand in the accusations against Ito.

So in summary, the most notability I find for Cooley with respect to Robert Blake is that he ran the DA office during the time of the case, he made comments about the case, and he lacked remorse about those comments. And it all just doesn't seem that notable to me as something specific for Cooley. I'd be ok with a note about his calling the jury dumb and linking to the other articles, or a list of notable cases prosecuted under his watch, but to add more about a specific case would need more about what he said and did that was notable. All the bakley murder facts are quite notable though on articles about Bakley and Blake and possibly Brando and deserve to be on those articles. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as OWLMONKEY's concerns with the "flirting with higher office" paragraph, I understand his/her concerns. cnnfoxCnnfox (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cooley102.jpg

Image:Cooley102.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I found a creative commons pictures of him here and here. I'll upload and use one of those instead since those are free to use with attribution. Please proceed with removing that image. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic

Ok, please explain to me how your recent edits, ip user 71.177.147.64 (talk · contribs), fit into WP:NPOV and WP:LIVING guidelines. Where is attribution for "unpopular with 1000"? According to who exactly? You mention the salary increase as part of an accusation of malfeasance via "raised the possibility". Then a criticism against the county supervisors. How does that relate to this article exactly? My main issue with the edits is that they build cases related to the article, and non-neutral cases, but fundamentally we can't build cases here. To do so is original research and speculation, even when attributed. Hence my comment about avoiding an axe to grind. Sorry to piss you off. My point is not about being balanced, and it's definitely not about you personally, it's about omitting unattributed opinion altogether and avoiding passing opinion off as fact generally. To do so is un-encyclopedic and editorializing. For example, your edits include "carries the same albatross around his neck", you mention Robles claims' twice, and basically only criticize Cooley. Neutral? - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see you're getting the "unpopular 1000" quote from the LA times, where they write "Deputy Dist. Atty. Steve Ipsen leads the prosecutors' union and details how Cooley's tenure has proved unpopular for the 1,000 lawyers in the office." Isn't Steve Ipsen running against Cooley? Do you really think that's appropriate here as a stated fact instead of an attributed opinion? The whole LA times citation is dubious, it's an "Opinion" piece in the "Editorials" section. Even attributing all of it's points to the LA times Editorial desk should be done with caution, because it's clearly presented as an opinion piece not as neutral news reporting. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations policy, specifically "When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious." -Owlmonkey (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pissed?

First of all lets keep this professional. Pissed is hardly being respectable. Again as I stated earlier I dont know what your professional editing qualifications are, but it appears you are for some reason, according to the history, been playing guardian of this article since it's inception. The fact that you challenge professionals writers as CNN and myself, an award winning columnist by deleting our contributions in their entirety is hardly meeting the balance requirements of NPOV.

"Focus on content, not on the other editor. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story. Make sure that you provide reliable sources. Unreferenced text may be tagged or deleted - see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Always explain your changes, especially when you want other people to agree with you. If you can say it in one line, use the edit summary; for longer explanations, use the talk page and add "see talk" to the edit summary."

Moreover, excuse me if I have missed it I can't find any direct contribution you have made to this article? If you have please point it out to me?

If you are here merely to play Chief Executive Editor you should sharpen your people skills a bit and strive to encourage new users of wikipedia by being helpful and respectful of peoples efforts here. I.E. the first time you interact with me you delete all my contributions and try to belittle me. Dude let me assure you that is not the same respect you would afford me if we had met personally. My life is very simple as I travel between the USA and Asia frequently adjusting to the cultures but it is paramount in me that I also respect others and there time. You really think you could piss me off? Dont flatter yourself young man, my personal fortune does not allow someone at your level to affect me personally. When I'm pissed you'll know it because the entire earth shakes. Now if you want to come at me correct we can get along and work together here, but dont think you are going to trample on me like you have others here. 71.177.147.64 (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying and for keeping your cool. I didn't mean to offend you with the term "pissed", which is not a charged term in my community. But I can appreciate how that is not universal and it's not a sophisticated term. I also have nothing against you or others, I just hold edits of an article relating to a living person to a high standard. And I ask that you do as well. Nor am I a Republican or interested at all in Mr. Cooley's politics. I'm a very liberal democrat in an entirely different state, who believes in restorative justice and transformative justice models over retributive justice. So I believe Mr. Cooley's politics are most likely not compatible with mine. But I take the encyclopedic principles here to heart and labor to keep his article neutral and devoid of editorializing, even though I would most likely not vote for him if I lived in southern California.

