Talk:Stephen F. Cohen

Untitled

This entire section reeks of ego-hurt. Clean up your act.

This article reads like it was written by Cohen's mother. I placed "the foremost" in front of "scholar" with "a". There are many Russian scholars in the world-- the U.S. Secretary of State, to name one. Cohen's writing style is flamboyant. In Russian, it could be described as "styob" or "стёб." The claim that Cohen is a "close personal friend" of Gorbachev seems doubtful. This should be changed to "is a very deep admirer."

I agree. And perhaps this word "Publicy" should be "Publicity", I'm not sure though, but I do think it's a typo. I won't edit it, just to be sure. Эйрон Кинни (t) 10:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that he is no "close personal friend". I just saw "professor" Cohen in an interview on CNN on March 6th 2014. I'm terribly sorry, but I highly doubt this man has any idea concerning Russia. He actually stated that Nato in 1991 moved it's troops from Berlin to the Russian border at Poland, thus 'forcing' Putin to invade the Ukraine. That man knows next to nothing and definitely not enough to be a friend of a former Russian president! He obviously doesn't even know that Poland is it's on state, part of the European Union and nowhere near the border of Russia. And apparently doesn't know that Russia has it's most important military naval base in the Ukraine and has had it there for longer than the US exists. Or that the most important Russian gas pipeline crosses the Ukraine and that Russia just invested billions of dollars into oil and gas projects in the region with the US doing just the same.

If this person actually was a "close friend" of anybody in Russia or even in Europe he wouldn't walk around telling such complete nonsense in front of TV cameras on CNN. Is this guy really typical for the type of knowledge the US has concerning Europe and Russia? Because that would explain a few things. 78.54.185.33 (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. He's a retired Princeton professor emeritus. He's lived in Russia. Quite easy to meet Gorby. Many have. (I have - he's a great guy.) How good a friend is subjective. But Stephen Cohen knows a lot, more than most people, and is generally ranked as one of the two leading experts on Russia in the west. He also probably understands what you people are up to. Read the bio yourselves. Clean up your act. Shame on you.

Cohen also has two children from his first marriage to singer Lynn Blair Cohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychlist (talk • contribs) 20:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone seen the CNN debate that aired on November 16, 2008? The debate was with Nicolas Burns and Cohens' arguments were impressive. If someone could write on this I would value it very much.Mike Babic (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not written by his mother, but by an admiring grad student. I cut the unfunny story about golf, which was unsupported. Also flagged the "guess who he knows" as needing citation. Martindo (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

uncited and disputed

This content has been complained about at the blpnoticeboard so I havbe looked at it , done a goole search and decided it looks a bit perhaps false = a medal withj his own picture on it" ? Please cite and replace if you are able - Youreallycan 09:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In 2012 Cohen was nominated for an award for the World's Most Influential Interviewee for his well thought-out arguments and his well practiced hand gestures, providing many historians globally with note worthy "sound bites". Due to Cohen's exquisite taste for modern art, which is often on display behind him as he informs the world of Russian history, he was greatly praised all around the globe, thus resulting in various emerging groups naming themselves 'the Cohenists'. Furthermore, Cohen's quote when talking about war in the Russian countryside in the initial years of the 1920's "You hit them with one fist (swift movement with right hand)... and then hit them with the other fist (again, a swift movement with his left hand)... But, isn't that a form of class warfare?" earned him the highest form of praised which was given to him in the form of a golden medal with his face engraved in it.

Can somebody explain how the above contribution got here without a signature or an IP address? ---Dagme (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

disputed book content

I also can't find this book and the isbn is not correct = please cite and replace = imo it is part of the above post and could well be false = Youreallycan 09:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• How to give Interesting Interviews in Old Documentries: A study of the effectivness of hand gestures and background Modern Art in dictating your opinion, 2001, ISBN 9780195088889 Pub. 2001 by by Oxford University Press

I'm pretty sure this is satire/hoax material, perhaps by a very bored student. I don't think there will be a cite. JFHJr (㊟) 02:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

NATO's eastward expansion

There was no NATO's expansion. We Eastern Europeans forced NATO to accept us.Xx236 (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Cohen's bizarre indulgence towards Putin

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jun/10/stephen-cohen-survivors-gulag-stalin-review Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Nuance

