This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stephen F. 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 |
![]() | A news item involving Stephen F. Cohen was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 September 2020. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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."
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)
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)
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)
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 - Youreally can 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.
citation needed
Can somebody explain how the above contribution got here without a signature or an IP address? --- Dagme ( talk) 03:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
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 = Youreally can 09:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
There was no NATO's expansion. We Eastern Europeans forced NATO to accept us. Xx236 ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jun/10/stephen-cohen-survivors-gulag-stalin-review Xx236 ( talk) 06:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)"
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?
"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)
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" [1] 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
Xx236 ( talk) 06:09, 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)
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)
Are the two editions so different to list them as separate books? Xx236 ( talk) 07:58, 12 February 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)
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)
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)
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)
I came upon the following quote which did not accurately represent the cited source:
Kkostagiannis (
talk)
18:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
References
@ 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." [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you.
MikaelaArsenault ( talk) 13:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
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 ````
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)
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 BThat'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.
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)
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...")
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.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stephen F. 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 |
![]() | A news item involving Stephen F. Cohen was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 September 2020. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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."
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)
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)
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)
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 - Youreally can 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.
citation needed
Can somebody explain how the above contribution got here without a signature or an IP address? --- Dagme ( talk) 03:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
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 = Youreally can 09:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
There was no NATO's expansion. We Eastern Europeans forced NATO to accept us. Xx236 ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jun/10/stephen-cohen-survivors-gulag-stalin-review Xx236 ( talk) 06:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)"
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?
"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)
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" [1] 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
Xx236 ( talk) 06:09, 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)
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)
Are the two editions so different to list them as separate books? Xx236 ( talk) 07:58, 12 February 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)
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)
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)
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)
I came upon the following quote which did not accurately represent the cited source:
Kkostagiannis (
talk)
18:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
References
@ 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." [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you.
MikaelaArsenault ( talk) 13:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
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 ````
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)
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 BThat'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.
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)
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...")
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.