Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Current state of page -April 06

As the page stands now, everything above "external links" reads like a pretentious stilted official capsule biography, so that there'e no indication whatsoever of the controversies, disputes, and criticisms that he's been involved in before the "external links" section of the article. This is not satisfactory -- the reason why he's in Wikipedia at all is because of the controversies. AnonMoos 21:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

He may be somewhat notorious to supporters of the Iraq invasion, but the basic reason he is in WP is that he is widely-cited commentator on Middle East affairs. The various controversies flow from that fact. --Lee Hunter 00:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

His period of expertise is the 19th century. He's widely-cited because he has been willing to make increasingly controversial claims and has a well-known policy of quietly "unwriting" howlers and wild claims from his own weblog. This article as it stands is almost useless and one suspects his many fans prefer it that way so as not to shatter the illusion of Cole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.118.101 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 23 April 2006.

Certainly looks that way. I've just done some copy editing to remove some of the hagiography but the criticism section actually needs some content. Armon 14:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added some material from his response to Hitchens as there is a section on him, which only lists Hitchens' critiques. I also deleted the qualifer that Hitchens is a "left-wing" columnist. Even the Wiki Article on Hitchens itself is uncomfortable labelling him that way in his current incarnation (past Marxist tendencies do not make one left wing today, political affiliations change). - Scientician

Lee Hunter is correct above. These "controversies" are blown ridiculously out of proportion. Cole is important because he is a widely cited and sought after expert on these matters. The supposed "wellknown policy of unwriting" his weblog is a bizarre charge; I looked at the Joffe article cited in the article that supposedly confirms one instance of such unwriting and was unable to find a reference to him even doing it once. Even if it were true, that hardly becomes a reason for him being widely cited -- he is widely cited because he has intelligent, well-reasoned things to say about current events. The controversy does not hurt his notoriety, but it is hardly the source of it; he was cited on these topics from the outset of the Iraq war, when his blog was not well known. It is true he has been picked on by and gotten into sparring matches with the likes of Joffe, Goldberg, and now Hitchens (all, I should add, intellectual midgets compared to him on these issues), but such pyrotechnics are not nearly as notable as his frequent appearances on NPR, for example.--csloat 22:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

Just because text appears identically elsewhere on the net, does that mean it is automatically copyright-protected?

It should certainly be investigated, and probably is plagarism. Gyre 07:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

from Talk:Juan Cole/Temp

I hope this is better than my first try!

Wikifed.

I hope this stub is going to replace the original page on or about November 30 (as the copyvio deletion policy states). Cole has just become newsworthy as a result of a lawsuit threat.--Dhartung 12:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Michael J. Totten"

Who is Michael J. Totten? Is he just some guy with a blog? Is the link here solely because it's something critical of Cole, or is he salient for some other reason? Sullivan and Goldberg, by contrast, are well known. —Ashley Y 03:26, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

seems like it. There's now about four links there based around Totten's article purporting to be a "fisking" (new word to me, is there a wikipedia entry on it yet?) of Juan. I reckon possibly only the response by Ali to that one entry in Juan's blog is of any great significance. PaulHammond 12:28, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fisking has an (awkward) entry. I don't see that either the Jarvis or Totten articles are salient to the Wikipedia; somebody just wants to get their digs in, I suspect. --Dhartung | Talk 18:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

incestuous blog links removed

I removed a couple of blog links because they didn't seem to be about anything other than an extraordinarily trivial side issue - that Cole repeated somebody else's assertion about whether some Iraqi blogger had a US sponsor. I also removed the link to Riverbend. It was just a post that said, more or less, 'hey check out Juan Cole'.--Lee Hunter 01:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, there's nothing encyclopedic about any of those entries. --Dhartung | Talk 02:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good. —Ashley Y 03:22, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Links

Every link in this article is derived from critics of Juan Cole except for the link to his blog.

Other than the standard CV stuff all we have is a criticism of him. -- posted by 62.255.32.14

I agree, except that Sullivan and Goldberg are notable figures. Almost anybody else's "response to Cole's blog" being listed is silly and promotional. Wikipedia does not exist to aggregate criticism. That's what sites like Technorati are for.

My impulse here is to delete the "Iraqthemodel" link and replace it with the Foreign Policy in Focus article which featured Cole among other bloggers. [1] --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that the NPOV tag is needed. The critical articles are mostly balanced with his own (very effective) responses. --Lee Hunter 11:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia isn't here to "balance". It's here to provide encyclopedic information to the public. This has nothing to do with whether he gives as good as he gets or not; the Wikipedia might as well cross-reference all the people who praise his posts as well. Any given debate with another blogger is not intrinsically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky

Ok we've gone from describing Cole's writings as "Chomskian" (which is quite frankly, bizaare) to saying that he's an admirer of Chomsky, which is just peculiar. Especially since the link you posted as a citation (sorry, I fed it to you by mistake) was not actually written by Cole. It was on his blog but the post was by Mark Levine. --Lee Hunter 02:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I figured that out after a second. The fact is that Jaun shares Chomsky's analysis of US forieng policy as being driven by a jewish neo-con cabal bent on world domination in service of Israel with the Middle East as the lynchpin of some grand master plan to establish a one-world Likud Government. Klonimus 04:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes - one often finds in mathematics, that if people get the same answer, and it's right, it's because they've worked it out correctly - but if they get the same answer and it's wrong, that's usually because one of them copied the other. Cole's analysis sounds similar to Chomsky's because both accounts are essentially correct. btw - jewish? This is you attempting to have a crack at Cole calling him anti-semitic without having the guts to say this directly, right? PaulHammond 09:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Or they could both be a set of shameless self promoters who have figured out that if you repeat back fashionable leftist platitutes and a grand conspiracy to readers of the BBC/NPR and the guardian, you have a built in audience. I am perfectly willing to say that Chomsky is a self hating jew, and that Juan Cole has latent anti-semitism that is often expressed in his writings. Klonimus 14:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to say this anti-semitic crap is a total load of bullshit. PaulHammond 22:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I wish it was also just a total load of bullshit. But unfortunatey it's very real, otherwise why would Juan see a Jews/Israel behind everything that goes on in the world? Klonimus 03:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't. You're making it up. And you don't "wish that it was a total load of bullshit" - you're just making a smear of the anti-semitism accusation because you haven't got a substantial argument to make. PaulHammond 13:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it floats like a duck. Anyone who beleives in a vast jewish neocon conspiracy to manipulate US foreign policy and the media, is either a kook or an anti-semite. You can take your pick, and even choose both, Klonimus 06:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Show me even one example where Cole has even obliquely hinted at a "vast Jewish conspiracy". Douglas Feith advanced Israel's interests at the horrific expense of the United States. That makes him a traitor in the eyes of many people. Calling Feith a traitor is not an act of anti-semitism. --Lee Hunter 14:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Fun - I just came across this[2]. Now your anti-Coleism starts to make sense! PaulHammond 22:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Juan Cole, remains a discredited leftist. Regardless of Anonyme's unsuitablity for adminship (with which 34 other people agree'd with me). Perhaps you care to explain the connection? Klonimus 03:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I read Cole as mostly saying that US foreign policy is driven by a neo-con cabal that is arrogant, incompetent and deeply ignorant of Middle Eastern history and society. And he certainly suggests that the neo-cons have been seriously "played" by Israeli intelligence and politicians. I haven't come across any mention of one-world Likud government yet but maybe I'm missing something. --Lee Hunter 13:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Cole got all his idea's from Chomsky's analysis of the middle east. The difference is that he isn't as discredited as Chomsky is, yet. He's just another player of the great jewish conspiracy genre. Klonimus 14:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You write "Cole got all his idea's from Chomsky's analysis of the middle east." So what you're saying is that for the last thirty years Cole has only been pretending to study Middle East history, only pretending to travel and study there, while really he was just looking over Chomsky's shoulder. I'd be curious to know what evidence you have for that (other than the fact that they both think Bush and Company are a threat to global peace and security. At least 80% of the world's population shares that belief.) You also write "He's just another player of the great jewish conspiracy genre." Isn't this old canard about people who criticize the Israeli government being anti-semitic getting a little tired? Don't you think it's possible that people criticize the Israeli government simply because the Israeli government pursues policies that warrant criticism? --Lee Hunter 15:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Basicly, I don't think Cole is creditable about anything besides the pernicious effects of entrenched academic leftism. Maybe he did do alot of study in the middle east, but AFAIK his political writings are based on Chomskian analysis, so facts are not nearly so important to him as adhernce to fashionable self created theory.As for criticism of the Israeli goverment, quite a bit of it is legitamate, and quite a bit of it motivated by latent anti-semitism that either preconscious (unknown) and unconscious (repressed). However at the presant time its not politically correct to hate jews openly, and so anti-semetism gets channeled into "progressive" critiques of israel and talk of Jewish neo-con cabals infiltrating the US government and media in the service of Israel. Klonimus 18:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Klonimos you are talking out your *ss. I read this whole discussion and have yet to see a single piece of evidence (such as a quote from Cole, for example) to suggest that he is anti-semitic or that he is just rehashing Chomsky. You say "facts are not nearly so important to him" as ideology, yet instead of citing facts yourself you say "AFAIK his political writings are based" on Chomsky's. Sorry but "AFAIK" doesn't cut it as "evidence," particularly not for such an obviously ignorant claim.--csloat 00:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, check out[http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200507150804.asp2005, Our Wars Over the War] in which VDH disects the leftist narrative. Klonimus 03:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hilarious! Thanks for the chuckle. Hanson doesn't so much dissect the leftist narrative as regurgitate the neocon fantasy without actually offering any supporting evidence. And he ignores some inconvenient facts: no Iraq-Al Qaeda links, 80% of Iraqis want the US out immediately, terrorism increasing, civil society in Iraq descending into a maelstrom, most of the insurgency is home-grown, US sinking into debt etc. By provoking the Iraq invasion, Bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. The loss of his bases in Afghanistan and some of his leadership are insignificant when placed against the huge strategic win of a US entanglement (on a par with the USSR's Afghanistan debacle). He will die a happy man. --Lee Hunter 16:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Legion of Iran"

Is there a source for the statement he received this "honor" in 2003? I don't find it on Cole's c.v. page. TIA FRS 16:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Googling produces only this PR from Swarthmore [3].--Lee Hunter 17:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good enough for me, I guess. Interesting that a search for "Legion of Iran" alone returns only the blurb about Cole.

FRS 17:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, on second thought, I'm uneasy about this factoid. The Swarthmore PR is dated October 19, 2005 and uses the exact same words as the WP article: "He received the Legion of Iran, the highest official honor for a foreigner, during a visit to Iran in 2003." The genesis of the factoid seems to come from this diff: [4] posted by an anon IP October 9, which, uh, you, LeeHunter, deleted later that same day. Two days Later User:Equitor put back in the variant of the text that presently exists. I raise the issue b/c an award from the 2003 government of Iran is not exactly like an honorary degree from Yale. A lot of people will consider it a serious blemish, not an "honor." Anyway, we need a better cite. FRS 17:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I put up an RfC for this issue in hope of getting more eyes on it. I find it hard to believe this award would have been given w/o receiving some Googleable notice. Also, Cole's testimony before a Senate S/Comittee in Spring of 2004, and the fact that he's received fire from various neo-con opponents who fail to use the 'fact' of this award against him all make it seem like an urban myth or Nihilartikel to me. FRS 19:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I agree with everything you've said above. I'd be inclined to just remove it for the time being or comment it out. --Lee Hunter 20:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I took it out. The possibility of harm to his reputation by leaving in an incorrect claim seems a lot more significant than the harm done by taking out a correct one (that can always be put back in later). This is an example of a pet issue for me: articles about marginally notable living people or small companies. They can be a magnet for more or less subtle smears by political opponents, disgruntled employees, clients or students; few editors will have the time, interest or knowledge to fix them. FRS 02:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I considder it quite difficult to harm the reputation of Jaun Cole. And I would be very impressed if somewhere were sucessful. 02:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Among people who agree with his viewpoint (the 80% of the world's population who think the US adventure in Iraq is a catastrophe on every level) his reputation is pretty good. Among those who disagree, his reputation is poor. That's not too surprising. --Lee Hunter 14:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I can find no evidence (above-mentioned Swarthmore press release aside) either that the supposed award exists or that Cole ever received it. LexisNexis newspapers etc database throws up several entries where a mention would have been likely. Looks like disinformation to me. Rd232 ^talk 20:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be extremely unlikely for Cole to receive any kind of award from the government of Iran; his Baha'i background alone would make them suspicious, and he was actively involved in petitions to the Iranian government, concerning the mistreatment of Baha'is in that country.

Published works

In a separate wikipedia discussion, someone dismissed Cole as 'just another blogger' who couldn't get published. I checked and it's clear Cole has a somewhat distingushed publication record. Including the list of places he's been published gives an idea of the popular respect accorded to his writing and also gives an indication of his political leanings. I had to reference Cole's site, but his publications list has verifiable links.--Snorklefish 17:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Claim

Lee--your use of the word claim is loaded and this is not in keeping with wiki policies. I could put the word claim in the article in many places to introduce bias in the other direction, but why don't we just remove it for more neutral text? elizmr 22:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but "claim" is a perfectly neutral term for something that is presented as fact but is unproven or not generally accepted. There is nothing whatsoever biased about the term. That's the proper word to use in English. I can "point out" that the sun rises in the east, but I can only "claim" that the moon is made of green cheese. This is simply how the language is used. --Lee Hunter 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we don't need to argue about this at all since it's actually a fact -it's easily verifiable on Cole's own academic website and Karsh has the requite expertise to judge and discuss it. We could add in even more evidence on that point, but I think that would be overkill, and there's plenty of other criticisms to address. Armon 11:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How can this possibly be a "fact"? It's like someone saying that George Bush is not "qualified" to be president. One could make a very good case that this is true, but trying to present it as a fact is simply preposterous. --Lee Hunter 15:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhh yeah you could. If Bush wasn't a US citizen for example. Anyway, I accepted your compromise. Armon 16:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

But not on the basis of his SAT scores, the subjects he took in university, his record in the military etc. Whether any or all of this makes him "qualified" is strictly a matter of opinion since they are not part of the formal job description for the president, just as there are no "qualifications" for blogging on Mid East politics. The fact that Cole's area of study is mid east history with a particular focus on the history of Shi'ism would, in the eyes of many, make him eminently qualified. It's all just opinion --Lee Hunter 17:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Like Elizmr's MEMRI article we should place Cole's response to the criticism immediately after the criticism is made. I think it is a very effective means of balancing it all out. Also we should rename the section to be called "Controversy" as it is called in the MEMRI article. I think that Elizmr demonstrates the right way to deal with these types of issues. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 15:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

MEMRI huh? Maybe Lee and I should check it out... Armon 16:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Lee, thanks for your compromise on "claim". I am between you and Armon about the Karsh quote. I don't think it is a "fact" it is Karsh's opinion, HOWEVER, Karsh's CV demonstrates that he has the credentials to provide a very credible opinion on this particular topic. In addition, his politics are moderate and this adds more credibility (because he's not Cole's usual target). Also, reviewing Cole's CV and publications certainly confirms Karsh's point (and that of others who made the same point previously). Sure, Cole is a full professor of History, but his area of expertise, although in the big area of "Middle East", is not very relevant to the issues he writes about in the popular press and the blogsphere. Successful PhD level academics have very very narrow fields of expertise; most folks not familiar with academia would not know this, so it is important to an encyclopedia article to let this point stand. To use the word "claim" to refer to Karsh's opinion subtly discredits it and this is out of line by Wikipedia standards. Thanks for coming around.

LLG--re MEMRI--I have to chuckle when you call it "my" article and read Armon's response; Lee, Armon, and I recently spent two of the best weeks of our lives battling that one out :=). BUT, I think that the Cole article could integrate the criticism better than it does now. elizmr 22:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Calt Harris

There wasn't a qualification for Jonathan Calt Harris (like, who is this guy?), so I put in that he is a lobbyist for the Zionist Organization of America. But there might be a more appropriate qualification. In any case we certainly shouldn't leave him unqualified, since I'd never heard of him at least. (I also reverted some of the more blatant POV smears from the article.)

I also qualified Plaut with his professorship. —Ashley Y 05:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

They are all reasonable edits. Armon has reverted them and I've brought them back again. --Lee Hunter 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If he was Cole, you'd be referring to him as a "journalist and editor" or "commentator" -but the crappy cite as both "lobbyist" and "Zionist" -Wow!. Armon 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Armon, please read WP:AGF. If you have a more appropriate qualification for JCH, you should mention it, that is why I brought up the issue here. Your deletion of the qualification, and especially of Plaut's professorship (which seems entirely neutral to me) seems unhelpful. —Ashley Y 18:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I did. Armon 11:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those edits got caught in a rv of edits I disputed -sorry. Armon 11:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Deputed edits

1. "precise public speaking" -it's on topic but actually, the issue of his CV puffing should go in the criticism section.
2. "Israel lobby" -exactly whats wrong with "defended" ("He supported the position of") vs. weasel-word "commented". You seem to want to bring in Dershowitz (without giving him a say -or even a cite to his critique of the paper) -then present "baseless charges of anti-Semitism" as fact.
3. As far as I know, his actual academic work on Bahai and Iranian history isn't controversial, his blog is, yet the only thing that's allowed to be said about it is what incestuous "awards" it's garnered -unbelievable!
4. This one will have to be explained to me. Here is the text:

Cole dismisses what his critics regard as his anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and narrative, by reframing the controversy as simply intimidation by Neoconservatives and Likudniks for his political views. He states that his opinions on Republican and Likud polices are shared by Jews in the United States and Israel and, accuses in turn, his critics of "encouraging a new kind of antisemitism, which sees it as unacceptable that Jews should be liberals or should criticize Likud Party policies." [5] Armon 17:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what has to be explained. It is Cole's response to the anti-semitism smear. What exactly do you have a problem with? --Lee Hunter 12:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

About #4? Nothing, that was my preffered text. Armon 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am interested to know what Armon replies, but I personally don't understand what Cole is talking about when he says that. It just doesn't make any sense. How is a Jew being liberal antisemetic? How is criticizing Likud party policies antisemetic? I understand that it is a Cole quote, but it just doens't make any sense and an encyclopedia entry should be easy to understand. Also, Lee, is it really necessary to put stuff like "what's your problem?" in your edit summaries? I know it is probably a little amusing and fun to do, but it takes away from the collegiality of Wikipedia. Thanks for considering, elizmr 12:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems perfectly clear to me. He is saying that anyone who criticizes Israel, and in particular criticizes the hard right policies of the Likud, - whether Jew or non-Jew - is being described as anti-semitic. In other words, if you are for fair treatment of the Palestinians you are against the Jews (whether or not you are a Jew yourself). Re. comments in the edit summaries. No apologies. If someone dumps a cheap smear job into a bio and then repeatedly removes the subject's defence they deserve to be soundly and loudly rapped. --Lee Hunter 13:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

About your last comment, I don't think Wikipedia policies would agree that anyone deserves to be "soundly and loudly rapped"--could you find me a policy stating that and I'll stop bothering you about civility???

About the prior, maybe we could paraphrase him and then give the reference becuase your "translation" makes more sense than the Cole quote. What does being "liberal" have to do with being on the side of either the palestinians or the israelis? It doesn't make any sense. Islamic culture (as the palestinians are moving more towards as evidenced by their recent move towards Hamas) is a hell of a lot less "liberal" than Israeli culture when it comes to many "liberal" values: women's rights, religious freedom, separation of jurisprudence from fundamentalist interpretations of religious texts, and freedom of sexual preference. elizmr 14:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Favouring fair treatment for Palestinians is generally seen as a liberal viewpoint. It doesn't mean that one is "on the side" of the Palestinians and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Palestinians themselves are left, right or anywhere in between. --Lee Hunter 15:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Favoring fair treatment for ALL people is generally considered the liberal viewpoint. Unfortunately, what the Palestians consider fair treatment for them is not fair treatment to all concerned in the greater scheme of things and the political/historical/religious context. When Cole uses the convoluted argument that he is being called an antisemite as a political tactic just because he is just a nice "liberal" guy standing up for a downtrodden and opressed people, he is not only misusing the term "liberal", but more to the POINT, doesn't answer the precise criticism that has been aimed at him. We need to find a quote where he actually repsonds to the actual criticism. I'm sure it is findable, but what we have is unfortunately not the ticket. elizmr 17:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's how I understand "liberal". Re: Cole, answers to the charges. I was accused of presenting Cole as sneaky in a edit summary because the edit points out he "reframes" the question. Cole sees the charges as the equivalent of the question "when did you stop beating your wife?" and so "reframes" it as a question stemming from the motivations of his political attackers. There are plenty of POV ways of presenting this fact, this isn't one of them, but "editing" the sentence to remove this fact is, because it implies that Cole's POV is the correct one. Armon 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section?

If we decide to make one, as grasshopper suggests, what should the headings be? Areas of Expertise, Attitudes regarding Israel? We could put criticisms that he is commenting outside of his field of expertise and minor crits of his overstatement of his command of languages in the first, and the stuff about the Walt/M paper in the second. Should we make one? elizmr 01:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Controversy" seems slightly weaselly to me when applied to a individual. In the case of MEMRI, it was a controversial organisation. Another idea, possibly instead of, or in addition to, the Controversy/Criticism section could be a "Stances" section. See Victor Davis Hanson as an example. However, unlike that article, we need to show, not tell. BTW -you still can't spell "Controversy". Armon 11:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your points. Grasshopper and Lee, what do you think? Maybe, to address Grasshopper's point we could integrate more of the crits throughout the text in the appropriate sections. If once we do this it doesn't seem right, we can move it out to its own section. And I know my spelling is beyond hope--apologies. elizmr 14:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is "Controversy" or "Criticism" weaselly? Seems pretty clear and straitforward. --Lee Hunter 15:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoky crap there is no criticism of Victor Davis Hanson! That's going to need some work.

Also SlimVirgin is of the opinion that controversy is a good term to use on personal biographies see: [6].

I also think the article handles it appropriate, especially in the light of the nature of the accusations, most of them are imflammatory rather than critical. I also notice that Jonathan's mention that Cole's election signified his endorsement from hundreds of professors was removed. I am concerned that there is a POV game being played here rather than an attempt to accurately him as an encyclopedia should. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 18:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have no strong feelings either way. I actually really like the idea of a contr. section to separate what is fact (ie--his CV, stuff like that) from his own opinions about himself and others opinions about him. I don't like calling it "criticism" because that implies that everything in the section is "anti-cole". If it is "contr." then everything--pro, con, etc, can go there and it is more interesting. It honest from an expository point of view to say explicitly that Cole states he speaks all these languages AND that he used a translator on Al Jaz. rather than going back and forth between what verb we use to describe his command of those languages. Both are true. elizmr 18:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Added above before I read Grasshopper (we were editing simultaneously). I wouldn't assume that anyone is playing a POV game here. It is clear that opinions differ, but that is what makes a good article. A one sided article is just not that interesting--the truth lies somewhere between what we each individually think. Let's just go ahead and flesh out the article and give each other the benefit of the doubt when it comes to motives. elizmr 19:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To be NPOV we have to give his critics equal space in covering the controversy. Thus it should start out with Cole's controversial claims presented as he describes them. Then the responses of his critics and Cole's response. Currently, we are letting a critic, Steven Plaut, a prominent critic of the Israeli new historians, describe the Cole's position in an negative frame -- that is unfair. Also since we mention so many critics we should mention others that support Cole's position -- then it isn't a mob where the reader is left to assume that the position with the most supporters is right. Also, I would like to extend this controversy onto the pages of his critics -- if they accusations on anti-Semitism on the part of Cole and Cole has counterclaims that they are basely and intended to intimidate are notable on this page, they should be on their. I am all about fairness in these matters, yes its a lot of work but this seems to be chosen path of consensus. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 20:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

On Jonathan Calt Harris there is an unanswered attack on Juan Cole -- that needs to be rectified. We should make an article dealing with the long list of US professors who study the Middle East that have been accused of anti-Semitism for their comments on Israel and the so called "Israel lobby" in a centralized place with commentator for and against. This is a real issue for both those making the accusations and for those on the recieving end and the lack of a centralized article on the topic makes the whole discussion around it fragmentatory. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 21:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Grasshopper, this is Wikipedia. If you want to make a new page, then go for it! :=) There might be pages set up already where that larger discussion is relevant. elizmr 21:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is, see new antisemitism. Armon 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Cole page, I would suggest that we create a "Contraversy" (however it is actually spelled) section and put "Antisemitism" as a subheading and carefully outline what critics have said and how Cole has replied. A good lead in sentence would be something like, "Critics have accused Cole's of antisemitism; Cole has denied these accusations"--really brief and succinct, and then present material. It would be weird to put the defense before the criticism and say "cole does not feel he is antisemetic, but critics claim that he is", but if you feel it is important to put Cole's pov first, you could certainly try to make that order work. It would really help if you and others could dig into Cole's writing to find what he actually says to demonstrate that his work is not promulgating antisemitism or using conspiratory theories to make his points. Right now all we have in his defense is what he says questioning the motives of his critics. Do you get how this is different? Cole, as a heavy hitting academic, must go into this discussion somewhere but I haven't really come across it. elizmr 21:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not going to call the section anti-Semitism -- that immediately favors his critics' very contentious claims. 2 of his three critics charging him have leveled similar charges against dozens of professors in the same fashion -- this is documented in Mearsheimer and Walt's working paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy -- this isn't an isolated incident. I view, and many others share this view, that Kramer and Chait are individuals who falsely cry wolf for short term lobbying advantage (both have ties to Washington DC-based think tanks that are pro-Israel and both are related to the Campus Watch initiative, Kramer being a member of its parent organziation Middle East Forum who has formally supported its actions) and each time they are shown to have done this falsely it reduces the effective of the charge of anti-Semitism, which is not a good thing in the long run.