My deletion of your edits en masse was because they appeared to me as partisan or in error and I didn't know where to start in extending them, honestly. NPOV isn't always achieved by balancing opposing views, but also by avoiding unattributed partisanship altogether. It's as much about removing POV as balancing established and verifiable 'attributed' views. But your edits had major problems, in my opinion. So I removed them and left you a note on your talk page with links to related policies letting you know why I did that.

My contribution has been keeping the article encyclopedic. But let's discuss specifics. Aside from my questions I asked above, for example, how is losing a case considered a controversy exactly? He has a 1000 lawyers working for him, anyone holding his position is going to lose more than a few cases. Since this is an article about a person in particular, not about the DA office generally, which of those points that you added in the controversy section specifically relates to Steve Cooley?? Take the Albert T. Robles 2002 threat case, how is that controversial or even notable with respect to Cooley? Certainly not that he lost the case. And the second $107 case being settled barely seems notable, especially given the size of the DA's office. The other politician names Robles' claims are interesting and relate to the present re-election, but a later citation ci_9009242 also from the San Gabriel Tribune points out that there have been many Political Reform Act cases like Robles in recent history and Robles didn't enter the race until after the charges were filed. You wrote however, "[accused Cooley of] only filing the charges to discredit his political opponent's candidacy June 3, 2008". Since he entered the race after the charges were filed, how can that be? - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok now somethings are becoming more clear as to your concerns. But many of the things you seek clarity for are well... known local facts. "Take the Albert T. Robles 2002 threat case, how is that controversial or even notable with respect to Cooley?" Are you kidding me? How do you define controversy is my question? Do you think taxpayers here are happy that he has lost these cases.. There is more... if you want I can put more out... brief examples #1 man signs wife's name on an lottery application for a fireworks stand for a little league... she was busy cooking in the kitchen.. there application was not drawn Cooley filed Felony forgery and perjury charges against the husband of 23 years!! Where is the harm that is what the judge even asked in that dum case... #2 DA investigators investigating residency of an elected official who had recently married improperly installed a GPS tracking device on the family Lexus. That night while the car is in the garage, the car catches on fire and the politician's 4 year old kid almost dies of smoke inhallation... Cooley later decides to file TAX EVASION charges against the man because he filed a claim... TAX EVASION is an AG or IRS Prosecution... and there are more... there is not enough space to put them all here.. One thing I will be honest with you about I really dont like that they almost killed that little 4 year old... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.147.64 (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the sharp criticism on your first batch of edits. Part of my concern was in making the distinction between what is about him, and what is about the DA's office or about his 1000 lawyers and other staff who work for him. Take the GPS device you mentioned above. That is a really awful story. To include it here, we'd need to know if he personally filed those charges and was then reproached for it? or did his office file those tax charges? I just searched for a citation but didn't find any. Such a high profile case he probably did weigh in on but we'd need that specifically. With the forgery case, did he personally weigh in on that case? Basically what I'm getting at is since this article is about him, then it should only include things that are clearly and directly about him. To weigh criticism about anything one of his 1000 lawyers did or for every single case that occurs in LA is out of scope. If neutral news reporting agencies level blame directly on him, like when he calling a jury "incredibly stupid" he got a lot of flack for it, then that's something directly about him. But otherwise any district attorney's office in LA is going to have a huge case load and many screw ups - especially with such a large staff - and it's odd to attribute anything in particular to him.

