This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
The main point is to add this new book. The rest I think is interesting but maybe a bit 'controversial'? But then these topics are is controversial. Gemtpm (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear Wikipedia should be used to catalog every book review by Cohen. Recommend parring back to 4 or 5 of the most important and then linking to a complete list of reviews off-site. Also, this article has low citations, it needs more reviews about Cohen's books, not reviews by Cohen, to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits which inserted the reviews came from a French IP... Justsayinstuff (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The book article appears to have been created by an associate of the author, whose other edits reveal a likely COI via the magazine Cohen edits. This article fails to establish the importance of the topic: a couple of short reviews are cited but nothing weighty. The book looks like just another post-modernist Kuhn warmover, and the sources fail to establish that it is anything else. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and DoneKlbrain (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of this discussion until today, but I support the merge. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