I'm adding more nuance to the article. If we can mention people disagreeing with Cohen we should be able to mention people who either agree or give him their support. Our job is not to like him or dislike him. Just to report the facts. It was also ridiculous to remove the added information by citing WP:UNDUE. If it is WP:UNDUE to cite academics important in their own fields who agree with him it is also WP:UNDUE to cite people who disagree with him when only one of them is specializing in Russia(Yulia Ioffe), International Relations or US foreign relations. If we can cite her, we can definitely cite the others. Especially when all these people are important when it concerns international relations and US Foreign Policy. //JD— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.47.13.66 (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a distinct difference between what you're promoting as being 'nuance' and WP:GEVAL. That is why UNDUE was cited by the editor who reverted you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? So citing to someone like Catherine Jung is acceptable and not WP:GEVAL? But citing Paul Craig Roberts is WP:GEVAL? Or someone like Yulia Ioffe who is not an expert in International Relations is not WP:GEVAL? But citing to experts such as Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer is considered WP:GEVAL? Mearsheimer, Walt, Gorbachev, Chomsky and so forth are not "fringe" elements in academia. By comparison Ioffe and Jung are. Especially concerning US foreign policy and International Relations.

If people don't like what they are saying, great! If people do like it, great! Both are just as uninteresting. None of it matters. If we can cite individuals such as Ioffe and Jung we can definitely cite individuals such as Mearsheimer and Kissinger.

//JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.47.13.63 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the articles by/interviewing Walt, Mearsheimer, Gorbachev, Chomsky and Kissinger discussing Cohen. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Europeans should be controlled from Moscow according to probably all mentioned intellectuals. Wikipedia isn't American, please stop imposing your cultural imperialism. Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect "JD" wants to cherry pick from articles like this one] to suggest that Chomsky is defending all of Cohen's views (if you read the article, that would be WP:SYNTH). This article, however, provides a good overview of what this new form of analysis is producing. Not only is this pseudo-radicalist discourse the product of ageing leftists (who don't stand in good stead with the true left, only with small 'l' liberals), it is also published in publications regarded by the Wikipedia community as being WP:BIASED to the point of being disregarded as sources worth using whenever they're taken to the RSN. As for Doctorow's piece in "The Nation"... Yes, well, I can't remember the last time that publication was taken seriously as any form of RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The comments to Doctorov are pure gold The Nation, you are doing a great thing - telling the truth to brainwashed Americans. Xx236 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

194.47.13.* would you be so kind to register as one editor rather than to use plenty of IP adresses?Xx236 (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

":Please provide the articles by/interviewing Walt, Mearsheimer, Gorbachev, Chomsky and Kissinger discussing Cohen. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)"

No, those articles were never about defending Cohen. They were cited to show that his basic viewpoint(NATO Expansion as the reason for the current crisis) is shared among other academics. It's not about whether they agree with everything he says about Russia. The citations to Paul Doctorow and Paul Craig Roberts do mention Cohen specifically.

"Eastern Europeans should be controlled from Moscow according to probably all mentioned intellectuals. Wikipedia isn't American, please stop imposing your cultural imperialism. Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)"

Can you show me a line where they(the academics in question) want that to be the case? And could you also specify where I am suffering from "American Cultural Imperialism" and when I became American?

At the moment when you started to defend US imperialistic opinions regarding the division of Europe between the US and Russia.Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"I suspect "JD" wants to cherry pick from articles like this one] to suggest that Chomsky is defending all of Cohen's views (if you read the article, that would be WP:SYNTH). This article, however, provides a good overview of what this new form of analysis is producing. Not only is this pseudo-radicalist discourse the product of ageing leftists (who don't stand in good stead with the true left, only with small 'l' liberals), it is also published in publications regarded by the Wikipedia community as being WP:BIASED to the point of being disregarded as sources worth using whenever they're taken to the RSN. As for Doctorow's piece in "The Nation"... Yes, well, I can't remember the last time that publication was taken seriously as any form of RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC) "

If I wanted to cherry pick from that specific article why didn't I simply cite that article? I don't know if Chomsky has defended all of Cohen's views and I don't care. I only cited an article from Chomsky's own page. Again, the reason those individuals are cited is to show that his basic premise is shared among other academics. If we can cite people who disagree with him or his premise we should be able to cite people who agree with and and/or his premise.

If you think that second article makes a good case against Chomsky's viewpoint, then by all means, cite it on his page: Noam Chomsky

"194.47.13.* would you be so kind to register as one editor rather than to use plenty of IP adresses?Xx236 (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)" That's a good point. I have logged in now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryamehr~enwiki (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There are millions of people living between Germany and Russia. The majority of them doesn't like Mr Cohen's ideas about our future. FDR and Stalin designed the big concentration camp in Central/Eastern Europe for the years 1945-1990, now some Putineverstehers want us back into the camp. Let the USA returns Alaska to Russia rather than offering Poland or Latvia.Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Good sir/madame: I have to ask you if you have read anything written by Stephen Cohen. I'm not an expert on Cohen nor have I read everything written by him but(from what I have read) I haven't ever seen anything in his writings that show him to be positive towards the lessening democracy within Russia nor have I ever read him(or any of the other people I cited) to be interested in dividing up Europe in a new Iron Curtain. Nor have I read much about him being positive about the Russian government and it's actions. Considering that he called the war in Chechneya a "genocidal war" I don't think he's very postive concerning the internal actions of those governments. By the way, could you cite a single source where Cohen has stated that he wants to divide Europe into a New Iron Curtain. And I don't understand why you bring up Poland or Latvia, as far as I know, nobody debates them concerning the current crisis.

To lady Harpy: This is becoming very strange for me. If it is alright for us to cite Cathy Jung on Slate why is it not alright to cite Paul Craig Roberts on another newspage? I we can cite James Kirchik on The Daily Beast then it should be just as acceptable to cite someone from CounterPunch. If we can cite Julia Ioffe we should be able to cite people such as Gorbachev, Chomsky, Mearsheimer and others. Your comment about not adding blogs were understandable so I will not add that post by Gilbert Doctorow.

Have a nice day both of you. (I don't know why the upper section is so small and I don't know how fix it. No harm meant!Aryamehr~enwiki (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Stop the Pointless Demonization of Putin - Cohen, 2012

Annexed Crimea, war in Ukraine - 2015. Nationalistic ideology supported by 80% of Russians, almost totalitarian propaganda in Russia and around (RT). Was the demonization (was there any?) pointless?Xx236 (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Cohen's bizarre indulgence towards PutinXx236 (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

America's Leading Russia Specialist Blasts US Policy

America's Leading Russia Specialist Cohen.

Yalta, Potsdam,X. Where will the USA divide Europe according to Cohen's expertise? Back in Yalta?Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my slow response.

I honestly don't understand why this debate even exists. What you think of Putin, Russia or Russians is not important. What I think of Putin, Russia and Russians is not important. This wikipedia article isn't about you or how you feel about Russians. It is about Stephen F. Cohen. Aryamehr~enwiki (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia editor for several years who edits mostly medicine (in which I have some expertise), and occasionally politics and other subjects (in which I'm a non-specialist).

I came here because I read the New York Times article http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/group-approves-fellowship-named-for-controversial-scholar-of-russia/ on the controversy over The Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies fellowship, and I wanted some background on Cohen.

I saw User:Iryna Harpy's edit [1] and checked some of the citations. I'm not sure that those citations are WP:UNDUE, but they definitely are WP:OR. Most of them don't actually mention Cohen. An article that says somewhere, "I agree with Cohen that Putin is demonized" would be acceptable. An article that says, "Putin is demonized" without mentioning Cohen would be WP:OR, because it's your personal judgment that the author agrees with Cohen. The author might say, "Yes, I believe that Putin in demonized, but Cohen is all wrong." While many of those articles are interesting, unfortunately they can't go into an article on Cohen in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia rules.

OTOH, the Counterpunch piece by Paul Craig Roberts does meet Wikipedia criteria for relevance, notability and WP:RS, and I think it does belong in the article, and could well be expanded. This is a good rebuttal to the critics of Cohen. It gives a good explanation and background on Cohen's positions. --Nbauman (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Cohen studied Soviet Union and failed to understand it. The SU was divided into several democratic nations, several semi-democratic, several Asian dictatorships and Russia. Cohen believes Russia to be right against democratic Estonia, against semi-democratic Ukraine. Love is blind.

Paul Craig Roberts is a media personality and his opinion doesn't belong here.Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

False Characterization of Paul Craig Roberts

To the above gentleman describing himself as Xx236, here is Paul Craig Roberts' bio from the back cover of his book "The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism": "Paul Craig Roberts is a former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and former associate and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. He has testified before committees of Congress on 30 occasions, and held academic appointments in six universities, including Stanford and Georgetown. Dr. Roberts was awarded the US Treasury's Meritorious Service Award for 'outstanding contributions to the formulation of US economic policy." To describe Dr. Roberts as a "media personality" can only display willful mendacity or callow ignorance. Neither has any place in Wikipedia. Gunnermanz (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War listed twice

Are the two editions so different to list them as separate books?Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Good call, Xx236. According to Open Libraries, the 2011 edition has a new epilogue. Whether that really qualifies it for two entries is another question. The revised epilogue would reflect his most recent thoughts on the subject. For the moment, I'm going to place them together with a note that the 2011 version has a new epilogue. Any further thoughts on the matter? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Recently Cohen has been named in a Polish newspaper as an example of US university logic - that the universities allow any fringe opinions.

The article about Kremlinology doesn't describe the total failure of the majority of Western academicians during the Cold war. What was the value of Cohen's papers? What was the value of Bukharinist speculations for millions of persecuted Soviet citizens of that time?Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.rferl.org/content/stephen-cohen-us-scholar-controversial-putin-apologist/26997584.html Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you also have the url for the Polish article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.rp.pl/Plus-Minus/302189798-Irena-Lasota-Cyrk-wokol-Grossa.html#ap-1 Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Profesorowie mają prawo pleść największe bzdury, a w Princeton to w dodatku dosyć powszechny proceder.Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Let the US professors write any trash about the USA they want, but when they attack small nations it's imperialism.Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

citing NATO 's eastward expansion as evidence

We Central and Eastern Europeans have joined the NATO, it's our problem, not US-Russia only. Fortunately the USA isn't able to divide the world with Russia according to Cohen's imperialistic dreams.Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• This edit is problematic because it tells about a highly questionable opinion as if it were a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The sentences you deleted summarise some of Cohen's published arguments in the field he specialises in. They're in paragraph which begins with the words "Stephen Cohen maintains". We're presenting facts about Cohen's position — the things Cohen says may indeed be questionable, but it's a matter of fact that he has said those things. The wording could be tweaked to make the attribution even clearer. But just pulling the material out goes against WP:PRESERVE.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure this is correct summary. For example, title to 2nd source reads as "The cold war never really ended: Russia's continuing instability and weapons of mass destruction, combined with Washington's triumphalist foreign policies and US/NATO military buildup, are creating an even more dangerous situation". This is something more or less logical, but not exactly what is now written on the page. In addition, where he tells that Russian "military potential inherited from the USSR was still fully intact"? If he tells it, that's fine, but I would not expect someone be so much incompetent. My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Any inaccuracies in the summary can be addressed one by one. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting the whole passage.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I think you're right about the "fully intact". His point is not exactly that, but rather that Russia still possesses weapons of mass destruction. I've just done an edit to fix that.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the problem. You are trying to write your own summary of views by Cohen using his publications, which are primary sources. Instead, you should use publications by other authors about Cohen (those are secondary sources) and briefly summarize their views about work by Cohen. Given that such secondary sources about Cohen exist, this should not be a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The way the page currently treats Cohen's argument about US-Russia relations is analogous to summarising the plot of a novel, with cites to passages in the novel itself — something mentioned in WP:PRIMARY as an example of acceptable use of a primary text. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

How come? The policy tells: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.. What you have written is actually your interpretation of views by Cohen and therefore WP:OR. Why would not you use other sources about work by Cohen that are currently included as refs? Because their interpretation will differ from your interpretation? Please note that all other sections of this page use secondary sources for referencing, and rightly so. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

If we say Cohen has criticised the USA for triumphalism in relation to Russia, do you call that interpretation? Or is it a straightforward statement of fact that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Seems to me it's a statement of fact — anyone can go to the article cited, and see whether in fact Cohen says that or not. See also WP:NOTOR. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that you are trying to make a fair summary of views by Cohen based on his own publications on this particular subject you are interested in. However, what exactly should be written about the person in the BLP and how this should be written depends on secondary sources published about this person, and there are so many of them. Consider this good article, for example. This is a typical publication about him written by a professional journalist who knows the subject. That's how Cohen is generally viewed in press. Such publications should be used for writing per WP:NPOV. Will it differ from something you are trying to write? Yes, it will. That's why BLP pages should be based on secondary sources about the person whenever possible. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The summary of Cohen's views on US-Russia relations is not my own, I only contributed a few tweaks. This is not just a subject of interest to one or two WP editors. The NY Times article which you've linked to confirms that Cohen's statements in that area have been widely noticed and hotly debated. That particular article doesn't focus on what Cohen actually said, it is about his offer to fund a research program of the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies, and the subsequent argument within the Association. I'd agree that our article would be improved by adding more sources. The fact that Cohen has been called "Putin's American toady" by Julia Ioffe in the New Republic (which the NY Times article quotes) is probably worth mentioning too. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Cohen uses a 18 century map ignoring the existence of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania. We did invite NATO, even if the NATO was reluctant. Xx236 (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Irena Lasota is a writer and social activist, let's quote her opinion about Cohen's ideas.Xx236 (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What source are you talking about? BTW, Cohen published a lot of books on Russian history and has a lot of opinion pieces here. Summarizing his views by a wikipedian based on his own publications would be very difficult and obviously WP:OR. This is not mentioning of simple facts (such as he was born in ...), but reviewing his work, which we are not suppose to do. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that the article shouldn't be based only on Cohen's own publications. We can and should also try to make fair summaries of what other writers say about Cohen. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not telling that your summary of views by Cohen in section "US-Russia relations" is wrong, but here is main idea of this - as formulated in secondary sources: he tells that US forced Russia to attack Ukraine. This should be probably clarified. My very best wishes (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Which secondary sources are you summarising, Wishes? (The summary of Cohen's views on US-Russia relations is not my own, by the way. Crossswords did a lot of it. I only contributed a few tweaks.) Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"Ukraine had been on Washington’s agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there" [2]. OK, that would also be something disputable. My point is simple: one should use references to secondary sources about work by Cohen, not his own work (as it is currently done in the section). My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

