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

The following discussion 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 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 A fact based discussion is welcome. The 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)— 178.221.137.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• This oppose is not based in policy. The policy says a blog needs to be by an established expert in the field to be considered reliable, Savich is a secondary school teacher with a personal blog, but Hoare is a professor at a university who is reliably published by several reputable publishing houses, including Oxford University Press. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• See the comment below. In addition, his blog is a mere primary source or better WP:OR, not published by Oxford University Press. I do not see any secondary source confirming Hoare's blog statements.--178.221.137.49 (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BLOGS says 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. There is no need in the policy for a secondary source confirming Hoare's blog statements. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Hoare qualifies as reliable academic source. DonFB (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose Support (see comment in the "Threaded discussion" section below). From WP:SELFPUBLISH: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. The blog entry in question does involve some rather serious claims about living people (e.g. "Savich is not a real historian and has no qualifications in history other than a Master’s degree, so it may not be surprising that his treatment of historical fact is less than professional. But he is also himself ready to engage in anti-Semitic writing.") So, without specifying which statements exactly would be supported by Hoare's blog, it is not possible (for me at least) to give support to this proposal. Note also that e.g. using the statement quoted above to support a claim about Savich would be a clear violation of WP:BLPSPS. GregorB (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hoare's blog was not being used to make comments about anyone other than Cohen and his work, and did not identify Savich, so your BLP concerns are moot. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hoare's blog is selfpublished equally as the Savich' blog. Far more weight has Savich's blog than the Hoare's. Here is why (see the article): Further, Israeli referenced and quoted the Dennis Reinhartz's review of Philip Cohen's Serbia's Secret War book, given earlier, and added:

Belgrade Jew and author of several books on the Holocaust in Serbia, Jasa Almuly, stated to the press that he doubts that an American doctor [dermatologist] was able to write such a political propaganda pamphlet, and that he believes that it came from the Tudjman's kitchen in Zagreb, in the form of institute organized to work as propaganda machinery. He asked in public: what misfortune, or perhaps benefit, made an American Jew participate in such dishonorable deed?

Savich's claim about the ghost writer is in the line of Jasa Almuly's.

I can only say that all claims about living people supported only by blogs or other self-published sources should be removed from the article immediately, in accordance with WP:BLP. GregorB (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose As per GregorB's comment above.--109.92.70.39 (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)— 109.92.70.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note for closing admin Just a note that there has been a fair amount of recent WP:SPA activity deleting Cohen as a reference from a number of articles, mostly by Serbia-based ISPs in Belgrade and Novi Sad. I believe both of the IPs that have !voted here fit into that category. If you want to see evidence of my assertion, I'd be happy to provide diffs. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Perfectly sound source by a notable intellectual with specialist subject knowledge, has material accepted and published by OUP and currently holds tenure at a respected University. WP:BLOGS I believe covers this. Irondome (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Peacemaker. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:41, 27 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)

GregorB this is what was in the article from Hoare, and what I would suggest should be put back in, none of it is a BLP violation:

In March 2011, Associate Professor Marko Attila Hoare of Economics, Politics and History at Kingston University posted a personal blog entry which dealt with a number of issues regarding Cohen's book. He wrote that denial of the genocide at Srebrenica in July 1995 "tends to go hand-in-hand with the denial of the genocidal crimes carried out by Serbian Nazi quislings and collaborators during World War II". He stated that "Great Serbian nationalists of the 1990s waged a hate campaign against Croats and Bosniaks, seeking to equate the entire Croat and Bosniak nations with the Ustashas". He observed that in this context, Cohen wrote his book as a response to this propaganda. Hoare recounted meeting with Cohen in the mid-1990s, and stated that the book was "very good". He also noted that attacks on Cohen by Serb nationalists have continued for 15 years, extending to a claim that Cohen hadn't even written the book. Hoare dismissed this claim as a "complete fabrication", stating that he had met Cohen at Yale University while he was writing the book, and Cohen had asked Hoare to assist him on the manuscript. Hoare went on to say that he had read the manuscript and made comments on it, spoken to Cohen at length and seen his library and archive.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This looks completely non-controversial to me regarding WP:BLP. While a literal reading of WP:BLPSPS would preclude the use of a blog for sourcing anything about a third-party BLP - including neutral or even positive statements ("I've spoken to Cohen", "his book was very good") - this reading doesn't make much sense to me. Moreover, the thrust of the above paragraph is that it is fully favorable to Cohen, and does not refer to any other individual. So, if the paragraph in question is the only content that is going to be sourced by Hoare's blog, I don't see reasons against it, and I'm changing my position in the RfC above to "Support". GregorB (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Its start doesn't parse as normal English (there is no such thing as a "Hoare of Economics"), and is against MOS:JOBTITLE and MOS:ISMCAPS. And the date isn't the important part. Try "Marko Attila Hoare, an associate professor of economics, politics, and history at Kingston University, posted a March 2011 personal blog entry which ...". Other than that, and provided the sources are cited, the rewrite looks good to me, though could be compressed even further: "He observed that Cohen wrote his book as a response to this propaganda, and that attacks on Cohen by Serb nationalists have continued for 15 years, extending to a claim that Cohen hadn't even written the book. Hoare dismissed this claim as a "complete fabrication", stating that he had met Cohen at Yale University in the mid-1990s during the book's writing, had read the manuscript and discussed it with Cohen at length, and had seen Cohen's library and archive."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledged, and thanks, SMcCandlish. Assuming this RfC ends supporting inclusion, I will insert it as suggested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

"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)

MOS doesn't have a total prohibition on linking inside quotations, it's just not the usual thing to do. We do it if it helps the reader and if explaining the term before or after the quote would be awkward or pedantic. Either way, our own article needs to make it clear that's a reference to Greater Serbia, since to an average reader it sounds like a reference to some Tito- or Ataturk-like figure nicknamed the Great Serb.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrator the Falsifier

Administrator Peacemaker67 tried twice (here and here) to delete this quote

Belgrade Jew and author of several books on the Holocaust in Serbia, Jasa Almuly, stated to the press that he doubts that an American doctor [dermatologist] was able to write such a political propaganda pamphlet, and that he believes that it came from the Tudjman's kitchen in Zagreb, in the form of institute organized to work as propaganda machinery. He asked in public: what misfortune, or perhaps benefit, made an American Jew participate in such dishonorable deed?

Then he falsified it intentionally by inserting two [sic]s

Belgrade Jew and author of several books on the Holocaust in Serbia, Jasa Almuly, stated to the press that he doubts that an American doctor [dermatologist] was able to write such a political propaganda pamphlet, and that he believes that it came from the [sic] Tudjman's kitchen in Zagreb, in the form of institute organized [sic] to work as propaganda machinery. He asked in public: what misfortune, or perhaps benefit, made an American Jew participate in such dishonorable deed?

Is it how Wikipedia shall be administered?--178.221.129.26 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What's your point? The word sic is added at the ends of phrases that contain grammatical or spelling errors, in this case Mr. Almuly's incorrect use of the article "the". 23 editor (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is almost certainly an IP sock of the blocked sockmaster User:Vujkovica brdo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@23 editor Sic may also be used derisively, to call attention to the original writer's spelling mistakes or erroneous logic.[2]. Quotes cannot be arbitrarily edited. By adding [sic] this falsifier changed meaning of the quoted text suggesting that Israeli, the author, points at Almuly's erroneous logic. Article "the" is correctly used here. Your comment is no more than a spam.--178.221.129.26 (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you aren't too good with English grammar. And you're a sock. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So, personal attack like this one absolves you? You want to keep your forgery in the article?--178.221.129.26 (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. And you are fortunate that you haven't been blocked as a sock of a blocked sockmaster. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

In 1994 Cohen became advisor at UNMBH established in December 1995

I think there might be an issue with addition of Peacemaker67 (diff)

The text of this article says: In 1993, he wrote a position paper on ending the war in the former Yugoslavia for President Bill Clinton's transition team. The following year, he was Advisor for Policy and Public Affairs with the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The following year was 1994. United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been established in December 1995.

The issue with above apparently wrong assertion might be caused by selfreference to unreliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Award from Franjo Tuđman

From source, I quote:

• Predstojnik Ureda Predsjednika RH Hrvoje Sarinic primio je u petak dr. Philipa Cohena i urucio mu odlikovanje Red Danice hrvatske s likom Marka Marulica, kojim ga je, kao dokazanog prijatelja Hrvatske, odlikovao predsjednik RH dr. Franjo Tudjman za doprinos u sirenju istine o agresiji na Hrvatsku. Dr. Philip Cohen autor je knjiga Tajni rat Srbije - propaganda i manipuliranje povijescu i Drugi svjetski rat i suvremeni cetnici, u kojima razoblicava velikosrpsku i antihrvatsku propagandu. Susretu je bio nazocan savjetnik Predsjednika za vanjsku politiku Neven Madey.
• Head of the Office of the President of the Republic of Croatia Hrvoje Sarinic in friday received Dr. Philip Cohen and presented him the Order of the Croatian Danica with the figure of Marko Marulić, by which, as a proven friend of Croatia, he was awarded by the President of the Republic of Croatia, Dr. Franjo Tudjman, for his contribution of spreading the truth about the aggression against Croatia. Dr. Philip Cohen is the author of the books The Secret War of Serbia - Propaganda and Manipulation of History and the Second World War and Contemporary Chetniks, in which he exposes Greater Serbia and anti-Croatian propaganda. The meeting was attended by Advisor to the President for Foreign Policy Neven Madey.

The words at the award ceremony are from Hrvoje Sarinic "for his contribution of spreading the truth about the aggression against Croatia." For the rest we do not know whether the words and clames are from Franjo Tuđman, Hrvoje Šarinić, journalist, book reviewer etc. We need additional RS or document of the original meeting(office of the president, etc) which will show the official words of the Franjo Tuđman. Mikola22 (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. There is nothing extraordinary in text, so no need for extraordinary sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I edit initial part because I thought it was data from National Television, but in fact there is no information from where is this information ie source. There is not a single piece of information about this information on the internet. I don't think it's in line with wikipedia rules and I suggest that this source not be used because probably it is not RS and since this information belongs to the biography of a living person. Wikipedia rule: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space." Mikola22 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand the meaning of Contentious material? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The assertion in question is properly cited. It is about his book, not about his personality. There is nothing extraordinary in it. The title of the book (and its text) says basically the same thing.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

References