Philip J. Cohen was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 10, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philip J. Cohen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 sourced must 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 page is not a forum for general discussion about Philip J. Cohen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Philip J. Cohen at the Reference desk. |
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 sourced must 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is starting to stray into the BLP danger area, due to lack of balance and cherry-picking. There are more positive reviews of this book that those listed, and undue weight appears to be given to two particular negative reviewers, both of whom appear to be Serbs. I would hope that this is not an extension of the campaign by certain right-wing Serbian elements, mentioned by Hoare, to attempt to discredit Cohen and his work. Charles Ingrao has reviewed the book, and Hoare had plenty to say about Savich and his unsubstantiated claims. These should be mentioned along with the negative reviews. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 08:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Peacemaker67: You're welcome to add positive reviews if you wish. 23 editor ( talk) 12:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jonas Vinther ( talk · contribs) 16:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll review this article later today. Jonas Vinther ( speak to me!) 16:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If the section on the book is much larger than the biographical part, then there is a good case for the page to be split. See
Wikipedia:Splitting: "If [...] a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles." Half of the biographical information comes from a footnote in an article, and was presumably provided by PJC himself; this makes it hard to pass as a GA.
EddieHugh (
talk) 21:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Since blogs are not allowed to be referenced, the Hoare's blog related text is removed-- 109.92.171.133 ( talk) 07:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this 2011 personal blog entry by Dr. Marko Attila Hoare be used as a source in this article to address criticisms of Cohen's book Serbia’s Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hoare is Associate Professor of Economics, Politics and History at Kingston University, and per WP:BLOGS his personal blog is a self-published expert source that may be considered reliable because Hoare is an established expert on the subject matter (Yugoslavia in WWII), whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, including (among other works) a post-doctoral monograph entitled Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia: The Partisans and the Chetniks, 1941–1943 published in 2006 by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Academy. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The included material from both writers (and perhaps some others) needs to be compressed; this is not a forum to dwell on these writers' prose. The Hoare material rambled and provided too much trivial detail, and the Savich material is excessive block quotation. Very little if anything said by either needs direct quotation, and our readers do not want to wade through it.
The order (in
this version before the mutual deletions) also seems unhelpful, as does the distance between the two segments. I would put Savich before Hoare, since it introduces the "did Cohen really write it?" theme, which is then addressed by the Hoare material, and keep them together. Putting Hoare first is a bit of a non sequitur, and makes the reader wonder, when they get to Savich, "why are we bringing up the authorship again, if we just dealt with that in a previous segment?" Logic flow is important in our articles.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
GregorB this is what was in the article from Hoare, and what I would suggest should be put back in, none of it is a BLP violation:
Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)In March 2011, Associate Professor Marko Attila Hoare of Economics, Politics and History at Kingston University posted a personal blog entry which dealt with a number of issues regarding Cohen's book. He wrote that denial of the genocide at Srebrenica in July 1995 "tends to go hand-in-hand with the denial of the genocidal crimes carried out by Serbian Nazi quislings and collaborators during World War II". He stated that "Great Serbian nationalists of the 1990s waged a hate campaign against Croats and Bosniaks, seeking to equate the entire Croat and Bosniak nations with the Ustashas". He observed that in this context, Cohen wrote his book as a response to this propaganda. Hoare recounted meeting with Cohen in the mid-1990s, and stated that the book was "very good". He also noted that attacks on Cohen by Serb nationalists have continued for 15 years, extending to a claim that Cohen hadn't even written the book. Hoare dismissed this claim as a "complete fabrication", stating that he had met Cohen at Yale University while he was writing the book, and Cohen had asked Hoare to assist him on the manuscript. Hoare went on to say that he had read the manuscript and made comments on it, spoken to Cohen at length and seen his library and archive.
We need to explain what "Great Serb" means or (better) link to something that does. If this is a legit term of art and means something encyclopedic, then Great Serb should not be a redlink. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrator Peacemaker67 tried twice ( here and here) to delete this quote
Belgrade Jew and author of several books on the Holocaust in Serbia, Jasa Almuly, stated to the press that he doubts that an American doctor [dermatologist] was able to write such a political propaganda pamphlet, and that he believes that it came from the Tudjman's kitchen in Zagreb, in the form of institute organized to work as propaganda machinery. He asked in public: what misfortune, or perhaps benefit, made an American Jew participate in such dishonorable deed?
Then he falsified it intentionally by inserting two [sic]s
Belgrade Jew and author of several books on the Holocaust in Serbia, Jasa Almuly, stated to the press that he doubts that an American doctor [dermatologist] was able to write such a political propaganda pamphlet, and that he believes that it came from the [sic] Tudjman's kitchen in Zagreb, in the form of institute organized [sic] to work as propaganda machinery. He asked in public: what misfortune, or perhaps benefit, made an American Jew participate in such dishonorable deed?
Is it how Wikipedia shall be administered?-- 178.221.129.26 ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I think there might be an issue with addition of Peacemaker67 ( diff)
The text of this article says: In 1993, he wrote a position paper on ending the war in the former Yugoslavia for President Bill Clinton's transition team. The following year, he was Advisor for Policy and Public Affairs with the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The following year was 1994. United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been established in December 1995.
