Talk:Martha Coakley

message: Is this a joke?  No need for discussion, I'm erasing it.Dough007 (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  parody section? 

message: There should be a section about Coakley's lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, Commonwealth vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.19.251 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOMA lawsuit 

message: I notice there's no discussion of her leading the Louise Woodward au pair trial as an assistand district attorney in '97. Any reason? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case 75.67.195.144 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louise Woodward Trial 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martha_Coakley&diff=next&oldid=316696016
I believe that it has possible merit, seems factual and contains supporting citations. Because it is listed as a "controversy" I thought its merits and possible reinsertion should be discussed first. Also the reason given for the removal is not supported. Thank You. 71.174.4.67 (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly improperly removed section 

message: Please be aware, this wiki entry has been edited to remove all negative information, no matter how true it may be. - 24.177.38.231 (talk)
:Information such as that contained in the article Martha Coakley: Too immoral for Teddy Kennedy's seat by Ann Coulter? "Enter Martha Coakley, Middlesex district attorney. Gerald Amirault had already spent 15 years in prison for crimes he no more committed than anyone reading this column did. But Coakley put on a full court press to keep Amirault in prison simply to further her political ambitions.
:"By then, every sentient person knew that Amirault was innocent. But instead of saying nothing, Coakley frantically lobbied Gov. Jane Swift to keep him in prison to show that she was a take-no-prisoners prosecutor, who stood up for 'the children.' As a result of Coakley's efforts – and her contagious ambition – Gov. Swift denied Amirault's clemency.
:"Thanks to Martha Coakley, Gerald Amirault sat in prison for another three years. … Martha Coakley allowed her ambition to trump basic human decency as she campaigned to keep a patently innocent man in prison." Asteriks (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative Information 

message: Yes the seat became 'vacant' when Kennedy passed away. But now it's filled (though temporarily) by Paul G. Kirk. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The seat vacant? 

message: So Martha Coakley prosecuted a pedophile priest in 2002...but 7 years earlier she made a deal which allowed that same priest to go free for the same crimes:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/23/coakley_details_her_role_in_1995_probation_deal_for_geoghan/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Somebody with editing rights, please fix:
Third paragraph in this section makes no sense in its current form. Obviously "Both were given..." should be replaced with "The two men charged with planting the signs were given...". Also, this paragraph should be joined with the one above.
There are other problems in this article, too. Last two paragraphs under the "Controversies" section I find confusing. There seems to be missing information.
Overall it would be great to see more information here. I came to this article in hopes of figuring out whether Coakley's views are similar enough to my own, to warrant my financial support (from very limited funds). From this scant background, I can't tell at all and will have to look elsewhere. There should be in particular more info about her recent primary campaign, and her political positions relevant to national politics. Oddly enough, when I follow the link to United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010, and from there the links to her former opponents in the primary, I find lots of info on the political positions of the 2nd- and 3rd-place finishers. But there's nothing on the winner!
I come to Wikipedia when I'm unfamiliar with a candidate, because of its tendency to be objective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.67.234 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attorney General 

message: The section mentioning EPA v. Massachusetts asserts that the EPA has yet to classify greenhouse gases as threatening to public health.  This is no longer true: they formally classified the gases as a health threat on December 7, 2009.  See here for more info: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7ebdf4d0b217978b852573590040443a/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252!OpenDocument
Someone please fix this.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.233.18 (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPA Summary Outdated 

message: Coakley's lobbying of then-governor Jane Swift to help prevent commutation of Amirault's sentence despite a 5-0 decision in his favor by the commutation board that reviewed his case should perhaps be mentioned, as she effectively put this man, almost certainly innocent(his sister and mother, convicted of the same crimes as he, had their convictions reversed by two different judges), in prison for three more years before he was released on parole, and he still has to be registered as a sex offender. Amirault's case and(to an extent) Coakley's involvement are fairly well known and have been the subject of Pullitzer Prize-winning journalism by Dorothy Rabinowitz. 70.171.243.158 (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerald Amirault 

message: Coakley's page seems to have been boiled down to her "citation needed" controversies, without discussing some significant achievements.  Brown's page is very positive, in comparison.  Can we get some balance here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.130.63 (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Please be advised editors are removing well sourced controversy information.  It is advisable to look at the edit history to see what changes
are made and decide for yourself why those changes have occured.  If you feel something which complies with wikipedia policies has been deleted 
by accident or in an attempt to skew the accuracy of this article.. please revert back the edit to include the information which was deleted.  thank you -Tracer9999 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tracer9999, I have listed ORIGINAL SOURCE material, the actual video of the January 11th debate and Sean Hannity's own video interview of John McCormack. For you to claim some pundit's spin trumps actual footage of what's being stated is absurd. We are an encyclopedia, not some cheap tabloid that repeats whatever garbage anyone happens to claim. Flatterworld (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

text: So you're now claiming the University of Massachusetts Boston, host of the event, which has its own channel on YouTube just for these sorts of things, is RUBBISH? Not a valid source? You talking nonsense. If you can't tell the difference between some kid posting some video and a University's official channel...you don't belong here. Flatterworld (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning: Removal of accurate info!! 

