Talk:Michael Cohen (lawyer)

Guidelines for referring to someone as 'convicted felon'

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)

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)

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)

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)

Revert edits where it is difficult to determine what has changed

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)

Requested move 10 May 2024

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)

• 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)

  (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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  At the time I made that comment the lead started with "Michael Dean Cohen (born August 25, 1966) is an American disbarred former lawyer". I didn't look closely enough to see that that change was an undiscussed month-old addition by an IP which you've now reverted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose see comment by Muboshgu. --Denniss (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Support a move to the Michael Cohen basename per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, seconding Muboshgu. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

As proposer, I could also live with just saying Michael Cohen NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

Even better! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine with (Trump lawyer). Haven't looked closely enough to see whether moving to the base name is warranted, but if that's what the consensus ends up being I'm not opposed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Virtually no article on wikipedia follows the guideline of current individual's title in the article title. You do not see "Former Governor" or "Former Senator" in any politican's article.

- AH (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Mixed: Part of the problem is that someone removed information (his middle name) from the title that already served to disambiguate. The purpose of the parenthetical (lawyer) is to help identity the subject of the article, but in this case, we have two lawyers.

I suggest that we change the title to "Michael D. Cohen" and leave the hatnote pointing to "Michael H. Cohen". This would match the way we are handling the situation from the other direction, as "Michael H. Cohen" has a hatnote to "Michael D. Cohen"  • Bobsd •  (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, use his middle initial, and also add (Trump lawyer). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I just spent time looking up lawyer vs. attorney vs. having a JD with or without passing the bar vs. which state you are in, plus the aspect of if you are from a foreign country (and a lawyer there) can you still call yourself a lawyer here. What a total mess. So it depends on if the parenthetical is supposed to be accurate and current, or just informative. And I agree with BD2412, that we should not have to keep articles up to date regarding current licensing. To your suggestion, as far as saying "Trump lawyer", he is not anymore, in the same way as being a "practicing lawyer" anymore. If it does not have to be "current" then I would just leave "lawyer" since that is what his profession is/was and he is known for, IMO  • Bobsd •  (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that Michael D. Cohen is a disambiguation page. I'm fine with Michael D. Cohen (lawyer), though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• There can be a couple things done here but Michael Cohen (disbarred lawyer) is not one of them. Michael Cohen (Trump lawyer) is fine or simply Michael D. Cohen (lawyer). Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Of Note: Regardless of what we decide, there is another current issue: The current Michael D. Cohen a disambiguation page (thanks for pointing this out * Pppery *) has this gem ...

Michael D. Cohen may refer to:

• Michael D. Cohen (academic) (1945–2013), professor of complex systems, information and public policy at the University of Michigan
• Michael D. Cohen (actor) (born 1975), Canadian actor
• Michael Cohen (lawyer) (Michael Dean Cohen), American disbarred lawyer, an attorney for U.S. president Donald Trump

There is no way that someone searching for Michael D. Cohen (with the middle initial) should be redirected to "Michael Cohen (lawyer)" with a parenthetical (synonymous with) that ties together Michael Dean Cohen with Michael Cohen (lawyer). Poor Michael D. (sigh)  • Bobsd •  (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what I was trying to say above, but at this point it makes no sense to me. As Emilie Latella would say, "never mind"  • Bobsd •  (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong OPPOSE

There are multiple reasons not to add "disbarred":

1. Occam's razor--there's simply no need for the adjective. See WP:CONCISE. The parenthetical (lawyer) serves only to disambiguate this Michael Cohen from other Michael D. Cohens; there is no reason for a qualifier. (That said, there's an argument for inserting the middle initial.)
2. Michael Cohen is notable for his work as a lawyer in Trump's employ, not for being disbarred.
3. The biography of a living person "requires a high degree of sensitivity" and "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
4. Article titles should be neutral WP:NPOVNAME and non-judgmental WP:NDESC.
5. Lack of precedent--Can anybody find another title that includes disbarment?
6. He's listed in categories American lawyers, Disbarred American lawyers, Disbarred New York (state) lawyers, and Donald Trump attorneys. There's no need to spell all that out in the title.