The issue with above apparently wrong assertion might be caused by selfreference to unreliable source.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
From source, I quote:
References
Philip J. Cohen was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 10, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philip J. Cohen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 sourced must 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 page is not a forum for general discussion about Philip J. Cohen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Philip J. Cohen at the Reference desk. |
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 sourced must 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is starting to stray into the BLP danger area, due to lack of balance and cherry-picking. There are more positive reviews of this book that those listed, and undue weight appears to be given to two particular negative reviewers, both of whom appear to be Serbs. I would hope that this is not an extension of the campaign by certain right-wing Serbian elements, mentioned by Hoare, to attempt to discredit Cohen and his work. Charles Ingrao has reviewed the book, and Hoare had plenty to say about Savich and his unsubstantiated claims. These should be mentioned along with the negative reviews. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 08:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Peacemaker67: You're welcome to add positive reviews if you wish. 23 editor ( talk) 12:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jonas Vinther ( talk · contribs) 16:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll review this article later today. Jonas Vinther ( speak to me!) 16:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If the section on the book is much larger than the biographical part, then there is a good case for the page to be split. See
Wikipedia:Splitting: "If [...] a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles." Half of the biographical information comes from a footnote in an article, and was presumably provided by PJC himself; this makes it hard to pass as a GA.
EddieHugh (
talk) 21:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Since blogs are not allowed to be referenced, the Hoare's blog related text is removed-- 109.92.171.133 ( talk) 07:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this 2011 personal blog entry by Dr. Marko Attila Hoare be used as a source in this article to address criticisms of Cohen's book Serbia’s Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hoare is Associate Professor of Economics, Politics and History at Kingston University, and per WP:BLOGS his personal blog is a self-published expert source that may be considered reliable because Hoare is an established expert on the subject matter (Yugoslavia in WWII), whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, including (among other works) a post-doctoral monograph entitled Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia: The Partisans and the Chetniks, 1941–1943 published in 2006 by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Academy. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The included material from both writers (and perhaps some others) needs to be compressed; this is not a forum to dwell on these writers' prose. The Hoare material rambled and provided too much trivial detail, and the Savich material is excessive block quotation. Very little if anything said by either needs direct quotation, and our readers do not want to wade through it.
The order (in
this version before the mutual deletions) also seems unhelpful, as does the distance between the two segments. I would put Savich before Hoare, since it introduces the "did Cohen really write it?" theme, which is then addressed by the Hoare material, and keep them together. Putting Hoare first is a bit of a non sequitur, and makes the reader wonder, when they get to Savich, "why are we bringing up the authorship again, if we just dealt with that in a previous segment?" Logic flow is important in our articles.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
GregorB this is what was in the article from Hoare, and what I would suggest should be put back in, none of it is a BLP violation:
Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)In March 2011, Associate Professor Marko Attila Hoare of Economics, Politics and History at Kingston University posted a personal blog entry which dealt with a number of issues regarding Cohen's book. He wrote that denial of the genocide at Srebrenica in July 1995 "tends to go hand-in-hand with the denial of the genocidal crimes carried out by Serbian Nazi quislings and collaborators during World War II". He stated that "Great Serbian nationalists of the 1990s waged a hate campaign against Croats and Bosniaks, seeking to equate the entire Croat and Bosniak nations with the Ustashas". He observed that in this context, Cohen wrote his book as a response to this propaganda. Hoare recounted meeting with Cohen in the mid-1990s, and stated that the book was "very good". He also noted that attacks on Cohen by Serb nationalists have continued for 15 years, extending to a claim that Cohen hadn't even written the book. Hoare dismissed this claim as a "complete fabrication", stating that he had met Cohen at Yale University while he was writing the book, and Cohen had asked Hoare to assist him on the manuscript. Hoare went on to say that he had read the manuscript and made comments on it, spoken to Cohen at length and seen his library and archive.
We need to explain what "Great Serb" means or (better) link to something that does. If this is a legit term of art and means something encyclopedic, then Great Serb should not be a redlink. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrator Peacemaker67 tried twice ( here and here) to delete this quote
Belgrade Jew and author of several books on the Holocaust in Serbia, Jasa Almuly, stated to the press that he doubts that an American doctor [dermatologist] was able to write such a political propaganda pamphlet, and that he believes that it came from the Tudjman's kitchen in Zagreb, in the form of institute organized to work as propaganda machinery. He asked in public: what misfortune, or perhaps benefit, made an American Jew participate in such dishonorable deed?
Then he falsified it intentionally by inserting two [sic]s
Belgrade Jew and author of several books on the Holocaust in Serbia, Jasa Almuly, stated to the press that he doubts that an American doctor [dermatologist] was able to write such a political propaganda pamphlet, and that he believes that it came from the [sic] Tudjman's kitchen in Zagreb, in the form of institute organized [sic] to work as propaganda machinery. He asked in public: what misfortune, or perhaps benefit, made an American Jew participate in such dishonorable deed?
Is it how Wikipedia shall be administered?-- 178.221.129.26 ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I think there might be an issue with addition of Peacemaker67 ( diff)
The text of this article says: In 1993, he wrote a position paper on ending the war in the former Yugoslavia for President Bill Clinton's transition team. The following year, he was Advisor for Policy and Public Affairs with the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The following year was 1994. United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been established in December 1995.
The issue with above apparently wrong assertion might be caused by selfreference to unreliable source.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
From source, I quote:
References