I have a question: Do you Elizmr and Armon, truly believe that Cole is truly an anti-Semitic individual? --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 21:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see into the guy's soul so I don't know, and it doesn't matter anyway. This is a WP article and as Elizer pointed out, he's been accused repeatedly of engaging in antisemitic conspiracy theory and narrative. It's a subtle but important distinction. He may not actually be antisemitic, but frankly, his over the top polemics have left him open to these sorts of charges -and not by people you can just dismiss as "neocon stooges". Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not, but it's not up to us to sanitize the article if we think it isn't. It's also worth reading the new antisemitism article I mentioned before. To my knowledge, nobody has accused him of being a "traditional" antisemite -what they accuse him of is the leftist version. You may find this theory interesting in explaining it, I warn you, it's on Victor Hanson's website, but it may give you some insight into his critics POV. Armon 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge Cole has never said or done anything that even bears the faintest, dimmest tinge of what is commonly called "anti-semitism". He has never (as far as I know) expressed any negative sentiments of any kind towards the Jewish people, towards Judaism, or to individual Jews based on their religious affiliation. The reason he is called "anti-semitic" is that he has criticised the actions of the state of Israel and he has criticised a tiny, but powerful clique of American bureaucrats (Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz et al). Most of these bureaucrats have deep, well-documented ties to the Israeli government, to its military and to its intelligence apparatus (and they have received financial benefit from this association) and together they were responsible for pushing the US to attack Iraq. This is a campaign which, in the eyes of many observers, has been the worst diplomatic disaster in US history, but a wonderful gift to the state of Israel. So does criticising these individuals and the state of Israel make one "anti-semitic"? I find it offensive that this scurrilous charge is even in the article. It's also interesting to note that those who make this charge of anti-semitism are themselves on the payroll of the Israeli government.--Lee Hunter 22:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL reminds me of something Condoleezza Rice is rumored to have said to to Feith [7] -Thanks Lee, but when we want the Juan Cole position we'll read his blog. Armon 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we find a reference to a reputable organization such as the ADL that charged Cole as "haboring or promoting racist hatred of Jews"? I am going to use this term from now on since it makes clear what is being debated. This is a very strong claim to include in this article. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 22:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel as if there is serious denial of reality here. Juan Cole's claim that there was a group of Jewish neoconservatives that pushed the US into the Iraq war is far from an anti-Semitic conspiracy since you can read about it in plain language on the website of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz: "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history." [8]. But it seems that the term anti-Semitism has been redefined so that just mentioning this fact is now racist. It is only racist to use this fact in a context that promotes hatred of Jews. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 23:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Grasshopper--I honestly don't have enough information to personally know if Juan Cole is antisemetic or not. I believe that Cole's critics who accuse him of this genuinely believe that Cole is working from an antisemetic point of view, using antisemetic methodologies, etc. Is Cole the target of a zionist conspiracy out to silence and smear him with charges of antisemitism? I'm not convinced. I would really like to read more of Cole's well reasoned and expressed responses on these points and I hope that the article will be expanded to reflect them.

Quite honestly, on the topic of Iraq, a lot of non-jews and people who can't by any stretch of the imagination be seen as being on the Zionist payroll had a lot to do with the war in Iraq--Cheney, Bush, Rumsfield for example. Cheney and Bush, in particular, have a lot to do with another lobby--the Oil lobby, and it is widely accepted that this might have played some role in getting the US into the war. Sure there are policymakers in the administration who happen to be jews, but who can say that the role any of these individuals might have played in the decision to go to war had anything to do with their judaism or feelings about Israel? Was the war in Iraq even good for Israel?

This is an encylopedia article. Cole has been accused of using the kind of conspiratory theorizing that antisemetic movements have used historically, and of having antisemetic stances. I think there is enough of this buzz on Cole that it needs to get mentioned on the page. It is not our role to not put things here because we personally find them "offensive". Maybe the word "anti-semetic" isn't really precise enough. Let's come up with something better. But we can't just sweep this under the rug. OK? elizmr 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You write "I believe that Cole's critics who accuse him of this genuinely believe that Cole is working from an antisemetic point of view, using antisemetic methodologies, etc." Please explain what information leads you to believe this? What is this "antisemitic point of view" you are describing? "Antisemitic methodologies"? What on earth is that? Doesn't "antisemitic" mean being against Jews? Noone, here or anywhere else, has presented the slightest evidence that Cole is against Jews, so how is it that you think there is something to it? Regarding the role of Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz. Their deep long-standing connections to Israel are a matter of public record. Their pivotal role in engineering the Iraq war is a matter of public record. Whether or not they are Jews is irrelevant. Cole is simply asking that they be held accountable for furthering the interests of a foreign power at the great expense of the country they had sworn to serve. How this can, in any way, be construed as anti-semitism is beyond me. --Lee Hunter 00:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lee, I take people at their word. I believe that Cole's critics believe he is antisemetic because they say they believe this.

I am sorry to use such convoluted language. I am not an antisemitism expert and don't really know the lingo. By "Antisemetic methodologies" here's what I meant: the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a made up account of a meeting of a bunch of Jews plotting how they are going to take over the world for their own purposes, right? It is very well accepted that there is no such bunch of Jews, that there never was any such meeting as described in the book. But promulgating the idea that there is such a bunch of Jews with great power and bad motives stirs up hate for the Jews. This falls under the general rubric of conspiratory theorizing. Cole has been accused of doing this by his critics in the cites that someone put in this article. elizmr 00:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

His critics call him anti-semitic and yet they offer no evidence of any word or action that is anti-semitic. Plaut speaks dismissively of Cole's "nebulous 'pro-Likud' cabal" even though there is nothing at all nebulous about the group of Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle. Their intimate ties to the Israeli government are very well-established. Their role in engineering the Iraq war is well-established. Whether they are Jews, Catholics or Wiccans is irrelevant. Calling Cole anti-semitic is the worst kind of cheap smear job. --Lee Hunter 00:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lee, we are in a loop here and it doesn't make sense for me to debate you on this. Cole is a public figure and there are a lot of people who feel he is antisemetic. These are not isolated crazy lunatic fringe weirdos. They are part of the dialog. Cole doesn't want to be silenced. That is completely fair. So don't silence his critics either. Cole is putting himself and his opinions out there. If we quote people on the page expressing their opinion about him, this doesn't make it true. If Cole is not antisemetic then he's not and this will be demonstrated by his writing when we quote him on the page. elizmr 01:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Harris Credible?

Harris, the one who makes the strongest claim, dropped out of university and does not have any type of degree, see his Wikipedia entry here: Jonathan Calt Harris. Yet he is quoted here in an "encyclopedia" accusing a full professor of being a racist. Should we take this as authorative? --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with him at all, but just read his Wikipedia page. I see your point. I would agree with you if he were going up against Cole on Bahai religious texts or other stuff Cole has published on in academic journals. On the contemporary middle east stuff, however, we're on a more even playing field since strictly that's outside of Cole's academic expertise. Although not equalling Cole's prominance, Calt Harris seems to have established himself as part of the dialog and I think it is reasonable to include his statements. elizmr 13:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Steven Plaut summary of Cole's position removed

I have removed the following because it is an unfair summary of Cole's words. Let's have Cole give his position rather than a detractor. Although if Plaut has specific criticisms let include him. Also, what authority does a "Professor of Business Administration" have to comment on this? (Please note that another attack on Cole comes from someone accusing him of not having authority to comment on the Middle-East via his blog, since he only studied the history of the Middle East and not the present. Strange dichotomy eh?) --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Steven Plaut, professor of Business Administration at the University of Haifa, states that Cole "believes that a group of Jewish 'neo-conservatives' largely runs U.S. policy toward the Middle East. His recurrent theory is that a nebulous 'pro-Likud' cabal controls the U.S. government from a small number of key positions in the Executive Branch"

Nevermind. I left it in since at least it gives a concise starting point. Although it would be much better to use Cole's own words to summarize his position. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

LLG--I see you put a neutrality tag up on plaut's quote. I don't really know who plaut is, but I don't think it is a problem to quote him. We'd get into neutrality if we prefaced the sentence with something like, "Plaut stated the obvious fact that..." Plauts opinion certainly isn't neutral, and I'm not defending it, but the ARTICLE presents it in a neutral way. Maybe we should put up something from Cole responding to this sort of charge to balance Plaut rather than tagging. What do you think? elizmr 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole quotes

Here are some quotes I've found today doing some research on Juan Cole. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Again, I underline that the American Jewish community does not support most AIPAC positions (a majority are much closer to Americans for Peace Now), and that this issue has to do with a small fanatical leadership of a specific lobbying organization, nothing more." [9]

"American Jews were less likely to support the Iraq war than the general US population. So no one should blame "the Jews" for the Iraq War. Mainly they should blame Bush and Cheney and Delay and Frist. But the case for an Iraq War was significantly bolstered by American supporters of Ariel Sharon (by no means all of them Jewish) high in the Bush administration." [10]

"The protocols of the elders of Zion, a Tsarist forgery that posited a Jewish political conspiracy to rule the world, had no particular resonances in the Muslim world (outside a few radical Muslim cliques) until the past couple of decades. " [11]

"MEMRI is one of a number of public relations campaigns essentially on behalf of the far rightwing Likud Party in Israel that tries to shape American perceptions of Muslims and the Middle East in a negative direction." [12]

The one about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is another whitewash of his. See our article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: I do not understand what the above comment is trying to convey. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 07:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added 2 quotes relating to Israel from his recent response to Hitchens. He states America would be right to come to Israel's defence if Iran attacked it, and that he agrees Israel has at least some claim to parts of Jerusalem. I think they are valuable counterpoints to the critisism of him as "anti-Israel" or worse, "anti-Semite."

The added quotes have nothing to do with the charge made by the critic. They are non-sequitors. elizmr 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Organization

Grasshopper has done a lot of good hard work on the article. I made a controversy section and added two subheadings. I hope others will refine this and expand.

Since pretty much all of Cole's extra-academic work falls under the heading of Punditry and started with his blog, I condensed all of that stuff into one paragraph with one heading. I changed the order of the sentences to be chronological, starting with the blog and moving to the testimony. I moved the praise on the blog to controversy to balance out the Karsh comments. elizmr 13:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC) elizmr 13:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Views" section

In what is now this section, Grasshopper did a lot of useful work that needs to be grounded a bit because it now comes off as original research (see below). If Cole quoted Shavit in defense of his own position, it wouldn't be OR, but bringing it in in response to what critics have said about Cole is OR. Similarly, if Cole said that the Walt paper supported his point it could be used but putting it in because it supports his point is OR. Also his quote about American jews not being responsible for the war in Iraq would defend him against antisemitism, but it needs to be made explilcit that he said this to defend himself against antisemitism. I haven't read Cole enough to know if he has mentioned this stuff in response to claims about him, but to include them in the section we should have cites from Cole referring to this stuff. Please note I am not saying anything should go--it just needs a little work. Here are the sections below that need work:

"The claim that a group of predominately Jewish neoconservatives in the Bush administration pushed for the Iraq war is not an original theory of Cole's but was reported widely as fact in numerous sources including by Ari Shavit in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz in eary 2003. "

"Cole also does not generalize with regards to American Jews but makes clear distinctions:"Again, I underline that the American Jewish community does not support most AIPAC positions (a majority are much closer to Americans for Peace Now), and that this issue has to do with a small fanatical leadership of a specific lobbying organization, nothing more." [13]"

"American Jews were less likely to support the Iraq war than the general US population. So no one should blame 'the Jews' for the Iraq War. Mainly they should blame Bush and Cheney and Delay and Frist. But the case for an Iraq War was significantly bolstered by American supporters of Ariel Sharon (by no means all of them Jewish) high in the Bush administration." [14]

Cole central claim as well as his contention of intimidation has also been supported by the prominent and controversial Mearsheimer and Walt 2006 working paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Cole has since started a petition to The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to defend the authors from what he calls "baseless charges of anti-Semitism".

I commented these sections out because there was failure to respond to my feeling that they are original research. elizmr 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Kramer and Campus Watch

Although Kramer claimed at one point that he was not associated with Campus Watch, he was being extremely economical with the truth. Campus Watch is simply an offshoot of the Middle East Forum, for which Kramer was the editor. Kramer was quoted in the press release for the launch of Campus Watch and is widely reported to play a leadership role. Campus Watch and the ME Forum are really one and the same. If you don't believe me, go to the Campus Watch web site [15] and click "Who's Who at Campus Watch". The link takes you to the ME Forum staff listing. --Lee Hunter 18:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Looked at your other cite, (the one form his own blog) -point taken. Kramer was definitely being "disingenious". Personally, I think the blog cite is better at showing that, but I don't care which we use. Armon 00:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism and original research

Cole singles out a specific group of senior US bureaucrats - Wurmser, Feith, Perle etc. - as playing a key role in engineering US ME policies, in particular with respect to the invasion of Iraq. Pointing out that this idea is not Cole's own theory and that it has been widely accepted in other venues including in the Israeli media is hardly original research. It provides important context to the story. Otherwise, the reader is left with the entirely erroneous impression that this is something that Cole dreamed up on his own and it also clarifies that this view, far from being anti-semitic, is actually shared by analysts, who are themselves Jewish. --Lee Hunter 19:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand what is going on here: truthiness.  ;-) I think it is best to take this ridiculous POV stuff to RfC. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 22:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Grasshopper--honestly, please assume good faith. No one has given you any reason not to. This would be a quite frivilous Rfc, since this is clearly OR, for reasons I discussed above. I'll repeat. Just because someone wrote something in Haaretz, it is still theoretical and doesn't make it a fact (even if you really really believe it is true). One could easily find stuff saying thge theory is ridiculous, but that is not the point. The point is that Cole didn't say, in his own defense, "look, I didn't make this stuff up; it is in Haaretz". If he did, no problem putting it here. But he didn't (to my knowledge). If Grasshopper is putting forward the theory that Cole is not engaging in antisemetic conspiratory theorizing because his take on the matter is actually true, and putting forth the Haaretz cite as support of this, it is Grasshopper's OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It would be fine for Grasshopper's oped piece or blog or whatever, but it needs to be out of the article. If this doesn't make any sense let me know and I will try again. elizmr 22:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what to do. You're smearing a well respect professor via radical right-wing sources for saying what is commonly accepted as fact in the Israeli press. He is not a holocaust denier, he is not advocating violence or hatred of Jews, he is not generalizing about Jews, he is not even making things up -- the whole thing is based on emotional accusations based on a logical fallacy. This isn't the ADL accusing Juan Cole or even people known for targeting racists, but rather people using ad hominem attacks -- some of them are actually well known for doing so. I think you have specifically targeted Cole to smear since you are ideologically opposed to him. I'm unfortunately busy today but this has to be dealt with -- its a personal biographical entry and it falls under those rules. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Grasshopper, My point is only about original research. It sounds like you are having a bad day, but please consider taking a deep breath and reading my comments above again when you have a moment. elizmr 23:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, bad day. Please read WP:NOR and you'll see what we're talking about. As for the ADL, I wondered myself so I googled ADL "Juan Cole" and got this and this -Cole accusing the ADL of being behind the attacks on him and supporting Apartheid (what's the emoticon for rolling your eyes?) Armon 03:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitchens nonsense

WTF is a "Muslim apologist"? That's crap, and it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia headline, even if it came out of Hitchens' pen. What's wrong with the NPOV "on Iran"? Notorious alcoholic Hitchens makes ludicrous charges based on an out of context excerpt from a document that Cole characterized as a "draft," not meant for general release. Cole correctly provides the context for his comments, explaining them, and never defends the "little shit" Iranian president but rather explains the significance of his comments about Israel commonly missed in the English-speaking world. Cole also accurately shows Hitchens arguments to be anti-intellectual nonsense. I don't expect Wikipedia to endorse my reading of the "controversy" here but I also don't think it should treat Hitchens' nonsense claims as a set of "charges" against Cole that are promulgated by anyone but Hitchens.--csloat 00:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

take a deep breath and relax, your POV is showing. A Muslim apologist is someone who seeks to minimize and whitewash aspects of Islam they find politically inconvenient. Making ad hominem attacks on Hitchens is not going to sway many to your POV, certainly not me. Hitchens did not take the excerpt out of context, and Cole's alleged "draft" position appears in the final revision as well. You are of course entitled to a different reading of then controversy than me, but Hitchens is as a prominent figure as Cole, and his charges against Cole are worth mentioning, as is Cole's response to them. The thing wrong with "on Iran" is that, put plainly, this is not a controversy over Cole opinions on Iran, but a controversy stemming from Cole's "unique" and seemingly apologetic translation of the comments made by Iran's president. Isarig 00:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There are over a billion Muslims in the world. They believe different things and do different things. Again, WTF is a "Muslim apologist"? Which actions of which Muslims does one have to "apologize" for in order to qualify for such a position? The term makes no sense, except as a politically- (and racially-) charged term of abuse; that is why I don't believe it belongs on Wikipedia. It also is not clear in any way that Cole is "apologizing" for any statements; he is simply offering what he says is a more accurate translation of these statements. He calls the guy a "little shit," and he's no fan of Khomeini either, whose original sentence he is retranslating. I don't think there is any question of whose translation is more authoritative, especially since Hitchens isn't using the original.

I realize Hitchens is well known (in fact, I used the word "notorious"), and I'm not suggesting these silly "charges" should be deleted, but I don't see what is gained by treating them as if they were shared by anyone but Hitchens. If you read Cole's response it is pretty obvious that he demolishes Hitchens on the substantive issues (which is not surprising; Hitchens is a performer, not an intellectual). As Cole points out, he is referring to mistranslations of specific passages (whereas Hitchens refers exclusively to the English translations of those passages). But youre right, the issue is not whether you or I agree with Cole or Hitchens; it is how wikipedia treats the claims that have been made in the public discourse. (BTW, I notice you did not add the following quote to the Hitchens piece -- "Well, I don't think it is any secret that Hitchens has for some time had a very serious and debilitating drinking problem. He once showed up drunk to a talk I gave and heckled me. I can only imagine that he was deep in his cups when he wrote, or had some far Rightwing think tank write, his current piece of yellow journalism. I am sorry to witness the ruin of a once-fine journalistic mind.")

Anyway the only thing I'm suggesting be changed at the moment is the heading -- "Muslim apologist" is propagandistic.--csloat 01:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "apologist" is just right; maybe "muslim" is not really specific enough. elizmr 01:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So what, then, is he apologizing for? It seems to me he is correcting a translation. I'm not sure where any kind of apology has anything to do with it.--csloat 01:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He is apologizing for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli genocidal plans, by inventing various interpretations not to be found in the actual text he's supposedly translating, and which are inconsistent with the full context of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech. The issue is not Hitchens' ability to translate vs. Cole's, but Cole's ability to translate vs. the ability of neutral 3rd party, native speakers of Farsi to translate, like Nazila Fathi of the New York Times' Tehran bureau.

You are free to believe that Cole is right and all the other, non-polemical translators are wrong, even in the face of the obvious diffculties that Cole's creative inevention sproduce (like the issue of the "50 year occupation") - but that does no tmean Wp shoudl not report, as is, the serious charges brought against Cole by people like Hitchens or Sullivan. Anyway, I've changed the heading you objected to. Isarig 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So you have translated the text yourself? I didn't think so. Did Hitchens? I didn't think so. The charge that he "apologizes" for anti-Israel genocidal plans by saying there is no evidence in what he actually said of such plans is ludicrous. To apologize for such plans would be to suggest they are OK. You may believe your Farsi is better than Cole's, and that's all well and good, but none of this makes him an "apologist" for Ahmadinejad, who he called a little shit.--csloat 05:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your POV is getting the better of you, and you are not reading my arguments. Once again: The issue is not Hitchens' ability, or my ability, to translate vs. Cole's, but Cole's ability to translate vs. the ability of neutral 3rd party, native speakers of Farsi to translate, like Nazila Fathi of the New York Times' Tehran bureau. Ms. Fathi is a native Farsi speaker, so yes, I believe her Farsi is better than Cole's. Her transaltion is consistent with the one from AP, also by a native Farsi speaker. Cole's translation, OTOH, is not only unique, it is inconsistent with the full context of the speech, in which there is talk of a 50 year occupation. In summary, there is no shortage of evidence that Ahmadinejad siad exactly what v=everyone but Cole agrees he says, and so when Cole provides a uniqe interpretation which is inconsistent with the full context, he is apologizing for Ahmadinejad. The fact that he called him a little shit elsewhere does not change this fact, it only makes the apologetics weird. Isarig 05:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it has anything to do with my POV. I don't claim to believe Cole over Fathi; I claim to believe him over Hitchens. I also find his argument about relations between Iran and Israel (and the US) compelling, and I am unaware of any place where Nazila Fathi challenges his argument about the translation. The fact that Hitchens quotes her does not make his comments more persuasive; Cole seems more than ready to place his translation against "some hurried journalist's untechnical rendering into English" -- I'd be more than intrigued about the result of such interaction, but that is not what we have in Hitchens' piece. It is entirely possible that Fathi would not find fault in Cole's translation -- which would be easy for any Farsi speaker to check (from Cole's letter - "The phrase he then used as I read it is 'The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).'" Either those words mean what Cole says they mean or they don't. And Cole's translation is really not that hard to believe, and I don't understand your argument that it is "inconsistent with the full context of the speech, in which there is talk of a fifty year occupation." That translation seems entirely consistent with such talk. Finally, I see none of this as apologetic or in defense of the Iranian president. It is a difference of opinion about translation between two people (only one of whom speaks the language; the other who is quoting someone else's translation -- but that's beside the point). Perhaps one translation makes Ahmadinejad look better, but I don't really think so -- in both cases, he is a "little shit" and clearly anti-Israel. Neither translation is more "threatening" since the Iranian president is hardly making foreign policy decisions and Iran is hardly in any position to attack Israel militarily, no matter what its president says. Anyway we can just disagree about this. There is a lot wrong with this article in terms of POV, but the obvious stuff in the headings of sections should at least be reined in.--csloat 10:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you believe Cole over Fathi. Fathi's transaltion was quoted and used by Hitchens. If you favor Cole's creative interpretation over Hitchen's, you are favoring his translation over that of a native Farsi speaker's. My argument that Cole's translation is inconsistent with the full context of the speech, in which there is talk of a fifty year occupation, is this: (one part of)the dispute is over what the phrase "een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" means. Fathi, the AP translator and the MEMRI translator all see this as a reference to Israel, which is the regime occupying Jerusalem. Cole's creative interpretation translates this as "the occupation regime over Jerusalem" - i.e., the administrative status. But subsequently in the speech, the same term ("occupying regime") is used in the context of "For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime" - which clearly can't be a reference to Israel's occupation of Jerusalem which has not been in existance "For over fifty years". This argument was made by Hitchens in his article -tkae the time to read it. Isarig 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, Cole's translation is more literal, not "creative," and I am certain your native Persian speaker would agree (please note, by the way, that Fathi has not disputed Cole's translation; it is not really a matter of Cole v. Fathi). Your argument is incorrect. There is no inconsistency between talk of a 50 year occupation. The Iranian president says Israel must vanish from the page of time -- Hitchens' complaint that he doesn't just mean the occupation of Jerusalem seems an obfuscation -- I don't think Cole means that distinction either and I don't think it's relevant. I don't have a problem agreeing with Hitchens that the "occupying regime" is all of Israel, but that does not establish that he is threatening to "wipe it off the map" (a less literal translation, more creative). (It's also clear the guy has no power to threaten Israel anyway).--csloat 20:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the AP's translator assumed to be "neutral" again? What do we know about this person? I know nothing one way or the other, but this assumption is not substantiated and thus not a valid reason to accept that translation as more accurate than any other. Hitchens has, by using an earlier draft of Cole's translation to argue against, unwittingly bolstered the validity of Cole's translation by showing the effort and discussion that Cole put into it. It was vetted by others. The AP and NY Times translators would not likely have spent very long on their tranlations in comparison. Another point raised is that the expression "wiped off the map" is english, and such expressions almost never translate exactly. As to the AP/NY Times translators being "native Farsi" speakers, that is well and good, but are they native english speakers? mastery of both languages is essential to accurate translation. In any case, translation is an inexact science and as there is dispute over the meaning of the speech, Cole's interpretation says it was not a call to destroy Israel, cannot be called "apologetics" and the phrase "Muslim Apologetics" is a loaded political term with connections not welcome in an encyclopedia.

The AP is one of the world's most well-thought of, reliable news sources. One needs a very good reason to presume that something is wrong with their translation or that they are not neutral. JoshuaZ 04:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation not "needed" if the reader, well, reads....

Commodore, I'm not sure why you didn't see the ref to Cole changing his blog after the fact in Joffe's article. Here is a snip where he mentions it:

"Cole: According to the September 11 Commission report, Al-Qaeda conceived 9/11 in some large part as a punishment on the U.S. for supporting Ariel Sharon's iron fist policies toward the Palestinians. Bin Laden had wanted to move the operation up in response to Sharon's threatening visit to the Temple Mount, and again in response to the Israeli attack on the Jenin refugee camp, which left 4,000 persons homeless. Khalid Shaikh Muhammad argued in each case that the operation just was not ready.—July 8, 2005"

MEQ: Martin Kramer points out that the 9-11 Commission determined the hijacking plan was conceived by early 1999, that Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount took place in September 2000 when he was head of the opposition, and that the Jenin operation took place in April 2002, seven months after 9/11. After these factual problems were pointed out, Cole surreptitiously changed his original posting. [33]"

I'll put in the cite to Kramer instead. Please forgive me, but I'm going to head off a few of your arguments against this proactively:

1. Please don't say that Kramer can't be used because he is a blogger and the cite is from his blog and blogs aren't good sources. The Kramer cite actually underlines WHY blogs aren't good sources using Cole's changing his own blog after the fact as an example. This whole article is about someone who rose to prominence as a blogger, so it is appropriate to cite some blogs when we are discussing him.

2. Please don't say that Kramer can't be used by saying he is part of a big organized and powerful worldwide right wing Jewish conspiracy who doesn't believe what he is writing but is only saying this stuff to discredit and silence Cole. That has already been done to death by Cole himself. (and please don't say I am only editing the way I do because of MY ideology; that has already been done too by Grasshopper, above, and both of you would probably be suprised to know my politics)

3. Please don't say that Kramer can't be used because Cole is smarter, Cole is more knowledgable, Cole speaks more Arabic, etc etc. Cole has already done that to death as well.

I apologize in advance if I am taking the low road here. elizmr 13:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole has perhaps "done that to death," but it is intellectually dishonest to remove Cole's criticism of these arguments on the grounds that they are "ad hominem." They are not. They go right to the question of expertise and are therefore relevant. It's true I missed the above line about changing his blog. Frankly, however, your edits make it clear that your intention is to turn this into a hit piece. Refusing to allow in Cole's defense of his own arguments is ludicrous. Painting the difference between Cole and Carmon on the translation of "state" as a "dispute" is beyond ridiculous since Carmon never refutes Cole's translation; in fact, it is the other way around (and Cole's position is far more reasonable than the way it is cited here). --csloat 16:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I replied below. Also, again you are giving me credit for edits I did not make (the translation stuff). I know this is only Wikipedia, but it bothers me that you keep saying I made edits that I didn't make and accusing me of turning the piece into a hit piece. I am interested in making it honest to the dialog that exists on Cole, who is a promient and complicated individual. I appreciate that he is someone you really respect, and that's fine. Please bring up substantive stuff that shows him in the light you see him in. There are people out there who don't respect him, with defendable reasons. Discrediting his critics isn't an intellectually fair way to go about writing an encyclopedia article.

intellectual integrity section

When we present something, we have to do it in a neutral factual way. Ie, if note that Cole disputed some idea or statement, it would be better to say what evidence Cole gave to demonstrate that that statement was wrong. Saying that Cole said that statement is obviously stupid because the person who came up with it is stupid isn't really all that helpful in this context.

For this reason, I'm not crazy about Commodores edit in the intellectual integrity section. Cole had been criticized for not taking ownership of statements he had made about Iraq, elections, etc, previously. In response, Commodore quotes Cole as saying the critic didn't know anything. It gives a flavor of Cole, but it would be better to come up with something substantive Cole actually said. (hint: if you sort through all of the invective and look, you might be able to find something) elizmr 13:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole responded first by defending the arguments he supposedly didn't take credit for, and second by impugning the arguer's qualifications. Your POV is ridiculous here; you have Goldberg making arguments about intellectual integrity -- equally "ad hominem" -- and Cole responding that Goldberg has no clue what the fuck he is talking about because he doesn't even speak Arabic, much less have any clue about Iraqi or Iranian history. Remember, the issue Goldberg was upset about was Cole's statement that Iran had a freer election than Iraq when they elected Katami. Cole defended the statement and pointed out that Goldberg doesn't know Iran from a hole in the ground. The comment is quite relevant.

Your changes to the Hitchens section are equally intellectually dishonest. You took Cole's words back out of context after I had put them in their context, and you made it seem as if Cole simply "asserted" that the list was private (the claim has been confirmed by others on the list, and it has been refuted by nobody.) This is insane. Why do you feel the necessity to turn this into a hit piece on Cole, who is a widely respected academic in spite of the attacks on him by a few members of Campus Watch?--csloat 16:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Commander--you are giving me credit for edits I did not make re: hitchens. Please consider reading more carefully and also, could you watch your language???? I also note that you are ignoring my main point---please try to come up with substantive stuff that Cole says in response to arguments. I disagree with Goldberg about a lot of stuff, but he writes for a major media outlet and he makes substantive criticisms about Cole changing his story on the Iraqi elections. Stupid or uninformed as he might be, what he said deserves to be countered with a resonable response rather than attacking invective about how stupid and useless he is. That is not a response to what Goldberg said that is a response to who he is, ie, an ad hom agument. If you want it there, fine, but quite honestly it makes Cole look bad. elizmr 17:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - someone else made thoise edits, not you. As for Goldberg -- his expertise in this area is important because that's exactly what he charges Cole with getting wrong. I believe it is a substantive critique; sometimes an author's expertise happens to be relevant to the claim they are putting forward. I really don't see why this page needs to detail ad nauseum every one of these silly disputes between Cole and these right wing "watchdogs," but if we're going to do that, we should get the debates right, and expertise is an issue. Perhaps we should also detail the exact arguments made by Goldberg and Cole; that will, frankly, make Goldberg look even more like an idiot, but that is preferable to having a one-sided summary that makes it look like Goldberg's "points" have any legitimacy. When Cole responded specifically to Goldberg on the history of Iran, Goldberg replied "I'll have to look it up" or something to that effect... of course, as Cole pointed out, the right time to look it up would have been prior to writing an attack piece.--csloat 20:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a hit piece on Cole, wickedly done. Usually people attempt to be transparent about it. It's funny because Elizmr just did the same to the MEMRI piece but from a pro-MEMRI perspective. Is this an operation in an "information warfare" battle? I think so and of course it may be impossible to confirm whether it is formally such or not (i.e. is Elizmr being paid to do this), but in spirit it sure it. --70.48.242.108 18:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

re MEMRI, I enjoy watching the translated video on MEMRI and respect the work that they do. When I saw the Wiki page on it I felt it misrepresented the organization and did work to NPOV it by adding a pro-MEMRI perspective to the anti-MEMRI views that were already there. This page was similarly one sided. As Armon has written above, it was a haigiography to Cole. It needed some rounding out. Wikipedia is not here to present one side of any issue, and it would not be interesting if it were. One of the points seems to be to bring people of different opinions together in a community to write articles and interface with each other. And if everyone would just calm down and treat people who might have a different point of view with some respect as well-intentioned human beings it might actually work. Wikipedia is not anyone's blog. There's gonna be some stuff you don't agree with. Get over it.

Quite honestly, I have to conclude that you guys are be too immersed in the "conspiracy" narritive to see anything clearly here, as evidenced anon suggestion above that I am a paid operative of the conspiracy. Who do you think paid me to create these other pages: Club 57, World Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace??? Oh wait, those pages are probably just a front.... Lighten up. I think you are taking all of this a little too seriously. Dr. Cole is a big boy and can take care of himself, and however "wicked" this article might be, it is not going to bring him down. BTW, at the risk of being labeled a "double agent" I'll ask if anyone wants to pay me to STOP editing Wikipedia??? Maybe I would consider it.... :=) elizmr 18:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was never a "hagiography." It used to take Cole seriously as a scholar, that's all. Now it is a repository for information about all the stupid little fights he has gotten into over his blog. It's really a sad comment on Wikipedia, unfortunately. I'm not saying we shouldn't print anything about the blog controversies but to treat them with such importance and seriousness makes it very difficult to take wikipedia seriously.--csloat 05:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the only reason that Cole has any kind of fame is due to his blog, not as a scholar. Like all hagiography, it committed the sin of omission. That being said, most of Cole's career was before 2002, so why not add in more about his academic background and publications? Armon 16:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense, sorry. Have you read Cole's academic work? Do you know his reputation in Middle Eastern Studies? Do you realize he was elected to lead the main organization in that field? Do you recognize that he is sought after by media outlets for commentary on current as well as historical events? Have you ever heard him speak on any of these issues, or attended one of his classes? If you really want to improve this page, why not look into these things rather than dwelling on silly blog controversies that will be meaningless in a year or two?--csloat 20:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Occam's Razor. If it wasn't his blog which made him prominent (the stuff you mention is post-2002) then what did? Don't whine about my explanation without providing an alternative -I've already asked you to add more about his academic background. Armon 17:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What does Occam's razor have to do with this? Cole was widely known within the academic field since the 1980s; his edited collection on Shiism was well known at the time. There is even a NYT book review of it from the late 1980s I believe. After 9/11 his opinion was sought after by the media and he was considered a Middle East expert; even before he started his blog he commented frequently in the media. His essay on the "Doomsday Document" is well known among counterterrorism scholars. I'm not "whining" about your viewpoint; I'm just explaining why your claims are inaccurate and insipid. I'm also not challenging the fact that his blog has put him more in the public eye, but it is just moronic to believe that his decades of expertise exist in a vacuum independent from that. If he wasn't a well known and respected expert in the field, his blog would not bring him much fame and fortune. People look to his blog because his reputation is well established (and remains so, despite the desperate attempts of Campus Watch types).--csloat 17:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What part of add in more about his academic background and publications don't you understand? The simplest explanation is usually the correct one, but not always, so cite this information, add it to the article according to WP policies, and you'll not only get no hassle from me (or anyone else I suspect), but I'll help you defend your edits. Armon 12:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you were being paid but you are attacking him relentlessly in the most negative way. Pointing to some other random article to justify intense POV attacks on this one is nonsensical -- I'm not sure what you are trying to show. No other commentator / pundit has this type of POV attack on their page except Cole. You have so much time to dedicate to Wikipedia that it is difficult to counter your POV. Do you have a day job? If so how you do find hours upon hours to dedicate to Wikipedia every day? You seem intelligent, and supposidely you have a PhD or MD from Columbia, not the type to slum it on Wikipedia day in and day out fighting battles with random individuals to shape a supposidely NPOV encyclopedia. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 18:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that Wikipedia would be the best place to target an information warfare campaign disguised as independent editors. Wikipedia is sort of trusted and it is easy to edit. It is ironic that you started with MEMRI - an organization that is run by former intelligence operatives and then you spread to other articles that attack MEMRI. If I was doing this it would make sense to edit other wikipedia articles to ensure broad coverage in order to allow for becoming an administrator someday. Being able to shape the publics perception via coordinated editing of Wikipedia sounds like the perfect place, especially for those fighting information operations or psychological operation battles -- which is what the Israel-Palestinian conflict is all about. While it can be considered to be a conspiracy theory, it sounds like a viable one. It falled into the category of unproveable. If I were doing this I would deny it, because to otherwise would serve to deligitimize my edits in a way. I would also attempt some collusion, just slight enough to fall under the radar, in difficult battles. It is all possible, Wikipedia is wide open to such attacks. It is an interesting theoretical possibility eh? --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Grasshopper, I find the above paranoid and overly personal. elizmr 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with the formal definition of paranoid. But please edit with NPOV in mind. You are engage in severe attacks on someone you admitted do not agree with. You have added three screenfulls of attacks on Cole with very little balance. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Grasshopper, I have suggested to you that you add stuff from Cole that defends him from these charges, which by the way I (and others) are citing and didn't make up out of thin air. Why don't you do that instead of just taking out stuff that criticizes Cole? That would be helpful. elizmr 19:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You are responsible for NPOV in your edits, pushing them to me, when you edit Wikipedia as your "day job" and I edit it when I ahve the time is unfair and will result in these articles reflecting your POV attacks rather than a NPOV interpretation. Jayjg, SlimVirgin Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg remove this type of stuff all the time -- I can bring up more than 6 instances were they behaved as such. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Grasshopper, I do try to maintin NPOV. I am really not familiar with your edits from other pages, but if other users edited you're stuff in a way you didn't like, that doesn't mean you should go around doing that to someone else. And your remarks about my editing times are overly personal, maybe I am layed up with a broken leg or something---you have no way of knowing. elizmr 19:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway LGG, you've got all wrong, she's working for the N Koreans. Armon 16:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing things you don't agree with wholesale, engaging in original reasearch, attacking other editors

Grasshopper, if you don't agree with something, please use the talk page to discuss and comment out rather than just chopping away at stuff people have put time and energy into. Give this courtesy where this courtesy has been given to you, especially on controversial pages. You just took out some cites because the articles had been cited before. Well, there was a reason for that. They were making different points both time. Why snip that??? It doesn't make sense. Also, your introductory statement that Cole has attracted controversy is because he is liberal, or something like that, is your own original research. This belongs on your blog, not on Wikipedia. The controversy is more straigtforward: Cole has attracted controversy because he is speaking as an "expert" out of his field of expertise, because he promulgates anti-semetic conspiratory theory, because he makes ad hominem attacks on people rather than address their points, because he changes his blog posting after he makes them, etc. To dismiss these kind of points as politically motivated by labeling them "conservative criticism" or the like is dishonest and POV. And attacking me is just rude. elizmr 19:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elizmr, please put article-relevant discussion on this page. You have engage in major duplication of claims and it is in general very unbalanced POV. If you would balance the claims then it would be much less objectionable. Please remember that you are editing an individuals biographical article. Even if you do not agree at all with Cole you should engage in balanced editing. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia asks us to complain on a user talk page when taking exception to their editing behavior and on the article talk page when content is more relevant. I went to your talk page because you were engaging in personal attacks, inserting original research, and snipping out stuff that was justifiably there without first going to the talk page and talking about it. It was appropriate discussion for your user talk page. elizmr 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Much of your above comment deal with the discussion of the article's content. Maybe you can separate out your future comments with more precision. Anyways, I striked the personal attacks -- I apologize. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Grasshopper, I was giving you examples so you would understand what I was saying. Thank you for striking your attacks. It is a start and a good one. elizmr 19:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Use of anti-semitic conspiracy theory"

I've reworked this inaccurate construction with something that I hope is more neutral. The previous edit implied that it is a fact that there is some specific "conspiracy theory" that Cole is "using". In fact, he hasn't "used" anything. He has criticised specific US government officials and he has criticised US support for specific Israeli government policies. All this stuff about "conspiracies" is how his critics like to poison the well. Sure, it's fine to say that HIS CRITICS say that he is "using an anti-semitic conspiracy theory" but it is completely POV to write the article as if it were a fact (unless Cole himself explicitly says something like the "Jews are trying to control the world" which he clearly has not). --Lee Hunter 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What about what we had before: "claims of use of antisemetic conspiratory theory"? It is a central point that most of his critics make that he does this. "antisemitism and Us foreign policy" is not really exact enough english to capture it. The article should not state that he has used it, but it can certainly quote his critics saying that he has used it. If the article doesn't say this, it is not capturing the dialog and is a dishonest piece. elizmr 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is just awkward English and very misleading. "Claims of use of x theory" just sounds silly. Really this is simply an accusation of anti-semitism. --Lee Hunter 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitism is very very broad. It is a well and widely sourced claim of a certain kind of antisemetism, the use of conspiratory theories to discredit. I see that that might not make sense to you, I believe that, but your judgement is not the gold standard here. It is good writing and good editing to be as exact and as clear as possible. Your subject heading and the way someone has divided the sections has reduced clarity and obscured the meaning of what the critics are saying. I'm not saying this is intentional, and I'm not saying it is being done to prevent Cole from looking bad, but it is not good writing. I am losing respect for the editorial standards that some of the editors on this page are exhibiting. elizmr 15:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pundit commentator

Please note that the term "pundit" has negative connotation, according to WP's own definition. Please also note that David Brooks, whom I would definitely consider a pundit (and is regularly called that, even by Host Jim Lehrer on the News Hour), given his regular talking head appearances, his lack of definite scholarly or professional expertise and his often less than exemplary chains of reasoning, has been spared this appelation: In fact quoting directly from WP:

"David Brooks (born August 11, 1961) is a columnist for The New York Times who has become one of the prominent voices of conservative politics in the United States."

Shouldn't the same consideration be given to Cole?

--CSTAR 21:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about Brooks, but if he is called a Pundit and you feel it would add useful information, I would urge you to go put that on his page and improve it. Regarding Cole, the term fits quite in both its negative and positive nuances. Regarding consideration, have you read Cole's blog????? If he were the type of guy to give consideration, I'm sure he would be getting more of it here, and if he were the kind of guy to conduct himself with dignity and professionalism, I'm sure that would be reflected in the description of him on his Wikipedia page. Unfortunately, he does neither. He goes for the throat of anyone he doesn't agree with on a daily basis, and goes around calling people like heads of state "little shits". elizmr 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do read Cole's blog regularly.

Re:if he were the kind of guy to conduct himself with dignity and professionalism, I'm sure that would be reflected in the description of him on his Wikipedia page.

That's a pretty scurrilous attack, of which I see ypu have provided little evidence. Of course you are certainly entitled to your opinion; but this article is not a vehicle for your opinions. BTW I think he called Iran's president a little shit. Fitting title perhaps, wouldn't you agree? --CSTAR 01:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I would not put my personal opinion on the article page--this is talk. In any case, if I offended you I apologize. And no, I can't really think of anything good to say about Iran's president (except maybe that he likes persian poetry????), but I still think it is unprofessional for a middle east scholar to call him a "little shit". elizmr 01:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Une petite merde" maybe -- or how about "Una mierda". I don't know, there are lots of variations all of which I think have very deep roots in our linguistic heritage.--CSTAR 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In mandarin chinese it is xiao da bian, or the "little big one" kind of cute, no? And yeah, everything sounds better in french. elizmr 01:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wo zhidao. Wode airen shi zhonguoren; --CSTAR 01:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Shide ma? That's great. elizmr 03:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

dui.--CSTAR 03:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wo yao chi fan zai nide jia!elizmr 03:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. The political discussion might quickly make the dinner not very pleasant :).--CSTAR 03:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ni bu zhi dao wo shi zemayang de ren. elizmr 13:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nĭ zĕnmeyàngde rén? Bù zhīdào. Nĭde huà hĕn duì.--CSTAR 14:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OK you guys have lost me there. I'd like to point out that Pundit has the virtue of being wikilinkable, and if we read the actual meaning of the word, and note that Cole calls his blog "Informed Comment", it's practically self-description. Why get weaselly about it? Armon 15:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And I LIKE the fact that "pundit" has negative and positive connotations. This fits Cole as well. He's complicated. And to CSTAR-- xiexie ni. wo xai da xue xue de liang nian wo shi hen hao wan de renelizmr 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the word has negative and positive connotations is the reason that it is inappropriate. There is a more standard, neutral, term "media commentator" which has neither positive or negative connotations. "Pundit" is media jargon and frequently used in a dismissive way, similar to "talking head". For that reason I insist that we use the neutral and purely descriptive term. --Lee Hunter 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole's lack of Hebrew, Israel/Jewish background

come on commander, Cole makes Israeli politics a HUGE focus of his commentary and has no academic background in anything having anything to do with Israel, Hebrew, Judaism. In a section collecting criticism about Cole's tendency to pundicize outside of his range of expertise, this is completely and totally relevant. It is even more relevant because rakes people over the coles (pun intended) in his blog if they say anything he doesn't agree with about the Arabic/Persian middle east without knowing arabic, persian, arabic culture, etc. elizmr 01:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Israel has two official languages - Hebrew and Arabic. English is widely spoken. There are good English language papers in Israel and Israeli affairs are exhaustively covered in Western media. You obviously don't need to know a word of Hebrew to follow Israeli politics and culture quite closely. On the other hand, the situation is very different in most Arab countries. Cole's point about needing Arabic to understand Iraq seems self-evident and the counter-argument about Hebrew is entirely specious. --Lee Hunter 02:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't only Hebrew language; it is Jewish history, religion, culture and history too. Cole doesn't have any sort of background in any of this, and it is quite relevant to understanding Israeli culture and politics. Cole says so himself, of Iraqi history and culture, when discrediting people who tread on his turf without what he would consider adequate background. Can you really disagree with this? I don't disagree with your point that Arabic is an official language of Israel too and that newspapers are available in English, of course, you are quite right, but my point is beyond the nuts and bolts of language itself. elizmr 03:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Arabic is spoken by a minority, and certainly the main issues in Israeli politics are not discussed in Arabic to any meaningful extent, except for the specific pro-Arab POV in the pro-Palestinian press. The only English daily in Israel is the Jerusalem Post, and I doubt that cole would rely heavily on it, given that it has a conservative bias. Conversely, there are good sources of English language coverage of the Arab world, from The Lebanon Star, through Aljezeera's English version. http://www.library.yale.edu/neareast/neareastern3.html lists dozens such sources. If one believes, as Cole apparently does, that you need to speak the local language to be able to comment on a region's politics, he has self disqualified himself from commenting on Israeli politics. Isarig 03:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? Cole does not claim to be an expert on Israel nor to translate Hebrew; why is any of this relevant? Cole actually does know quite a bit about Israeli history, religion, and culture, but it isn't his area of expertise nor his primary area of intellectual focus. I don't see why this is relevant; it seems like a strange form of WP:NOR to me.--csloat 04:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Also the comparison to his comments about "maroons" who don't speak Arabic is ludicrous. He does not rake over the "coles" anyone who disagrees with him based on their ignorance of Arabic. He only does so to those who launch unprovoked attacks on his position based on issues of translation and history that they claim he gets wrong! Meanwhile, Cole makes comments about Israeli politics, yes, but he does not attack for example Avi Shlaim (an Israeli historian) and claim that he has mistranslated a speech of Golda Meir in order to become her "apologist," or that his understanding of Israeli history is pathetic. But these are the kinds of claims levelled at Cole by people like Hitchens and Goldberg who not only have no expertise on the issues but aren't even intellectuals! You can criticize him for being overly defensive about such attacks, but his knowledge of Hebrew has absolutely no relevance to any of this.--csloat 07:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I looked at Cole's CV and could not find one article on anything having to do with Judaism or Israel or Jewish history or Hebrew. Nothing. Nothing on his personal Website either. Well, maybe one dead link. I'm what basis you are using to say that he does "know quite a bit". One of the main focuses of his "media commentary" is Israel. He has no expertise in this at all. By his own criteria, he shouldn't be talking about it. It is disengenuous to suggest he has not put forth these criteria. It is a completely valid point. I am losing respect for the editorial integrity here. elizmr 13:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. It's easy to settle -Lee and csloat, provide the cites that Cole has that expertise you think he does. Armon 15:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would actually read Cole, rather than just reading right wing critiques of Cole, you would see that he actually knows a few things. But that isn't the issue, and you guys seem to be acting intentionally obtuse about the issue. Cole does not claim to be an Israeli expert. And he does not criticize Israeli historians on their translations or knowledge of Israeli history. So his Israeli expertise is not relevant at all here. Your comment "by his own criteria" Elizmr is total BS. Really. He never lays out such criteria. What he does is critique idiots who claim that Cole is wrong about things that Cole has vastly more expertise in. When Cole responded to Goldberg on Iran's election, all Goldberg could say is "I'll have to check with someone." That's the issue here, not bogus "criteria" that you believe Cole is laying out for scholars who wish to comment on current events. Finally, Elizmr, you have a lot of nerve to talk about anyone else's editorial integrity. I have yet to see a single edit by you here that even pretends to try to take Cole seriously as a scholar or commentator. All you have contributed is attempt after attempt to give voice to criticism of Cole from the right wing blogosphere.--csloat 20:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to what Cole said about Goldberg's right to speak about iraq if you want an example of his criteria. I would argue that he certainly sets them out. But it doens't really bear more prolonged discussion. Unless there is a cite that everyone accepts who raises the point, it will not be in the article. I was ok with the blogger in this instance because he has credibility and we have allowed other bloggers, but not everyone is so I am backing down.

Having editorial integrity has nothing to do with writing both sides of the issue. It has to do with following Wiki guidelines. On every page I have edited, I have tried to use neutral language and create neutral frameworks which allow all sides to have a voice. I have tried to be civil with every editor whether I disagree or agree with his/her POV. If I haven't succeeded 100% of the time, well I'm human.

About Cole, I have read him, more than the so called "right wing" sources, if you want to know the truth. Nevertheless, I disagree with you about him, altho I think that he means well. There is no monolithic right and wrong about Cole. It is ok to disagree. elizmr 21:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not debate with you anymore. You have removed my response to your comments and then rewritten your comments, sans my response. And then you have the nerve to question my intellectual integrity here?--csloat 21:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia glitch. I looked for my comments and coudln't find them so rewrote them. Nothing purposeful. I don't want to debate either. Let's get back to editing the article. elizmr 22:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes by anon

Please discuss here before such major revisions Isarig 04:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just pulled out the views from the criticism. I also reordered the criticism/controversy section chronologically and removed various duplications. There were no major removals or additions. I am allowed to edit the article, thanks. --64.230.126.34 04:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the problems with the edits I made. Be aware of the 3 reversion rule. Remember that Wikipedia is all about being bold -see WP:Bold. Thankx. --64.230.126.34 04:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hit "Save" before adding my comments. You've made drastic controversial changes to the article's structure. for example - you've lumped togther the recent charge of Cole mistranslating Iranian president's comments with a old controversy regarding Cole's disputing a MEMRI translation, you put cole's critics' views under a heading which implies they are his views - etc.. Please discuss such major changes on Talk before making changes Isarig 04:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We need a section on Cole's views. I am modeling the article structure after Hitchens' article. Yes, currently his views are being given by his detractors and we should fix that. But at least giving him a place to present his views is better than just incorporating them into the controversies -- check Christopher Hitchens article. It's handled a controversial character in a really good way. Yes, my edits are not the final draft but I think it pushes it in the right direction. Also separating out the legal section into the appropriate controseries makes sense -- and "Campus Watch dossier" really did need its own section. --64.230.126.34 04:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You also didn't read my changes very well. I didn't lump together the MEMRI translation with the Iran -- I actually separated them out -- they were lumped before. Please actually read my changes. --64.230.126.34 04:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon, Isarig's points are valid and I've reverted your changes. Presenting the controversies by theme is clearer, and saves us from the sysiphean task of discussing every "fight" Cole has had. Armon 15:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Themes are the way to go. Since editors have changed the page to go chronologically by incident and sort of thematically at the same time, the article is twice as long and has lost a great deal of clarity. Lets come up with NPOV thematic headings that aren't whitewashes and aren't attacks. Let's clearly put forward what the critics say and let's clearly put forward how Cole counters the points. Let's work together without attacking each other to provide a three dimensional portrait of Cole that we can all be satisfied with. OK? elizmr 15:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

MEMRI

First of all, the two different MEMRI issues should be separated. Cole was not threatened with a lawsuit over the Osama translation. Also,. the latter is hardly a "controversy." Cole simply took issue with Camron's interpretation, and offered his own interpretation. In hindsight, Cole was clearly correct -- the notion of OBL making threats to individual states makes no sense, and certainly does not seem to be or have ever been a part of al Qaeda's agenda. In the speech itself OBL makes clear he is no partisan, and what we see in hindsight is simply how foolish the idea is to begin with; this speech lays out key statements about al Qaeda's strategy toward Iraq, and the media instead focus on who OBL would vote for in a US election? Silly, all of it, really. But that's really beside the point - my point here is that this is not a "controversy." Cole took issue with the MEMRI translation, and MEMRI did not continue the conversation. The only reason anyone would label this a "controversy" is to slyly use it to make Cole look bad (and it seems that all the alleged controversies have been written with that sole purpose in mind). If you guys are really so interested in editing the article about Juan Cole, why don't you do something useful, like read one of his books, and post a summary here?--csloat 09:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually think it would be a good thing for you to post a summary of one of his books here if you're familiar with this work, but we only have evidence here that you seem more interested in stomping all over what others have done rather than doing anything constructive of your own.

About Osama, 'COME ON', do you remember the date the tape was released? It was the weekend before the Tuesday presidental electon in the US and addressed it directly. Maybe as a Canadian you are not so plugged into to this, but this is why people assumed that he was talking about the election and not about Osama's Iraq strategy. But I agree, it is beside the point.

About the "controversy" section, we put it in on Grasshopper's suggestion. About why discussion of Cole's two translations goes here: it is obvious. His translations are a bit controversial. Re: Osama, 1) Cole takes exception to the way everyone else in the world has translated the passage, including al Jaz and other arabic sources 2) he publicly goes for the throat of, well NO, not Al Jaz, not any other arabic source, but MEMRI, an organization he's already demonstrated he has a problem with, in a very public and disparaging way, well, yeah, that is kind of a controversy isn't it??? elizmr 13:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

First, what the hell are you talking about? I have no interest in "stomping" on anything you've done; I am just trying to turn this into an accurate biography rather than a hit piece. I am not the one deleting relevant and sourced content in order to make a subject look bad. Every edit you have made has had a single purpose - to defame Cole. Second, about Osama, what makes you think I am canadian? And frankly, I'm well aware of why the media focused on the idiotic question of who Osama would vote for, but I said in hindsight that focus was ridiculous. And, oddly enough, his comments on Iraq have still yet to be examined by mainstream media sources. Third, why is this a "controversy"? That is the big question here you haven't addressed -- this is simply Cole refuting another person's translation. The other person doesn't reply; it's hardly a controversy. The other translation issue may be "controversial" because Hitchens, who doesn't speak Persian, thinks Cole's translation is incorrect, but the MEMRI issue is not a controversy at all. If you find a published source that calls it a controversy, you might have something there, but otherwise, this is a bizarre form of WP:NOR.--csloat 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The translation provided by MEMRI on this issue is the same as offered by Al-Jazeera, so whateever credibility the Al-qala has, it is irrelvant to the accuracy of the MEMRI translation. As a side note, the Al-qala web site is unavailable, so it is impossible to verify Khalil's claims about it. For these reasons, I've removed teh refernce to Khalil's criticism. Isarig 20:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is BS. If you remove that, you must remove the reference to the website as well. Please do not censor the criticism again. Thanks.--csloat 20:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

1) sorry for delay in reply.

2) sorry for my characterization of you as Canadian--I got you mixed up with grasshopper, i think, who's user page I looked at the other day. I actually think Canada is a great place, and have had a great time visiting there, but didn't mean to say you come from someplace you don't come from.

3) about the Osama translation being a controversy, MEMRI did reply, here http://www.nationalreview.com/document/carmon200410311937.asp. I haven't actually read the piece but it is cited in the article as it stands now. I did a 30 day free trial of that web site the other day so I could read something else, so if you want the full text let me know and I'll get it for you. It also becomes a bit of a controversy, because Cole didn't just disagree with the translation MEMRI did using the measured language of written academic discourse, he attacked MEMRI for it using very strong language and ascribing a lot of intent. This was a bit ironic and hard for me to understand, because MEMRIs translation seemed to be close to Al Jazeera's. In any case, it is hard to say that this is not a controversy.

4) most of what the press focuses on, in hindsight, is ridiculous, isn't it??? I'm not sure this issue is so unique :=) elizmr 17:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad you apologized for calling him "Canadian". That kind of invective has no place here! Armon 13:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken about the National Review piece; it repeats MEMRIs original claims but does not respond to, or even mention, Cole. Again, this is not a "controversy" in any meaningful way.--csloat 16:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't actually read the NR piece--I will look into it. Thanks for pointing this out. Please explain why it is not a controversy however? It becomes a controversy simply by the fact that Cole translated differently from both MEMRI and AL Jaz and attacked MEMRI on his blog for their translation and what he says is the intent behind it. I see this as a controversy, but I am willing to hear your point of view. elizmr 03:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being honest - it does help to actually read articles before citing them as evidence of something ;) I said this is not a "controversy" because nobody has refuted or even responded to Cole;s argument. Yigal Carmon did not rush to defend MEMRI's interpretation after Cole disputed it. In fact, nobody has. My guess is that after the election everyone realized that reading Osama bin Laden speeches for clues on who to vote for in a US election was insanity. There is certainly no "controversy" here; at best there is a scholar suggesting a different interpretation of a sentence than the interpretation suggested by other parties. (Also, it's disingenuous to include Al Jazeera as being on MEMRI's "side", since Al-J never suggested that bin Laden's speech is a threat to the red states as MEMRI did.) This is no more "controversial" than, say, Allan Bloom's interpretation of Kojeve's Hegel.--csloat 19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am always honest:=) I also didn't write that section, I just edited it and did not read all the cites. I assumed that Carmon discussed the issue there becasue that is how the cite read. You are quite, however, I should have read it. I think it is a controversy because Cole himself made it one when he attacked MEMRIs translation and motives behind it, however I've said that before and I suppose you disagree but you have not addressed that specifically. I see why you DON"T see this as a controversy, and altho your point is well taken I disagree. Overall, I think the issues of these translation disputes are not central to the article topic and I would like to see them go. CSTAR had suggested sep articles if it was felt that the translations warranted long discussion and I agreed with him. elizmr 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Views section and lees 5 second revert: WHY CAN'T WE WORK COLLABORATIVELY towards a good final product?????????

HONESTLY. Armon recreated a views section. It made sense. The controversy section was half controversial view and discussion and have controversial behavior and discussion. I began to populate this section with stuff that had been below. I used an appropriate edit summary, "beginning to populate views section". Instead of working together, and putting other Cole views and commentary on them in this section, Lee just took everything I did and moved it back to where it was before. Lee, if you object to a views section, then say so. If you don't, then put stuff in there. BUT don't hold me responsible for writing the whole section, positive and negative, and don't assume that I think my edits are the end of the story. What is wrong with holding different opinions and working collaboratively to get a good article? elizmr 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a heading called "Views" the reader would naturally assume that you are presenting the views of the subject of the article. The subject of the article is Juan Cole, not the right wing blogosphere. --Lee Hunter 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I would see the section as presenting the views of the subject of the article, accompanied

by commentary and analysis of these views.

2. Please stop characterizing any criticism of Cole as "right wing". It is dismissive, it is insulting (to me), it is ironic, and it is just plain wrong. We've been through this, already, above. elizmr 18:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Your constant lecturing about what people should and shouldn't do is getting very tiresome. --Lee Hunter 18:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then, we're equal because I'm tired of your dismissiveness, bullying, and non-collegial behavior. And I'm especially tired of your avoiding discussion of substantive matters in favor of these negative and attacking quips. elizmr 18:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr I disagree. Hunter's point is well taken. The views section as it currently exists is a litany of criticisms, from dare I mention, the right-of-center (sufficiently right, it seems to me, to call it right-wing) blogosphere. I hope you don't think of Hitchens as being left-wing (or David Horowitz for that matter). It does not logically follow as you have just claimed, that he is thus saying that all criticism of Cole is right-wing.

Moreover, by reducing Hunter's comments to personal attacks on yourself, you are unnecessarily personalizing this discussion.

At the very least, the views section should begin with what Cole has actually written. The way you and some of your like minded contributors are going about writing the views section is not the way NPOV is achieved. You have to strive to honestly portray what the individual has written; the writing of critics is also important, but by simply listing critics writings because you can document that the critics have actually written that, is questionable.

You have to make a decision. Are you interested in doing a reasonably scholarly job or are you writing a piece with the goal of placing Cole in a disfavorable light. For better or worse, the fact of life in WP is that we have to work with many different individuals with different goals -- some are very highly political, others less so. However, you do have a choice.--CSTAR 01:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR, I suggest you re-read this talk page -and if you can stomach it, read the MERI talk page and edit history as well. Unlike Elizmr, Lee is an intolerant and nasty POV warrior, and defending his incivility, while at the same time getting your facts wrong regarding her supposed edits, doesn't do you any credit. I added in the Views section, intending it to be simple exposition of his views (sans criticism -just Cole) so that he gets his say up front and then the reader knows the context of the controversies. That idea didn't "take" and even a cursory look at the edit history will show that it never got "buy-in" by anybody -including the "pro-Cole" editors. As with every WP article, it's a work in progress, and if you think it needs more "favourable" stuff on Cole, great, add it in, instead of tacitly assisting the numerous attempts to sanitize Cole, misrepresent his critics, and whitewash the controversies. Work on this article would go a lot faster that way, and unless you think Cole has the absolute corner on the "Truth", you'll likely be reasonably happy with the result. That's your choice. Armon 14:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! You are being really confrontational here! What is this argument by intimidation? Note this phrase of yours "while at the same time getting your facts wrong regarding her supposed edits, doesn't do you any credit."

• First of all, I was commenting on one of Hunter's comments (not on on any edits). I specifically listed one comment of hers that I though was valid.
• You are then turning that around and concluding that my makng this comment is not to my credit? Besides being a logical non-sequitur, how did "credit" get into this? What is this, grade school where we need credits? Please stick to the facts of what is argued.
• Re: Unlike Elizmr, Lee is an intolerant and nasty POV warrior. That is your opinion.
• Re:if you think it needs more "favourable" stuff on Cole, great, add it in, instead of tacitly assisting the numerous attempts to sanitize Cole, misrepresent his critics, and whitewash the controversies. Good God, that is an unwarranted attack on me! To begin with, it is expected that the article writing process be assisted by contributors writing in the talk pages about style, focus and so on. My comment in support of Hunter was referring to a point of focus. Therefore, by implicitly suggesting that I shut up and if I have anything pro-Cole to write that I write it is to put it mildly, out of line.
• Re; Your comment. I suggest you re-read this talk page. Perhaps. However, there are a lot of things that I would suggest you could do, such as acquire a little more experience in writing WP articles on a broader range of issues. Your first 550 edits or so shows a very narrow focus. That's fine, but if you want people to take anything you say seriously about POV, a litle more experience on your part might help.--CSTAR 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like my tone, stop patronizing other editors with lectures about the "choices" they need to make.

1. Yeah, you were commenting on one of Hunter's dismissive comments regarding her edits and lecturing Elizmr not to take it personally.
2. Your not understanding what a phrase means, does not a logical fallacy make.
3. No kidding.
4. Really CSTAR, I think by reducing my comments to personal attacks on yourself, you are unnecessarily personalizing this discussion -and spectacularly missing the point that, a)I didn't disagree with "Views" as exposition, but advocated it, and, b) neither "faction" seemed to like it. I removed it.
5. Even if you thought I was rude, you had the choice to look at the history of the personal attacks that Lee and others have engaged in, everything from routine snarkiness to accusations of working for Mossad. You also had the choice to look at the article's history first as PR, then the attempts to discredit or remove criticism, and asked me to cool it. Instead, you dig for the dirt in my edit-history and presume to pontificate on my "experience". In what online vacuum do you live that makes you assume that the first time I've ever been exposed to the idea and practise of intellectual integrity and specifically NPOV, is WP? Too bad you conceded the high road, you might have got an apology.

OK, well now that we've got that straightened out. Let's carry on, shall we? Armon 18:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR: At the risk of polarizing things, I think your comments on Armon's experience here are out of line. Could we move our focus away from each other and back to Cole? Please see my idea, below. elizmr 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think I was out of line. I tried to make a constructive comment about the structure of the article and the reply basically accused me of bad faith. But let's not delve on this further.

Suggestion: 3 days of making our own contribs and not editing out contribs of others: please comment on this idea

I think it would be in everyone's best interest to stop the interpersonal squabbling. For my part in creating it, I apologize. I just want to say one thing again. No one has to edit from all sides of any issue to be NPOV. NPOV requires the use of neutral language. NPOV requires that one tolerates the expression of views other than one's own to be aired. Here's my suggestion: let's just add our own stuff for a few days and not touch anything anyone else puts in, even if we disagree. Let's try to follow all the wiki guidelines about reasonable sources, etc. We will be left with a big article, which then we can edit down to size by taking out the repetitive stuff. If something is contraversial we can then discuss point by point. What do people think? elizmr 16:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC) elizmr 16:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But I also suggest that it is fair to constructively comment, about what I regard as an unbalaced focus, as I have tried to do twice here. For example the article has to include relevant material about Cole. If Cole says X and 5 people say Y₁, ..., Y₅ about X, do we give 5 times as much space presenting opponent's thinking as we give to Cole even if there is no question that the critics actually say these things?--CSTAR 17:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree there should be balance. I've been repeatedly advocating that Cole supporters put more stuff in descriptive and supportive of Cole. My suggestion above is in part to divert editorial energy to that pursuit. This is a work in progress. It can't be balanced in terms of amt of content at every point in time and right now it should not be criticized for %s pos and neg because it is very much in a drafty state. elizmr 18:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: also, once we add stuff we think needs to be in, the themes will settle out and repetitive stuff can be taken out, further aiding balance. elizmr 18:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --CSTAR 19:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

PS Note that I had two specific comments about the article,

1. Use of the word pundit which I thought was not in line with how other similar media commentators are called: See David Brooks (journalist), William Kristol, John Hinderaker and Thomas Friedman for example. The only commentator on the right of the american political spectrum that I was able to find, having the characterization of pundit is Ann Coulter.
2. the notion of "balance" (as expressed in the previous paragraph)

Thanks again for trying to keep things cool.--CSTAR 20:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I hear you on both topics. I'll start a discussion section on Pundit below to keep this space clear for people to comment on the other idea. elizmr 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Futher reply

Aside from the issue of "pundit" terminology, the other point about balance (to bring up policy, for instance Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors) also needs some discussion "at a high level", that is as an article "design" issue. In this regard, consider one very early criticism of the Cole article, while it was still in its "hagiograpy phase", which I think was well taken (although, the point about his removing howlers needs some documentation, I am not here disputing it)

His period of expertise is the 19th century. He's widely-cited because he has been willing to make increasingly controversial claims and has a well-known policy of quietly "unwriting" howlers and wild claims from his own weblog. This article as it stands is almost useless and one suspects his many fans prefer it that way so as not to shatter the illusion of Cole.

However, for this to make sense, it would be helpful to know something about Cole's academic writing on for example, the 19th century, and the transition from ivory-tower academic to political writer/blogger. We certainly have a reasonably clear picture in the WP article of how Hitchens the leftist became the Hitchens of today, and Hitchens is certainly not any less controversial or polemical than Cole. The same can be said of WP articles of other writers/columnists that have made notable transitions in their lives; (Charles Krauthammer to name another one. --CSTAR 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This would be a good addition. Are you up to do it? elizmr 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That passage was written by someone who knows nothing of Cole's work besides his blog. He writes on the 19th century, yes; he also writes on contemporary events (as a quick glance at his CV will verify[16]), and, more importantly, he has written on and understands the connection between current events and the history of the region. That is why his opinions on current events are considered authoritative. To use his knowledge of history as a means of undermining his credibility to comment on current events strikes me as an intellectually bankrupt position, entirely indefensible. The comment about Cole doctoring his blog is ridiculous; there may be evidence that he did that once (I followed the link someone offered on this earlier but I didn't figure out what he was referring to), but the notion that his notoriety comes from that is patently absurd. This article was never a "hagiography," to my knowledge; but it is now a hit piece.--csloat 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of my bringing up that particular quote was that it made one point, from which one could argue that one needed to know something about Cole the academic; for heaven's sake, my use of the designation "hagiography phase" was only to describe a particular period of the article when there were no criticisms. Whether it was or wasn't then a hagiography, I don't know, bur I agree, now the article is simply very bad and uninformative.--CSTAR 00:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This section is supposed to be about the suggetion to have a moratorium on edit wars in favor of a few days of additions by everyone. Let's not argue Cole's merits here, OK? I am making a new section to disucc what CSTAR brings up about guidelines. OK? elizmr 00:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Views section idea

Lee believes that a views section should only state Cole's views without any analysis of and commentary on them. If we wanted to include that analysis, it would have to go in a separate section and this would be hard to follow. Why not have the main heading of "controversy", as we do, and then divide into two sections "views" and another section. The other section would contain the stuff about whether or not Cole is working outside of his field, his integrity, etc. I'm not sure what we could call it. Everything I think of seems a little tinged towards the negative. Lee, do you have any ideas? Armon? elizmr 18:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that the section should only carry Cole's views. I said that you can't have a section called Views and only present the views of his critics. --Lee Hunter 18:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And now we have Isariq presenting the most bizaare distortion of Cole's views (claiming that Cole said that American Neocon Jews can't be trusted etc. Good grief. What rubbish.) with a bunch of cites that don't even remotely support the edit. And you ask ME to be collegial?--Lee Hunter 19:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've provided cites for every claim. Specifically on this issue, of whether the Jewish Neo-cons can be trusted, Cole said "I believe that Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties to the Israeli Likud Party and to the U.S. Republican Party... I frankly don't trust him to put America first." Isarig 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well yes. Exactly. This quote does not in any way justify your sweeping statement that "Cole believes that American Jews who are neo-Conservatives, such as Douglas Feith, have dual loyalties, and can't be trusted to put the interests of the US first." He only says that Douglas Feith has dual loyalties and can't be trusted." Show me exactly where in that article he says that "American Jews who are neo-conservatives ... can't be trusted." He doesn't. Sure he says that Douglas Feith can't be trusted but so what? You've taken it way beyond one person. In the article Cole takes pains NOT to single out Jews. He specifically says that anyone with dual loyalties - a Syrian-American with ties to Syria - shouldn't be trusted in a sensitive position involving the other country. You have completely twisted the article to come out with the opposite viewpoint. A complete and utter misrepresentation. Another one of your citations is nothing but the lengthy meandering talk page from a blog site. [17] This is a citation? --Lee Hunter 19:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

He was using Feith as an example, and as you point out, he believes this applies to anyone with dual loyalties can't be trusted. Feel free to add a new section "On Syrian-American relations" where this opinion can be cited, as well. The blog site (the well known Daily Kos blog) contains a message from Cole, alleging that Martin Kramer is wworkign for Israeli intelligence. They only reason I can't link directly to Cole's site is becuase, as is his habit with embarassing psots, Cole has deleted it from his blog. See http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2005_07_14.htm Isarig 19:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm asking YOU to be collegial. Try something other than assuming bad faith, pushing the revert button, and calling someone's work bad for a change. Making an edit you don't like does not mean that I. behaved in an uncollegial manner. elizmr 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You, Armon and Isariq have an obvious agenda to try and fill the article with as much critical information as possible. That's fine. But if you stubbornly pursue this agenda by reinserting dubious material again and again (two examples: Armon has several times today reinserted the bit about questioning Cole's Hebrew language skills even though the source is from an unknown student blogger and Isarig has again reverted back to some wildly distorted misrepresentations of Cole's statements). As far as I'm concerned, the bad faith is being proven again and again. Meanwhile you keep whining that I'm not being collegial. Frankly, I'm fed up and in no mood to cater to your concept of collegiality. --Lee Hunter 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One might say you have an obvious agenda to remove from this article anything remotely critical of Cole. Shoudl we be assuming bad faith on your behalf? Isarig 19:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not removed anything which is properly sourced and from a notable person. --Lee Hunter 20:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You most certainly have. I have sourced my claims to Cole's blog, and you removed them without comment, other than asserting that the statements are not supported by the cites. I dispute your assertion, and you are welocme to discuss it here with me on the Talk page.

original research question for Lee

Lee, I was not aware of this information, but am not contesting accuracy. I am just wondering if it isn't OR to defend Cole's position with this point unless he made it himself: "The group, which includes Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and David Wurmser helped draft A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm an influential white paper for the Israeli government." Could you find somewhere Cole brought this up and quote him instead of inserting it yourself? elizmr 20:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a citation. --Lee Hunter 21:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! elizmr 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

==

As it stands, this is the worst article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The first 10 or 20 lines contain some useful info, the entire remaining article looks like a propaganda hatchet job by some angry loudmouths. -- Icedtea1954

Then you have not looked very far on WP :-) Isarig 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%; that is exactly what this article has become, in a few short days, thanks to a couple of editors who are clearly only familiar with Cole because of right wing attacks on his weblog.--csloat 23:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am quite familair with Cole, having been reading his blog since early 2003, though not with the same admiration you apparently hold for him. Isarig 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said a word about admiring him. And if you are quite familiar with Cole's work, why focus only on right-wing attacks on comments in his blog? Why not focus on his frequent contributions to actual mass media outlets, his interviews on NPR, his appearances on news programs, his analysis of al-Qaeda documents, his articles in Salon? Or his academic work for that matter? Do you really think his squabble with Hitchens or Goldberg is more prominent than any of that work?--csloat 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to say it - it is quite apparent from the pattern of edits you've been making. I am not focusing on 'right-wing attacks' (I'm sure Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan would be surprised to learn that they are "right wing") - I am describing Cole's views, which I am familair with, on the topic of US-Isreal relations, and providing the cites to Cole's blog where he makes these views public. I am sorry if that offends you. Isarig 23:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Sullivan but I do know Hitch and I'm sure he is well aware of his politics. I am not offended by cites to Cole's blog. In fact, I am offended by none of this. I just think it's sad. And I don't disagree with criticizing Cole's theories about the Likudniks in the US government, but look, most of his claims are verifiable. We know about the AIPAC scandal and we know where Feith, Wolfowitz and others are coming from. And it's not about anti-Semitism -- it's about anti-Likud policies. Those policies can be criticized in Israel without raising charges of anti-semitism; why should Americans be so touchy about such criticism? Anyway I am not focusing on your edits on those issues; but I do notice that your edits, like elizmrs, seem designed to portray Cole's views in the worst possible light.--csloat 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you know Hitchens, you know he does not consider himself right-wing. I consider it sad, too, that someone like Cole who apparently has much informed things to say about Iraq is so blinded by his anti-Israel bias that he lets it cloud his judgement and cause him to wander into kooky conspiracy theories. Unlike you, I don't believe many of his claims WRT to Israel-US relations are verifiable. For example, it is far from clear to me that Feith, Wolfowitz and the others have any meaningful ties to the Likud, let alone to the Israeli gov't. what he calls "anti-Likud" policies are in fact anti-Israeli gov't policies, regardless of which Israeli party is in power. For example, the occupation he sees as the root of all evil was begun by a Labor gov't, the settlements he sees as illegal were started with the support and ecouragement of a Lobor gov't. AIPAC consistently supports whichever party rules in Israel - I challenge you (or Cole) to find any meaningful difference between AIPAC policies in 1998-2000 When Barak and Labour were in power, vs. 2000-2002 when Sharon and the Likud were. Cole uses "Likud" and "Likudnik" as some epithet, ignoring that the policies he is arguing against were in practice whether it was Likud or Labour in power. As such, I see them as a charade which enables him to rage against some supposedly evil "expansionist" far right wing party in Israel, when in fact he is anti-Isreali policies, full stop. As to anti-semitism, I think it is a legitimate crticism when one questions the loyalty of some gov't official becuase he is Jewish, and therefore supposedly has "dual-loyality". It carries very strong undertones of The Protocols, as Cole's critics have pointed out. Isarig 01:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You say that Cole criticised Feith "because he is Jewish". Please show me an instance where Cole criticised Feith (or anyone else for that matter) "because he is Jewish". When he criticises George Bush, is it because Bush is a Methodist? If you're not aware of any ties between Feith and Israel may I suggest you read the Douglas Feith article. --Lee Hunter 01:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What other reason does Cole name, for feith's alleged "dual loyalty"? when he critcizes Bush, does he claim Bush has 'dual loyalty'?

Feith has well-documented ties to Israel. Read the Feith article. Whether or not he is Jewish doesn't make a lick of difference. If a senior US bureaucrat is in bed with Italian politicians, runs a department that is penetrated by the Italian intelligence service and promotes policies that are favourable to Italy (at the expense of the US) I hope we can criticise him without being labelled anti-Catholic. --Lee Hunter 12:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Take the time to read my response. I have read the Feith article, and as I noted here yesterday, the only remote connection he has to the gov't of Israel, according to that article, is that he is alleged to be one of several authors who participated in a discussion group, a group whose ideas later contributed to a report, which is alleged was influencial on then-newly elected Prime Minister Netanyahu. Feith denies he was a co-author. If this is what passed for "well-documented ties to Israel" in your opinion, then you are just another conspiracy theorist. You are alos confusing Judaism with Jewishness, but that's par for the course. Isarig 20:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the Feith article, you haven't read it very closely. He coyly denies being the actual author of the Clean Break report but not his participation in the discussion group from where it arose. He's written extensively on Israeli security issues. His law firm was partly based in Israel. He served on the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a think tank that promotes a military and strategic alliance between the United States and Israel. Both Feith and his father have been honored by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). He has contributed chapters to a number of books, including ... Raphael Israeli's The Dangers of a Palestinian State. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell is quoted as saying that he "believes that Feith placed Likud's interests above America's during his service at the Pentagon." and his department was apparently penetrated by Israeli intelligence. So yeah, other than that, no connection to Israel at all. --Lee Hunter 21:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the article very closely, by unlike you, I respect WP'S NPOV, and am not impressed by innuendo. So let's take these one at a time: Feith denies writing the article. "coyly" is your POV spin , which has no place in WP (and of course, does not appear in the WP article you refred me to). The fact that he participated in the discussion group is what I wrote. writing extensively on Israeli security issues is not a "connection to Israel". It is an expression of personal or business interests. I've written extensively on the US space program, but have no connection whatsoever to NASA. He has a partner based in Israel - that means his *partner* had a connection to Isreal, a professional relationship entirely insignifcant to the matters being discussed. It is not a connection to the ISraeli governemnt or to Likud. Again, I am working for a US comapny at the moment, I have no relation to the US gov't or the Republican party. If having business relationships with people in other countries is grounds for questioning one's loyalty - there likely only a handful of people in this country that don't have dual loyalties. Next - JINSA is not an Israeli organization. ZOA is not an Israeli organization. Writing chapters for books that deal with Israeli security is not a connection to Israel, and certainly not to the gov't of Israel or the Likud. And lastly, what Wilkerson believes - is just that, a belief, based on no facts that are observable, and is an opinion that is no better than yours or mine on the topic. Come on now, you said, in defence of Cole's assertion that Feith has a "devotion" to Likud that this is "well documented" - surely you can do better that this innuendo Isarig 22:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So the fact that the guy has been spent the last 30+ years of his life obsessing about Israel, working for Israel, promoting US-Israeli partnerships, writing pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian tracts, being active with Israeli lobby groups, participating in Likud think tanks etc you can't see that he has any connection to Israel. Well, I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree. By the way, every time you quote someone you totally get it wrong. Where did I say that Feith has a "devotion to Likud"? --Lee Hunter 23:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, what you need to understand is that there are apparently two types of guilt by association -the "valid" one, applied to Zionist Jews like Feith, and the logical fallacy, when Cole's meeting of the mind with David Duke over the Lobby paper is pointed out. The bad guys are always guilty, the good guys, never. See, it's simple. Armon 16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

He has not "spent the last 30+ years of his life obsessing about Israel" , that's an assertion you need to prove. He has not been "working for Israel" - that's an assertion you need to prove. Yes, he's been promoting US-Israeli partnerships and writing pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian tracts - so if you want to argue he's pro-Israel you'll get no argument from me. Shame on me for letting you divert this into a question of whether or not Feith is pro-Israel, when the object of our discussion started out with you defending Cole's comment that "Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties to the Israeli Likud Party" - you have shown ZERO, I repeat, ZERO eveidence of such loyalties. Feel free to show up again when you have some actual "well documented" evidence of this. And BTW, learn to read. I didn't quote you as saying Feith has a devotion to Likud, (that's what Cole said, not you) I quoted you as saying this alleged devotion was "well documented". Isarig 03:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are incorrect. I said that his devotion to Israel (not Likud) was well-documented. --Lee Hunter 14:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So that's a non-sequitur in the context of Cole's charges and your supprot of them. As I said, shame on me for falling into this trap of debating whether or not Feith is a supporter of Israel, when Cole's allegation is that he has dual loyalty to the Israeli gov't & Likud. Isarig 14:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Feith also cofounded the organisation One Jerusalem to oppose the Oslo peace agreement. It's purpose is "saving a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel."

