Talk:Michael Cohen (lawyer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guidelines for referring to someone as 'convicted felon'[edit]

I would like to know the actual guidelines for categorizing someone as a "convicted felon" in the lede of the article. There are many, many convicted felons who have wikipedia articles, but most are not categorized as "convicted felons" in the ledes.

It took me less than 5 seconds to think of Tim Allen, who, surprise, is not categorized as a "convicted felon" in the lede of his article.

When and why should someone's status as a felon be included in the lede of an article? Nonto4567 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the two-word lead phrase "convicted felon" as in "Michael Cohen is an American lawyer and convicted felon..." should never be used. It is a loaded phrase providing no context that biases the reader against the subject of the article. It is also, in most cases, not what made subject notable. Cohen was notable as Trump's attorney before he was a felon. The lead should instead note that the subject was convicted of a felony, with sufficient context, outside of the opening sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed many, many, many times in the past and is both inappropriate and selectively used. Reverted. FakeAlvinT (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having "criminal status" in the sidebar was also discussed and considered inappropriate in the past. I'm inclined to leave that in for now because it is relevant to events that are still topical and noteworthy. FakeAlvinT (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert edits where it is difficult to determine what has changed[edit]

I've noticed a tactic which is becoming increasingly common among those who wish to slip in changes to an article which are likely to be disputed: they tweak the formatting of large chunks of the article to make it difficult to scan for the actual changes. Recently this article has had edits with diffs in excess of 180k, which is difficult and time consuming to verify.

Since this article has a history of contentious edits, I suggest summarily rejecting edits where it's not readily obvious what has changed. FakeAlvinT (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]