Talk:Juan Cole

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Views and controversies

When merging stuff from the old V&C page, please do not attempt one-sided obvious POV statements of debates. Isarig moved a Jew-baiting quote from Karsh to this page without also moving the specific response Cole published to that ridiculous and incendiary claim. (The claim is, as Cole pointed out, "beneath contempt"). Isarig is well aware that the debate had two sides yet he only puts one side of the debate on the page - I think that if we're going to be merging incendiary claims that seem to violate BLP, we cannot censor the responses to those claims. This piece should not be turned into a character assassination, and quotes comparing Cole to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion do just that. If they are going to be included I will insist that responses to them be included. The other Isarig edit I changed had a link to something Cole published on his blog in 2003 -- it is unclear why Isarig would have included that link without including Cole's followup which specifically explained in 2005 what Cole meant. It seems to be just a way to try to make Cole look bad, though I won't speculate on Isarig's motives.

Also, I'd like to ask all editors to consider using edit summaries when making significant and controversial changes to this page. Thanks to all.csloat 21:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't even bother

...adding anything critical of Cole to this page. It will be reverted according to British standards for Libel. Please see Libel tourism to get a sense of this. Elizmr 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on British libel law, but I don't think that criticism of academic work by other academics would fall under it. I'm also not sure Wikipedia BLP policies require British libel laws as their model. But I do think that obvious name-calling and scurrilous remarks is covered under BLP. BLP also warns that biographies must be "written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." Specifically, it goes on:

Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

I feel this is certainly the case with regard to the Campus Watch crowd cited here as if they were in the mainstream of Middle East studies, when nothing could be further from the truth. Finally, BLP reminds us that not everything someone says about someone in a published source is encyclopedic. Just because editors who are anti-Cole can go digging and find a quote from a published journal that says something negative about Cole does not mean it should be published here.--csloat 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about controversies

First, claims such as "Cole is a jewbaiter," besides being ridiculously false and more than a bit hysterical, do not belong in talk or in edit summaries.

• That I agree with.

Second, the material Isarig keeps putting back in was removed specifically because it violates BLP. I made the case about this material above and in my edit summaries. The term "jew-baiting" more accurately applies to the quotes that Isarig keeps putting in, which are not, as he incorrectly states, from Cole, but rather from third parties who are attacking Cole. These quotes make false statements and illogical leaps -- specifically forbidden in WP:BLP -- in order to claim that Cole's blog comments are somehow like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This is a scurrilous attack on Cole, one that he has responded to.

Third, if this scurrilous personal attack on Cole's character is to be included, so should Cole's response be included. I specifically asked above that editors not put stuff on this page in a one-sided manner, yet that is what Isarig appears to be doing. Cole has specifically responded to these charges. The response is on the V&C history page. Why would an editor pretend to be "merging" from that page, yet only include one side of the debate?

Fourth, Isarig put in other disputed content --specifically, the 2003 quote from Cole's blog that has been superceded by his comments in 2005. The only reason for making this particular edit as Isarig is doing would be to create confusion about Cole's position on Iraq, which he has been very clear about. I feel this is an invalid way of using a biography page to push a POV.

Fifth, I'd like to remind Isarig and others who want to violate BLP that enforcing the BLP is an exception to the three-revert rule. I mention this because Isarig has edit warred in the past. He is generally careful to make his fourth revert at 24 hours and five minutes or so in order to avoid 3RR blocking himself, but he is quick to report any user who goes over the three reverts. He has also been liberal about what he interprets as a revert when filing such reports. Therefore I want it to be clear that if I do go over the 3RR in reverting Isarig's edits, it is only in order to enforce BLP; such reverts are a specific exception to the rule. That said, I am going to refrain from enforcing BLP by reverting at this time, because I'd first like to hear what other editors have to say about the comments above. Thanks, and have a nice day.--csloat 01:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The people you call the "Campus Watch crowd" are notable and present an alternate view which deserves to be aired by WP:NPOV; it is not quite fair to disparage them and call them insignicant. What you Sloat feel is libelous and scurrilous and should be out, Isarig and I feel is fair criticism which, neutrally stated, should be able to be in the article. We have an honest difference of opinion on this. Based on past experience,you, Sloat, pretty much guard the article against anything you disagree with on Cole staying in, and call in admins who take your pov when you get frustrated. You raise BLP to defend your point of view, we on the other hand feel we are not violating BLP when we put in some criticism which we feel is fair and neutrally stated. I raised the British libel standards issue to suggest that culturally you, Sloat, a British person, and I, Elizmr, an American probably have different views about what constitutes libel and freedom of speech based on the legal systems which are normative for us and our experience affects how we edit. Elizmr 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also add, csloat, that accusing others of edit-warring is a pot-kettle-black situation and that there is a difference of opinion on what violates WP:BLP here. You aren't exempt from 3RR. Armon 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

First, to Armon, if you are going to put the jew-baiting stuff back in, after it was reverted again, don't hide it in another edit ("splitting V&C"). If you cannot stand behind your edits you shouldn't be making them. Second, I continue to believe this section is a severe violation of WP:BLP and must be removed. Third, Armon, if you are going to put that junk in here, you must include Cole's response. Not doing so is a clear violation of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

• You reverted the "jew-baiting stuff" against consensus (not that I'm suggesting there is one, but you're edit-warring over content and I'm not the only one who disagrees with you). Look back and you'll see that I've pretty much always advocated his views and the criticism be separate. Conflating them is less clear and actually makes it look as though everything the guy writes is controversial when it clearly is not. I didn't "hide" anything, and even if I wanted to, it's impossible on a Wiki. Finally, I don't know what you're talking about re: including Cole's response. I wrote Cole dismisses such claims as a misuse of the charge as a means of stifling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. which Lee Hunter has copy-edited to Cole says the allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. (OK, it was tortured). If this isn't a fair summary of his response, then what is? Given the length of your responses here, it appears to be against your nature, but please keep in mind we're going for concision. Armon 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Armon, you put stuff in from the old V/C page that was disputed here with a misleading edit summary, and you excluded Cole's specific quoted response - which was on the V/C page - to the scurrilous attacks. I said you "hid" it because your summary mentioned nothing about putting in the disputed material. The presumption is against such stuff in the article until you make an argument for it. Now you are trying to claim that keeping it in has presumption, yet you haven't made an argument in favor of it (nor responded to the arguments against it). It stays out until it is justified by consensus, or until a ruling regarding BLP issues comes from an admin.csloat 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr --first, if Cole made clearly anti-semitic comments (such as comments occasionally made by Louis Farrakhan or David Duke), I would agree with you. But he has not. The claim that someone is an antisemite is serious business; it is not a charge to be thrown around lightly. To base such a claim on a supposed analogy between a claim about members of the Bush administration and claims made in the Protocols of Elders of Zion is, as Cole rightly pointed out, "beneath contempt." It is in fact a scurrilous attack. Imagine if I were to pick up various sentences uttered by Elizmr, Isarig, or Armon, string them together and compare them to something I read in Mein Kampf in order to attack your credibility. I think such attacks would rightfully earn me a WP:ANI over NPA violations. This charge is no different, particularly when Cole has explicitly responded to it, but you censor his response. Even without his specific response, it is obvious from his comments about Mel Gibson that he does not hold the position being attributed to him by the Campus Watch crowd. So it seems like a poor attempt at slander to simply put that stuff in there and ignore all the counter-evidence against this scurrilous claim.

• Sloat, pleaes show me where I "censored" Cole. Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't; Armon and Isarid did, and you are supporting those edits. To insert the (absurd) criticism without the response is tantamount to censorship.-csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Armon, Isarig and I are not working together as part of some Zionist conspiracy to smear Cole. Please stick to the facts and don't say I "censored" Cole if I didn't. I edit following WP:NPOV and support having his reply in the piece. I've been very clear about what I do want in the piece. Elizmr 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of conspiracy. If you support having Cole's reply in the piece, all you have to do is say so -- I did not see that above, but I did see you support the reversions made by Armon and Isarig.csloat 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Second, your claim that this claim could be "neutrally stated" is false. How does one state neutrally charges of anti-semitism? Again, if the charges were based on actual comments against [anti] the Jews, I would not object, but such charges as these cannot be neutrally stated. They depend on POV logical leaps, and they are stated in the article as if they were accurate. What's more, there was no attempt by Isarig or Armon - who put them in - to state them in a neutral manner. Both put them in as statements of fact and without citing Cole's direct response, or mentioning the other evidence that clearly shows that these charges do not apply to Cole. I can't explain why, but it appears to me that you and Isarig and Armon want to believe that Cole is antisemitic. That is your right, but it should not pollute Cole's encyclopedia biography, even if you can find published sources to back it up. I also just don't understand why you cannot be open-minded with regard to Cole's response, or even with regard to Cole's other statements about antisemitism. You may not think the Gibson quote belongs in the article, but surely you can read that quote and see that it contradicts the view promulgated by Karsh and company. Here it is again: "'Jews' did not cause the Iraq War. George W. Bush caused the Iraq War. He had Gentile advisers who wanted him to go for it. He had a handful of Jewish advisers who wanted him to go for it. But he is the president. It was his decision. And the American Jewish community was distinctly lukewarm about the whole idea, and very divided."[1] For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone could read this quote and still believe that Cole's rants about "Likudniks" are equivalent to attacks on all Jews. It boggles the mind.