So? How is that a connection to Israel? If you (or Cole) want to argue that Feith believes a united Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel - do that. But if you want to claim he has dual loyalties, to the Likud party no less, based on that - I'll call you what you are- conspiracy theorists and anti-semites Isarig 22:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read the WP article on Feith. The only remote connection he has to the gov't of Israel, according to that article, is that he is alleged to be one of several authors who participated in a discussion group, and group's whose ideas later contributed to a report, which is alleged was influencial on then-newly elected Prime Minister Netanyahu. Feith denies he was a co-author. To accuse someone of "dual-loyalty" based on such flimsy grounds smacks of anti-Semitism. Isarig 03:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this is one of the reasons why I removed Lee's reference to the "report", plus, it was an attempt to implicitly argue Cole's "conspiracy" as "fact". Armon 16:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The policies he decries as "Likudnik" are those currently supported by Likud (and in many cases opposed by other Israelis as well as people around the world). It is ludicrous to claim this has anything to do with anti-Semitism; I'm not aware of any place where Cole questions someone's loyalty based on that person being Jewish. I believe you may be distorting something there. But I don't care -- I have let others have that debate with you; I have no need to get sucked into it. Again, my only claim here is that your edits have a consistent purpose - to make Cole look as bad as possible. That is not a legitimate use of an encyclopedia. Good day.--csloat 01:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

do you even bother reading what I post? The policies he decries as "Likudnik" are the policies supported by every Israeli party in power since 1967. I notice you did not actually step up to the challenge I psoted - finding a policy supported by AIPAC (and thus according to Cole - "Likudnik") which has changed in a significant way between Labour in power vs. Likud in power. I've already shown you where Cole questions someone's loyalty based on that person being Jewish. Clearly, there are many people, both Jews and non-Jews in that Pentagon circle of Necons he believes is subverting American foriegn policy, yet no one's loyality is questioned excpet for the Jews. when i see him attack with the same viciousness the alleged dual-loyalty of Rice, or Cheney (or for that matter, of Senator Sununu, or former CJCS Shalikashvili), I'll reconsider. Until then, talk of dual-loyalty directed at Jews he dislikes smacks of The Protocols, as Cole's critics rightly point out. Isarig 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I read it, but that's not the issue, and your challenge is totally irrelevant, which is why I'm not going to go research it. The point is Likud policies *now*, and for the past few years, some of which are disputed by Labour as well as many other voices in Israel. There is a large Israeli peace movement and a large number who oppose Israeli government policies (and that has been true whoever is in power). The point is not just "the occupation" or "the settlements," but specific policies and actions Israel has taken since 2003 or whenever Cole started his blog. I don't read the blog religiously, so perhaps I missed something, but what I have seen him criticize about Israel has focused primarily on the actions taken by the post-9/11 Sharon government. The AIPAC scandal was real; we had an Israeli spy working in the Pentagon directly under Wolfowitz and Feith -- not Sununu, Cheney, Rice, or Shalikashvili. If you think Likudnik is a poor term to describe the situation, I wouldn't disagree, but to claim that it is therefore antisemitism is feeble logic. Your claim "I've already shown you where Cole questions someone's loyalty based on that person being Jewish" is bogus - you haven't. I am waiting to see a quote from Cole saying that he questions the loyalty of an American because that person is a Jew. Not because that person is a neocon or a "likudnik," but a Jew. Show me that piece of information please. Then please explain why he does not question the loyalty of Noam Chomsky or Jon Stewart or Seymour Reich or freakin' Natalie Portman.--csloat 08:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Check here Armon 16:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Your search - "moderate zionist" site:www.juancole.com - did not match any documents.." What does this have to do with any of the above?--csloat 17:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe nothing, just that they don't seem to exist in Cole's universe. Armon 13:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, or maybe that's just not a common phrase? Is that seriously all you can say to the above arguments? A non sequitur google search is your only evidence left that Cole is an antisemite?--csloat 06:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dual Loyality

In his blog, Cole writes "One of his charges is that I am accusing the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon of "dual loyalties." That is true, but not in the way Lake imagines. I believe that Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties ..." IOW, Feith is an example, but Cole belives that Neoconservatives in the Pentagon of "dual loyalties." Lee, you need to pay attention when reading. Isarig 03:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read it again, you see that the phrase "neoconservatives in the Pentagon" is that of his correspondent. Yes he goes on to say "That is true but not in the way Lake imagines" but the actual quote of the words "neoconservatives in the Pentagon" is not Cole's. If you're going to quote someone you have to have to quote them exactly. --Lee Hunter 11:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Specious argument Lee -Cole agreed. Armon 13:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Pundit: Everyone, please comment here

Could people sum up how they feel about the use of "Pundit" to describe Cole. I'm bringing some comments CSTAR made above down here as a start.

Use of the word pundit which I thought was not in line with how other similar media commentators are called: See David Brooks (journalist), William Kristol, John Hinderaker and Thomas Friedman for example. The only commentator on the right of the american political spectrum that I was able to find, having the characterization of pundit is Ann Coulter. note: this is reproduced from what CSTAR wrote, above

• I like "pundit" because it has negative and positive connotations. I think that it fits with the many sides of Cole. He could be viewed as, he is a "pundit" in the sense of expert commentator, when he comments on Iraq, but a "pundit" in the sense of speaking without particular expertise, when he comments on Israeli politics (IMHO only). Bottom line, it is not a wholly derog. term. I can't speak to the pages "pundit" doesn't appear on, and I don't think that's a great criteria to use since pages are certainly of uneven quality and content on Wikipedia. As for the specifics of the commentators, I don't know most of the ones CSTAR mentioned except for Ann Coulter. I would not place Cole in her league, the term "pundit" only resonates in the very negative sense of the word---she doesn't to my knowledge have any area of expertise; I think "pundit" is a misnomer in her case. All that said, I don't feel stronly about keeping "Pundit". "Media commentator" seems a bit dry to describe Cole, who is a very spicy guy. I kind of like "blogger" personally, but of course it doesn't describe the full range of what he does extraacademically, just the most active area. elizmr 23:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with CSTAR; "pundit" is needlessly loaded, and it should only be used for figures who are exclusively known for punditry (e.g. Coulter). Media commentator is much more accurate for this article.--csloat 23:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If the term is pejorative, then you've just pointed to a breech of NPOV on the Ann Coulter page. Armon 14:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Holy breeches! OK I just fixed that breach of NPOV. [18] --CSTAR 15:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would add that pundit is also media jargon and frequently used in a dismissive tone (along the lines of "talking head"). Why would we even consider applying a loaded word to the subject of a bio when a perfectly neutral term exists? --Lee Hunter 01:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Claiming it's "Jargon" is going to need some backing up, given how ubiquitous the term is -and in any case, it is wikilinked. Aside from that objection, the only other is that it can be used in a pejorative sense. Lots of words can, and the objectors seem to ignore the fact that it can also be used as a peacock term, and that it's often self applied i.e. here, here, here and here -note use outside of US. The positive and negative senses cancel each other out in terms of neutrality. The other reasons to use it are a)it's a more precise term -which no one disputes b)it draws a clear distinction between Cole's two "hats" that of scholar, and that of pundit, and c)"pundit" in the "negative" sense actually forms a bit of a built-in defence for some of the charges of his critics -"polemical Cole" is "pundit Cole", not "scholar Cole" and he's making his points strongly -not in "nuanced academic" mode.
  Hopefully that addresses most people's concerns, if not, and as this seems to have spilt down "party lines", I suggest we do a RFC on it, because I'd be interested to see what the result would be. Armon 14:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re "The only other objection is that it can be used in a pejorative sense". I don't think this is true. Uniform usage of terms is an important element of an encyclopedia. I have given examples of use of commentator and pundit. To refer to Cole as a pundit and Krauthammer as a commentator is bizarre to say the least. The fact that self-application of the term occurs in some instances is irrelevant. --CSTAR 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Armon makes very valid points above. An RFC might be interesting. I also think it is important not to say that, "the term is used to describe "x" on wiki and not "y" on wiki and that's not fair"; it can just as easily be added to the pages of others where it is appropriate as it can be taken away from here. elizmr 15:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: I also think it is important... What exactly is your point? That uniform usage of terms is not a desirable objective in an encyclopedia? --CSTAR 15:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR made a fair point though, I did miss that objection, but I think Elizmr adequately addressed it. WP articles do vary in quality -and structure -look at other biographical articles. Places to get ideas, sure, but it's unlikely WP will ever get the "uniformity" of a print encyclopedia beause anyone can edit it. It's beyond our scope. Armon 15:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is one thing to note that uniform terminology may be a hard objective to achieve, for many reasons, one of which you just noted: anybody can edit WP. But that does not, it seems to me, justify deliberately using a term in a way which has been shown to be at odds with other uses in WP.--CSTAR 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's used quite a lot. Armon 15:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Um did you actually look at the links? Of course, I can't claim to have looked at all the entries, but I'll just note a few:

• Bill O'Reilly (pundit). This is a Redirect to Bill O'Reilly (commentator).
• Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha. Pundit yeah. But I don't think he made many media appearances.
• Krishna Singh. Ditto
• A few sports pundits Andrew Gray, Ron Manager and so on.

I don't think you have an argument there.--CSTAR 16:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not, it's evidence. Keep looking, there's numerous examples. Try Google, they're easier to see. Armon 16:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this really a better list? e.g., In John Sergeant (journalist) the word pundit does not occur in the article text (only as a category); the usual indian pundits, football, soccer and racing pundits. I could find three relevant examples Tucker Carlson, Michael Barone snd Matthew Miller. I think this proves my point. --CSTAR 16:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, there are "936 English pages from en.wikipedia.org for Pundit." This is to reassure you that it's a)not a term being used uniquely here, and b)to avoid "cherry-picking" examples. People interested in this debate can see for themselves, and I think we'd waste our time litigating each occurrence of the term. Armon 04:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that many people use it in a jokey, ironic or casual tone is further justification for not using it. We don't refer to Marines as "grunts" or private detectives as "private eyes" or "private dicks". We don't call graphic artists "pixel jockeys". We don't call writers "scribes" or "pencil pushers". We don't call heavy metal musicians "guitar gods". No matter how many people in those professions use or like those terms, it still doesn't make it appropriate to use them as the primary professional descriptor in an encyclopedia. --Lee Hunter 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not. Cole's "the primary professional descriptor" is "Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History". Seriously, this is just getting lame. Armon 16:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The primary descriptor of his professorial work is professor. The primary descriptor of his work as media commentator is (or should be) media commentator. Not the jokey, ironic, tongue-in-cheek "pundit". And yes, as you mentioned earlier, it is telling that the people who are keen to fill the article with criticisms are also insisting that we use a word with negative overtones whereas people who want Cole treated in a neutral or balanced way prefer the undeniably neutral "media commentator". --Lee Hunter 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it "jargon" or "informal"? The fact is, we do call pundits, "pundits", as the category and my search for CSTAR clearly showed. On the other hand, "grunts" is clearly noted as slang, and "scribes" are called scribes. Your other examples, "private eyes", "private dicks", "pixel jockeys", "pencil pushers" and "guitar gods" -are redlinked slang and not comparable terms.
Your substituting an ad hominem attack on my "bad faith motivation", for an actual argument (simply repeating the same dubious claim, in slightly different ways) -is noted. Armon 04:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack? Good heavens. A little touchy aren't we? It's not like I accused you of being a Canadian or something. --Lee Hunter 17:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, calling people "Canadians" is my MO. elizmr 01:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe -just play the puck, not the man, Lee. And Elizmr, keep that up and you'll be sent to sensitivity-training at a Tim Horton's in Scarberia. Armon 14:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Blogger and media commentator anyone?

• It sounds like there are some strong feelings against "pundit". How about blogger and media commentator? In my opinion, it would be good to have whatever term we pick highlight the blog, beause that's the main focus of his extra-academic work, what made his popular reputation, etc. elizmr 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Media commentator" is fine. We can of course put in that he edits a popular weblog. The claim that that is the "main focus" of his work or that it "made his popular reputation" is not really accurate; as I pointed out above, his blog does not exist in a vacuum from his other work. His blog would not have been popular if he was not already a sought-after commentator on public radio and in published news articles or if he was not already a successful authority on Middle Eastern studies. To make his blog the focus of this article is an error that adds to the problem of the "controversy" section being ridiculously overblown.--csloat 20:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. For example Brad DeLong is a perfectly respectable academic and is well-known as a blogger. If you mean that we shouldn't say he is an academic then I agree, but if you say we shouldn't say he is a blogger I don't agree with you there.--CSTAR 20:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You think we should not say he is an academic??--csloat 21:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There are too many nots here: I'm confused. Of course, we should say he is an academic.--CSTAR 23:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have gotten the impression that Cole's blog was the start of his extraacademic career since his academic expertise isn't really in the modern middle east. Is this inaccurate? elizmr 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that is inaccurate on two counts. First, his expertise actually is in the modern Middle East. Depending on your definition of "modernity" I suppose it might vary, but he is well known for his written work on the 19th and 20th century Middle East as well as current events. See his list of publications for some details. People have said on this page that his expertise is in 19th century only but that is false as the publications show; in addition, I think it's an odd argument made to undermine his authority to comment on current events. I say it is odd because, as a historian, he is keen on the connection between contemporary events and events of the past. In other words, I would argue that his expertise in 19th century material gives him more authority, not less, to comment on contemporary events, as he has in numerous non-blog published academic and nonacademic works. Second, his blog was not "the start of his extraacademic career." Even before his blog, his commentary was sought after by media outlets after Sept 11. It is true that his blog brought him much more attention, but again I must stress that nobody would be paying attention to his blog if it wasn't for his prior expertise; in addition, his blog is popular in part because people hear him on the radio or read him interviewed in media outlets. He has also written a number of articles for media outlets such as salon.com which cannot be characterized as "blog writing." The reason I object to characterizing him as a "blogger" is that it isn't a real word and it is far too specific. "Media commentator" encompasses blogger. It would be a shame to center the focus on his blog and not on his decades of academic work or his frequent contributions to non-blog media outlets. I'm not saying "let's downplay the blog"; I'm only saying let's not make it the central focus of this article.--csloat 21:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that we describe his extraacademic work as "media commentator AND blogger. Are you unwilling to make that compromise?

Did you not read any of the above? Do you just not think it worth discussing? "Media commentator" includes "blogger"; why not just say media commentator and indicate that he comments often through his weblog? I just don't like the word "blogger," I suppose, but I'm not "unwilling to compromise" if others think that word is particularly enlightening here. Again, however, I think it is a huge error to focus exclusively or primarily on his blog on a page such as this, as the page does currently.--csloat 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I agree to "focus exclusively on his blog" someplace on this page? I hope not. But I think in many ways DeLong and Cole are parallel: Academics who are left of center in the american political spectrum (I wouldn't call either one a leftist, for various reasons; in the case of DeLong for instance, he is generally in favor of market mechanisms) who have increased their influence and reach by use of blogs. Somebody tell me: am I being obtuse, am I missing something? Cole has certainly become more controversial than DeLong for various reasons, but that's a different matter and may be unrelated to anything he said on his blog. Certainly the most recent translation kerfuffle arose from some online (but supposedly private) discussion group. --CSTAR 00:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sloat--I did read your comments, but I found them a little dismissive. I'm trying to get us from edit war to something we all can live with and I very much appreciate CSTAR's willingness to join in with this effort. I understand the concept of a large category encompassing a small one. My problem with "media commentator" is that I just don't know what "media commentator" it is when I hear the term. Someone who comments on the media itself? Someone who comments using the media? Blogger is more evocative. And Cole has really put a lot of himself into the blog. Of course he's not ONLY a blogger and of course the article shouldn't only focus on the blog, but this little discussion here in this section is about what terminology to use to characterize the extraacademic career he has.

I'm not trying to be dismissive - if you guys like blogger, let's keep it. I'm uncomfortable with the word because, as I said, it's not a real word, but perhaps I am being a bit too old-fashioned about language here.--csloat 06:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I very much like blogger. Accurate. That's an important part of what he does.--CSTAR 20:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• OK how about "blogger and pundit"? -though I think "pundit" already covers his "Informed Comment" blog. The other cites from him are from opinion pieces in places like Salon.com and as a "talking head" on Al Jazeera. The weasley "media commentator" is hardly a "compromise". Armon 06:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Guideline: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors) Everyone interested, please comment

• CSTAR brings up the issue of article design in regard to the above guideline. Please discuss here. elizmr 00:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  I've not been following the discussion here. But, considering the Controversy section accounts for 90% of the article's length, I'd say critics' views are "give[n] a disproportionate voice" and "overwhelm the article". bcasterline t 01:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Bcasterline; the "controversy" is blown way out of proportion.--csloat 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some thoughts on this. This is meant not to generate a controversy, hopefully a constructive dialogue.

I don't think it is presumptuous or POV to begin describing Cole's interests in general terms as he describes them himself for example, in the first paragraph of [19], but preferably from an independent source. Beyond that, some understanding of what he actually wrote in his published work would be helpful. To do that within the confines of wikipedia:NOR, we might need to find independent sources with commentaries on his writing (I am thinking out loud on this particular issue, and I am not claiming to base any of this on Wikipedia:NPOV or Wikipedia:NOR.) Some of this may not be easy of course, because some of the subject matter is very specialized referring to particular cultural issues with many academic prerequisites.

If there is a discrepancy between his stated expertise, writings etc and what some critcs say is overstepping etc, that of course should be pointed out.

Specific controversies (such as accusations of anti-semitism etc) should come last, in my opinion (other than possibly some very brief mention in the intro that he has become a controversial figure for these reasons.)--CSTAR 02:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He has released three books in the pop press. Amazon.com lists the publishers summaries of these. They could be quoted.

As far as the controversies, I would argue that they should have their own section as they do now, and the section should come last, as it does now. Cole's rebuttals to what his critics say should be included, however it needs to be done in a concise and cogent way. The crits are a very real part of the portrait of Cole, who is a very controversial figure. Wikipedia can do a service by summarizing it all in a dispassionate way. elizmr 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Of course the "crits" are part of the picture of Cole. But the article quotes even some of these very selectively; for example, the Efraim Karsh article. It says for example

Cole has called himself "an outspoken hawk in the war on terror," and his views on the invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq war, both of which he supported (while also voicing concerns about U.S. unilateralism), seem to bolster his credibility, reassuring readers that he doesn't suffer from the knee-jerk anti-Americanism found in many Middle East studies departments.

Though I think Karsh slurs over "while also voicing concerns about U.S. unilateralism" it's clear that even this polemical piece has a more balanced view of Cole than does this article.

Re Wikipedia can do a service by summarizing it all in a dispassionate way. Do you think that the various controversy sections achieve this dispassionate objective? Take the appointment at Yale section. The article reports the fact that this appointment has been critized. Fine, this is a fact, no problem. However, do we need to also include quotes from the WSJ op/ed piece, a yale graduate and a couple of grad students about why they think this is a bad idea.

The translation controversy. Fine. There are controversies about various translations, many of them in fact. The article should begin by briefly listing them A, B and C without comment as follows: statement A is translated by Cole as A_Cole and by Blah as A_Blah. Also say Cole has protested in various ways and in one instance accused Hitchens of purloining an email from a private discussion group, a charge which Hitchens and others have argued is without merit. Fine. However, if you want to make an issue out of an individual translation, then these should have their own article. --CSTAR 14:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, as it stands now, of course the article isn't perfect, but I think we can work towards a dispassionate goal here. re; yale: I think that the crits that these authors make are already made thematically in other sections. In my opinion, the whole section on Yale could go. I'd also like to hear how others feel.

I wouldn't really characterize the Karsh piece as polemical--how so? And I don't think of the Wiki article as a thumbs up to Cole or a thumbs down, so if I quoted some "thumb's down" stuff that Karsh said, it was because I only brought in quotes on two central themes of Coles which I feel are important to mention: 1) Cole's view of the role of Zionism in determining US foreign policy and 2) his view of Israel as a european colony rather than Jews returning to a homeland they've pined for for almost 2000 years. He could certainly be quoted for other stuff as well if it was felt to be important. I think it is helpful to have Karsh, since he is also a full professor from a relevant field. He does a nice job of putting Cole in context. If anyone wants the full text of the article, I downloaded it--just let me know.

I think it is a good idea to have sep articles on the translations. People seem to feel strongly about including many aspects of the discussion, and it is very long, and it is about more than Cole altho he figures prominently. elizmr 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re I wouldn't really characterize the Karsh piece as polemical--how so? I thought it exactly fit the definition; say American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd Edition: (adj) "Of or relating to a controversy, an argument or a refutation." I certainly didn't imply by this characterization that it was unsuitable as a reference. Would anybody dispute that Cole also writes polemical articles? I wouldn't.--CSTAR 15:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Polemic isn't a word I use in conversation a lot---I probably don't have all the nuances. forgive me!. elizmr 00:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious problem of balance/undue weight in this article. Cole is respected and widely read, even if he is reviled by the right wingers. If you read this article you'd think he was a crackpot known mainly for controversy surrouding his work. For example:

• His "intellectual standards and integrity" are questioned by a Joffre of Campus Watch. To begin with, four paragraphs attacking his intellectual integrity, versus one paragraph on his academic contribution if totally out of balance. In addition, while Joffre's qualifications are alluded to at great length ("archaeologist and historian", albeit with no indication as to whether he is an academic with publications in arcaeology and history, or whether he has undergrad minors in the two fields), there's nothing to indicate that Campus Watch is a right-wing extremist censorship group.

• That he was shortlisted for a position in Yale is followed by 4 paragraphs of criticism and one paragraph of ad hom criticism of the critics. To begin with, no Yale faculty have been quoted. If there were serious concerns, these would be the people who would speak up. None of the people quoted appear to be academics of any stripe - a WSJ columnist, a fellow at the AEI, an undergrad at Yale...all writing in far-right publications...don't really make for a balanced critique of Yale's hiring practises. There's also no details of the position for which Cole is shortlisted. For that matter, how is this really a commentary on Cole - it's a commentary on Yale's history department.

• The section "On the influence of Zionism in US foreign policy" starts with criticism (and overly long and unfocused quote, by the way), followed by "other critics", followed by a short rebuttal by Cole. The section then goes on to talk about Cole's commentary on the ties between people like Feith and Perle, etc. This is not the way to write an article. The section starts with criticism and then moves on to some of Cole's views. That's completely the wrong way round. The section should start by outlining Cole's views on Israel and Zionism, in a manner that is compatible with NPOV, and then move on to his critics (in a balanced manner).

• Next section "On Israel" - similarly, without presenting Cole's views on the matter, the article goes straight into criticism (by Campus Watch, again)

• "Misc" - Misc is not a word in English, and is most certainly not a suitable section header

• Bin Laden video translation - why is this even in here? It's trivia.

• "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" - 6 paragraphs on the matter, starting with neocon apologist Hitchens, and follwing up with that other great scholar of Faris, Sullivan? That is not NPOV writing

In addition, constructing such a massive "controversy" section is totally unnecessary. Most of the issues dealt with in the criticism section should be dealt with in the article proper. Cole's point of view should be expressed, before it is attacked. In addition, Cole's positions should be presented in a balanced way - is the Ahmadinejad issue really Cole's second most covered topic? The whole article is way off balance and totally inverted in terms of how it has been written. This reads more like an attack piece than a balanced NPOV encyclopaedia article. Guettarda 15:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda's analysis of the issues with the article. This needs to fixed immediately. FeloniousMonk 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of these problems could be fixed simply by finding more mainstream sources other than CampusWatch, if anyone feels very strongly about including those sections as such, it would help enormously if they could provide additional sources making the same claims. JoshuaZ 15:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the main issue to me is structural. The main issue to me isn't the criticism or the source, it's the balance and structure of the article. The article is, after all, called Juan Cole not Views of critics of Juan Cole. Guettarda 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. As I mentioned in a different topic a few days ago, the Controversy section should not account for 90% of the article's length -- it throws the article off balance. bcasterline t 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

latest Isarig edit

Isarig added the exchange with Solanieh with the edit summary "It shows that Cole's interpretation that this about ending the occupation of Jerusalem is wrong. Either both quotes stay, or both go." This is false. Cole's interpretation is that "wiped off the map" is supposed to be "disappear from the pages of history." The comment that it is focused on Jerusalem only is a Hitchens obfuscation -- Cole makes clear that his problem with Hitchens' interpretation is not about focusing on Jerusalem. Rather, Cole's interp is that the phrase "vanish form the pages of history" constitutes a description of what the future holds in a grand historical sense -- not in the sense of "we will wipe them off the map." I don't see any need to continue Hitchens' obfuscation with the exchange that follows, since it does not in any way refute Cole's argument. The other quote stays, however, since it clearly addresses the issue of the translation being interpreted as a threat, which is how Hitchens' position sees it. Also, Isarig has changed the wording to say "that the remark was inticative of genocidal plans" -- first, there is the embarrassing spelling error that Isarig keeps reintroducing; second, the word "interpretation" is more on point here, since that is what they are taking issue with. Finally, Isarig, why are you continuing with this silliness when even the MEMRI translation supports Cole?--csloat 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, we've sunk to flaming editors for an 'embarrassing spelling error'. I guess you really have no case if this is what you have left. Ok, enough being civil with you, you're not worthy of it. Start reading Cole, sonny. The quote you claim is not Cole's but Hitchens' obfuscation is right in Cole's original post on the topic: "Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time." The quote from the CNN interview clearly and decisively shows Cole is compeletly and utterly wrong. It stays. Isarig 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIV; if you do not feel I am worthy of civility, please do not interact with me. I was not flaming you for your spelling error; I was suggesting that it is problematic that you changed a sentence, including an embarrassing spelling error, which you insisted upon in your revert, displaying a carelessness in editing that we could do without. Everyone makes spelling errors, but few people insist on reverting to them after they have been changed. Anyway I didn't mean to suggest that it was that important, only that you were quick on the revert trigger. And it seems that you have still not bothered to correct your spelling error, which makes me wonder whether you are more interested in improving the article or enforcing a particular point of view on it.

