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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Michael Cohen (lawyer) is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move (not even a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS). As for "Michael Cohen" without disambiguators — that will require a new move request that expressly offers that as an option. Thank you. El_C 02:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC) El_C02:28, 22 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
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]
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]
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]
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)[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. BD2412T18:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 talk01:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
OPPOSE Mr. Cohen is a lawyer by definition. That said, first sentence of his bio could properly be amended to read that he is "an American lawyer who was disbarred in 2019 and served as an attorney for former United States president Donald Trump from 2006 to 2018." 96.224.50.11 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if he is now disbarred and not technically a lawyer (though even that is up for debate), he was still once a lawyer. That's what matters. For example, if a notable CEO was fired from his position, you would never write "(fired CEO)", because that's biased and irrelevant. Schtamangie (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong OPPOSE
There are multiple reasons not to add "disbarred":
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.)
Michael Cohen is notable for his work as a lawyer in Trump's employ, not for being disbarred.
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."
Lack of precedent--Can anybody find another title that includes disbarment?
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.
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 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.
Re: Michael Cohen (Trump lawyer) identifies what he's known for, but omits the first 15 years of his career, the first 15 years of his career contribute nothing to his notability, which derives entirely from his association with Trump. BD2412T15:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BD2412T22:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
But not in this case. WP:NCPDAB says that "Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators. . ."
While I'm glad to have learned that birthdates are sometimes used, it wouldn't be helpful for this BLP since the article on the other lawyer named Michael Cohen includes the middle initial "H.", and the other Michael D. Cohens have their names followed by parenthetical descriptors--academic, actor, lawyer. YoPienso (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not in this case. Not not in this case, according to the naming convention.
And I don't see the relevance of the fact that Michael Cohen articles use middle initials and occupations without birth years for disambiguation. Graham (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: It is clear that the original proposal has no consensus. It is also clear that there is consensus that this page does need to be moved somewhere, though, to better disambiguate from Michael H. Cohen. Relisting to allow for further discussion on this. Bensci54 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to "Michael Cohen" without disambiguators I don't think that any of the proposed disambiguators are great improvements; noone will know the difference in birth years of this Michael Cohen and Michael H. Cohen. I'm suggesting we acknowledge it as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC much as we do with another lawyer involved in a presidential scandal, John Dean. I know that page views are not the best metric to judge by at all times, but in this case, going back to July 2015 (as far back as the tool goes) to try to limit the recentism as much as possible, this Michael Cohen has over 5.6 million page views. Michael H. Cohen has over 31,000, and others have less than 2,000. Like it or not, this Michael Cohen's involvement with Trump should push him to primacy over the other Michael Cohens. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is currently the cleanest disambig. There could maybe be better options but the suggested proposal is wordy for no real justification ("Michael Cohen" with no disabmiguators is potentially ok.) Jorahm (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Michael Cohen" - this person has over 90% of the pageviews, and over 95% if Mickey Cohen isn't counted. That is possibly recentism, but "disbarred lawyer" is too hostile, "lawyer" is too vague, "Trump lawyer" doesn't seem right, and no other suggestion has enough support to require comment. If it becomes clear in the future he is not the primary topic, we can figure out a disambiguation then. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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 we add a separate controversy section? I know that a good amount of this article mentions some of the specific controversies related to the elements of this page, but it seems logical to include a completely separate controversy section considering the many controversies Michael Cohen finds himself in. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input. YoPienso (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)