Talk:Richard Cohen (columnist)

Name

"Richard Cohen (Washington Post)" doesn't follow the usual conventions, while "Richard Cohen (journalist)" would. Are there any objections to moving the article to that title? -Willmcw 08:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there is another journalist by the same name. Perhaps (columnist) for this one and (correspondent) for the other? The Post's Richard Cohen is an opinion journalist, whereas National Journal's, I believe, is a news reporter. LeoO3 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I recommend moving it to Richard Cohen (columnist). Madcoverboy (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Conservative" label and Israel support description

After reading Cohen's piece in The Post today, July 25th 2006, I beg to differ that Cohen should be regarded as left-wing or even center: "The last thing it needs is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to reestablish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights." His conservative perspective also shines through later: "I fear for its future and note the ominous spread of European-style anti-Semitism throughout the Muslim world -- and its boomerang return to Europe as a mindless form of anti-Zionism." European-style anti-Semitism? Is there a special European way of being an anti-Semit, or does he perhaps refer to the more general sentiment of most Europeans of being critical of Israel's actions in the Middle-East? It is exactly this kind of American conservative thinking that is preventing progress. --- July 25th, 2006.

While Cohen may have attracted occasional criticism from a left-of-center media watchdog, and while he may have agreed with elements of views held by conservatives from time to time, these facts go against the grain of the larger body of his work and ideas; they are "man bites dog" stories and emphasizing them distorts the larger reality that he is in fact a liberal, not a conservative (if not consistently enough for the tastes of some).

Also, while this is unlikely to persuade the type of person who made the edit in question, support for Israel is mainstream in American opinion journalism and assumed to exist without needing to specify it. If the objective is to claim that Cohen's level or consistency of support are greater than the norm, the qualifiers used to do so have a distinctly negative connotation and are thus pejorative and POV.

I plan to make edits based on these comments soon. LeoO3 19:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence is problamatic to me "he has been criticized by some staunchly liberal observers for what they deem to be insufficiently consistent adherence to liberal stances and priorities" I would argue that it he has not been criticized for being "insufficiently liberal" he has beeen criticized on his stances on the Iraq war. This may result in him being "insufficiently liberal" for the tastes of some, but that is not the original act being criticized.

Latest news on him is that he is being called anti-semitic for not following the party line close enough - years of slanting every news bit he can and he gets turned on like a pack of dogs for 1 or 2 slips.

It seems to me the criticism of Cohen is fair here, but I don't see how it necessarily fits into a liberal/conservative frame. Most of what he writes is just plain stuipd.

"his political views are often conservative" - are you kidding me? The views he expresses put him somewhere left of Lenin. This needs to be revised.

60% of Israelis are from the Middle East

According to the Israel Wiki its only 10%. Can anyone cite the 60% number with credibility? Dothivalla 13:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Perhaps one number reflects Israelis born in Israel, while the other represents those of middle Eastern descent? Perhaps it is best to define the term first.

Do it by age group. Before 1940s the % must have been pretty low, contrary to Joan Peters.

Gay writers??

The article is listed in the category, Gay writers. Is that correct? According to this link and this one, there's a "Richard Cohen" who's a leader with PFOX. However, there's no indication that it's the same Richard Cohen. There's this other dude who seems to be the one.

Since there's nothing in the article that identifies him as gay. Indeed, this opinion piece self-IDs him as hetero. I'm removing the cat.

Should the LBGT Studies link be removed, as well, from this Talk Page?--HughGRex 01:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Done. Ellsworth 20:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Richard Cohen has wrote article in Washington Post, where he used term: "polish [concentration] camp". I've put link to this article. This is defenitly reliable source and this information is completely compatible with all Wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.250.10 (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That last statement is not anywhere close to being true. Completely the opposite, in fact. And your most recent edit summary was utter bollocks, to boot.

Coming to a defamatory conclusion about a living person--with not the slightest bit of evidence that said opinion is shared by anyone else--and then adding it is explicitly NOT allowed. Any further additions which do not have any explicit source for your claim WILL be removed immediately

As I've already told you Wikipedia is not like papers that people write for school where you are encouraged to look at primary sources and develop your own conclusions, and then to write prose to convince your reader. This is exactly what you have done at Richard Cohen (Washington Post columnist)‎, where you have come your own conclusions regarding Cohen. In wikipedia terms, that kind of writing is called original research and is not allowed. Material, especially analysis, must be from a third-party reliable source.

Given all this, especially since your opinion is derogatory towards a living person, I have no choice but to remove it. This is not vandalism: quite the opposite, in fact, as my actions are not only approved but are exempt from the 3-revert rule, whilst yours are not.

If you have any evidence of that anyone else shares your point of view from third-party reliable sources, bring them to here. Failure to do so and to continue on your course WILL lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia, whatever nonsensical edit summaries you use. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put link to reliable source. It is Washington Post website. This is the best evidence. What more I can do? Can you prove me, that Cohen didn't write about "polish" concentration capms? If I would write about eg.: "american concentration camps and american gas chamber" - it defenitly means that i suggest that USA is responsible for Holocaust or it even took part in it. Term "polish camps", what was used by Cohen is kind of Holocaust denial, because it shows polish people as nazi, instead as victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.250.10 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not getting it: you must provide evidence that someone besides yourself finds Cohen's views controversial. This is not a reader's opinion column; it is a summation of EXISTING knowledge, not a place to introduce new syntheses and opinions. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So i it's just about the title. i can write "Polonophobia" or "Cohen's view for history" instead of "controversy" and everything would be allright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.250.10 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake. No, it is not about the title. For the third or fourth time, you are charging Cohen with something no one other than you is charging him with. Your interpretation of his 'anti-polonism' is shared by no one else--or at least you have not provided the slightest evidence it exists outside of your own imagination. If you re-add your baseless and derogatory claim without any evidence--reliable evidence--that this is an genuine issue that's been commented on by others, I will see that you are blocked immediately. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The Conservative Liberal?

Do these two sentences make sense, meaning they are consistent: "Some of Cohen's social views are ones attributed to American liberalism, but his political views are often conservative. For example, he is pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and agrees with former Vice President Al Gore on global warming.[3] However, he was originally a supporter of the Iraq War,[4] and publicly supported the Bush administration in several other high profile instances"? If one wants to say that he holds some liberal positions and some conservatives ones that's fine. But stating that "his political views are often conservative" and then citing his liberal positions on abortion and gay-rights is both bad logic and bad writing. This may apply for anyone who has ever taken a political stand on something, but does the fact that he supported the Iraq War at first make him "conservative"? How many "conservative" positions does one have to hold to be conservative, and how many liberal positions does one have to hold to make one liberal? Does holding some liberal and some conservative positions make one a moderate? I just question pinning the appropriate political labels on people.Bronxpolwatcher (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Mess

I tried to fix a bit here, but it's still an ugly mess of a stub. If he were not so notable, I'd send it to WP:AfD. Please help fix this article as tagged. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I basically feel the same way. I reported it to the BLP noticeboard, but there's still far too much partisan "criticism" from "sources" like Media Matters for America. It's like folks who dislike Cohen for writing too favorably of Pres. Bush have just worked to paint Cohen in as poor of a light as possible. LHM 06:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Even after the minor fixes some have attempted, this article is still a complete mess, one-sided in it's perspective, and completely inappropriate for a BLP. I removed a big chunk of Media Matters' attacks on him, but there's still a lot to fix here. LHM 00:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

NYT?

That's what I see in a TV interview caption. Perhaps the article needs updating in this respect? Tony (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)