One way we could include content in the encyclopedia that is not specifically about him might be to create another article focused on criminal case controversies in a district. Something like Controversial criminal cases in Los Angeles or similar. Then we can add events that meet notability guidelines there about the DA's office generally. But otherwise we're using these cases to make an indirect criticism about him or of his management of the DA office.

His management of the office is something we could be more direct about, but we'd need to find third-party citations that specifically comment on his impact on the DA"s office or how the culture there has changed for the better or worse, etc. There's probably some content there. Many criticisms I'm seeing seem to imply that he's applying more strict interpretations of certain laws that end up being controversial and then a particular case might make an example of the point. (I'm signing off for tonight, goodnight) - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

O.k. i will try to refine my edits over the next week a little at a time, I have a life. I must admit I'm amazed as to where people find the time to mess with this stuff all the time. 71.177.147.64 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Here's a short talk that also asks that exact question "where people find the time": http://blip.tv/file/855937/

It's an interview with Clay Shirky from the recent web 2.0 conference. The short answer, there's plenty of time if we were to collectively just stop watching tv. :) - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Owlmonkey Thanks! I will check it out. I just checked in for a second to see if you had left a message. When I got here I see someone wacked the edits from last night without a comment, at least when we first met you showed the courtesy leave a message. This other person is not even trying to adhere to the NPOV. I now appreciate the time you are taking to better explain how wikipedia works. I will try to learn more as we go. Just be patient. Just last night I started to study the directions. There is a lot to learn. You know I have also noticed some people have given up and left because of certain editors not being patient with new users. For many years I have seen this trait in young supervisors I promoted. Many get power drunk when you give them a little authority for the 1st time. They have a pencil but think it is a hammer. However, I have patience with the new supervisors. If I learn they are power drunk, I will usually bring them into my office personally, which amazes them, and explain I want managers that manage by communication not ego and power. The real managers are those who can motivate the masses by being helpful and offering educational assistance, not by demeaning the workforce and being inconsiderate of there efforts to be part of the team. Using the threat of power only bares resistance and conflict no matter how correct your position might be. Anyways enough of my philosophies I promise you I will work on improving this article with your kind assistance. Just don't expect a whole lot too quick. In the next few days I'm sure we can collaborate to produce an awesome result. 71.177.147.64 (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no time deadline ever. I've seen folks get discouraged as well. Aside from conflicts I think the chaos and consensus decision process just isn't for everyone. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The 1000 lawyers claim really needs to go, it's from this part of the citation you added:

Deputy Dist. Atty. Steve Ipsen leads the prosecutors' union and details how Cooley's tenure has proved unpopular for the 1,000 lawyers in the office. He may prove a popular leader for the rank and file, but Ipsen lacks the judgment needed to steer the office, as exemplified by his irresponsible campaign to unseat two judges in 2004.

But they're referring to Ipsen's campaign against Cooley: certainly not a neutral nor third party fact, but an opinion from a competitor. Also, the article still has a number of things you added that are about the DA's office not about Cooley specifically. Any progress researching those? I think we should remove them until you've found more connection to Cooley specifically. - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sections Tagged

I tagged the conviction losses as unencyclopedic because any DA's office of a major city will normally have a long list of lost convictions both major and minor. It's not appropriate to enumerate them as controversial particularly, though maybe worth mentioning notable cases won and lost during tenure as merely a list? I'd recommend we just nix that section entirely. I also tagged the Belmont Learning Center investigation as non-neutral and single sourced. All I can find on the web seems to be from the Full Disclosure Network, which I've mentioned earlier is a questionable source because it's clearly not a neutral news source. I cannot find other news sources about the supposed controversy. The claims, if we can find sources, that Cooley promised to prosecute but then did not are possibly relevant because they're direct claims but it's also possible that the further investigation really did show that prosecution was not possible. Many possibilities there, so without citations what can we really say? Further, those details belong on the Belmont Learning Center article if anywhere before appearing here. Further, the un-cited complaint by two democrats about his handling of the investigation are questionable, one even ran against him in 2004. That whole section should probably just be struck as unverifiable unless anyone can find more info from a neutral source. - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