YoPienso (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per WP:NPOV.estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Muboshgu above and per WP:NPOVNAME. However, it is also clear that the page should be moved somewhere - there are at least two lawyers named Michael Cohen with Wikipedia articles, and three people named Michael D. Cohen with articles. The base title Michael Cohen might not be optimal due to WP:RECENTISM. I suggest any of the following:

• Michael Dean Cohen
• Michael D. Cohen (lawyer)
• Michael Cohen (Trump lawyer)
• Michael Cohen (lawyer, born 1966)

– Epicgenius (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Michael D. Cohen (lawyer) is reasonable, neutral, and concise, but fails WP:UCRN since his middle initial is rarely used in the media or by the public.

Michael Dean Cohen could work, but also fails WP:UCRN since his middle name is rarely used.

Michael Cohen (Trump lawyer) identifies what he's known for, but omits the first 15 years of his career.

Michael Cohen (lawyer, born 1966) doesn't work.

I think the only fix we need is to get rid of the redundant and confusing disambiguation page. This one works just fine. YoPienso (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - what if his disbarment is revoked? The title is about what is was that makes Cohen notable, being a lawyer, rather than a timestamped indicator of his current employment position. Footballers are XYZ (footballer) but it’s not changed each time they change teams, or retire. Why are they notable? They are footballers. And what is the average internet user looking for when they look up Cohen on Wikipedia? They’re looking for Michael Cohen, that lawyer guy. 2A02:C7E:2EC1:8D00:7CAD:AE54:8C6A:8F41 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the NPOV reasons listed above. I am leaning towards WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; here's some numbers from massviews. The all-time view statistics for all pages linked from the disambig page is led by "Michael Cohen (lawyer)" with 5.5m views, "Mickey Cohen" @ 3.9m, and "Michael D. Cohen" @ 715k, and with nobody else breaking 50k. I do have the same concerns about "flash in the pan" as User:BD2412 above, but the numbers are pretty lopsided. If there isn't a consensus for primary topic status, I would stick with "(lawyer)" despite the disbarment, because that's what he's known for. If I had to come up with a disambiguation tag for Pete Rose, I would choose "baseball player", even though the MLB gave him a lifetime ban.-Ich (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose.

He was a lawyer. That is his note. Does not matter whether he currently practices at this very moment or not.

We do not update these disambiguation to reflect lack of practice/lack of licensing for a once-licensed/formerly practicing individual. We do not change the disambiguation of an athlete after that athlete retires; nor do we change the disambiguation of "politician" after someone ceases to be a politician. If someone was notable as doctor, but is out of practice and had their board certification expire (or even had their license to practice revoked) we would not update their disambiguation to reflect that. If a general is stripped of their rank, they still could be disambiguated as "general" SecretName101 (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose but move to Michael Cohen (lawyer, born 1966) to disambiguate with the other one (why doesn't it work?). We never include people's status in disambiguators (former footballer, deceased actor, etc). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't work because we never include birth years in titles. At least, I haven't seen one. But then, in my 18 years here, I've seen only a tiny fraction of our titles. YoPienso (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's very common with footballers (e.g., Nené (footballer, born 1949), Ján Kozák (footballer, born 1954), Lajos Szűcs (footballer, born 1943), Andrew Phillips (footballer, born 1991), Lajos Szűcs (footballer, born 1973), Milan Jovanović (footballer, born 1981), Peter Bell (footballer, born 1976)). BD2412 T 19:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting. Thanks for that. YoPienso (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  But, how does "born 1966" help disambiguate from Michael H. Cohen, whose birth year appears nowhere in his BLP? What's notable or helpful about "born 1966"? We put dates on the various versions of the same film, which makes a ton of sense to me. I just don't see how it helps to include "born 1966" in the title of this article. But maybe I'm missing something. YoPienso (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  I tend to agree that it would be less helpful here than in the case of a footballer whose age is probably tied to his playing years. I'm just noting that it is not an unusual disambiguation method. BD2412 T 22:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate your input. YoPienso (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't work because we never include birth years in titles. Yes, we most certainly do and always have done. Many, many people are disambiguated by YOB. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)