Cnnfox

Please verify your sources for the section entitled "Flirting With Higher office."

Steve Cooley

Sorry to keep removing the paragraphs on the Steve Cooley page. I have no particular love for the guy. But I'm determined for that article to live up to the WP:LIVING and WP:NPOV policies. And any negative claims about a living person need to be backed up not just by citations of some sort - but would have to be backed up by high quality, neutral, third-party analysis to avoid libel. But in my review those two paragraphs are a long way from that standard. Please discuss the details of the paragraphs on that article's talk page, and/or propose rewrites that avoid speculation, are specifically about him (and not other people), and are well supported by credible and neutral third-parties - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments on that article's talk page, have you considered starting an article specifically about the murder case? Something like Murder of Bonnie Lee Bakley? I'm sure some editors would argue that the facts of the case primarily belong on the Bonnie Lee Bakley and Robert Blake articles but I think it deserves its own article - especially if folks added all of the detail that is not notable about individual people but ties it all together chronologically. It could include a time line of the murder, investigation, and trials. That way then related articles, like Bakley's and Blake's and Brando's, and even Cooley's, can all link to it but then the minutia of the case can be documented even when it's not notable to a specific person. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, a separate article about the murder would probably help clean up the Christian Brando article as well, now that I look at that. It has similar issues, a lot of details about the case that are speculative or not directly relative to him but try to put his implication of involvement into perspective. Yet it then makes the article mostly about that case and unbalances it. His manslaughter conviction is tiny compared to all of the details of the case he was never tried for. Breaking the trial out would then help move the details out into a single place... Interested in starting that article? I think it would add value. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It still to me appears a stretch to have so much detail about Fiebelkorn just to note the allegation that Cooley tried to intimidate a witness, and allegation that was never tried and proven. just someone's claim. Here's the paragraph again for reference:

Following the criminal trial, the Bakley family filed a wrongful death civil suit against Blake. Brian Allan Fiebelkorn, a defense witness with evidence that supported the defense's 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.

All this just to claim that Cooley may have sent a detective to intimidate a witness? Fine that it's in testimony, but it's still just Fiebelkorn's theory and no complaint was filed against Cooley. If I were to edit this paragraph to just be about that point it would read thus:

"Brian Allan Fiebelkorn, a defense witness in the case, testified that Steve Cooley ordered LAPD detective Ron Ito to intentionally intimidate him. He later filed a formal complaint against detective Ito. No formal complaint was filed against Cooley and the DA's office did not comment on the allegation." (is that true?)

See the difference and my point? The current article language implied he's guilty of something but without clearly stating what exactly. This potential rewrite tries to be more clear and balance it. Is it true that Fiebelkorn specifically implicated Cooley in the intimidation allegation? Is that really what's being stated? What was the DA office's response? We'd need to be super clear and precise about allegations like this against a living person. It's exactly what the libel guidelines are about... I wouldn't want to add anything in the article like that unless I was totally sure that Fiebelkorn said that and even then it needs the balancing facts from the opposing viewpoint to avoid libel. We personally may be legally responsible for adding content like this otherwise. - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)