# Talk:Roy Cohn

Before the discussion begins I'd like to point out that Octavus Roy Cohn the writer, and Roy Marcus Cohn the McCarthy assistant and rumoured homosexual are two entirely different people.
They seem to be confused with each other here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.93.60 (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 

Thank you, IP editor. That confusion has since been addressed. The early 20th century writer was Octavus Roy Cohen whereas the subject of this article is Roy Marcus Cohn.--FeralOink (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems like the phrase "Roy Cohn Award", which I insinuate to mean a Republican who works for anti-gay interests but turns out to be gay, is becoming more popular (see http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=roy+cohn+award). Perhaps something about it should make this article. VarunRajendran (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

New York appellate judge and state supreme court are different things; made it just "judge" in absence of information on which applies. Vicki Rosenzweig 00:51, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Does anyone know what he got his minor in before going to law school?

This article made no attempt at being neutral.  I edited subjective evaluations of politics.  Interchangable throwing around of "right-wing" and "conservative" were also inappropriate.  Moreover, I would hardly describe his client list as exclusively conservative.  I made improvements as I could while leaving the facts of the story in (which can be verified at a later time).  Also, bear in mind that it is ethically appropriate for an attorney to zealously represent his or her client.  24 Oct 2005
-Anon

I've reverted most, but not all, of your edits. Besides my specific disagreements (see below), it's kind of irritating that you posted a dozen edits in a row from an anonymous IP with no edit summaries; that makes it hard for other editors to track changes to the article. Please consider getting a username, and please use edit summaries to explain what you're doing.
"Widely unpopular" -> "derided by political opponents": your edit actually adds more POV, by implying that ill will toward Cohn could only come from political rivalry. Even at the height of his political and professional successes, I don't think anyone would describe Cohn as a popular man. The rest of the sentence makes it clear that this is being mentioned simply as an ironic contrast with his undeniable influence and effectiveness.
"...was known to be relentlessly homophobic..." etc.: good grief yes, that certainly was uncalled for; delete.
"Cohn, though chosen in part to avoid accusations..." -> "sometimes thought chosen": fair enough, though it's a very common interpretation, but by removing the "though" you removed the point of the sentence: that it was somewhat surprising for McCarthy to give him free rein, if he was a token appointment. But:
"(the American Communist Party had a proportionally high number of Jewish members)": what on earth are you getting at here? The targets of McCarthy and Cohn were hardly limited to card-carrying Communist Party members.
"and the Archdiocese of New York": can't think why you deleted this. It's not POV, it's an example of the wide variety of clients Cohn represented. By removing it, you actually slanted the list further in the direction of money and sleaze.
"Though his closeted sexuality was far from unusual at the time, it was in extreme contradiction with his public life in right-wing politics" -> "it was peceived [sic] by some as a contradiction with his public life in politics": Oh, for goodness' sake. His politics were right-wing by any reasonable definition; that's not a pejorative unless you make it one. And the contradiction is obvious; it's not that right-wingers can't be gay, it's that Cohn campaigned actively against gay rights and vehemently denied that he was gay. That is not up for debate.
"Cohn and McCarthy (whose own sexuality was the subject of rumors) targeted many government officials and cultural figures not only for Communist sympathies but for homosexual tendencies" -> "Cohn and McCarthy allegedly targeted many government officials and cultural figures": Well, it is true that some of McCarthy's critics tried to smear him through sexual innuendo (I can find references if you'd like) and it's an interesting footnote to Cohn's story; but it's not essential, so I'll leave it out. But the "allegedly" is just a weasel word; McCarthy's attacks on "perverts" as supposed allies of Communists are a matter of record.
"and lent his support to anti-gay political campaigns" deleted: That's not POV, it's fact, and relevant as explained above. The very next sentence provides an example.
"the Venona Project, which offered evidence that there indeed were Communists in the U.S. government" -> "which confirmed that there were indeed hundreds of Communists": As you are well aware, there is significant controversy both on and off WP about what exactly is "confirmed" by the VENONA papers. The place for that debate is in the Venona article; adding strong claims of fact in related articles like this one is POV. I'll keep "offered evidence", but add the "hundreds" if that'll make you feel better. ←Hob 04:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Hob, Venona is disputed by the same people who refuse to believe there were Communists in govt., which we know that there were Communists in govt. No scholarly work that I know of exists that questions Venona. Jtpaladin 15:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Given the looming election of November 2016, and the fact that many (if not most) Wikipedia editors are liberals, care should be taken that this article is not vandalized by Hillary Clinton supporters in order to pretend that Trump not wanting to rent to welfare recipients was tantamount to racial dicrimination.  This will surely be alleged by the Left Wing in an attempt to warp the facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 
This article, in bringing in only Trump and Rupert Murdoch as separated out clients, is wildly partisan.  It should just be dumped entirely, given that a certain political persuasion is not going to allow it any pretense of neutrality.  You should be ashamed of yourselves. Hypercallipygian (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipikiliki - I removed your last addition; here's why:

Cohn and Schine were "a study in contrasts," notes David M. Oshinsky in his book A Conspiracy So Immense. "Cohn was short, dark, intense, and abrasive; Schine was tall, fair, frivolous, and complacent." According to some observers, it was Schine who was the dominant influence.
This personality material is interesting, but unverifiable and unencyclopedic.
Despite Cohn’s intellectual brilliance, Schine was fond of humiliating Cohn in front of strangers and acting as if Cohn was his inferior.
"Brilliance" and "fond of" are inappropriate POV, and "acting as if Cohn was his inferior" is too vague.
Nicholas von Hoffman, one of Cohn’s biographers, reports that people who saw Cohn and Schine close up doubted that they were lovers or that Schine was gay. People who observed them at a distance assumed they were just two playboys. Cohn, in private conversation with friends, denied any intimate involvement with Schine.
How do we know about his private conversation with friends? It's not clear if you're attributing this to Hoffman or what. There's too much detail here - it would be enough to add a source (Hoffman or whoever) to the previous passage on the rumors about Cohn and Schine. Right now that passage says the rumors were "entirely unsubstantiated and improbable" but doesn't say why. ←Hob 17:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure why you thought the additional material was unworthy--it all came from other sources written in detail on the topic and is all very relevant to the subject matter.  Too much detail?  Is that really something to avoid in an encyclopedia?  While some of this may be "unencyclopedic," it's history that has been studied by scholars for more than 50 years.  You denying the writings of Hoffman, a Cohn biographer, doesn't make any sense.  The whole allegation about Cohn and Schine is conjecture and there has never been one iota of evidence to support it.  Cohn being gay was the only factor, but that has little bearing on Schine.  What I'm trying to bring to light, which has been lacking in the historical account of Cohn and Schine, is the evidence to support that there was in fact no sexual relationship between Cohn and Schine, and there's plenty out there.  Anyone who thinks there was because they heard there was one is simply not aware of the facts.  I'm here to provide information and  your removal represents a suppression of information by numerous verifiable and published sources.  Wikipikiliki 07:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you think my criticisms of your specific wording are an attempt to suppress evidence, or to prevent you from debunking the rumor. I think my criticisms were very specific and in line with WP guidelines, and you haven't responded to any of them. I understand the point you're trying to make, and I don't disagree; what I have a problem with is the actual text you wrote. Maybe if I restate my complaints as questions, you could try to answer them:
Why does it matter, in an article about Cohn, that one of his biographers thought Schine was "frivolous and complacent"?
How can a neutral encyclopedia article state as a fact that Cohn was brilliant, or that Schine "was fond of acting as if Cohn was his inferior"? And, again, what relevance would that have? (It certainly has nothing to do with the rumored relationship; plenty of people who are intimately involved don't treat each other with respect.)
In the passage that begins with "Nicholas von Hoffman", it is still not clear who's saying any of these things. Is it Hoffman who reports what Cohn said in private conversations with friends? Who are the "people who observed them at a distance"? This may very well all be 100% true, but you've given the reader very little way to see where the information is coming from.
In any case, nothing is being "suppressed"; we're all equals here, and you are perfectly free to add the text back in exactly as it was. And then I, or anyone else, can freely change it. ←Hob 22:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I did not write any of the text I added, but gathered together some relevant snippets from published sources, which were referenced, to make my point by people who wrote books on the subject, however, I'm not going to debate over it or spend time making contributions only to have them reversed by someone with another agenda.  Wikipikiliki 11:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to "debate"; I asked you specific questions which, if you answered them, might point the way to some better wording that can be mutually agreed on. And I don't know what you think my agenda is, but if it bothers you so much to have someone question or delete something you added, you sure won't enjoy working on Wikipedia since that's what we do here. None of this is personal, it's about trying to write the best possible article. ←Hob 03:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Your dialogue wasn't taken personally--I simply don't want to spend any more time on the matter in this forum; I think the article is fine, as is. Wikipikiliki 07:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Roy Cohn's father Albert was made a State Supreme Court Justice in the Bronx.This is a Trial court. Later  he was appointed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which includes Manhattan and the Bronx. New York State for some historical reason calls its trial court judges of superior jurisdiction Supreme Court Justices. And the highest court in New York, equivalent to any other state;s Supreme Court is called the COurt of Appeals. And oddly enough, the Court of Appeals has "Judges" not Justices.
Roy Cohn was not born in Queens. He was born in Women's Hospital in Manhattan. Nicholas Von Hoffman, Citizen Cohn. p 55.
It isn't clear that Welch was referring to Cohn.  Was the photo referred to provided by Cohn? If not, Cohn's subsequent reaction to Welch's comments- reasonable whether or not Cohn was homosexual- is simply not the same as Welch referring to Cohn!
JohnC (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please place sources on the article page. 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This set of documents is too long to read, but mentions Cohn several times. It may be relevant for the article. TGCP (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to read Venona and/or the Executive Session transcripts. There weren't alleged Communists in govt, they were in govt. Stop with the whitewashing nonsense. Jtpaladin 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the authority/citation for the following paragraph?   (I have just read a brief biography of McCarthy and did not find any targetting of homosexuals.)
Cohn and McCarthy targeted many government officials and cultural figures not only for suspected Communist sympathies but — in a move of suspected hypocrisy on Cohn's part — also for alleged homosexual tendencies, sometimes using sexual secrets as a blackmail tool to gain informants. The men whose homosexuality Cohn exposed often lost jobs, families, and homes; some committed suicide. It is said that when Cohn learned that one of his victims had killed himself, he celebrated with a bottle of champagne.[citation needed]
David K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government, Chicago, U. Chicago Press (2004), e.g., pp. 15-19.  ISBN 0226404811]Fconaway (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the word "alleged" should be removed considering that (as stated in this section and above) the Venona papers, and other sources, have conclusively proven that there was foreign Communist infiltration of U.S. government. In the meantime, I replaced the word "Communist" with "Soviet" reflecting the fact that merely being a Communist was not then, and indeed never has been, criminal - there have been many admitted Communists in a number of levels of government. What ARE illegal are foreign subversives working within the U.S. government which, in this case were Soviet (or taking Soviet pay), and were the subject of inquiry. To be more specific, those in question were anyone "unfit" to serve in government but, as this concept proved too broad, the focus was generally foreign infiltration. I do not object to the sentence being further restructured/reworded to be even more accurate and concise, but it's rather obvious that to that end, the word "alleged" must be removed. --Whatavividimagination (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The word "alleged" in "alleged communists" is correct because that's what McCarthy and Cohn investigated. The fact that there were actual communists in government employ does not mean that all the people that McCarthy and Cohn alleged to be communists were in fact communists. In fact it's well documented that many of them were not. And McCarthy was not exclusively concerned with "Soviet infiltration of the U.S. government", as your edit puts it. He was more generally concerned with anything and anyone that he perceived as being "communist" or "pro-communist". The fact that it wasn't illegal to be a communist, or even a communist in government employ, didn't stop McCarthy from denouncing people by accusing them of being communists. It's obviously possible to argue that someone is a security risk, or just "undesirable" as a government employee, without saying that the person is taking pay from the Soviets. RedSpruce (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, then the sentence needs to be reworded and possibly restructured so that the tone doesn't falsely indicate that he and McCarthy were entirely incorrect in positing subversive Communist infiltration - it's well documented that they were not. Clearly, I'm not the only one who sees that implicit statement in the subtext as the article exists currently - of course, I suppose that's the point. In the interest of not joining in an edit-war, I'll think a little on it and wait a reasonable amount of time before suggesting what that change might be.--Whatavividimagination (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It is the judgement of history that McCarthy and Cohn were indeed "entirely wrong" in their methods and their actions. The fact that there turned out to be some actual communists around doesn't justify their witch hunt or the lunatic paranoia that they fomented. That is the opinion of the vast majority of authors on the subject, and therefor, by the rules of Wikipedia, that is what the article should state. If anything, the article doesn't go far enough in conveying this consensus opinion.  RedSpruce (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the deletions: "During the hearings, a photo of Schine was introduced , and Joseph N. Welch accused Cohn of doctoring the image to show Schine alone with Army Secretary Robert Stevens". I don't think it should be disparaged as "minutia" if it is mentioned in his obituary in the Los Angeles Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's one of 3 deletions you reverted. The fact that one obit-writer happened to write about this incident doesn't demonstrate that it's not minutia. It was one of many incidents that happened at the Army-McCarthy hearings. It was far from the most notable incident involving Cohn that happened at those hearings, and the amount of coverage it now gets in this article is disproportionate and just plain silly. However, it's not worth the effort of trying to reason with you, so keep it if it makes you happy. RedSpruce (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
RedSpruce, I got rid of it because I agree with you about it being overemphasis and almost a non-sequitur.--FeralOink (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I am of an age to remember the McCarthy hearings, and I distinctly remember that Cohn, in those days, was known as "Octavus Roy Cohn".  How did he get/drop this name?  Too Old (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems I'm slipping - at any rate, I can't find any corroboration of that "memory"  Too Old (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Octavus Roy Cohen who was a best known as a detective novelist and no relation to Roy Cohn. I noticed several others, here and there, asking the same question, so I wouldn't say that "you are slipping"!!!--FeralOink (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

One of the first sentences in the section on the Rosenberg trials:

Cohn's direct examination of Ethel's brother David Greenglass, who had passed them classified documents stolen by Klaus Fuchs from the Manhattan Project.
What about it?  "Cohn's direct examination of Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, ...

was a turning point; or
was bungled; or
was his primary contribution; or
was masterful; or
resulted in his getting noticed by Mccarthy; or
cinched the Rosenberg's convictions; or ...?
I really don't know what this sentence is supposed to say. If anyone does, please complete the sentence.
Also, if Ethel had only one brother, then "Ethel's brother" should have a comma after it. Ileanadu (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

At one time it was "Cohn's direct examination of Ethel's brother David Greenglass produced the testimony (in which the brother later claimed he perjured himself) that was mostly responsible for the Rosenbergs' conviction and execution."   I reworked the beginning of that section.  Lateg (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the section heading "Tail-Gunner Joe" by "Work with Joseph McCarthy".  The nickname might not be immediately understood to refer to McCarthy and was not explained or referenced elsewhere in the article.  Indeed, I was not familiar with the nickname until now, and was unsure whether it referred to McCarthy or to Joseph Welch, who is also mentioned in that section. 128.84.234.217 (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Tail-Gunner Joe was Joe McCarthy's nickname as he fired more rounds as a tail gunner on a bomber than any tail gunner in World War II. Through that is a fact, what McCarthy failed to mention what he did not achieve this in combat, but instead spent hours firing his gun into the Pacific as his bomber hunted fruitlessly for Japanese submarines  (it was very boring and blasting away at the sea for hours on end was a way to ease the monotony). McCarthy used the nickname to make out that he was a major war hero, which he was not as he didn't even fight the Japanese once. --A.S. Brown (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence in the section titled "Homosexuality" is "Roy Cohn allegedly spent several decades living a discreet life as a closeted gay man" (emphasis added); "allegedly" was apparently added recently.
What on earth is "alleged" about this?
Or more exactly, the first sentence might be subject to improvement, but not because there is any reasonable doubt of Cohn's sexual orientation.
Perhaps instead of "living a discreet life as a closeted gay man" it should say "living a secretive homosexual life".
That would be much more consistent with reality and is abundantly supported by the evidence.
Son of eugene (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the word "allegedly" in this sentence. It seems entirely likely that he was gay considering that he died of AIDS, but the article doesn't seem to cite any source that says he was as a fact; only that there were rumours and jokes about it. - Cal Engime (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
""""""Alleged"""""" ? Lol, very funny. Frimoussou (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This information should be included under the section of Portrayal in Media
The stop motion animated series Moral Orel. 
The town contained a Roy Cohn Memorial Blood Bank. 
Not directly mentioned in dialogue but clearly visible in several episodes. 
Clearly a commentary on both Cohn's sexual orientation and manner of death.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:601:E4D0:4403:CA41:B73D:9DE (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roy Cohn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: JerrySa1 (talk · contribs) 19:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

All right, I haven't been all that active on wikipedia in a while, and I'll be busy after break ends, but I thought that this might be a nice thing to do on the side. Roy Cohn is pretty popular in Alternate History timelines so I have some familiarity with the guy. Anyways I'll start doing an in-depth review on Boxing Day. 

After a quick glance at the Wikipedia article, a couple of things stick out to me in particular.
"In 1971, businessman Donald Trump moved to Manhattan, where he became involved in large construction projects. In 1973 the Justice Department accused him of violating the Fair Housing Act in his operation of 39 buildings. The government alleged that Trump's corporation quoted different rental terms and conditions and made false "no vacancy" statements to African Americans for apartments it managed in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.
Representing Trump, Cohn filed a countersuit against the government for $100 million, asserting that the charges were irresponsible and baseless. The countersuit was unsuccessful. Trump settled the charges out of court in 1975, saying he was satisfied that the agreement did not "compel the Trump organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant." The corporation was required to send a bi-weekly list of vacancies to the New York Urban League, a civil rights group, and give the league priority for certain locations. In 1978 the Trump Organization was again in court for violating terms of the 1975 settlement; Cohn called the new charges "nothing more than a rehash of complaints by a couple of planted malcontents." Trump denied the charges."
Besides the parts in quotes, some of the phrasing seems based off of this. 
I'd reword this area. 
The Counter-Espionage section doesn't have any sources to it. It also probably should be combined with the section for the Rosenberg trial.
References 9 and 37 are the same as #3.
References #4, 14, 18, 36, 41, 42, 51, and 53 are dead.
Jerry  (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks JerrySa1! I'll start working on this now. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 06:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: Thanks again for reviewing this. I've fixed the duplicate references mentioned, as well as rescued the dead URLs you found. I slightly re-worded parts of the Trump-related section you mentioned, though I had trouble finding too many close matches. I've also combined the counterespionage section with his early life, and renamed that "Early life and career". Some other copyedits related to that, and sources found for those sections where needed. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 22:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
All right, these issues are fine now, except the issue with the counter-espionage section. I still think it's too short to be its own stand-alone thing but this is really a minor quibble. There's also still two "Angels In America" sources which seem to have the same contents.
"Joseph Welch, the Army's attorney in the hearings, made an apparent reference to Cohn's homosexuality. After asking a witness if a photo entered as evidence "came from a pixie", he defined "pixie" (a camera model name at the time)[43] for McCarthy as "a close relative of a fairy." (Fairy is a derogatory term for a homosexual man.) The people at the hearing recognized the slur and found it amusing; Cohn later called the remark "malicious", "wicked", and "indecent"." Wording here is pretty confusing, took me a while to understand what this meant. 

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Also no problem here, the article is well sourced enough.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Fairly sums up the major aspects of Roy Cohn's life, and to some extent of his legacy. Most news sources focus a lot more on his relationship with Donald Trump and his legacy to fit how he's relevant to this day, but at least in my opinion, the article is adequate with what it currently has.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Roy Cohn is undoubtedly an controversial figure, especially seeing his relationship to Trump and rumors as towards his homosexuality. It does not seem all too biased however, and does link to sources which back up points.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Haven't found anything noteworthy here
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Nothing wrong here, both images are relevant and in the public domain.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I had more written down but it seems like you fixed it while I was writing this. Anyways, besides a bunch of really minor things, there's not a huge amount standing out about this article that needs to be fixed, at least in my opinion, besides what I listed. The article seems mostly ready for GA, even though not much prep work was put into this.
Jerry  (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the "pixie" paragraph. I've slightly revised it for clarity. The counterespionage section was added to create the "Early life and career" section, as I agree it wasn't really worth its own section. I've also made a few minor style fixes. Thanks again for your comments and review. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 00:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
All right, I've noticed two other things, give these two sources, they seem worthy of one.
"Cohn preferred not to hold hearings in open forums, which went well with McCarthy's preference for holding "executive sessions" and "off-the-record" sessions away from the Capitol in order to minimize public scrutiny and to question witnesses with relative impunity. Cohn was given free rein in pursuit of many investigations, with McCarthy joining in only for the more publicized sessions."
"Although the findings of the hearings blamed Cohn rather than McCarthy, they are widely considered an important element of McCarthy's disgrace. After the Army–McCarthy hearings, Cohn resigned from McCarthy's staff and went into private practice."
These two need sources, per 2b. Jerry  (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
All right, congratulations I'm Passing this article. I see no major issues with the article which prevent it from reaching Good Article criteria.Jerry  (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Contrary to what this article reports, Roy Cohn never joined the Birch Society and notice that there is no footnote to document that assertion.  Furthermore, Cohn publicly stated that he did not want to join Western Goals unless he received assurances that it was NOT connected to the Birch Society. [See New York Times, 5/15/82, page 47, "Roy Cohn Joins Board of Anti-Communist Group"]. In addition, Mr. Cohn replied to my inquiry about his opinion re: the JBS by stating he thought it was not a reliable source of information. Ernie1241 (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done You appear correct, Ernie1241 (talk · contribs), and I have deleted the incorrect entry, both from this page, and from the page for the John Birch Society, where it appeared with reference, though incorrect to its source. Thank you for the heads up. Lindenfall (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
However, I ought point out that this one 2011 book does reference Cohn as a member: McCarthyism and the Red Scare: A Reference Guide, by William T. Walker. I disregarded it, being neither contemporary nor matched by any other WP:RS that I could find. https://books.google.com/books?id=I8BhzCaTAsoC&pg=PA109 Lindenfall (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, many publications falsely claim that certain famous people were members of the Birch Society.  Similar false claims have been made about:  John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, H.L. Hunt, Robert Morris, and others.  Some people joined but then resigned once they discovered what JBS founder Robert Welch believed about President Eisenhower.  That group includes Dennison Kitchel (Goldwater's 1964 campaign manager), Morrie Ryskind, and actor Adolphe Menjou (he served on the JBS National Council but William F. Buckley convinced him to resign from the JBS).  Also, many famous people have been listed as JBS members (even by Wikipedia) but nobody has ever found verifiable evidence to substantiate their membership -- including figures such as Hedda Hopper, Zazu Pitts, Clint Murchison. Ernie1241 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it may be worth adding something on Roy Cohn's patch on the AIDS quilt given his death and potential homosexuality. It has his name and "Bully, coward, victim" written under it. I think it provides quite a good example of how he's remembered and would fit in in the "Death" section 
Here's a link if anyone is looking: https://www.aidsmemorial.org/interactive-aids-quilt NotVeryGoodAtThis (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

NotVeryGoodAtThis, I looked. Interesting. It needs secondary sourcing (to prove it's worth including), and I left a note at the relevant project talk page, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Talk:Roy_Cohn#AIDS_quilt_and_legacy. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This is true. It was the basis for Kushner's interest in Cohn. I will add some secondary sources soon, thanks for the note. Urve (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
There are two entries for the name "Roy Cohn" in the AIDS quilt. I don't know the significance of this.--FeralOink (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Weirdly worded and insinuates that they were having an affair just because Cohn (but not G. David Schine) was gay. --Alvaria (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

According to Seymour’s notes, Cohn’s frequent phone pals included Nancy Reagan and the former C.I.A. director William Casey, who “called Roy almost daily during [Reagan’s] 1st election.” --Alvaria (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"Distilling this consensus, Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz wrote that the Rosenbergs were "guilty – and framed."
Referenced LA Times article
This article appeared in the midst: culturally, temporally, geographically, of the Murder trial of O. J. Simpson. The defense employed Dershowitz. The notion that Rosenbergs were guilty but subject to prosecutorial and judicial malfeasance had obvious parallels to Simpson's trial and prosecution. This context suggests that this article has, at least, questionable motivation and perhaps authority as it appeared nine years after Roy Cohn's death. 2001:5A8:431F:AD00:915A:BE55:5DF3:54FC (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Obvious omission: film, The Apprentice, released in 2024.
Not as obvious: Robert Coover's 1977 metafantasic novel _The Public Burning_, in which the character Roy Cohn engages in gay sex with the character Richard Nixon (portrayed sympathetically). In Wikipedia's  _The Public Burning_ entry, it is inferred that Viking withdrew the bestselling book for fear of lawsuits, yet Brian Evenson is quoted: 'Despite these difficulties, this novel has received a large amount of critical attention. It has been called "perhaps the most complete replenishment of the language since Whitman and (in a different way) Mark Twain ... no writer since Melville has dived so deeply and fearlessly into this collective American dream as Coover has in this novel".'
Editions Iwitinthemidwest (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the first item above, and a correction: The Apprentice IS listed in the film section. Iwitinthemidwest (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The story about Donald Trump giving Roy Cohn knock-off cufflinks is widely circulated, but its truth remains uncertain, and it seems to be more of an anecdote rather than a documented, verifiable event. This story has been discussed in books and articles about Trump and Cohn, but there is no clear evidence to confirm it as a factual, intentional insult.
The claim is often framed in a way that suggests it may have been a subtle, symbolic gesture by Trump to express disdain or distance himself from Cohn, particularly as their relationship began to evolve over time. However, whether Trump actually gave Cohn knock-off cufflinks with the intention of insulting him is not definitively proven and could be more of an embellishment or part of the colorful narrative that surrounds their relationship.
There is no concrete, verifiable proof that Donald Trump intentionally gave Roy Cohn knock-off cufflinks as a deliberate insult. However, this story has been part of the lore surrounding their relationship and has been discussed in various books and media reports, but it is often framed as an anecdote or part of the mythos of their connection.
The story goes that Trump allegedly gave Cohn a pair of cheap, knock-off cufflinks as a gesture, which some have interpreted as a way for Trump to subtly insult or mock his former mentor. However, there is no direct evidence to prove that this act was intended as a deliberate insult. It is possible that the incident was exaggerated or misunderstood over time.
stories like the cufflinks anecdote are often more anecdotal in nature, and it’s difficult to determine with certainty whether this specific event occurred exactly as reported, or whether it was embellished over time. 2603:6080:AD05:8FCB:CDE5:2EB0:A610:B92F (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

So what? This article makes no such insinuation about Trump's motives and doesn't even mention the obviously deceptive and cheapskate move by Trump, the type of thing he often does.
Do you have a proposed edit? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
While, that’s correct there’s never been any cufflinks produced and while it is true, Donald Trump did give Roy Cohen Trump cufflinks any insinuation that they’re fake doesn’t come from the supposed person who received the item it comes from that person’s friend who heard from another guy at least in all the articles I’ve read about this and that apparently they were like three levels of separation on top of being completely unverifiable and they never have been seen or proven to exist 2603:6080:AD05:8FCB:CDE5:2EB0:A610:B92F (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The only thing that counts here is whether the claim, true or false, is described in a RS. It is. End of story,.... unless you have other RS that add more details about the story. They may be worth including. Do you have other RS? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean
Inclusion of a singular film produced decades after the death of a historical figure in lede seems quite redundant when it is already mentioned later, but it has brought renewed attention to Cohn so I am willing to keep it. Wikipedia:OTHERTHINGS is a correct criticism on my point about Trump, however this is not applicable to the fact that Cohn has been portrayed many times in media, not once as the lede could suggest. I would also like to note that the original edit lacked a link to the film. To rectify these discrepancies and avoid Wikipedia:EW this is my proposed change:
"Cohn has been the subject of many media portrayals before and since his death. The Apprentice (2024 film), details Cohn's mentorship of Donald Trump, and went on to receive two Academy Award nominations." SirCarrotTheFirst1 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@SirCarrotTheFirst1:, that looks like an improvement. Go ahead and install it. I'll defend that edit unless someone has some good arguments against it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only source for his actual party membership is a NY Times obituary which calls him a Democrat. I'd like to change the infobox to reflect this. Dmh17 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)