Substantively, you are flat out wrong. Thanks for the quote, but I did not suggest Cole did not use the word "Jerusalem." My point was that the important difference in translation is not about the occupation of Jerusalem but rather about the difference between "we will wipe you off the map" and "you must be erased from the page of time." Whether "you" refers to "Israel" or "the occupation of Jerusalem" is irrelevant to Cole's point about the difference in translation. Certainly you are capable of seeing that? I am sure Hitchens is, which is why I think his discussion of that point is an obfuscation.--csloat 06:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you might want to read this. csloat

I found this interesting.
Anyway, this was what I was going to bring up with you earlier on your talk page. You wanted the Iranian response included -fine, but now, with redundant CNN "official" apologia, and the MEMRI quote, you're tipping into OR and using WP to make a point, which, in fact, the cites don't support. 1. "Zionist state" = majority Jewish state = Israel, and 2. The MEMRI take is a wash for both sides -not support for Cole as the edit implies. Re-read the Hitchens piece, he wrote "Quite possibly, "wiped off the map" is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said, and what it is mandatory for his followers to repeat." So the fact that MEMRI uses a different phrase is a moot point because they read the speech the same as Hitchens. MEMRI's headline: "Iranian President at Tehran Conference: 'Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Be Purged From the Center of the Islamic World – and This is Attainable'". On top of that, I honestly think it's just bloating the section. Armon 13:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) the lnk to Cole's blog is interesting, but totally irrelevant to this conversation, as far as I can tell. (2) I agree this is bloat; the whole section should be deleted. But if it is to be included, we should make clear both sides of the "debate." (3) You seem bent on continuing the same obfuscation that Isarig supports above. Yet it appears to me that the important difference in translation - the phrase Cole refers to as possibly coming from a Persian poem - is not about whether "Israel" or "Jerusalem" is at risk but about whether Iran is threatening to destroy Israel or whether they are citing prophesy. And the link I added above from BTCnews quotes Hitchens directly indicating that he actually agrees with Cole on this latter point, despite his phony pyrotechnics in this phony "debate."--csloat 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) I agree, which is why I deleted your recent Hitchens quote. (2) Absolutely, but we also need to stay on topic. (3) I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be obfuscating. Hitchens (rightly or wrongly) took Cole to task for "reinterpreting" a translation of the speech seemingly in order to hide the fact Iran wants Israel gone, period. Instead, Cole suggested Iran just wanted Israel out of Jerusalem and back to the pre-1967 borders -or, it was just a poetic rhetorical flourish. Hitchens therefore calls Cole an "apologist" who can't read English, Cole calls Hitchens a warmonger and a drunk. -are we clear so far. The MEMRI translation (which is disputably neutral BTW) gives a bit for both -on the one hand, their translation is closer to Cole's (ie no "wipe of the map") but on the other, they clearly read the speech as call for the "destruction of Israel". If Hitchens earlier called this sort of Iranian talk "routine bullshit" it's irrelevant to the argument because what Cole claimed, was that they weren't calling for the "destruction of Israel". That's what the argument is about. Armon 11:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) is a non sequitur. The Hitchens quote was brought up by Cole in the debate with Hitchens; it is an on point response. The Cole link you presented was totally irrelevant to the discussion, as far as I can tell. (2) The quote was on topic. (3) Hitchens is the one obfuscating. Cole did not suggest Iran just wanted the pre-67 borders; that is you believing Hitchens' obfuscation. Cole is no fan of Iran, but he does not believe Iran is a threat to Israel in a military sense. He was pointing to a non-military interpretation of the passage which is evident when it is translated more literally. I don't think Cole disagrees that Iran is calling for the destruction of Israel; it is more a question of whether Israel will disappear from history through God's will or whether Iran will attack Israel to make it happen. Cole interprets the passage as meaning the former, and the more literal translation supports that interpretation. Your comment about MEMRI "clearly" reading this as a call for the destruction of Israel begs the question. What Cole claimed is that they were not threatening the destruction of Israel; there is a difference, and it has nothing at all to do with apologetics.--csloat 19:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Cole's response and comments of supporters

So what's up with deleting Cole's response to his critics and the comments of his supporters? Are we only allowed to add criticism? I think not. May I remind you that the subject of this article is Juan Cole, not the rightwing attack on Cole. Wolcott's comment, as it happens, was specifically about Cole (and also addressed one of the right wing attacks) --Lee Hunter 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole's response to his critics is fine for inclusion. Wolcott's cheerleading, OTOH, is irrelevant. It adds no content to the debate. It provides no arguments, not even along the lines of Cole's Ad Hominem arguments. All it is, is Wolcott's saying "I like Cole". Isarig 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that it's fine to put in remarks by people who find things to bash (the supposed anti-semitism), but not remarks by people who find things that they like (a comment about Cole's ability to flatten a critic)? Hardly seems fair and balanced to me. Aside from which, this IS, in case you're forgetting, an article about the person called Juan Cole. Wolcott was speaking directly about Cole - he was describing what kind of person he is. That's far more relevant for a bio article than comments from people who go into spasms because Cole translates one word differently than someone else.--Lee Hunter 17:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

yes, that is exactly what I am saying, and is the accpeted practice in WP. Someone criticizing a pundit for making anti-semitic comments is a criticism of the pundit's views which belongs on his WP article. Someone cheerleading a pundit and saying "I like the way he delivers a righteous smackdown" is just that - cheerleading, and has no place in an encyclopedia. Isarig 18:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP guidelines that precludes favorable comments. You can call it "cheerleading" if you like, but it's really just a favorable assessment of one aspect of the person called Juan Cole. --Lee Hunter 18:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to point out the argument being made by Wolcott as it relates to the topic, which is "Intellectual standards and integrity". This is just cheerleading and has no place in an encyclopedia. Isarig 18:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You keep repeating this word "cheerleading" as if it actually means something. Wolcott made an observation about Cole's handling of the dispute and about Cole's debating skill. By calling it "cheerleading" I can only assume that your objection is that his observation casts Cole in a positive light. I'm sorry but that does not provide the slightest justification for removing the quote. --Lee Hunter 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to point out the argument being made by Wolcott as it relates to the topic, which is "Intellectual standards and integrity". This is just cheerleading and has no place in an encyclopedia. Isarig

The topic of the article is Juan Cole. The subheads within the article are arbitrary shifting divisions. Wolcott was making a comment about the subject of the article (Juan Cole, in case you've already forgotten) and his comment was in the context of the dispute mentioned in this section, which makes a fine place to put it. Over to you Isarig. It's your turn to say "this is just cheerleading". Go for it. --Lee Hunter 19:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The topic of the article is Juan Cole but the subhead we are in is "Intellectual standards and integrity". If you feel the Goldberg-Cole debate belongs in another "arbitrary shifting division" - you can edit the article to imprve it and reduce the arbitrary nature of it. If you think Wolcott's comment about Cole (he's capable of "administering a righteous punk smackdown") is noteworthy on its own, you should add it in the intro section describing Cole, or in the section describing his extra-curricular activities, and see how long that lasts. I doubt many editors will support such blatant contentless cheerleading, and I'm guessing this will open the door for many negative comments on Cole along the lines of "Cole's an asshole", culled from various anti-Cole blogs, but I'm willing to entertain that option. But if you feel this commentary contains relevant arguments in the context of the Goldberg-Cole issue, then please point out the relevancy. Does Wolcott address the issues raised by Goldberg? Does he expand upon the rebuttal offered by Cole? does he say anything other than "I like Cole"?

I think that the Wolcot thing is ok. He is saying that Cole is good at taking people down in a nasty and humorous way, which he certainly is. I think it underlines something about Cole that is very true from reading his blog and salon articles, etc. Cole isn't really one to address a detractors points seriously one by one in a dry and dispassionate way. elizmr 01:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:3RR violation

The relevant policy clause is as follows:

Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time; this is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR.

If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.

User:Isarig has reverted 5 times, as the following diff files show:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]

I will therefore block that user for 16 hours (which is less than the 24 hours.)

--CSTAR 19:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, but why are you posting this here? That's what his talk page is for. Armon 14:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Why are you posting this here. To be absolutely clear that the rule is being applied fairly to all parties as per the statement In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. Administrators are under no obligation to find all violations, so this gives other parties notification. --CSTAR 14:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As your only edits have been to assist Lee in his edit war over the "cheerleading" phrase -which frankly, Isarig has a point about, posting it here strikes me as not so much as fair, but slightly triumphant. Armon 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Armon, just so that I may dispel your mistaken notion of my triumphalism, please check the block log of User:Commodore_Sloat and have a look at the talk page of the affected article. I did exactly the same thing on the talk page of that article.

Moreover, you give ample evidence of not acting in good faith. As I said before, get some experience editing other areas in WP and then come back and complain about trumphalism and fairness.--CSTAR 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For example? I guess "bad faith" simply means I don't take your position on the article. And again, pontificating on my supposed "experience" is only going to make you seem "fair" to those on your side of the argument. This not about me but about you taking sides in an edit war, blocking your opponent, then posting the block note here. I'm not even disputing you blocking the guy, and I note you didn't go for the full 24 hours, but if you want the perception of "fairness" to match your self-assessment, you can either take my points as constructive criticism, or continue to be self-righteous about it and play the man instead. Armon 01:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR's action was appropriate. I see no evidence of triumphalism, or as you imply, "self-aggrandisement". He merely did what was necessary, and on a page full of edit-warriors posting the notice was quite appropriate. As for postions, you're raising a strawman. •Jim62sch• 00:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The way I read the rule, and the section which says "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. - this means all the editors in this edit war, and Lee had more than the alloted 3 reverts, yet for some reason you did not block him. "treating all sides equally" does not mean that if you blocked an editor, sometime in the past, in some different article, then that editor gets a free pass in this argument to make up for it. Isarig 23:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to look at the diffs to see if Isarig is right, but if true, then that, plus your defense of his incivility re: Elizmr, suggests Lee has a "guardian admin". Just think about it. Armon 01:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe bad faith assumptions such as the above are what CSTAR was referring to. Please assume good faith. Personal attacks and incivility are not going to help reach consensus or improve this article. bcasterline t 01:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What? CSTAR's "Moreover, you give ample evidence of not acting in good faith" when I pointed out his specific actions which may be perceived as unfair? From WP:AGF, "Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith."

Apart from that, you're right, this is a side issue -and it's one of the main reasons I don't think 3RR violations should be posted on article talk pages. Armon 03:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your assumption that CSTAR was not acting impartially. If everyone would assume good faith -- that everyone else is as interested in improving the article to something comprehensive and unbiased, which I believe is true -- then the article would not be the casualty of an edit war by two opposing POV camps. bcasterline t 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you were. I was just noting your scolding only seems to go in one direction and it was about specific concerns, rather than a vague charge of "ample evidence" of my "bad faith". Read the quote from the policy again, anyone, no matter how much we disagree, will get the same AofGF and civility they likewise extend to me. "Assumption" is the default position, it doesn't mean "blinkered". Armon 05:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If anyone feels a block was made in error, take it to WP:AN/I. If you see someone violate 3RR, report it on WP:AN/3RR. CSTAR behaved completely appropriately so far as I can see. Cease uncivil remarks about other editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not claiming my block was made in error, but I am saying is that it was not done in a way that treated all sides eqaully. And the excuse CSTAR made for why this was "equal treatment (that he blocked csloat some time ago on a different article) is a misreading and misapplication of 3RR. Isarig 02:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, what I said was in response to Armon's accusing me of triumphalism in publicly announcing your block on this talk page. I said that I made a similar announcement on a talk page in the case of a block of csloat. Could that be any clearer? In addition. note that the fact of your 3RR violation was observed by another user on your talk page (that user said you made 6 violations in 2 hours) so suggestion of my acting as a guardian "admin" are totally unjustfified. I don't go around sniffing for 3RR violations, but if someone points them out in a timely way, I will apply a block as I did with Csloat. --CSTAR 06:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So all you're saying is that you've been similarly "triumphant" in other cases, as well. This is the "old two wrongs make a right" fallacy. As you went to block me, I'm sure you did not fail to notice the other editor who as engaged in the edit war with me, matching my reverts tit-for-tat. Yet, you did not block him, and thus failed to apply 3RR in an equitable manner to bth sides. I expect more from an admin. Isarig 14:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And if you continue in this vein, you're likely to be blocked for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. There a right time and a wrong time for indignation -- this is not the right time. •Jim62sch• 00:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed that you find anything in the passage you refer to that is uncivil or a personal attack. I am debating CTSAR's actions with him, in a civil tone, and pointing out what I believe is an unequitable treatment. I also resent your threats. Isarig 00:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are kidding, yes? In your first sentence you essentially accuse CSTAR of acting inappropriately, arbitrarily and of gloating that he had done so. •Jim62sch• 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No I am not kidding. I am questioning CSTAR's behaviour, yes. Having admin status does not put one above criticism. I am questioning his behaviour by pointing out that he did not apply the very part of 3RR he invoked in an equitable manner, and used as justification for that unevenhandedness the fact that he has done so in the past, but against another editor who happens to be involved in this edit war, as well. what did you find uncivil here? how is one supposed to complain about perceived inappropriate actions by admins, if not by pointing out said actions? Isarig 01:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you start a wikipedia:RfC against me? That might help clear up these accusations about the legitimacy of my action. --CSTAR 01:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a litigous person by nature, and I think these disputes are best addressed directly by the people involved. If you have a good explanation why you did not block the other editor, why don't you just tell us what it is, instead of calling for an RfC? Isarig 02:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have said why several times. The fact you made 6 reversions in 2 hours was pointed out by somebody else. Why do I need to assume anybody else reverted? Looking at the record, there was edit warring between numerous editors so it was not clear that any other editor had similar transgressions. Do not assume that if you had brought a 3RR viloation to my attention, I would not have blocked the offending user.--CSTAR 02:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Humility is not a bad way to start. You know you violated 3RR, right? You could easily have said that you knew you were in the wrong and then asked why the other person wasn't blocked without making accusations. (Note: this observation has naught to do with Wiki per se, but it is drawn from real life observation). •Jim62sch• 01:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify that I applied the 3RR rule because it was pointed out here [25] on Isarig's talk page by user:bcasterline. --CSTAR 02:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, humility is not a bad way to start. Why don't you start by humbly reading what I posted right here, yesterday, in which I did exactly what you suggest - I acknowledged my block was not made in error, and pointed out it was not applied evenly. Isarig 02:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You asked above "what did you find uncivil here?", so I'm going to point this out as a good example of what not to do. This kind of sarcastic remark is not a useful addition to the discussion, and, personally, I consider it fairly uncivil. You can register complaints and disagree without sarcasm. Alone, this comment isn't an egregious violation of any Wikipedia policy, but -- especially when this kind of hostility defines many of your comments -- it does establish a mood which is not conducive to collaboration and consensus. (I don't mean this as an attack, just advice.) bcasterline t 02:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

you will note, obviously, that I am echoing the sarcastic and condescending way in which Jim62sch addressed me. If this is uncivil and non-useful, then surely he was as uncivil to me, and made an equally non useful addition to the discussion. I note that neither you nor him have actually pointed out anything uncivil in the comment I made to CSTAR when I questioned his application of 3RR in an equitable way. You will also note taht I am note alone here, and that other editors have also perceived the actions by CSTAR (and others) on this page as unfairly singling me out Isarig 02:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

(ri)Given that I was responding to your post, the one that begins, "So all you're saying is that you've been similarly "triumphant" in other cases, as well." and ends with "I expect more from an admin", it seems to me that your chronology is incorrect.

What you percieved as threats were clearly warnings regarding what could happen if you were to continue in your sarcastic, uncivil manner (note the caveat that is my second sentence). Obviously, I am not the only person here who has noted that tendency.

If you noted sarcasm and condescension in my previous posts to you, you are not merely wrong, but either actively and intentionally inferring things that are clearly not implied, or else operating with a different lexicon than the rest of us. Oh, just in case, "You are kidding, yes?" was not sarcasm, but disbelief -- there is a rather large gulf betwen the two concepts.

In all honesty, were you to desire an example of condescension and sarcasm I could oblige, but that would serve no purpose and would certainly not get us on the right track to getting the article straightened out. •Jim62sch• 12:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am very disturbed that an admin here has unfairly applied the 3R rule, especially in light of the way Isarig has been singled out below for violating this rule, doing personal attacks, and not following Wiki rules in "statement 2" (see below). On the day Isarig was blocked, he pointed out to CSTAR that LeeHunter had also violated the same rule while in this unfortunate edit war with Isarig. CSTAR did not block LeeHunter. I am afraid that CSTAR has not applied his admin priv. evenhandedly and fairly and feel an RFC for this would not be inappropriate. I am not familiar with all the rules here, but I suspect this would qualify for a misuse of admin priv. elizmr 02:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to start one, but it seems like a good faith mistake to me. As CSTAR said: unless reported, it's difficult for an admin to track down every instance of 3RR violations. I didn't see it myself, or I would have also warned LeeHunter, since the reverting back and forth was getting out of control at that point. It certainly doesn't strike me as intentional abuse. bcasterline t 02:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you see above, he didn't have to track it down because Isarig pointed it out to him in their discussion over the revert. It is in this section, above. elizmr 02:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, elizmir, Isarig made this comment quite a while after I posted the 3RR notice. However, other editors, including yourself could have brought up that fact in a timely way. As I suggested on the talk page, I encourage you to use the WP process against me: wikipedia:RfC or abuse of administrator privilege.--CSTAR 02:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I was actually busy trying to improve the article and wasn't paying any attention to these edit wars and temporary block repurcussions. It is very much unlike me to get involved in this kind of dispute and tit-for-tat. I only investigated and am saying something because I find it very unfair that so many people have endorsed a statement below that singles out Isarig for doing things that others on both sides were equally guilty of. It seem dishonest to me and hypocritical. elizmr 02:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this argument is rather more about the process than anything else. CSTAR followed the process to the T. If you feel that the process is in error, and that there should be a tool available to admins to cross-ref 3RR vios then I would suggest that you make such a proposal (assuming it's technically doable, I'd certainly support it). •Jim62sch• 12:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, he did not follow the process to the T. Doing so would have required that he apply the block equitably to both sides. He did not do this. He may have a plausible explantion for why he did not do it, but that does not change the fact that he didn't. After all this has been established, for you to emphatically declare he "followed the process to the T" is inappropriate. Isarig 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I missed this earlier. If a 3RR vio was reported on one editor, the Admin's job is to verify that it is a true vio, and if so, take appropriate action. His job is not to be a detective and see who else on the page might be guilt of 3RR. To an extent, Wiki is meant to be self-policing. If you felt that others were violating 3RR, you could have filed a report and an admin would have looked into it and if the accusation was founded, a block would have been instituted. •Jim62sch• 10:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm doing some work to tighten up the article tonight.

• I took out the section on Yale, I agreed with CSTAR's comments above.
• I moved some of the career remarks to the top and views below
• I'm going to try to tighten up the zionist influence section, which it repetetive, and the translation sections, which are a bit long.

I hope that I didn't cut anyone's favorite sentence out. If I did, please forgive me. elizmr 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC) NOTE: I did not get to the second translation dispute, but I think it needs work for readability and clarity. I also didn't get to the zionist influence section. elizmr 01:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just rewritten the Iran speech translation dispute still long, but the nature of the argument is clarified at least. Armon 14:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yale position

I restored it -I don't know why it was deleted -please discuss. Armon

My comments (from above)

Do you think that the various controversy sections achieve this dispassionate objective? Take the appointment at Yale section. The article reports the fact that this appointment has been critized. Fine, this is a fact, no problem. However, do we need to also include quotes from the WSJ op/ed piece, a yale graduate and a couple of grad students about why they think this is a bad idea.--CSTAR 14:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favor of including some form of this section if no better reason than it is the reason why Cole has been most recently in the news. JoshuaZ 15:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit confict)

Well yes and no, we need to say "why" it's controversial -but I accept it's raw and overlong. I've commented out the quotes out until we decide how to handle it. It's a major current event in the guy's career, and if he gets it or no, there'll be alot of talk about it, so we'll have to figure what to do.

Another point though -I honestly couldn't find your comment Elizmr referred to -maybe we should archive? Armon 15:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

The article as it currently stands, with 2/3 of its content devoted to criticisms, violates WP:BLP#Libel_and_defamation. This article is now on the radar screens of a number of wikipedians who take WP:BLP quite seriously. I suggest the current editors here conform the article to WP:BLP#Libel_and_defamation to avoid outside intervention. FeloniousMonk 15:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick guys, straighten up -we're being watched! Armon 15:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And edited, if this elaborate ediface of criticism isn't pared down to align with WP:BLP. FeloniousMonk 16:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the Views section was inappropriately placed under Controversy. His views are his views, and should not be listed as controversy per se. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness. I, for one, welcome outside intervention on this page to align with BLP. This page has essentially been hijacked by editors who want to make it into an attack piece on an academic. I've been trying to keep parts of the page sensible but it is a fulltime job, especially when improvements to the page get reverted.--csloat 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This may be the worst Wiki article I have ever seen. If I were to remove every item I was certain was a vio of NPOV and BLP, there might be a very short intro left. Quite frankly, this page is a disgrace. All editors need to understand that no matter how detestable one holds the subject of the article to be, the subject deserves a fair article, not a friggin' hatchet job. •Jim62sch• 22:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For the editors who have just come in to rush to Cole's "defense" -please read this talk page -and maybe the actual article, instead of just the contents list. The rationale for renaming the "criticism" and "views" into "controversy" was because the various "controversies" are presented as both critics' claims and Cole's rebuttals. This is coming off as knee-jerk, especially threats about it being "libel and defamation". Armon 02:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the link to WP:BLP provided, and you will be less confused about "threats" (which have not been made) and the guideline (which is being violated on this article.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that what is being interpreted as "criticism" here is in reality aiming to be a balanced discussion of Cole's views. I think we would all agree that Cole has many stances that are quite provocative. Some editors here have been attempting to raise these controversial view of Coles, as identified by his critics, and then show how he responds to these points with quotes from his writing. As a neutral source, Wikipedia could do a service that cannot be done in more biased ones and present a full three dimensioinal portrait of Cole. This process has been hampered, frankly, by the tendency of some editors to be so uncomfortable with having anything that could be seen as negative on this page that they revert, delete, etc instead of dispassionately digging to find out how Cole would respond and editing appropriately. This is a clear case of CENSORSHIP. This does not honor Wikipedia, and instead turns it into a propaganda organ. elizmr 02:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone argues that criticism of Cole shouldn't be presented. However, let's look at one example from an earlier version of the article: His views on the right of Israel to exist. The way that view was presented was exclusively from the viewpoint of a critic, Efraim Karsh. That's why I added three or four sentences (BTW also from a source which is generally critical of Cole) but which made it very clear that he did not question Israel's right to exist. It's fine (in my view) to then say that some critics consider this "lip service", but the way it was presented was utterly biased.

Your suggestion of censorhip really rings hollow.--CSTAR 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to me, it doesn't, and I suspect not to other editors here. Perhaps you are not guilty of the most serious abuses, but the wholesale deletions by KillerChihuahua certianly look that way Isarig 02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR, I think I have more than demonstrated that I am editing in good faith here. If I put something from a critic on the page, it can be completed by you bringing in something from Cole. I have repeatedly asked you guys to do this. I recently edited a page with Lee and Armon that mostly consisted almost exclusively of crits when I stumbled upon it and I worked to make the page better--not by deleting the crits or reverting or complaining on the talk page or to Wiki admins, but by finding out how the organization had responded and editing the page appropriately. I think it is a pretty good page now but it took a lot of work on all our parts to get it there. I think this page requires the same hard work, but it seems to be more expedient to use censorship to avoid the work altogether. I am really dissappointed. elizmr 02:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that the MEMRI article is also still about 3/4 "Controversy". That, and the sudden influx of like-minded editors who now demand wholesale deletions, and sanitizing, the article, suggests to me that there's been some canvasing going on. Maybe real "right-wingers" (as opposed to anyone right of a relatively "far-left" position) buy encyclopedias, instead of editing them. Armon 03:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Canvassing? Well, I saw an article that was about as far away from what a Wikipedia biography should be, and I mentioned it to FM, KC, Jim and JZ. If you want to call that "canvasing", then I suppose I have to plead guilty. I suppose I could have posted my concern at wikien-L, where they have been discussing problems like this for the last week or so, or at ANI, since this at attack article raises real concerns for Wikipedia's credibility and libel concerns. If I had been looking for people to "sanitise" the article I would have gone out an recruited some actual left-leaning editors. But a slanted article is a problem whichever way it slants. This one slants heavily towards criticism. Since the structure of the article does not comply with what a Wikipedia article should be, it needs to be cleaned up. The final product should adhere to NPOV. This one doesn't. Guettarda 04:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Views

What are Cole's views on Israel? We have no quotes from him, only his critics. Unless views are forthcoming (and properly cited) I will remove these sections. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's incorrect. We have his own quote on Israeli democracy as compared with baathist Syria. Isarig 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Some relevant blog posts: [26] [27]. These are responses to what he perceived to be character defamation, so one can see both sides of the story. He's certainly opposed to the Likud party and other Israeli rightwingers. bcasterline t 16:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

He's opposed to all Israeli parties, except (presumably) the extreme far left. Just yesterday he was ranting about Nobel Laurate Peres, who is neither Likud nor "righwing". Isarig 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

90% of his blog is about Iraq, Iran, and terrorism, not about Israel. He has only expressed opposition to what he identifies as Likud policies. He was not "ranting" about Peres; he was discussing Peres' threats against Iran, and Cole was again reasserting his belief that the translation of the Iranian president's speech is incorrect. Cole clarified his position on this again today: "Ahmadinejad views Israel the way President Gerald Ford viewed the Soviet Union. He wishes it would vanish as a regime, but he is not prepared to launch a military attack to accomplish that goal. Since Iran sits in the United Nations with Israel, Ahmadinejad is in contravention of the UN charter in rejecting Israel's legitimacy. But wishing a regime would fall is not the same thing as militarily attacking it." Isarig and Armon and Elizmr, three editors here, seem to wish to make this page all about Cole's views on Israel even though they form only a small part of his commentary on the blog (and almost none of his published work).--csloat 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What part of Add his views or this section goes did everyone miss? Add them to the article, with cites. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Slightly echoing, if you have a citation for the Peres thing stick it in. JoshuaZ 17:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The posts linked to above actually detail his support for Israel, even Likud's Netenyahu. The latter one is certainly anti-Likud, but not anti-Israeli by any stretch. I get the impression of a nuanced view, rather than the black-and-white view that seems to be the norm. Not an impression you would get from this article. Guettarda 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope [ this] isn't what you mean when you say "ranting about Nobel Laurate Peres":

Shimon Peres says he wants to remind Iran that it, too, can be wiped off the face of the earth, implying that Israel is capable of obliterating it with its nuclear arsenal. Peres also had the gall to blame Iran for provoking a nuclear arms race in the area!

Cole links to an Israeli Defense Ministry official criticising Peres' statement. Is the Israeli Defense Ministry also opposed to "all Israeli parties"? As for "Peres also had the gall to blame Iran for provoking a nuclear arms race in the area" - it isn't like Iran was the first state in the Middle East to seek nukes, and it isn't like Peres had no influence in Israeli government. Isarig definitely is mischaracterising what Cole had to say. Guettarda 17:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The question is not whether or not Cole was right to criticize Peres. At WP, we do not determine who is right and who is wrong - we report things as they were said. And this rant shows that in addition to opposing Likud policies, he opposes Kadima policies, and that in addition to blaming Sharon and Netanyahu (Likud) he also does not like Peres (Kadima, ex-Labour). The fact that this criticism of Peres may be shared by others is wholly irrelevant to the issue of Cole's view of Isareli politics. Isarig 23:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the views on Isreal sections; they gave none of Cole's views. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I had just responded to you that you are incorrect, and that we have his own quote on Israeli democracy as compared with baathist Syria. Why did you ignore this and engage in wholesale deletion? Isarig 23:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the On Israel section[28] - there was content from Efraim Karsh, Steven Plaut, and yes the one Baathist/Israeli quote. Surely we can do better than that? If we are to have a section titled "Human rights and Democracy in Israel vs. Arab Countries" more than one comparison is required. If we are to use only the one quote, the title is overblown. Which direction would best inform a reader? Is the Israeli bit misleading, is he not better known for his positions on Iraq, Iran, and terrorism? Surely that is more appropriate? I can find quotes from some famous people speaking about their thoughts on all kinds of things, but it would be misleading to post them prominently in their articles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't think the Karsh and Plaut comments belong in the Views section (and I tend to agree) - move them to the criticism section. Don't delete the entire section, especially not after it had been pointed out to you that the section includes Cole's quotes, verbatim. If you want to change the Views section to be more representative of what he is known for - Iraq, Iran - by all means add to those sections or create them - but don't remove existign sourced material Isarig 00:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Merely because something is sourced does not make it relevant. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole's anti-Israel bias is relevant to his critics -it's not your call. Armon 00:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it relevant to his most prominent critics? How relevant? Why? On what is this assertion based? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. Among Cole's prominent crtics are Plaut, Karsh et al, whose criticism is focused on his anti-israeli bias. This assertion is based on their quoted material, which you decided to remove. Isarig 01:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request again that Cole supporters here please dig for cole's responses to criticism and put them on the page. It is ridiculous and dishonest to remove this criticism (especially from someone like Karsh who is a full professor in a relevant field) and demand that other editors supply Cole's views. If you are upset, KillerChihuahua, that Cole's responses to these views are not in the article, then why don't you add them? Frankly, I am not seeing many of the editors here working to improve the article as hard as they are working to compain about it.

This is a very disappointing development for Wikipedia. elizmr 02:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop edit warring.