A very good idea. Cohen's opinions without the secondary filters would make him prone to a lot of BLP issues.--Lute88 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the Dan Kovalik article. I agree it's a good source to use. Then again it consists largely of long quotes from Cohen, interspersed with commentary. So it's partly "primary" (by Cohen) and partly "secondary" (about Cohen). See also WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences about Cohen's comments re Crimea, based on the source suggested by Wishes.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's the problem, Kalidasa: you haven't done anything other than make a tiny tweak to the "US-Russia relations" section, and that was still WP:OR as it is Cohen's own articles being used and analysed by you. That also falls afoul of WP:NOTPROMOTION. This is a WP:BLP, not a regurgitation of the bits of Cohen's opinions you think a really terrific and want to share with the world. On top of this, all you've done with the Kovalik article is to create a piece of WP:SYNTH to tack onto the previous OR journalism you introduced in the first paragraph of the section. I suggest that you find a couple more secondary sources describing what they think of Cohen's opinions on relations with Russia, or scrap the section. You seem to be using PRIMARYNOTBAD as a cover-all defence when you need to read WP:USINGPRIMARY carefully, most particularly the section on You are allowed to use primary sources... carefully... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph in the US-Russia relations section is not by me, Iryna. It was mainly written by Crossswords. Is it inappropriate in the biography of a public intellectual to say something about his public statements (terrific or otherwise) in the field he specialises in? I think the paragraph as it stands does "use primary sources... carefully", as allowed by WP:USINGPRIMARY. Any educated person can verify that Cohen has said these things. I agree with you that the paragraph can be improved by addition of more secondary sources. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

In the long run, it doesn't actually matter who wrote it: the fact stands that it needs to be better sourced (as does the content on his work on the Soviet Union). At the moment we have two 'nothing much of anything' sections, and I'm not sure of how to best handle this. I always prefer to hold off on tagging sections for better sources, expansion, etc. because, unless sources are chased up quickly, tags like that hang around for years looking like badges of shame. I'm just going to try to have a think on the presentation without disrupting the flow of content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

in the field he specialises in Cohen specialises in prising Bukharin and his wife, certainly not in Eastern Europe politics. We have in Poland ignorants who write about the USA but I don't quote them as specialists, the same please don't come here with US ignorance about the outside world.Xx236 (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Munk Debate

The section now reads:

"Cohen participated in a Munk Debate in Toronto, Canada over the proposal "Be it resolved the West should engage not isolate Russia…" He and Vladimir Posner argued in favor of engagement, while Anne Applebaum and Garry Kasparov argued against. Prior the debate, 58 percent of the audience were in favor of engaging with Russia and 42 percent against. After the debate, 52 percent of the audience agreed with Applebaum and Kasparov, and 48 percent with Cohen and Posner.[17]"

The language is obscure and difficult to follow. The section should be changed to designate the the two positions clearly and consistently. ---Dagme (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

How is it 'obscure', and how do you propose to 'expand' the positions without turning it into WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Debates are not Scientific or Forensic Studies

My friends, let us remember that debates are not rigorous forensic means of establishing facts. In these debates, Professor Cohen is not up against fellow scholars subject to the same academic rigor. Rather, he is up against aggressive journalists employed by and therefore dependent for their livelihood on a tiny number of collectivist media organizations (called 'corporations') which are not organized as democracies but as oligarchies. If a debate is to be considered as 'evidence' of Cohen's perfidy, then it should be balanced by a similar debate conducted in Russia. I suspect the results would be different.

Why do none of these comments and indeed none of the content of this text address Cohen's basic point: The expansion of NATO and US actions to threaten Russia are making conflict between the two powers not less but more likely, and any such conflict may quickly escalate into a nuclear exchange that will destroy the human species?

Let us set aside that fact that respect scholars have concluded that the United States and other Western countries are now oligarchies, that is to say, plutocracies, which are increasingly international rather than national in character (meaning that many members of the US elite are not even native born Americans owing to American immigration law (dual citizenship - which TR described as a 'self-evident absurdity.').

Cohen's point in simple language is that you may hate Russia, you may love Russia. You may be from Czech or Poland or Cuba or Serbia or Ukraine or New Zealand or wherever but you and your family will _surely_ die if Russia and America go to war.