message: Section has become a cesspool of multiple issues, including, and not limited to, blatant violations of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. J.R. Hercules (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template added to "Controversy" section 

message: Under controversies, in the part where Coakley was talking about al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the US role in Afghanistan, there are only two sources that actually mention Coakley (apart from a user comment on another): the Media Matters article, and the article from the Boston Herald.  The Media Matters article alone claims that she was talking about al-Qaeda rather than the Taliban; the Boston Herald simply says that she was talking about the terrorists (which, under US designation would include both groups).  The problem here is that the interpretation used in the article is from Media Matters, which designates itself as a progressive news organization, akin to MoveOn.org or the Huffington Post.  I would tend to think that this violates the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requirement, as Media Matters makes no attempt to claim neutrality.  A better way to address this topic would be to list the whole quote, give background and reaction from both sides, and let readers make up their own minds. Kkeurope (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kkeurope, the quote given is from the official debate video, and referenced as such. Media Matters is a watchdog for the conservative media, and is referenced just as various 'conservative media' sources are referenced. In this case, the MM article provides referenced quotes from various military experts, as well as referenced quotes from various 'conservative media' sources, which aid our readers in understanding the controversy. The former have now been provided separately. The latter are not, as they aren't encyclopedic sources. It's a bit of a Catch 22, but we are trying to explain the controversy and so we need the MM article which is 'necessary but not sufficient' on its own. Flatterworld (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Just for the record, I have now restored the individual references I added earlier because of this argument about Media Matters. They were later deleted, leaving the statement unsubstantiated, along with reducing the names supporting Coakley to 'military leadership' while the names supporting Brown were left in. That is not encyclopedic. Flatterworld (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: To address Tracer9999's erroneous comment, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/mediamatters.org. MediaMatters is only 'routinely reverted' when it is used as an External link section, not as a reference to a particular statement. Flatterworld (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Matters a reliable source? 

message: While I understand other stuff exists argument, what I was pondering was while this article seems so lopsided against the person (I.E. a controversy section which is one of the largest sections in the article.) while her opponent's article seems to have no controversy section or controversies woven into the article? What I would like to suggest is to heavily pair down the controversy section or remove it all together.  Maybe we could also take some of the more relevant criticisms and move them into the appropriate sections instead of pulling them out into a separate section.  Brothejr (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is: I did a quick search of Brown and found that he has said and done many things in his political career that are controversial, yet they do not appear in his article.  While I am not advocating running out and placing them into his article, nor am I saying that because there is so much stuff here we must balance the two out, I've just noticed that since the election it seems as if she has more of her problems posted on here then he does.  I mean heck, here is a quick Google search: .  My point is this: if we are going to cover the controversial things she has done (and I'm not denying any of that), we should avoid anything that is heresy or tabloidish.  We should prune out some of the more weirder things and leave it at that.  Brothejr (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually I was WP:BOLD and actually read the information that was added and also the refs and removed information that was not directly (I mean something she herself did as a controversy not what someone said or a policy debate she had with her opponent.) related to her.  Just because she says something someone disagrees with does not make it a controversy.  Also, actions other people do does not mean it was her controversy.  Finally just because she did not act the way someone wanted her to, but while still well within her duties as a AG, does not make it a controversy.  Brothejr (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I expect most of these started as 'issue positions' and then morphed into these 'controversies', at least some of which aren't even factual. There's a reason there's a separate article about the actual election. One would expect, in an encyclopedia article, more emphasis on actual issue positions than fake 'controversies', but this is apparently how Massachusetts plays politics. Ignorance rules. I have added the usual non-partisan links to each of the three candidate pages, and links to the video/audio of each of the debates - apparently no one working on these articles, and pretending to speak authoritatively on the debates, could be bothered to actually watch or listen to them. That's a disappointment, although perhaps not a surprise. Flatterworld (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something I noticed. 