Please stop edit warring, if the edit warring continues, I may protect the page. JoshuaZ 16:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to. In fact, I'm off to request it. •Jim62sch• 22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The link...[[29]] •Jim62sch• 22:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad

Why the war over the inclusion of Cole's reply, etc? What's the rationale for removal (can't find in on this page, apologies if I missed it). Guettarda 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur and have restored. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A few issues, 1) the section (even the version I rewrote) is long in the first place. 2)the blow-by-blow obscures what the argument was about. Cole's second "reply" (it wasn't specifically to Hitchens) unsurprisingly, is the position as his first to Hitchens, so I took a longer quote the the first blog post. So it's redundant. 3) The claim that Hitchens "took the same position as Cole two months earlier" -is a selective misquote, and OT anyway. 4)The MEMRI translation was a "bob each way" -they similarly translated the phrase, but the speech was interpreted as a clear threat to Israel. Bill Scher is the one who claimed MEMRI supported Cole, and is yet another side issue as well as misleading. 4)It's not possible to every single point of a blog-war in, so I looked for what each guy's key point was, and quoted it. Armon 17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are just making specious assertions without evidence. You seem to be simply trying to tilt the argument in Hitchens' favor. The Hitchens quote from two months ago is not "selective" and it is clearly cited by Cole in the context of this argument, so it is not OT. The MEMRI is not "bob each way" -- there is no ev idence of how they interpreted the speech as a military threat, and I see nothing misleading -- it is almost verbatim the same as Cole's. Again, you are misinterpreting Cole's translation, which says that "wiped off the map" is incorrect and should be rendered "erased from the pages of history" or some such. I made these points above and you did not reply to them.--csloat 17:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you're misinterpreting what the argument is about. Cole and Scher focus on what they see as the key phrase, Hitchens and Sullivan focus on what they see as the intent of the speech. Armon 00:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are making assertions without any evidence or discussion.--csloat 05:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't give any more "evidence" than the article, and 3 blog posts in question. So let's break it down.

Step 1 (of 4) Hitchens called Cole an "apologist" -why? Armon 07:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Step 2: Cole responded to this specious charge. Cole has issued more frequent and substantive condemnations of the Iranian president than Hitchens for that matter. Please re-read my above post, which responds specifically to the rest of your claims here. The problem is that Hitchens is mischaracterizing the debate with Cole for his own purposes (to characterize Cole as an apologist). We've covered this ground over and over.--csloat 19:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You've skipped to "step 2" without even understanding what the criticism actually is, and presupposed Cole's response as an assumed "fact". You can't write NPOV if you can't honestly present both sides of a given debate. Armon 08:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I've explained what the issue being debated is above. You have not responded to this. Your attempt to condescendingly lead me through Hitchens' arguments one by one is not responsive, sorry.--csloat 08:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW I'm not going to bother trying to put this in the article, but it is notable that even Ahmadinejad agrees with Cole. On his trip to Indonesia he was asked about his comments about Iran and asked if he would carry out his threat; his response - "There is no need to attack the zionist state. It will self destruct."--csloat 06:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good -it's OT and OR, meant to determine the supposed "truth". Armon 08:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh; no. Did you forget whose words Cole and Hitch were arguing about?--csloat 08:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW another summary of Cole's position appears on his website; maybe this will make more clear why Hitchens' interpretation of Cole's argument is incorrect. Probably not, though, but it's worth a try: "Although Peres says that Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy Israel, he did not in fact menace Israel with a military attack. Ahmadinejad views Israel the way President Gerald Ford viewed the Soviet Union. He wishes it would vanish as a regime, but he is not prepared to launch a military attack to accomplish that goal. Since Iran sits in the United Nations with Israel, Ahmadinejad is in contravention of the UN charter in rejecting Israel's legitimacy. But wishing a regime would fall is not the same thing as militarily attacking it."--csloat 09:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the dispute about?

Remarks

Isn't this a bit abrupt? It seems to me to refer at this point to a party 1 and a party 2 may be premature. However, I am willing to give my own statement, but I certainly can't speak for any party.

I stumbled on this article on May 4, 2006. I was stunned at how the article was hopelessly unbalanced. I also noted how three editors user:elizmr, user:armon and user:isarig had transformed an earlier version of the article (admittedly not very informative) into a hatchet job, consisting mostly of viewpoints of Cole's critics. I also noted that attempts by other editors (primarily csloat and USer:LeeHunter) to modify the state of the article, were reverted in tag fashion by these three editors. I was also impressed by the lack of civility of two of the editors; see for instance [30]. I also noted that any attempts at intervention on my part (by suggesting thin User:LeeHunter had made a valid point) were met with attacks.

My participation here began on the talk page were I proposed discussion of several issues, including specific suggestions on how balance might be achieved. One suggestion concerned the translation controversy and how to make that section shorter, more informative and more balanced. (See above) another suggestion concerned the Yale appointment controversy. I also noted that I was not suggesting that critic's opinions should be absent from the article. However, these critical opinions must be presented in the context of a fair presentation of Cole's views. In my opinion, that is not the case with the article currently.

Note that I only made three edits to the article (two reversions and one addition made in an attempt to balance a ridiculously biased presentation of Cole's views on the legitimacy of Israel.) At one point, it was pointed out that user:isarig had reverted 6 times in two hours. I blocked user:isarig for 16 hours, which is noted on this page, for the reasons noted. user:armon accused me of triumphalism.

The article is still horribly imbalanced. Moreover, the claim that there is censorship going on here is in my opinion, baseless. I have repeatedly said on the talk page (where most of my intervention here has occurred) that I am not suggesting having no criticism of Cole.--CSTAR 08:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR: You owe me an apology. I have **never** reverted an article on Wikipedia. elizmr 13:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I believe you that you haven't reverted. I was wrong in saying that you participated in the reversion process. I apologize. Thanks for pointing that out.--CSTAR 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

PS, nonetheless aside from the asertion that you participated in the reversion process, I stand my remarks. I will therefore endorse the summary below. --CSTAR 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone to your talk page to ask why you have endorsed something saying I have treated others unfairly. I would benefit from examples of this. elizmr 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This version of events is notable for what's left out. For example, did I not point out that this was a work in progress and if we could get back to actually editing instead of arguing the toss on everything, we might be able to get it to a state you were reasonably happy with? Did we not completely waste our time because of unsupported claims of bias concerning one word -pundit? Did I not repeatedly ask for more background information on Cole to be cited and added -and was accused of "bad faith" for suggesting that people stop complaining and dig in? It's a hell of a lot easier to delete, revert, or criticize than actually do the research, and write the content. By your own admission you came here to support Cole's fans in gatekeeping the article, no wonder this has become a mess. Armon 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re By your own admission you came here to support Cole's fans in gatekeeping the article, no wonder this has become a mess. I have never said any such thing. I said that the article was imbalanced. --CSTAR 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, -that's my perception. Armon 16:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship as a possible case of censorship. It has been protected due to edit warring. Please name the disputing parties and summarise the point of dispute in brief below. Loom91 06:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Party 1

Statement

Juan Cole is an academic and "media commentator" who to his credit is not afraid to proclaim controversial and provocative views. In order to create an article to reflect him in a three dimensional way, Wikipedia should capture these controversies and examine them from as many sides as possible in a clear and neutral way. As an "unbiased" source, a Wikipedia article on Cole could make a unique contribution to biographies that are more slanted, in various directions, in other sources.

The article as it existed prior to recent edits [31] did not examine this controversy and characterized it in a POV way as, "scurtiny and criticism from pro-Israel neoconservative circles." Some editors (most recently user:isarig, user:armon, and myself User:Elizmr have been attempting to raise these controversial view of Coles, as identified by his critics, on the page in the hope that other editors would step in in a collaborative way to build up the three dimentional portriat by adding Cole's responses to some of these criticisms. A few of us who are now involved on this page: user:armon,User:LeeHunter, and myself User:Elizmr recently worked on another page MEMRI. This page, shown here in a previous incarnation [32] consisted mostly of POV content. As we edited on that page, criticisms without responses were added by User:LeeHunter (and others not currently editing on this page) in a similar way to what is happening now here. Others of us, user:armon and myself User:Elizmr provided the responses. I think the end result [33] was satisfactory to most and we were able to take a NPOV tag off the page. If this is not a reasonable way to work, please forgive me. As a newish editor here, I have learned by example from editors like Lee, who are longer-time editors here.

On this page (ie Cole) this process has been hampered, frankly, by the tendency of some editors to revert, delete, dismiss criticisms, and dimiss sources rather than digging to find out how Cole would respond and adding these cites and language to the article in a collaborative way. This has culminated in a hue and cry to criticize the article in very strong terms and finally protect the page. I feel this is a case of censorship and it does a disservice to the ideals of the Wikipedia community. elizmr 14:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Endorsers

Please sign your name with 4 tildes (~~~~).

1. Armon 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC) -I would also point people to the MEMRI article to see Elizrm's and my work on a clean-up of a "hatchet-job" there. Instead of simply complaining or canvassing support, we actually "edited" to provide balance.

   Discussion is better than edit-warring. Silly me, I thought that maybe pointing out how the article violated policy before trying to change it might be better than just jumping in and trying to knock it into shape. You seem to disagree with "consensus" and "policy"? Guettarda 15:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

   Not at all, I object to gang-ups. Armon 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Isarig 16:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
3. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Party 2

Statement

The article lacks balance and fails to abide by WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:BLP. More than 2/3 of the article was "controversy", it failed to present Cole's views, or if it presented them it only did so in response to criticism. It appears to have been little more than a POV attack page that badly needs to be brought into line with policy. At least one of the editors involved on the page, Isarig, seems to have no regard for policy, having violated the WP:3RR and WP:NPA in the last few days. He seems unwilling to abide by policy.

Elizmr with Armon's help are very good at fighting off criticism -- mostly through persistence and treating others unfairly. I am concerned that they will bully their way to biasing this article against Juan Cole because they do not like what Juan Cole says.

Endorsers

Please sign your name with 4 tildes (~~~~).

1. Guettarda 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Ben Houston 15:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

   Wow, Ben's back. I'm sure he's a neutral observer. Please see [34] Armon 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

   Pot calling the kettle black with regards to NPA? Anyhow, I stand by my belief that you and Elizmr engaged in unfair bullying of individuals on the MEMRI page in a very similar fashion to what is going on here. Also, it is interesting to note that I have a significant number of edits, enjoyed editing Wikipedia and a relatively great record here until I ran into you and Elizmr on MEMRI. --Ben Houston 17:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

   B--You accused me of using North Korean brainwashing techniques on other editors! elizmr 23:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

   You just did what I accused you of doing -- engaging in unfair tactics, in this case the mischaracterization of what I said in order to make it sound looney. I said clearly that you were making use of the "inoculation" technique of persuation on the MEMRI article contents -- it is characterized by the inclusion of many weak arguments prior to strong arguments such that readers learn to dismiss critics (obviously the name of the technique is based on the similar medical concept of inoculation.) In the MEMRI article you insisted on including and rebutting the weakest critics of MEMRI which bolsters, to readers of the article, your stated belief that MEMRI is unfairly criticized. I found the definition of this type of persuation in my university social psychology text book and copied it to my website back in 2001 -- here is a page from the archives that contains a formal definition of the term: [35]. There are thousands of Google hits on this method as well: [36]. --Ben Houston 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ben--I think you are assuming bad faith on my part here. I also believe you did this before in our one previous interaction, again in a very provocative and personal way. In that instance, and in this one, you provided no evidence to back up your strong claims. If anyone reads the MEMRI page (which I invited everyone to do in statement 1, above), they will realize that I did not choose even one of the particular critics for inclusion or exclusion there. If I was using any particular technique in my writing, it was the one I was taught in high school. As far as your good record on Wikipedia before you encountered me, please consider examining your own behavior in this regard. These kind of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are against Wikipedia policies: WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I invite you to apologize for breaking these Wikipedia policies. Elizmr 14:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1. --CSTAR 16:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
2. --csloat 16:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
3. --KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC) modified to clarify first para only endorsed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
4. bcasterline t 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC) I'm also more interested in the first paragraph. bcasterline t 23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
5. •Jim62sch• 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
6. 70.29.132.189 04:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Scientician

Notes to reviewers on statement 2, from Elizmr author of statement 1

• Opening: "The article lacks balance"

Please note that User:Armon and User:Elizmr have both repeatedly asked others to insert balancing content. This is a central issue and clearly described in Statement 1. The writers of Statement 2 have not responded to this.

• "Isarig, seems to have no regard for policy, having violated the WP:3RR and WP:NPA in the last few days. He seems unwilling to abide by policy."

I consider this statement an unbalanced personal attack on User:Isarig. He may or may not have been guilty of these things, but even a cursory examination will reveal that others (myself included) have also been guilty.

• "Elizmr with Armon's help are very good at fighting off criticism -- mostly through persistence and treating others unfairly"

A provacative statement like this should not be made without giving examples and demonstrations of the point. I would urge reviewers to examine the talk page and edit history to investigate this claim before accepting and endorsing it. I consider the statement that Armon and I have treated others unfairly as a personal attack.

I would also ask the writer of Statement 2 to sign it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elizmr (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 May 2006. signing now (inadvert. forgot before) elizmr 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda authored the first paragraph, and Bhouston appended the second immediately after. Since those who endorse it all agree with it (it is equally "theirs"), I'm not sure it really matters who wrote it first. bcasterline t 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I have been accused of censorship. Blog posts are not verifiable, reliable sources; posting only a critics statement about a person's view without including that person's view and/or any neutral or supporting view violates NPOV, and that the article was 2/3 criticism coming almost exclusively from blogs certainly violates WP:BLP. If removing content which violates two of the three main policies and multiple guidelines of Wikipedia constitutes censorship, then a great deal of my work as an editor here has been censorship. I frequently remove claims that Tupac Shakur is alive and well; I remove cited claims that all women who undergo an Abortion are baby-killing murderers - cited from highly visible blogs, just like the ones used in this article; I have removed claims that Iain Lee is homosexual and separate claims that he is engaged, both supposedly supported on blogs and/or his radio show; I make similar edits to articles whereever and whenever I find such trash - and I have no intention of discontinuing these actions. In short, I contest that anything I have done has been censorship, and dismiss these claims as baseless. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you've sunk to outright distortions. Many of the criticisms of Cole presented here came from distinguished academics (e.g. Karsh) publishing in verifiable and reliable outlets such as the Middle East Forum. I don't recall many instances of criticisms of Cole that did not include his response to them. The solution to cases that violate NPOV is making the statement NPOV, not wholesale deletion. But I think you've made your POV clear - criticism of Cole is "trash" - comparable to stating that women who undergo abortions are baby killers. with that I believe you've disqualified yourself form any further comment on this topic. Isarig 15:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misreading my statement, or have I been unclear? My personal position (or lack thereof) on any of these subjects is completely irrelevant. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You've described your previous actions thusly - 'I remove cited claims that all women who undergo an Abortion are baby-killing murderers - cited from highly visible blogs'. You called such claims 'trash'. You then said the edits you've made in this article are similar. I read this as you saying that what you've done on this page is removing trash similar to the claims that abortion is baby killing. Am I misreading you? How so? Just so that any new editors reading this are aware of what you did here- you deleted a section that contained Cole's views on Israel. That section quoted Cole, verbatim, from his blog. It also included criticism of said position by an expert in the field - a professor of King's College, published in a verifiable, repuatbe source. I don't see how the two actions are even remotely similar. Isarig 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the blogs are trash as sources. Hope this clarifies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So this poses a bit of a problem here, when the topic of discussion is a blogger, and the source of nearly all of the controversies surrounding him are his opinions as posted on his blog. How do you suggest we treat Cole's (non-academic) views, as posted on his blog, if blogs as sources are "trash"? And you still have not explained why you've removed the criticism by Karsh, an academic and subject matter expert, published on ME Forum. Isarig 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with KillerChihuahua. Forum posts and blogs are not reliable sources. If there is a section of the article that relates to a person's viewpoint that is not supported by hard sources (recognized newspaper articles, biographies) then IMO as an editor and administrator that section should not exist. Wikipedia needs to contain verifiable information only. Its obvious that some people on this talk page feel very strongly that including that blog-based information is important, but please try to understand the relevant Wiki policy as linked above. --Syrthiss 15:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Does that apply to cites of Cole's blog in other articles? Armon 15:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Isarig's personal attacks against KC, Guettarda, anyone who doesn't share his viewpoint, need to stop. Now.
2. Regarding the topic here, sources, I suggest a careful reading of each and every cite offered is the right place to start. All unsupported content, particulary criticism will need to be removed per WP:BLP. Elsewhere, some of the sources given by one of the parties here have turned out to not support the content. FeloniousMonk 15:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Such as? Which cite(s)? Armon 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually take the time to even look at the ref list, not read the cites, just look? 90% of the "blog" references ARE FROM COLE'S BLOG -he's a blogger! His blog is what's a)made him notable, and b)where 99% of the cites from him on WP link to. Now if you want to apply a no blog cite standard OK, but if we note, or quote say, John Fund's criticisms in the WSJ [37], then say that we can't present Cole's response because it was on his blog, we either have to pretend the critics don't exist, or get even more crap about it being a "hatchet-job" from his fans.

Also 2/3 of the article was "controversy" -BOTH Cole's and critics views were included in that 2/3. Read the article, and this page for the background. Armon 15:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversy driven by criticism. 2/3 of any bio being devoted controversy/criticism is too much per WP:BLP#Libel_and_defamation and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The whole imbroglio can be accurately and completely summarized in 3 paragraphs. FeloniousMonk 15:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) As I have edited the page, I am an unsuitable choice for removing poorly sourced content since protection - I'm not sure about the rest of the Admins here. FeloniousMonk, I know you are busy - would you take on the role? We can tackle content from top to bottom here on talk, per standard protected page operating procedure, and you remove content which consensus agrees is not sourced per WP:V? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I might be able to. I'll let you know soon. FeloniousMonk 15:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we have some statement of User:FeloniousMonk's demonstrated impartiality on the issues involved here? I do not at all mean to be insulting and I am not assuming bad faith, but this has been a very contentious page and debate unfortunately and I noticed above that Monk seems to have agreed above when someone described Campus Watch as a "rightwing censorship organization". This is certainly taking sides on issues involved here. I am not sure that someone with a stated POV should be appointed by someone else with a stated POV (KillerC) as the sole arbiter of what stays and what goes on this particular page. elizmr 15:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

1. You are in error; I have not stated a POV.
2. FeloniousMonk is a respected admin who has not been involved in editing this page.
3. How would you describe Campus Watch?

KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't accept him or anyone of the self-selected admins who have rushed in and prejudged what's going on. We need a dispassionate 3rd party who will actually listen to both sides. Armon 16:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Killer, I do not disagree with FM's respected admin credentials at all. Quite the contrary. I am just asking for impartiality and I am concerned in this regard because of something I noted above. Please forgive me for not answering your remarks on my description of Campus Watch or your POV at this time in this context; I don't want to get distracted from central issues at this time :=). elizmr 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

NP whatsoever, completely understand wanting to keep to one topic. I should note that all is really needed is an Admin in this instance. If all parties agreed, I could easily do it. The procedure is to gain consensus for each small change, then the admin makes it on the article. If no consensus is gained, no edit is made. Its very simple - and frequently takes a looong, looong time to get anywhere - but at least the article is discussed thoroughly and consensus is indeed reached prior to edits being made. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

KillerC--nothing personal--I actually love your user name, but given that you've signed the statement above which basically consists of a personal attack of a few of the editors here (see my statements) and says something outrageous about me---that I have treated other editors unfairly---I think that in this particular case you might not be the best person to serve in this role. As an administrator, I would think that you would read through a talk page and see the nature of someone's interactions with other editors before endorsing a statement labeling them in this way. This is a pretty serious and undeserved charge; if you read the talk page, I have actually gone out of my way to be fair. Ditto to endorsement labeling Isaring a personal attacker who doesn't follow policy when many editors on both sides of this have done attacks. It is ironic that in the context of discussing a page that some feel to be bordering on "libel" editors here are labeling other editors libelously and unfairly. elizmr 23:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(Reduce) You are correct, and I have modified my endorsement accordingly. I did not mean to endorse the whole, and apologise for any offense I may have given by appearing to do so. Thanks for the compliment on the uName, also. As far as who is appropriate, I recused myself above, when I requested another admin take on the job, but frankly my POV or lack thereof is immaterial, as any admin taking on the role of implementing consensus edits to a protected page only makes those edits which are agreed upon on talk. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You might want to look through the talk page and see if you think the first paragraph's characterization of Isaring is fair as well. I understand that the role of the admin is really a mechanical one here, and I am sure you are a great admin, but I personally would feel more comfortable with the process if someone more dispassionate took this on. elizmr 23:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR is unambiguous. NPA seems fairly clear as well, although that is in the past and I hope there are not further instances. To me, the main thing is that the article violates NPOV and BLP, and in addition needs better sourcing and some copyediting. I could write another view but IMHO the main points are the thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I still think that Isaring has been unfairly singled out here, and I am disturbed that an admin would allow this without a close examination of the evidence, but it is not the central issue. I totally agree that that NPOV is central and important. It is all a matter of how to get there. I would ask you to give me the curteosy of reading my statement carefully and the talk page of the article. Armon and I have repeatedly asked other editors to add material to help NPOV the article and balance it out. We have not relied on bad sources and have taken out sources that, after discussion, were felt to be bad ones. We have been working in good faith. We are just asking that instead of just cutting criticism out of the article, other editors come on board and dig through Cole to supply the appropriate responses. elizmr 23:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Self-serving

Under On the influence of Zionism in US foreign policy: "Cole's critics view the petition, as well as the definition of antisemitism he gives, as essentially self-serving. [18]" Ref is: 18 ^ A Petition for... Himself, Tony Badran, Across the Bay blog. WP has a completely unsourced article abotu Across the Bay. Issues: One blog critic does not constitute "critics"; the source is unacceptable. Reccomend removal, unless other (WP:RS) sources are found. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone else? •Jim62sch• 00:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole's fans wanted his petition noted here, and in the The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy article. There's plenty more critism online about his online petition -of course, not all of them notable, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. For example: Jeff Weintraub Juan Cole's misplaced defense of Mearsheimer & Walt and Juan Cole and His Critics As for the specific cite, Across the Bay blog had a WP article, so it was given as an example. Armon 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not a source which meets WP:RS. What is your position - remove, or find a better source and keep? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this source does not meet WS:RS. The relevant WS:RS policy on using online sources, with regards to blogs, is "Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name." I would say that Weintraub meets those criteria - he is an acknowledged expert as per the UPenn bio (" Weintraub's most durable concerns have been at the intersection of theory, politics, and culture"), and the article cited appears on his persoanl website suing his real name. Isarig 03:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree; he does seem to qualify the "acknowledged expert in a relevant field" criterion. And since a great deal of Cole's professional writing (and controversies around it) are now centered in the blogosphere, I'd say now is a good time to consider blogs of other professionals appropriate as sources -- especially if the alternative is to omit the criticism. bcasterline t 12:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Casterline and Isarig above on the use of this source and the reasoning behind it. elizmr 13:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. Tony Badran (Across the Bay) is a graduate student, of no particular note except that he plunked down his 0 cents to start a blog. I don't mind blogs as sources, but the blogger should have some bare minimum of credentials. Working on post-graduate degree doesn't quite cut it. --Lee Hunter 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please pay attention. we're talking about about Jeff Weintraub, not Badran. Isarig 13:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually both were being discussed. --Lee Hunter 16:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not in the 3 posts immediately preceeding the one you responded to, and which specificly addressed only Weintraub Isarig 16:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Relax man, it wasn't entirely clear to me either. Let's go with your suggestion and move on. I think it's also worth noting that Lee, "enemy #1", hasn't endorsed the second position. Armon 17:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What's really amusing is that a few months back in the MEMRI article, Elizmr and Armon were adamant that we shouldn't use a quote from professor Halim Barakat because it appeared on his personal website despite the fact that he was writing about an issue in which he was directly involved (the MEMRI translation of one of his articles). Here we've got this guy Weintraub, a sociologist with not much in the way of academic credentials and some graduate student, neither having any connection to this story other than the fact that they blogged about it, but somehow their comments are perfectly relevant. --Lee Hunter 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing the argument. Relevant talk page section is here. Armon 00:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, more like here Sorry to misrepresent your argument. I had assumed the gist of your argument was where you wrote "just because MEMRI translated Barakat doesn't make him notable." --Lee Hunter 14:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha - self-serving indeed. It is crazy that anyone is citing WP:RS to support the use of this blog. This guy is not an "acknowledged expert" in a "relevant field" by any standard I am aware of. A non-tenure-track prof with a temporary position is hardly "acknowledged" as an "expert" (hey, no offense to him; I've been there too, but I'm not demanding to be cited in wikipedia), and sociology is not a "relevant field." (His blog describes him as a "social & political theorist, political sociologist, and democratic socialist" - none of which seem particularly relevant to a discussion of Middle East Studies).--csloat 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Rare exceptions" means rare - this article relies very heavily on blogs, and we should attempt to trim that as much as humanly possible. If the source stands, it certainly is used misleadingly - "critics" is completely inaccurate. It is "critic" singular, and that in a blog. And this is not a recognized authority's blog - it is Across the Bay which we have as authored by Tony Badran (althought he site does not mention that name and states the blog is by Anton Efendi, a student), hardly a well known expert (either name). Armon suggested, if I understand the post correctly, that another blog, by Weintraub be added to support the plural of "critics." However, Weintraub is not an expert either, he is an Adjunct Associate Professor according to UPenn [38] which is pretty far down the totem pole. He has no published works in this field that I have found. Self-published is not published, his site is useless for that purpose. So we have two blogs, one of which is written by a minor academic at UPenn, and the other of which is far more questionable - it is not well known, and the WP article gives the author as a completely different author than the blog states. This does not meet WP criteria at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

weintraub is a visiting Scholar at UPenn, an Ivy league university. He is a respected expert in his field. He is a published author and editor of books in the field. The UofChicgao Press, which published "Public and Private in Thought and Practice" of which he is an editor an contributor calls the contibutors "respected scholars in fields ranging from social and political theory to historical sociology and cultural studies". I dare say he's at least as much of an expert in his field (Poly-Sci) as Cole is in his. So we have a personal blog by a published expert in the field, which thus meets WP:RS, as two previous editors have agreed. I really see no reson not to include it as a source Isarig 14:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anton Efendi is likely a pseudonym -- Tony = Anton, Efendi = Lord or Master.  ;) •Jim62sch• 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Very likely, but as we dont' have a source for "Tony Badron", its original research. Either way hes a student not an expert. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, maybe we should hold on a sec re: Badran. A google search shows independent sources identifying Tony Badran as author of "Across the Bay" [39], he's got some fairly heavy hitting endorsers listed on his blog Paul Berman, Martin Kramer, Reason (magazine) editors Michael Young and Charles Paul Freund, and he is an "Research Fellow, Levant" at The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. I don't know if the fact that his PhD is "pending" is the only salient point here. Armon 17:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly does establish Bradon's neo-con status. •Jim62sch• 20:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And if it does -so what? On his blog's AfD someone also pointed out he got a hat-tip from PBS. Armon (sorry)

Perspective. And sign your posts. •Jim62sch• 12:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting bio on Weintraub. Kind of thing that raises questions. Had an appointment at Harvard - pretty much par for their course, Harvard et al. don't promote their own Assistant Profs, very few get tenure there, not a bad reflection. Then UC San Diego - looks fine. Then Williams and Bryn Mawr - good SLAC schools, but certainly a step down in terms of scholarship (and why? Tenure denied at UCSD as well?) Then a Fellowship in Florence (could be a step up or down; or maybe he retired), then visiting scholar at Lehigh (oops, definite step down) and then Visiting Scholar at Penn (slightly better than lateral move). Alternately, of course, he may have won the Lotto or something and now teaches for fun. Hard to determine whether to call him an expert or not - what has he published? (And yes, this is pretty close to OR. But short of substantial scholarship, it's hard to determine whether to call a visiting professor an expert or not). Guettarda 14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty amazed at this attempt to smear by innuendo. We have a professor at an Ivy League university, which another respected university (that published a book he's edited and contributed to) calls a "respected scholar", and here you are casting aspertions on his carrer, implying with no factual basis whatsoever that his tenure was denied, and inventing a chronology of his appointments that is not in the cited material. Isarig 15:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of something, I would also consider the above analysis of Guettarda to be overreliant on innuendo and would reject it. I would say that Weintraub's credentials are probably substantial enough to qualify him for inclusion. elizmr 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say the analysis by Guettarda is likely quite accurate. In the field of Academe, moves are made for a reason, and steps down the ladder of academic notability are significant, and geberally negative (espercially when there is more than one). •Jim62sch• 20:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Smear? Innuendo? I'm sorry, the two of you seem to have stepped off the deep end [removed by Guettarda due to complaint that it was taken as a personal attack]. KC looked up his credentials, and he is listed as a Adjunct Associate, and she commented that its "pretty far down the totem pole". Actually, it's difficult to figure out what an "Adjunct Associate" means - Adjunct Assistant is pretty easy to explain - someone who has been hired or kept around on soft money, or who isn't being paid at all, but who was given office space by a spouse or friend. Adjunct Associate means you're more senior - that's likely to be someone who had tenure somewhere and gave it up, or who has a moderately senior appointment outside of academia. The other link provided more information - but it seems to allude to a rather checkered career. Although he is more than 35 years past his PhD, he is a Visiting Associate Professor (not full Prof). He also went from Harvard, to UCSD, to Williams, to Bryn Mawr to non-tenure track positions. The first step is normal - Harvard doesn't tend to tenure its Assistant Professors, it looks to trade up. Going from UCSD is not a typical career move, but it could either be failure to get tenure or desire to move to a different kind of institution. Unusual, but not a death knell. The next few steps though are highly unusual. Huge red flag.

