Talk:Roy Cohn

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: An old note

message: 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)
thread_title: Roy Cohn Award

message: 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)
thread_title: Law

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cohn & Schine 

message: Please place sources on the article page. 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "alleged Communists"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Octavus Roy Cohn?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  Rosenberg Trial - Incomplete Sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Tail-Gunner Joe" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  """"""Alleged"""""" ? Lol, very funny. Frimoussou (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Homosexuality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested Edit: Portrayed in Media  

message: 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)
replies: text: You appear correct, , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: MAJOR ERROR IN WIKI ARTICLE

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AIDS quilt and legacy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Although some historians have concluded the Schine–Cohn friendship was platonic, others state, based on the testimony of friends, that Cohn was gay." 

message: 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.”https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/eavesdropping-on-roy-cohn-and-donald-trump --Alvaria (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA connections? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Contextual information concerning Dershowitz reference with respect to the Rosenbergs