Talk:Philip J. Cohen

Care needed

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)

It is actually your comment which stray into BLP danger area. Please take better care in future. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, you will not accept good advice. Mind how you go, articles on people that are dead are one thing, BLPs are quite another. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article takes a rather risky approach BLP-wise. Looks a bit coatracky too.

Cohen is an amateur historian whose work has been criticized, which is nothing to write home about. He does not seem to meet WP:ANYBIO (I don't think Order of Danica Hrvatska qualifies as a major award) or WP:PROF, so I wonder whether he's actually notable. GregorB (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I don't know if he's written anything in the past 20 years (that is, since the wars ended). I mean, other than some posts on a blog called Bosniak–Jewish Friendship. Anyone have any of his more recent publications? 23 editor (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Hoare, Savich was trashing the book as recently as 2009. That's pretty recent. But regardless, it doesn't matter when Cohen last wrote. He easily meets WP:GNG, there is significant coverage of him and his work in multiple reliable sources. Savich not being one of them, of course. Ingrao reviewed his book, Hoare has discussed it in some depth on his blog, that's plenty. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This article has three times as much in terms of negative reviews as positive. This doesn't reflect the weight of non-Serb reviewers, and means the article has a serious POV problem. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: You're welcome to add positive reviews if you wish. 23 editor (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 23, I am clearly making an observation that some editors have sought to add negative viewpoints about Cohen's work to this article, but the same editors have not been sufficiently interested in the WP pillar of neutrality to add other perspectives on it. That is their responsibility, unless of course they are POV warriors themselves, and have no regard for the basis of WP, but are only interested in discrediting authors who place their POV in a poor light. The observation about lack of neutrality is valid for the article as it stands. It gives undue weight to the negative without acknowledging the positive. Savich and the like have beaten this drum for a couple of decades, making up accusations that have been refuted by highly respected academics. It needs to be noted on the article, otherwise editors might get the idea that Cohen (the "dermatologist") has no credibility. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philip J. Cohen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

Make that tomorrow. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Is it well-written? Y N
• Is it verifiable with no original research? Y N
• Is it broad in its coverage? Y N
• Is it neutral? Y N
• Is it stable? Y N
• Is it illustrated? Y N

Peacemaker67, I can't help but wonder why the section about his book is longer, much longer, than the actual biography section? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonas. Basically, it is because it is the thing he is most notable for. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, okay I see what you mean. I think I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this one. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added the 2nd opinion syntax to the GAN template. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:48, 19 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)

Thanks Eddie. That's useful feedback. Jonas, I'm happy for you to fail this, I may then split the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's out of balance. Let me take another look. auntieruth (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

certainly it's significantly longer than the biography, but that withstanding, I'd leave it as is. Instead, it might be useful to have the article about the book itself, and the information on the author as a section. I had only one quibble: in the US, people don't read for a Bachelors, they either earn or receive.

Thanks Ruth, that's a good idea, and cheers for the "read" tip. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Failed per comments above. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Blog

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)

However, per WP:BLOGS self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Hoare is, Savich isn't. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Then which way Carl Savich blog is not a blog of an expert? Please, provide references supporting your opinion. Moreover, justify "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" since Hoare posts a flat claim not a scholar research result. --109.92.171.133 (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned at the combative atmosphere being displayed here and elsewhere. The major academic reviews of Cohen's work are in this article, they are the basis on which we would be determining his reliability, here and elsewhere, and I would characterise his work as having its critics, but also being praised. Like many authors. So far as I know, Cohen is still alive, so you need to be particularly careful when saying things about a living person on WP, even in edit summaries, to ensure you comply with our WP:BLP policy. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not inserting my personal opinion in the biography. Please, avoid personal attacks and do not advertise Cohen further.--109.92.171.133 (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not "advertising" Cohen, whatever that might be. I am using his book as a source. I am also not attacking you, I am pointing out that you need to be careful when mentioning living people on WP, as the BLP policy applies. If you fail to do that, and/or continue to edit-war, then it will be reported on the noticeboards and that could potentially result in you being banned from editing pages on certain topics, or result in you being blocked from editing WP. You can either abide by WP policies or not, but if you don't, you can't expect to be allowed to continue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So, you already pronounced me guilty party? You have strong opinion favoring Cohen but you and Hoare did not answer very basic questions: How someone who is not a historian, does not speak languages (German, Serbian) could ever write such a book? How come that the first edition of the "book" was written in the Queen's English by someone who is born and lived all his life in the US?--109.92.171.133 (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't engage in that sort of original research, we assess the book based on whether it meets our reliability policy. I have opened a RfC to establish a wider consensus regarding the use of Cohen on the talk page of the Banjica concentration camp article. Savich has not been published by reliable third-party publications (to my knowledge), but Hoare definitely has. Hoare is also an established expert on the subject of Yugoslavia in WWII, Savich is not. That is the difference between using Hoare's blog and using Savich's. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the use of a blog as a source on Philip J. Cohen's book

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)

Survey

• Support use of the blog entry, as it is reliable per WP:BLOGS and because it is relevant to this article as it addresses some of the persistent criticisms made of Cohen's work by some parties. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - a blog written by a notable author would be an acceptable source for their views about a topic certainly, and I don't see any issue as long as they are appropriately attributed etc. Anotherclown (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per both of the above (grounded in WP:BLOGS) and per WP:ABOUTSELF, but also restore the contrary material by Carl Kosta Savich, and trim both and arrange better. Details in #Threaded discusson subsection below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support for reasons given by others and subject to attribution as suggested by SMcCandlish in threaded discusson below. Pincrete (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The fact based discussion is welcome. Blog is not something that is peer reviewed i.e. appraised scholarly. We are here not to vote.--178.221.137.49 (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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)

Thanks; that's helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This material – from both sides for balance (and from someone else than Savich is okay) – is reader-informative of the public debate about the work and its author, thus it should be used, as long as we're clear that what we're reporting is attributed opinion not established facts, and we are not relying upon any of it for any WP:AEIS about the topic. WP:ABOUTSELF is also relevant: A self-published statement is a sufficient source for what someone's own public stance is. If we consider someone reputable enough on the topic to bother with and that the views expressed in the self-published material are encyclopedic enough to include here, then their own blog is sufficiently reliable to establish what those views are, that they are actually that person's, and what the exact published wording is if we plan to quote verbatim from it. I would encourage replacing this with non-self-published material later if possible, but it is not required for something like this.

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and in theory I agree. However, the problem with Savich is that he isn't, to my knowledge, reliably published, and advances what is pretty much a fringe view. If we could find someone who had been reliably published who made the same claims about Cohen as Savich, I would gladly use them. Short of that, I think Hoare has to be used to introduce the claims by Savich and also to dispel them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"Great Serb"

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

it's in a quote, so linking is not usually the go, but it refers to Greater Serbia, which is a thing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)