message: As the reference is a podcast without time marks, this is what was said about one-third of the way in (after discussion about the earlier amendment, they moved on to their current issue positions on the rights of rape victims):
:Coakley: If a woman comes to a hospital in that situation, should she get the emergency contraceptive, or if there are people that for religious reasons opposed, she should she have to go to...get back in her car and go to another hospital?
:Brown: Roe v Wade is the law of the land. If somebody has been raped, they're certainly entitled to do what they feel they need to do to rectify their situation.
:Moderator: But not there, not at that particular location.
:Brown: That's really up to the hospital. There are many, many hospitals that can deal with that situation. 
: That's the actual reference. Unfortunately the FactCheck.org reference was misquoted as well. Their quarrel was with the implication ANY care would be denied, not just the emergency contraception. Flatterworld (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies - emergency contraceptive 

message: The section about the journalist who was pushed seems entirely irrelevant to me as even the victim seems to have admitted Coakley most likely did not see the event occur. I'll wait an hour to hear from anyone else who wants to weigh in. Jacotto (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if someone could explain to me why "honest mistake" in the following section has quotation marks around it, I'd love to hear it. Jacotto (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume because that's the name on the article at the Boston Globe ‘Honest mistakes’: Martha Coakley failed to disclose all assets. The actual article says that she "overlooked" $200,000 in savings in her financial disclosure. Perhaps we should use that language instead. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Comment I would say that the cited sources describing the altercation between Coakley's staffer and a reporter that you removed are relevant to Coakley in the sense they are relevant to her campaign. Coakley commented on the incident saying that Republican 'stalkers' were the cause. The scuffle was relevant more to the general race than to her specifically but perhaps Coakley's comments: “I know there were people following, including two from the Brown campaign who have been very aggressive in their stalking,” say more about her personal opinions. I note that the incident is already mentioned at United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010#Controversies. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's relevant to her campaign, but I do not think it is relevant to her. If we wanted to start another article about her campaign, or put it under the section regarding her campaign for US senate, I'd be for that. However I don't think it belongs in 'controversies' as they relate to her. Jacotto (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies - pushing 

message: I don't know if this is already being done or not, but shouldn't there be some kind of tag at the top of the article citing this person's relationship with a significant current event? 74.107.120.44 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really. At this point it's pretty clear she's lost. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current events tag or something? 

message: I stuck this sentence in the lede, and User:ChildofMidnight removed:
:Many political commentators criticized Coakley's campaign, suggesting that her political career would be marred by the high-profile defeat.
I can understand knee-jerk reluctance on phrasings like this, but this case it's merited, and easily sourced to the vast tide of editorials published this morning.  A lede should summarize the most important facts about a person, and this was no ordinary election loss.  It's pretty important to note the effect was unusual.  By way of example, George Allen (U.S. politician) went from "potential 2008 presidential candidate" to "laughingstock" after losing an "easy" Senate race in Virginia and his macaca moment.  The lede mentions this notoriety (actually not enough, IMHO, but it does go into it).
CoM then says that this is a simplification of the election.  But this is the article on *Coakley* not the special election, therefore the indisputable fact that Coakley was given personal blame for a bad campaign is quite relevant.  Basically, the right-wing spin is that national issues predominated; the left-wing spin is to blame it all on Coakley; and which one is more "true" is totally irrelevant.  In other words, if God came down and told us that the right-wing version was 100% correct, it wouldn't change the fact that Coakley's name in the Democratic party is now mud and she'll forever be remembered as the person who managed to lose Kennedy's seat.
Anyway, I'm not wedded to the above wording, but I do think something along these lines should be in the lede.  "Coakley was heavily criticized for her campaign, especially after the results became official?"  Open to suggestions here. SnowFire (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine adding it to the lead. The wording of it could be improved, and it should be sourced though.  ~DC Talk To Me 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: Coakley said that the voting age should be lowered.  http://lowerthevote.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/three-massachusetts-senator-candidates-support-lower-voting-age  When I add "Category:Youth rights individuals" on the page, please leave it there.  sbrianhicks (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.234.196.0 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youth rights 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Martha Coakley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100119044033/http://www.scotusblog.com:80/argument-analysis-as-kennedy-goes/ to http://www.scotusblog.com/argument-analysis-as-kennedy-goes/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Martha Coakley. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016054204/http://www.naag.org:80/martha-coakley.php to http://www.naag.org/martha-coakley.php
*Added  tag to http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100115awaiting_giuliani_brown_supporters_welcome_surprise_surge/srvc=home&position=4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Martha Coakley. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714041757/http://www.marthacoakley.com/news/press_releases/details/announcement to http://www.marthacoakley.com/news/press_releases/details/announcement
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified