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]

Requested move 10 May 2024[edit]

Michael Cohen (lawyer)Michael Cohen (disbarred lawyer) – Because despite the current title he is not a "lawyer". He is a disbarred FORMER lawyer. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Unnecessary disambiguation to a POV title for a contentious BLP, against WP:NPOVTITLE. Never mind the fact that he remains a lawyer even though he's disbarred. A lawyer is someone with a JD. An attorney is someone licensed to practice law.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Per Lawyer, sentence 1 says "A lawyer is a person who practices law." Having lost his license, Cohen does not practice law, er go, he is not a "lawyer". Unless you have RSs, your reasoning seems factually flawed, and lacking RSs to change my mind, I hope the closer discounts your reasoning.
(2) In addition, if such RSs do not exist, then crediting Cohen with the profession "lawyer" when he is not is the actual POV problem.
(3) Meanwhile, a superficial google search ("Is a disbarred attorney still a lawyer?") led to this... "A lawyer (also called attorney, counsel, or counselor) is a licensed professional who advises and represents others in legal matters." "What is a lawyer?", American Bar Association
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see it both ways. Even if lawyer and attorney are synonyms, that doesn't address the BLP issue of putting a negative term such as "disbarred" in an article title. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to avoid the WP:PDAB versus Michael H. Cohen who's also a lawyer. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not know about him. There are better ways to handle PDAB than biasing readers against a subject in the article title. This Michael Cohen might be the primary topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it any more biasing to say that in the title that it is in the lead? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it is. It's also biasing to put it in the lead and I've been working to remove negative terms like "convicted felon" from article leads. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose see comment by Muboshgu. --Denniss (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move to the Michael Cohen basename per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, seconding Muboshgu. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As proposer, I could also live with just saying Michael Cohen NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as the title indicates the subject's basis of notability rather than their current practice status (it would be absurd for us to have to check all of the tens of thousands of lawyers in the encyclopedia to update those whose licensure has lapsed, whether due to disbarment, retirement, or death); leaning oppose moving to the primary topic title, as this would be WP:RECENTISM, and the subject is no more than a flash in the pan for historical importance. If this needs to be moved for further disambiguation, it should be moved to Michael Cohen (Trump lawyer), as this as entirely the basis of the subject's notability. BD2412 T 18:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]