note: at this point user at IP address 71.177.147.64 reverted all of my changes back to his or her version. - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK user at IP address 71.177.147.64, it looks like you didn't like those most recent edits. What specifically did you have a problem with? - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into edit warring over your changes, but you're now reverting changes without taking the time to discuss them here. But you clearly have the time to monitor the page for changes and revert people. I thought we were starting to work together ok, but now it feels like that was only the case while i was willing to let your changes stand — while you said you were going to work on it more — and after a week nothing else has occurred, no further discussion, no work on the article. What's up? - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert things back to my last set of changes if I don't hear any reasoning soon. I'm trying to be more than reasonable here. - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I came here from WP:3O. Everything in a BLP must have solid refs, if not it is not allowed. However, that does not mean that if it has a ref it is automatically included. There is a major change about to be issued on BLPs in the footnotes arb case making BLP even stricter and easier to enforce. Let me know if there are more questions. Hit my talk page. I'm removed this from WP:3O. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. The BLP proposed change looks fantastic for me, I'd much rather have BLP articles be terse than contentious.I found the arb come case proposal for BLP here. Meanwhile, ip user 71.177.147.64, any comments? instead of a revert war, how about moving your edits here to the talk page to discuss them point by point next, as per the likely upcoming guideline change for biographic articles? - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Albert Robles again

Mr Robles is already mentioned earlier in the article, as Cooley's 2008 election opponent. IP user, it seems you're drawing the conclusion that the trial against him that resolved in Oct 2008 was retaliatory or politically motivated and caused by Steve Cooley. If that is the case, and since this is a biography of a living person (BLP), we must attribute such a viewpoint to someone who said it and the viewpoint must not be a fringe view. So where are your citations for this view and who holds it? I'm removing the section until we can discuss the required sourcing, per guidelines for contested material in a biography of living persons article. And in case you're wondering still, I live in Oregon and I'm a registered Democrat. Also note the proposed BLP guideline changes mentioned above on this talk page are now in effect. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good citations this time. Thank you. The Albert Robles section now has lots of weight and includes detail about Robles which is not relevant to an article about Steve Cooley. I'll try reducing some of the extra material so that the additional detail is included but doesn't unweight the article. Right now it has as much information about this one case as there is information about Cooley's background and life as DA as a whole. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I reduced the weight while keeping all the citations I believe and the key updated facts. Thank you for getting the story up to date with respect to the case and his re-election to the water board. That was good research and citations. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Marijuana Policy

IP editor re-established this claim as a controversy: "Steve Cooley has declared his staunch opposition to medicinal marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles County." but the citation for that claim merely says that he will enforce state law about over-the-counter sales of marijuana instead of a local city ordinance, if such an ordinance is passed by the local council. For one, how does that citation support that he has "declared his staunch opposition"? and two, how does that citation support that this is a noteworthy controversy? Unless there are citations supporting both claims this amounts to original research but I'm happy to hear about other citations. Since this is a biography of a living person (BLP) our standards for citations must be excellent and those articles in particular must be free of original research. Further, any contested content in a BLP must be removed until discussion on the talk page leads to a consensus. I'm certainly willing to consider that he has a controversial marijuana policy, but I'm just not finding the citations to back that up. All I'm finding is posts from dispensaries themselves, no neutral third-party news sources. Let's discuss this now then.- Owlmonkey (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times here seems to portray the latest issue as mostly administrative, in terms of how many dispensaries there may be in LA and whether there can be cash sales or not if the dispensary is a non-profit collective or a for-profit business. That's a good read before reviewing the LA Times discussing Mr. Cooley's reaction to the discussion. -Owlmonkey (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: Owlmonkey, you have disputed that Steve Cooley's stance on medicinal marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles County is not controversial. Could you please explain why? I feel that it is because:

1) Cooley is an elected official. 2) The electorate supports dispensaries by a 3:1 margin. 3) Cooley(a DA) is trying to make policy, rather than enforce the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.190.229.162 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it's up to us to decide what is controversial or not, it's up to credible, and neutral, third-party sources to decide what is controversial. Sure there is some judgment involved in that, but compared to the other topics in this articles controversy section I don't find anywhere near the same kind of published material from third-party sources discussing his marijuana position as the DA as controversial - aside from publications by the dispensaries themselves (who are not neutral). We can't decide what's controversial, in other words, we can only summarize what good sources decide is controversial - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Rereading your response let me add: I'm not claiming that it is or is not controversial so much as I'm saying that I cannot find credible citations that say that it is controversial. Do you have other citations that make the assertion that his marijuana policy is controversial? I don't think the LA Times citation originally included supports that assertion at all, just that he's disagreeing with the city council about what policies are going to be enforced. Are there other citations that you're basing your view upon? (I'm requesting a 3rd party opinion on this as well) - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your third opinion request at WP:3O: I believe Owlmonkey is correct in theory, but that the edit, if revised, is article-worthy. 209.190.229.162's analysis, above, is clearly just that, an analysis. Even if all 209's component facts are verifiable, his/her analysis is WP:OR or, more specifically, WP:NOT#ESSAY. At the same time, focusing on the issue of whether or not this is a controversy misses the point that, whether controversial or not, it will almost always be notable when an official at one level of government publicly declares that he or she will seek to nullify through criminal prosecution or other coercive means the actions of another agency of government (i.e. as opposed to a direct attack via established legal channels such as appeal or mandamus, though that, too, can be notable). I'm not familiar with the proposed ordinance, but I suspect from the context that there may be at least an argument, if not an accepted fact, that the ordinance may exceed the power of the council and/or be more symbolic than effective. Whether or not that suspicion is correct, the conflict is notable, whether or not it is controversial. The edit seems, therefore, in principle, article-worthy, though I do think that it ought to state the facts more directly, rather than characterize the DA's opinion, e.g. something like, "Steve Cooley has declared that he will enforce state law against over-the-counter sales of marijuana if an ordinance allowing such sales is passed by the local city council" (presuming that statement is correct and verifiable). TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 04:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. Your proposed summary is much more palatable to me, and supported by the citation. I doubt that would go in a controversies section, but would more be part of a section on how his policies relate to local and state law if there were one. I can certainly see this article expanded with verifiable summaries of his stances in different noteworthy topics, and then this might be part of that kind of section. I still frown upon its inclusion in a controversies section, because we still don't have a citation that supports the view that it is generally recognized as a controversy. Another editor also trimmed the content. I'll consider how to move the trimmed version into a views section. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And thank you again for responding to the WP:3O. I really appreciate your time and effort. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no "sir," please; I'm just another Joe trying to do his bit. Oh, and I agree that the reference would fit better in a views section. Happy editing! TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section

I'd propose we move the content currently remaining in the controversies section instead into sections for each of his terms of office as DA; that might then encourage expansion into more discussion of noteworthy cases and changes in policy that received comment in good sources. So the Robert Blake trial occurred in his second term as DA and so was the removal of his office in the battered women's case. Would make the structure of the article more chronological than taxonomic, but I think that would be more neutral. I agree the "controversies" section might have a bias in the mere name, and the current battered women content is a little stilted away from the mere facts as it sits now. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if no further comment i'll make the change. - Owlmonkey (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Campaign Finance Issues

I noticed there were a few revisions in the last few days. The "controversy" issues are relevant to Cooley's third term, and seem backed up with sources. The first edits seem a bit much, though sourced, but the single paragraph included more recent edits include information regarding investigations from his third term. Seems like a valid inclusion for the section on his third term. --LAbaseballFan (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Still seemed a bit attacking and undue to me, minor issues reported up and designed to make him appear in a bad light. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture

An IP address is repeatedly removing the recent picture and replacing it with a three year old picture without explanation . could they please explain what their issues are, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)