This, in so any words, is Cohen's point, and it is being supported by the dreaded clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (https://thebulletin.org/timeline). There is nothing of this dreadful warning here. Gunnermanz (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresented source

I came upon the following quote which did not accurately represent the cited source:

In 2015, the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES) backed out of a fellowship deal that would bear Cohen's name after some ASEEES members objected to it on the grounds that Cohen is a "mouthpiece for a mass murderer" (referring to Vladimir Putin). Even the scholars who supported Cohen expressed hope that in the future, Cohen's views on the Ukraine conflict would move in the direction of "more richness, complexity, and believability."

1. If one looks at the source they will discover that it was not the ASEEES that backed out of the fellowship deal as claimed here, but that "Cohen and his wife, the American magazine publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, pulled their offer of several hundred thousand dollars for the grant after members of the U.S.-based organization objected to having his name attached to the prize" (emphasis added).
2. It is also stated that the objections of the members were on the grounds that "Cohen is a "mouthpiece for a mass murderer"". This gives the erroneous impression that all members who objected endorsed this exact phrasing. This is not the case. The cited article mentions that a "handful of scholars voiced their objections" and then quotes one of those members, Lynn Lubamersky, who made the statement about the "mouthpiece for a mass murdered".
3. Similarly, the last sentence seems to erroneously suggest that what Sanbord wrote in his open letter represents all other scholars who signed the letter in support of Cohen, which is not the case.
4. Apart from the misrepresentation of the source, the information is also outdated. In fact in May 2015 the board of ASEEES issued a statement which included the following: "Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Board voted, by a substantial majority, to express its regret for the resolution made at the November 20, 2014 meeting to request that the donors consider a name change to the fellowship. In a second vote, the Board resolved by nearly unanimous majority to express its commitment to accept the Cohen-Tucker Fellowship as named, should the gift be re-offered. (emphasis added)"
5. Following from the previous point it seems that the fellowship agreement was not cancelled after all. Indeed it features in ASEEES website as of 2017.

Kkostagiannis (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

References

How is this OR??

@Galassi — wrt to your reversion of my:

In his book War with Russia? (released November 27, 2018), notes that "At least one [U.S.-Soviet summit] seems to have been sabotaged. The third Eisenhower-Khrushchev meeting, scheduled for Paris in 1960, was aborted by the Soviet shoot-down of a US U-2 spy plane sent, some think, by 'deep state' foes of detente."

How is that WP:OR? Explain. Humanengr (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

References

After the first reversion, I asked the reverter to discuss on talk page. Rather than that, the reverter reverted a 2nd time. I asked again to discuss here with specific reference to policy text. Humanengr (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You need to provide THIRD PARTY sources.--Galassi (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Point to specific policy text. Humanengr (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not OR for an article to use a brief quotation from a primary source written by the person the article is about to show an opinion held by that person. That is permitted under policy, and Wikipedia has many such articles which conform to that policy. See primary source for policy detail. DonFB (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Reinstate 'Controversy' § as 'Criticism' § by

moving criticisms from Views §; they currently comprise nearly 1/2 of that §, which seems inappropriate for a § nominally devoted to Cohen's views.

@DonFB … thoughts? Do you want to give it a try or shall I? Humanengr (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say (agree) that such a section should be called Criticism, which seems an appropriate heading for text about intellectual disputes, rather than Controversy, a term that could imply wrongdoing, which is not what's happening. If you'd like to do it, that's ok with me. DonFB (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues in Criticisms §

James Kirchick's Daily Beast "Meet the Anti-Semites, Truthers, and Alaska Pol at D.C.’s Pro-Putin Soiree" is written in crude language and un-befitting WP. I can elaborate, that should be enough to remove it. Humanengr (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. DonFB (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

"rebel fighters in the east"

The phrase "Rebel fighters in the east" refers to rebel fighters in the east of what? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

COD

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/books/stephen-cohen-dead.html

The cause of death was lung cancer. Can someone add this? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

done Humanengr (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Was Cohen a smoker? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Where was the store & golf course?

The existing text implies that Marvin Cohen owned a jewelry store and golf course in Owensboro, Kentucky. The current New York Times story places the two ventures in Hollywood, Florida, which is pretty close to Pine Crest, where little Stephen went to school.