In addition, the fact that Penn is an Ivy League institution says nothing about the scholarship of someone in a non-tenure-track position. Since he keeps office hours, it's a teaching position. A non-tenure-track teaching position at Penn - that doesn't make you an expert on anything (not even teaching). That's not a smear, that's just an analysis of the information. Instead of slinging insults, please explain the flaws in my analysis. Thank you. Guettarda 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please point out where in the bio it shows this supposed chronology of appointments? Isarig 17:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Convention is to list your appointments sequentially. It is also supported by the fact that the book reviews (1989-1991) are from while he was at UCSD, while the second authored paper and the book (1996-1997) are from Lehigh. Guettarda 18:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The flaws in your analysis is that it is not based on any facts, only speculation. That, coupled with the dismissive language you've used, equals innuendo. You know nothing, absolutley nothing, about his motivation for changing institutions. You speculate that he was denied tenure. You imply that his academic worthyness is questionable. This is not dispassionate analysis, it is a smear. Isarig 18:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

(ri) Heaven forefend that this sound condescending or sarcastic, but do you know anything about the issues Guettarda has raised (yes, I happen to, so save the question)? •Jim62sch• 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The facts are presented in the bio. That isn't speculative. The types of schools are common knowledge. As for switching schools - no, I don't know his motivation, and I admitted as much. However, to anyone who knows anything about the trajectory of academic careers, my reading is the default reading - most people who know anything about the process would read it the same way. It's possible that it's wrong (I never said I was certain), but I'd say odds are around 80% in my favour for the broad structure of the narrative. Of course it's speculative, but without an independent source, it's all we have to go on - his pubs and his career history. An independent source would be great, but we don't have one, so we can only use the two proxies available. Guettarda 18:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda is correct. There are other reasons why people move, usually family-related, but the assumption would normally be that he didn't make tenure. But I think this level of detailed analysis of his career might be relevant to a faculty hiring committee; I'm not sure it is that relevant here. If he has published works I don't see the problem citing them in Wikipedia, but if we are talking about his blog entries - I don't think so. Especially if we are talking about blog entries that contribute nothing useful to this discussion, as appears the case here.--csloat 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Published works are, by definition, suitable for citing. These publsihed works are relevant to establishing his expertise in his field, so that his perosnal blog would be usable, as per WP:RS. Your assertion that his blog entries contribut enothing useful to the debate is false. Those entries criticize his self-serving petition. So, is being tenured the new standard for being an expert in a field? Isarig 18:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how new it is. The tenure process has been well established for a very long time.--csloat 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I am asking. I am asking if, in order to meet WP:RS criteria of "expert in the field" one needs to be a tenured professor. That would be a pretty novel idea, I think, and would result in massive expunging of WP article of commentary by non-tenured people. Isarig 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My initial point was to discuss the issue that KC raised. Isarig's wild accusations aside, his career path and seeming paucity of publications does make me wonder exactly how reputable a source he should be considered. Anyway, the issue isn't his published works, it's his blog posting, and whether there is evidence that he is enough of an expert to count his blog postings. Of course there's the added issue of whether to count a blogger account as "reliable", but the fact that there are posts going back to 2001 makes the idea that someone is impersonating him rather far-fetched.

It's reasonable to accept that these are Weintraub's words on the topic. It's a reliable source as to what Weintraub said. Whether Weintraub is notable enough to be considered an authority on this matter in his own right is the issue. The argument that he teaches in an Ivy-League school really isn't sufficient, given his bio. I am not saying that he doesn't overcome the WP:RS hurdle, I'm just saying that I am unconvinced by those arguments. He has demonstrable expertise in the area of "Public and Private Thought and Practice"; does this apply to what he has posted in his blog? Can someone connect his publication record, or his teaching history with the topic of the blog posting? If so, I'd be happy to accept the assertion that he meets the standard of WP:RS for a blog posting in this case. But saying "he teaches at an Ivy-League school" doesn't cut it. Simple enough. Guettarda 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For those editors who failed to find Weintraub's published works, you can check out a non-comprehensive listing at [40]. In addition to the book he edited and contibuted to, he's published in peer reviewed journals such as the American Journal of Sociology, Contemporary Sociology, Human Development and others.Isarig 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...out of 11 items there's one from 1973 (6 years before he got his PhD, is this him), one about ghost stories (probably someone else), four citations of his work (not his pubs, other people referencing his pubs), three book reviews (which don't count as anything serious; one from 1989, two from 1991, all while at UCSD), one first authored paper in a book he co-edited (it's an achievement, but not a huge one) and two second-authored papers. Not enough to show that you are an "expert" on anything. Granted, google scholar isn't the greatest resource, but still... Guettarda 17:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly a glowing list, is it? •Jim62sch• 20:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I would suggest we move on and forget this ref. I would, however, ask editors here to avoid using language like, "Smear? Innuendo? I'm sorry, the two of you seem to have stepped off the deep end" and "Isarig's wild accusations aside" and "Heaven forefend that this sound condescending or sarcastic, but do you know anything about the issues Guettarda has raised (yes, I happen to, so save the question)?". All of you, who apparantly are mostly admins, have just signed a statement condeming my behavior as "unfair" and Isar's personal attacks. Turning around and using this snarky insulting language to address us is not only uncivil, but extremely ironic in light of the recent condemnations you have all been dishing out. This page is unpleasant enough to work on without this kind of uncollegial language. elizmr 21:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...Complaining about your accusation of "innuendo" is a terrible thing, unlike your use of attacking language? Your personal attacks on my talk page and aggressive tone on CSTAR's page are part of your plea for civility? When your actions aren't so diametrically opposed to your words, people might take you seriously. I look forward to your apology. Guettarda 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, complaining about my accusation of "innuendo" would be fine; calling it "paranoid" and "off the deep end" is not. I would argue that there is a difference. elizmr 21:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda and csloat, you are enaging in, by your own admission, speculative OR. In contrast, I have provided a primary reference- The UofChicago Press who describe the contibutors of the book Weintraub edited and contributed to, as "respected scholars". What should we go by, your OR, or a primary source? Isarig 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're the publisher, and want at least to recoup the money you sunk into publishing the book, would you refer to the editor/author as "a thoroughly inept wanna-be academician who has yet to be tenured"? (Yes, this is sarcasm.) •Jim62sch• 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So is it your position that OR is better then the possibly biased opinion cited from a primary source? I want us to be clear on this. Isarig 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is nice that you are aiming this sarcasm at a book publisher instead of one of the other editors on this page. elizmr 22:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll be sure to aim better next time.  ;) Believe me, my good man, I've yet to use any real sarcasm here as it would serve no substantive purpose vis-à-vis the article, which is, I believe, our raison d’être on this page, is it not? •Jim62sch• 22:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not of late it has not been. Anyway, this is my last comment. The heavyhanded, uneven, and unapologetic way the recent events were handled (mostly by Wikipedia administrators), and ongoing incivility and snarkiness, is much more than I can stomach. elizmr 23:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your (Isarig's) assertion is that Weintraub is enough of an authority, based on his academic credentials, to overcome the blog issue. That is, necessarily, a judgement call. You can't make a judgement call without analysing the available evidence. But that sort of analysis and judgement goes into writing any article that isn't copied verbatim from some other source. You have asserted that Weintraub's ivy-league affiliation, publication history, and the description of him by UChicago Press are enough to overcome the expert requirement for blog postings. What you are calling "original research" is an analysis of your assertions. You can't have it both ways - you are the one who wants to use a blog posting. Blogs don't normally meet the requirement of reliability. There are specific circumstances, based on the author of the blog being a subject-matter expert, under which a blog posting can be considered a reliable source. Sources of information need to be weighed. The assertion that a blog constitutes a reliable source is a judgement call, which must be evaluated. If you want to bring out NOR, then we'd have to dump all blog sources other than Cole's blog (Cole's blog is, of course, a reliable source for what Cole has to say). Guettarda 13:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

moving on

Can we move on toward resolving the disputes around the article, vs. wasting time with threats, accusations and counter accusations? With the exception of the above discussion on the "self serving" comment, not much has been done toward this goal in the last two days. Isarig 02:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Which I started and is proceeding. If you want to work on more than one bit, start a section on that, don't just complain we aren't doing it. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Views - On Israel

NOTE: I believe this section in the article should be renamed "On Israel's Likud Party" rather than Israel if it consists of criticism of the party. Conflating the two is no more correct than the frame used by some Republican activists that it is anti-American to criticize President Bush and his actions. --Ben Houston 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Before the page was protected, an editor removed the enitre section of Cole's Views on Israel. One sub-section included Cole's view on Israeli democracy, quoted and sourced to his blog, as well as a critique of that position by an academic published on the web site of the Middle East Forum think tank. I propose we reinstate that section, as it was before the unwarranted deletion, as follows:

Cole has stated that the democratically elected Likud coalition is little different than the authoritarian Baathist regime in Syria. He writes

- "The Likud coalition in Israel does contest elections. But it isn't morally superior in most respects to the Syrian Baath. The Likud brutally occupies 3 million Palestinians (who don't get to vote for their occupier) and is aggressively taking over their land. That is, it treats at least 3 million people no better than and possibly worse than the Syrian Baath treats its 17 million."

- Joffe notes that "Freedom House gives Syria its lowest rating of "not free" for both political rights and civil liberties. In contrast, Israel has a rating of "free.

Isarig 16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to restore the Karsh quote on Cole's view legitamacy of Israel. I would ask some editor here who knows Cole's work well to find some statement of his for balance on this point. I have looked thru Cole and have not been able to find anything. I think this crit is justified and important and probably the most important of the Israel quotes in my view. REgarding Karsh as a source, I think KillerC said of Karsh somewhere above, "can't we do better"???. Karsh is a full professor at a prom London University who has published in the area academically and has written an article in the national guardian on Cole which were are quoting. I think this is acceptable. elizmr 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Isarig 17:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is appropriate use to Juan Coles words in reputable sources to characterize his opinion of Israel -- not the words of a critic of his. The above quote with regards to Likud is fine and in keeping with Juan Cole's actual views -- although appending Joffe's editorializing isn't appropriate. Here are some more quotes from Juan Cole on Israel and the Likud found via a google search:

"Israel is now, and is likely to remain for some time, a dark postmodern terrain of wealthy fortress communities besieged by hopeless unemployed militants from isolated ghettos. This archipelago of anxiety, reminiscent of the noir science fiction film "Blade Runner," is in some significant respects the creation and legacy of Sharon." [41]

"The somewhat messianic Likud is committed to completing the creeping dispossession of the Palestinians by relentlessly colonizing the West Bank and Gaza (at least), and refusing to accept any clear demarcation between Israeli territory and that of its neighbors. This 19th-century-style settler colonialism, reminiscent of the French in Algeria or the Italians in Eritrea, is so blatantly aggressive that it continually threatens to disrupt vital economic and diplomatic relations between Israel and Europe." [42]

I notice above in other comments there seems to be a conflating of Israel with Likud -- one is a country and the other is a fairly conservative political party. Criticizing Likud for its policies does not equate to criticizing the legitimacy of Israel and it would be erroneous of Wikipedia to confuse the two in its presentation of Cole's views. --Ben Houston 19:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

B--thanks, however none of these comments is relevant to the cite I was mentioning. You have not been editing on the page recently, so you might want to look at the quote I was referring to on the page history rather than sharing the result of your wide-netted google search with me. elizmr 20:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, are you saying that the page cannot contain any criticism or discussion of Cole's views only direct quotation of those views from Cole himself? I would disagree strongly with this. elizmr 20:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Ben's point was more along the lines of "you can't criticize Cole unless you quote him first, and quote him accurately". •Jim62sch• 21:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be quite reasonable. elizmr 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I favor that we collect and present his critics in a section separate from the presentation of his views. This accomplishes two things: (1) it allows for a compact and readable views and criticism section and (2) lets the reader understand both fully and judge them on their respective merits. A huge issue with the MEMRI article is that it was (is?) a running conflict -- it jumps between minor and major criticisms and rebuttals throughout the controversy section making it difficult to comprehend at a glance -- only the dedicated will get the whole picture. There is a reason why in debates one person speaks at a time. It also is hell to create these low quality articles -- everyone is always asking some similar to "is the other sides' phrase immediately countered by my side's position?" -- the end result is unreadable crap and lots of fighting. If you separate out the sections then Elizmr and Armon can craft a criticism section (which does not give undue weight to one off criticisms from blogs) and others can craft his views section. --Ben Houston 22:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ben, Thanks, but I am out of here. elizmr 22:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Two things about the Israel section: (1) It should be made clear that Cole's comments about Israel make up very little of his blog or published commentary. The stuff here makes it sound like he talks about nothing but Israel, whereas 90% of his blog comments are about Iraq and Iran and the US. (2) Cole's very public and sustained campaign to protect Israeli academics from a European boycott should be emphasized here rather than the garbage that claims there is something antisemitic about him. Here's his 2002 article from the Chronicle on this point; it's a point he emphasized again on his blog today.--csloat 08:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing "should be emphasized". We should simply report facts. The simple fact is, JC's views on Israel are highly controversial to say the least (even if they correspond to your own). Having a black friend as a defense from accusation of racism doesn't work. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? Please re-read my points above; this has nothing to do with having black friends. There are no accusations of racism against Cole that make any sense. And, yes, Cole's very public campaign about Israeli academics is far more worth emphasizing than the silly charges of racism that are currently emphasized now.--csloat 17:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We should just report the facts and we should follow Wikipedia guidelines. One very serious issue though is that some critics of Juan Cole, especially those that are associated with Campus Watch, tend to distort Cole's views such that they appear more radical and simplistic than they are -- which then is used to rally those who are more honest and moderate but share a strong affinity with Israel to join the attack on Cole. It is an effective propaganda tactic which unfortunately ends up pitting what are essentially moderates from both sides against each other because each are working from a separate sets of "facts." --Ben Houston 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr here. I've decided to come back and participate on the page again. Ben, it is your untestable and unprovable opinion that a "propaganda tactic" is being used here. Please realize that this is not a point of fact. Also, please remember that this is not a conflict or a war, this is Wikipedia and the goal is for all sides of an issue should be presented. In my opinion, it is not helpful to frame this discussion on the talk page here as a conflict between moderates and moderates or anyone and anyone or to see it as such; we are supposed to be collaborating on articles. Sloat, JC has made some quite provocative statements about Israel; they deserve to be aired here if this is not a censored source of information. The bit about the Israeli academics is what JC says to defend himself against charges of anti-Israeli bias, but it actually doesn't respond to the charges at all. The reasons he is accused of this bias have to do with his use of conspiratory theories, his views concerning the legitimacy of Israel, etc (well documented above on talk elsewhere); as Humus says, having a few jewish friends (ie--the academics) or saying nice things about the policics of American Jews, doesn't negate the other stuff. Elizmr 18:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't advocated censoring anything. Your are flat out wrong if you believe Cole said anything about Israeli academics to defend himself against such ludicrous charges. Read his letter in the Chronicle and point to where he frames it as a response to that silliness. His comments about Israeli academics seem pretty sincere to me, and your questioning of that sincerity is original research of the worst kind (i.e. it's not research at all but pure POV speculation that you engage in because you hate Cole for some reason). This has nothing to do with having a few Jewish friends. This is a sustained campaign Cole has been on for years. I'm sorry Elizmr but your position is untenable.--csloat 18:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

PS nobody has responded to point #1 above - what Cole has to say about Israel is about 10% of his work; it is absurd to blow it out of proportion here. I would add that his comments are not "quite provocative" to anyone with an open mind. In fact, if you read the Israeli press, you'd find a much larger range of opinion about Israel than you do in the American press. But in either case, his statements, while you may disagree with them, are not fringe conspiracy theorizing at all. Read the Mearshimer/Walt piece; do you think they are antisemites too?--csloat 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. An updated version of Protocols of Zion Jewish plot to control the superpower, what be antisemtitc about that?

"if you believe Cole said anything about Israeli academics to defend himself against such ludicrous charges." - at this point we are not talking about what he said, this is what his cheerleaders say "should be emphasized". Get a life. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 18:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. •Jim62sch• 22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Insisting on accuracy is not "cheerleading." If you can point to where Cole endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I would be interested in the quote. Thanks.--csloat 18:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I say he did? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yes. I'm not interested in arguing with you anymore. Your comments about getting a life clearly show you are unwilling to discuss things civilly, and your so-called point about antisemitism shows that you either have completely lost touch with reality or that you are being disingenuous -- either way, further argument seems pointless.--csloat 20:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, tone down the language and discuss things rationally. See WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

Humus, you've asserted things, either directly or by innuendo. Remember, "he who asserts must prove"...in other words, the burden of proof is on the accuser. If you think you have a point to make, make sure you can back it up. By making what appear to be unfounded accusations you are merely feeding the fire, which, quite frankly, benefits no one. •Jim62sch• 22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sloat, please calm down. Don't accuse me of "original research of the worst kind" and don't acuse me of engaging in "POV speculation" because I "hate Cole". We are editing an enclycopedia here, we are doing this together, and we are not engaged in some sort of a fight. OK? Not only is this antagonistic stuff getting very old at this point and wasting computer memory, but more importantly when you accuse me of this stuff you are breaking Wikipedia guidelines and I will have a very low threshold for calling you on it officially in a user conduct RFC.

To get to substance, you wrote: "His comments about Israeli academics seem pretty sincere to me, and your questioning of that sincerity is original research of the worst kind (i.e. it's not research at all but pure POV speculation that you engage in because you hate Cole for some reason)". I want to just deal with this one point now, because I don't want this to get lost in the shuffle. I AM NOT SAYING THAT COLE IS NOT SINCERLY ON THE SIDE OF THOSE ISRAELI ACADEMICS. I believe that he is 100% on the side of those academics. What I am saying, is that whether or not he is on the side of those academics has nothing to do with whether or not he feels that Likud politics are running the US. Is that part clear? Let me know. Elizmr 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is now, I suppose, but earlier comments about "having friends who are jews" or claims that he defended the Israelis in response to being called anti-semitic suggested to me that you did not take him at his word on this issue. Again, re-read my comments if you are confused about them. To make this clear once again: (1) Cole's statements on Israel are less then 10% (if even that) of his actual work, so they should not take up half this article, and (2) There is no evidence whatsoever of "antisemitism" by Cole. You want to mention that a few conservatives consider Cole antisemitic because he is critical of Likud policies, that is fine, but there is no reason to dwell on charges like that which are so obviously specious. Again, Cole is also critical of Syrian policy. Does that make him anti-Muslim? He is quite critical of American policy too; does that make him anti-Christian? How many times must this point be made? An article that amounts to name-calling based on specious evidence is simply not encyclopedic.--csloat 01:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Were the bolded comments realy necessary? As for any opinion regarding Likud, well, it's just an opinion. There seem to be valid reasons to believe that US foreign policy tilts toward Israel and frequently to the ideology of Likud, but assuming that Likud controls US foreign policy (as incoherent as it currently is) is likely hyperbole. Now, if something like that can be presented in an NPOV format as CSTAR notes, the article will improve substantially. •Jim62sch• 00:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, as I said above, I just addressed one of your points first, so we can discuss each one at a time because they are all important. Please let me know why Cole's defense of the Israeli academics has anything to do with the topic of antisemitism? I am not seeing your point on this. I hear you on the other stuff, but could we do one thing at a time?

Jim, I don't think the reality of US foreign policy and the extent of influence of Israeli politics is the issue here on the Cole page. Isn't how Cole frames this issue and Cole's commentator's analyses of cole on this topic the true issue? Elizmr 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That was the point I was trying to make, but I kind of got interupted while typing and never quite got there. Sorry about that. In any case, what I was trying to say was the there are understandable reasons for Cole to see things the way he does, although just because they are "understandable" they are not necessarily argreed upon by other, nor are the necessarily even correct. •Jim62sch• 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Because his defense of Israeli academics shows that he is not as one-dimensionally anti-Israel as the comments of some people here make it seem. Now it's your turn - can you please explain why Cole's comments about the American Likudniks has anything to do with the topic of antisemitism? I am not seeing your point on this.--csloat 03:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that he is not one-dimensionally anti-Israel. I think the article should make this clear. These are very complex, multilayered, and sensitive issues and should be treated in a NPOV way. As for your other question, are you seriously asking or was the question more rhetorical? Elizmr 03:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel like I should be asking you the same of that question. Yes I am seriously asking; nobody has yet made any coherent argument about what is antisemitic about complaining about Doug Feith? Bizarre allusions to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion don't cut it, sorry. And this nonsense does not belong on Wikipedia; it cheapens the entire project. It is also insulting because it trivializes real antisemitism.--csloat 08:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. I am willing to tease it out, but just wanted to make sure you wanted to hear it. Forgive me for being choppy--I don't have a huge amt of time now. Tell me what you know about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. (humor me, ok?) Elizmr 17:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WTF? I've never read the Protocols if that's what you mean, but I am well aware of what they are and what their significance is, and I am quite certain that Professor Cole neither endorses them as authentic nor believes in an international jewish conspiracy.-csloat 18:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You really should read it -- it is one of the worst, anti-semitic, pseudo-logical, laughable, dispepsic pieces of slop ever written, but it does provide an insight into the sheer stupidity of racists everywhere. In fact, it even manages to outdo Mein Kampf in terms of absolute ridiculousness. •Jim62sch• 19:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, with an endorsement like that, I'll put it on my list ;) But I am familiar with its contents, and I have read Mein Kampf and other racist tracks. But I'm not sure why Elizmr thinks it is important in the context of Cole.--csloat 20:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You are ahead of me, because I've not read Mein Kampf. Maybe you could just read the Wikipedia page on the Protocols--it probably has some quotes. The content is actually not what one might think it would be and it does get a bit relevant to all of this in some people's view (and they might or might not be morons, but at least it would be good to understand what their point is, right?). Any yeah, I don't know how you could resist after Jim's recommendation above. More tomorrow--I have to take my dogs out. Elizmr 01:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said I didn't understand their point. What I said was there is no connection between the Protocols and Dr. Cole. I stand by that point. I have not yet seen you nor anyone else even attempt to articulate the alleged connection.--csloat 01:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, I am really really trying to work with you on this; please try to work with me. We need to listen to each other to get through this article. As a start, even if you think it is a stupid idea, could you articulate for me what you think is the gist of the Protocols? Elizmr 14:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have a link to them if anyone wants it. (And one to Mein Kampf, Elizmr). (I was a PoliSci major, I had to read all that stuff). •Jim62sch• 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yale Position

A reputable source on Cole's Yale position that is not writen by a supporter or a critic is this piece in Yale Daily News. [43] I think that their presentation of the issue is balanced and notes his critics but does not give an excessive amount of coverage to them:

"Cole writes about contemporary politics on his blog, "Informed Comment," and has drawn criticism from conservatives for his opposition to the war in Iraq. But Frances Rosenbluth, a member of the search committee for the professorship, said the committee considered only his scholarly writing -- not his blog or his political views -- when they named him a finalist for the slot, which is sponsored by the Yale Center for International and Area Studies."

"Search committee chair Julia Adams and Rosenbluth both confirmed that Cole is a leading candidate in the search process, but Rosenbluth said he is not the only person being considered for the job. The committee was attracted to Cole because of the caliber of his scholarship, she said."

"'He's a historian who's written very subtle and insightful history of the Middle East,' Rosenbluth said."

[...]

"Michael Rubin '94 GRD '99, a Middle East scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said he is concerned that Cole's scholarship is not up to par for the Yale faculty. Rubin said he questions how Cole could argue -- as he has done on his blog and in articles for the online magazine Salon -- that the war in Iraq is failing without visiting that country."

"Rubin said he thinks commentators and scholars who have done research in Iraq tend to have more nuanced views of the war, whether or not they support it."

"'I would argue that Yale should make a distinction between scholarship and blogging,' Rubin said."

"Cole's academic publications include books on Iran, Shia Islam and the Baha'i faith. He is currently the associate chair of the history department at the University of Michigan, where he teaches courses on modern Middle East history and Islam in global politics."

--Ben Houston 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Which leads to another issue - how much space should be devoted to this issue? Guettarda 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My view--none. I think we should focus on more core topics. Any supportive or critical thing an writer might have said in reference to his suitability for this position I think is better said elsewhere in the article. I think there are others who feel strongly that it should be in, however. elizmr 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is warrented because it is a very concrete endorsement of his scholarly creditials and it has been mentioned in the WSJ and by many of Cole's critics. --Ben Houston 22:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)