 Someone needs to sort this out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/books/stephen-cohen-dead.html ````

ThinkProgress reference

ref. # 29 should -- I'd think!!! -- be finessed and replaced with their source, no?- why use a 2nd-hand reference for no reason?.. - (note the "per The Chronicle of Higher Education" which is the second half of the sentence in the article.) ELSchissel (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, ref. #29 should be updated as it is reflected in the second portion of the sentence. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Brookings et al and NATO

Endwise: No, this is not a case of Synthesis. Cohen, a scholar, made a statement asserting that breach of an agreement occurred. Brookings, a scholarly research group, made a statement that such an agreement did not exist. In the article text, there was no combining those two statements to reach a synthetic conclusion. The text does no more than present Statement A and Statement B. That's perfectly acceptable--and informative. Other sources, such as the Newsweek article and the Center for Strategic & International Studies, also present views that disagree with Cohen's. Is it your stance that none of those sources can ever be used in Wikipedia to report or express a view contrary to Cohen's unless they rebut him by name? DonFB (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Cohen, a scholar, made a statement asserting that breach of an agreement occurred. Brookings, a scholarly research group, made a statement that such an agreement did not exist... The text does no more than present Statement A and Statement B That's what WP:SYNTHESIS is referring to; look at the last example it gives: Making the second paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically commenting on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. To include that quote from Gorbachev, we need a source connecting it to Cohen's statements, as policy dictates.

We cannot take a statement of Cohen's, and an article by Steven Pifer at the Brookings Institute regarding a quote from Gorbachev, and combine them to imply that Cohen said something false. If Newsweek or CSIS discusses Cohen's views and contrasts them to differing views, we can summarise and cite their analysis, but we cannot do this analysis on our own. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're here to summarise the research of others, not do our own analysis by synthesising different sources to imply a conclusion not stated explicitly by either of them. Endwise (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we are on the verge of recycling our arguments. You've repeatedly said that the text presents statements and then acts to "combine them to imply that Cohen said something false". When a disagreement exists, it's impossible to avoid considering that an assertion by one side is false, or mistaken. That's the nature of disagreement. By the logic you're using, it is impossible to present a difference of opinion in an article without unfairly casting suspicion on one side or the other. The text I posted performed no analysis or combination at all. It preserved the text of Cohen's view, and added new text that reported the Brookings conclusion, which it supported with Gorbachev's stated view. I propose the following shortened text to be inserted in the same location in the article as the previous text to illustrate that Cohen's opinion about the purported agreement faces noteworthy disagreement:

"Other commentators and Gorbachev himself assert that no agreement was made not to expand NATO. Gorbachev did say that enlarging the alliance violated the spirit of a 1990 agreement between western leaders and the USSR on NATO deployment in the former East Germany."<Brookings ref><CSIS ref>

The opposing viewpoints are reliably and sufficiently sourced to overcome any arguments on the basis of DUE or FRINGE. DonFB (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the right way to address the controversy is to add a wikilink to the History of NATO article where there existence of promise/pledge/agreement and its implications are discussed extensively. Alaexis_¿question? 08:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I would support a link to that. It is discussed specifically in History of NATO § After the Cold War, so perhaps a link to that section would be even better. Endwise (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@DonFB: from a birds eye view, we should be including material in this article that is about Cohen. That includes things he's done, views of his, and views other people have about him/his views/things he's done. A discussion of differing views about the history of NATO expansion should in general go in History of NATO. This article is just about Cohen, so it should only contain material about him.

More narrowly, the problem introduced by including this instance of material not about Cohen is as I said WP:SYNTH. The problem is not at all that It's impossible to avoid considering that an assertion by one side is false, or mistaken. That's the nature of disagreement. By the logic you're using, it is impossible to present a difference of opinion in an article without unfairly casting suspicion on one side or the other. It's perfectly fine to include other people's views when they differ with Cohen's, even when they imply that what he said was false, it's just that those views have to actually be about Cohen or what Cohen said. What is written there is analysis by you as an editor of Wikipedia, debunking his statement by contrasting it with a quote from Gorbachev you found featured in an article in the Brookings Institute. That is your analysis. If there is analysis of Cohen's statement by people other than Wikipedia editors, we can include and cite it. There's no moral issue with performing your own original research like this, it's just not for Wikipedia, and there is a policy against it. Endwise (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This goes to a point I made above, when I asked you: "Is it your stance that none of those sources can ever be used in Wikipedia to report or express a view contrary to Cohen's unless they rebut him by name?" You haven't answered. Cohen made a statement that a certain agreement existed and was broken by the West. Brookings (and others) made a statement that such an agreement did not exist. That's not editorial analysis; that is summarizing reliably sourced relevant information on both sides of the issue. I agree that this article is not the place for extended discussion of post-Soviet NATO history. However, the article should not leave the reader with the impression that universal agreement exists that, according to Cohen, the West broke an agreement about NATO enlargement. Your thinking on the matter amounts to a virtual prohibition against informing readers that Cohen's opinion about an agreement is subject to substantial dispute. Text already exists in the Ukraine section disputing other Cohen opinions on: missiles that downed MH17; using "subhuman"; and Ukraine broadly. If your standard is that differing opinions must be about, in your words, "what Cohen said", that standard was met in both my posted and proposed text. What Cohen said is that an agreement was broken by the West. Reliable sources said that scenario is inaccurate. A one or two sentence explanatory summary of those facts is fully appropriate. I request your specific suggested revision or rewording to my proposed text, shown in my previous post, above. DonFB (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Likewise the article should not leave the reader with the impression that the Brookings position is all there is to say about the issue and that Cohen's views are debunked. As the History of NATO article makes clear it is a contentious issue and different opinions exist, of which Cohen's is one. Gorbachev himself said different things at different times! Alaexis_¿question? 16:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a very good point, well-stated and I agree. I'll revise my proposed text to say: "Whether the West actually made such a promise to the Soviet Union is subject to much contention, and Gorbachev himself made conflicting statements about it."<Brookings ref><CSIS ref> DonFB (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I would still prefer to just give a link to the relevant section but it's certainly better than the original version. I wouldn't mention Gorbachev here because, again, this article is about Cohen and we cannot provide sufficient context to Gorbachev's words (as everyone else, he has his own agenda). Alaexis_¿question? 18:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

One major problem is that Brookings reports are peer reviewed and vetted by teams of editors. Regarding Cohen his essays in The Nation seem to me to be "self-published" -- his wife Katrina vanden Heuvel was the owner and publisher of that magazine. Rjensen (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a good argument in favour of using Brookings report when writing about the history of NATO. Here on the other hand we are writing *about* Cohen. Alaexis_¿question? 17:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it your stance that none of those sources can ever be used in Wikipedia to report or express a view contrary to Cohen's unless they rebut him by name? -- Material in this article has to be about Stephen F. Cohen, which yes generally means those sources would probably mention him. Not every source recounting information related to a person has to mention them by name, there is for instance certain material about Amazon that would plausibly fit in Jeff Bezos even in a source that didn't explicitly use the words "Jeff Bezos". In this case, it would be pretty strange to analyse/rebut/etc someone else's statement without actually writing down whose statement it was that you're criticising, though I guess not impossible ("In this article in The Nation, the author erroneously...")

It is indeed editorial analysis, in this case synthesis, to contrast differing sources to imply something not stated by either of them ("Stephen F. Cohen said something that was wrong"). If no one has ever criticised or disagreed with anything Cohen has ever said, then we should not try and create our own criticism through a synthesis of different sources. If people have criticised or disagreed with something Cohen has said, then we should summarise and cite their analysis of his statements. We are here to create an article that documents information about the topic "Stephen F. Cohen" that has been published in reliable sources, we are not here to write new information about him that has not been published in relaible sources -- in this case, the analysis "Cohen said X, which disagrees with when Gorbachev said Y". Endwise (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I opened a section at WP:NORN to hopefully get more opinions on the matter: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Is this SYNTH? Endwise (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The currently proposed text (shortened), "Whether the West actually made such a promise to the Soviet Union is subject to much contention" is not an insinuation that, "Stephen F. Cohen said something that was wrong". It is a reliably sourced fact relevant to a crucial issue discussed in the section. At present, the published text offers as unchallenged fact Cohen's statement that a promise about NATO non-enlargement was made to the USSR. An even shorter and simpler remedy is to add two words to the sentence to make clear that Cohen is stating his opinion that a promise was given:

"In 2014, Cohen said that the crisis in Ukraine came about as a result of US actions, started by Bill Clinton and completed by George W. Bush, to expand NATO’s sphere of influence up to the borders of Russia, in breach of a promise Cohen believed the US made to Gorbachev when Germany was reunited." (italics for Talk clarity, not rendered publication)

This correctly attributes to Cohen his opinion that a promise was made, rather than stating without qualification that a promise was made. The Brookings citation should be inserted after the sentence. Readers can also follow the linked text to the NATO History article to get detailed background. DonFB (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

"Cohen said" would be more appropriate than "believed". The Brookings interpretation of Gorbachev 2014 interview contradicts documents that were published since by National Security Archive: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early --PaulT2022 (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe Endwise is correct and mentioning or even citing the Brookings piece would be SYNTH, as Brookings don't mention Cohen. I think the "Cohen believed" solution might be a good way of avoiding any appearance of us saying in our voice that there was such a promise, but I don't think it needs a citation.

I strongly disagree with Endwise's conclusion that it's SYNTH to even mention anybody who made a statement that disagrees with the statements that Cohen made. Moreover, I'm baffled by Endwise asserting in one of his edit summaries that (1) Newsweek isn't a reliable source for simple quotations of Cohen from an interview he gave them and (2) that BLP somehow applies to an article about a man who's been deceased for 2 years. — Red XIV ^(talk) 14:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)