Cole is not an antisemite who attacks all Jews. That is clearly not true. The article should include all of the warm fuzzy things he has said about Jews and Israel. But it should also include this: "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings." [19]. " Why do you think I am not being open minded? Elizmr 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Did I ever say Cole was an antisemite? No, I wanted to include critics who state that he buys into and supports and uses antisemetic-type conspiracy theories to discredit others. There's a difference there. This should be in the article right next to Cole's pro-Israel pro-Jew remarks. I don't see why this could not be stated neutrally. Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference is miniscule -- the point is, it's still a scurrilous attack. If you think Cole's pro-Israel remarks should be included, why haven't you included them? You haven't showed why we should include the voices of others whining that he is an antisemite.-csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What remarks do think are missing? Currently the Views section includes the following: However, despite his criticisms of Israeli policy, he has publicly opposed the movement in Britain to boycott Israeli academics.[6] He has also called Hizbollah attacks on Israel "war crimes", and stated that "[Israel has] every right to defend itself against Nasrallah and his mad bombers" while voicing disapproval for the "wholesale indiscriminate destruction and slaughter in which the Israelis have been engaged against the Lebanese in general." Armon 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See above; Cole has specifically responded to Karsh's argument which is beneath contempt. The stuff in the Views section is presented as totally separate from the antisemitism junk, it is not presented as a response to that as you are aware.csloat 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Third, I object to this statement: "Based on past experience,you, Sloat, pretty much guard the article against anything you disagree with on Cole staying in, and call in admins who take your pov when you get frustrated." That's false. I have actually put up with a lot of personal attacks against me in the months we've been arguing about this. Sometimes vicious ones. I have also let many other violations of policy go. I finally posted a note at WP:BLP just to clarify the rules governing the V&C page. I did not ask anyone to delete it nor was I "calling in admins." I simply asked for clarification, but an admin did the appropriate thing on his own (and it is up to him, not me, to defend his actions if they need defending). I am not "guarding" this article. As you saw above, I left the tendentious garbage in the article even though I could have reverted it; I am doing the same now. I am making the argument for reverting it, but giving you a chance to argue for keeping it. It is telling that not one of you has yet made a coherent argument against the position I've taken on this, however, except to state that you have another opinion. Again, I think WP:BLP is pretty clear on this issue, and I am sure admins will agree if they get around to looking at this. But please do not attack me as some kind of guard dog for this page; if I am guilty of anything, it is of spending way too much time explaining these things carefully and considering the arguments on all sides of this.

• OK, fine, if you're not guarding the page then show us by your actions. I similarly made the comment based on your actions. I'm not into arguing with you on this. Show us. Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have; see above. If you're conceding the arguments about it, the disputed material will be removed. For the moment I have not.-csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourth, you state "You raise BLP to defend your point of view, we on the other hand feel we are not violating BLP when we put in some criticism which we feel is fair and neutrally stated." I raise BLP when it seems to be clearly violated, as it is here. It is not a smokescreen, which is what I think you are implying. I do not think claiming that Cole sounds like the Protocols of Zion is or can be a "neutrally stated" position.

• Then we should not use those words (I'm not actually sure we did use those words). We should work on NPOV language for anything you object to rather than censoring it. My opinion. You don't agree. Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, then we agree the quote and discussion of Cole beinglike the Protocols of Zion can be removed.--csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• No. It IS neutral to quote Karsh directly . The non-neutrality comes with the way the quote is PRESENTED. If we said something like, EK, the eminent middle east expert, expresses the obvious truth when he says, "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings," THAT would be non-neutrally stated. If we said, EK, the fringe neo-con right wing racist, in one of his typical biased rants states that, "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings," THAT would be non-neutral langage. The quote itself can be presented neutrally. Elizmr 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifth, you say "I raised the British libel standards issue to suggest that culturally you, Sloat, a British person, and I, Elizmr, an American probably have different views about what constitutes libel and freedom of speech based on the legal systems which are normative for us and our experience affects how we edit." A couple of things here. First, it seems pretty culturally essentialist to assume that a Brit would not understand the way an American might edit just because their legal systems are different. Second, I have not been raising libel concerns here at all, though it is a fair concern. I specifically noted above when you raised the british libel thing that I was concerned with BLP, not British libel laws. Third, and more importantly, this argument is weak because I live in southern California. I was born and raised in the States, I am an American citizen, I consider myself fiercely patriotic, and I have been to the UK only once in my life for about two weeks. I had a good time there and enjoyed the people; I found the weather dreadful and the food even worse. I suppose you could make the case that the southland isn't really the US, but it is hardly Great Britain (despite an unhealthy concentration of British pubs) :)... I was surprised to read this; I thought it was clear when I commented on the Libel shopping page about my personal experiences that I am an American who was threatened with a lawsuit in the UK.

• OK, I stand corrected. I did read your thing on the libel tourism page, but it wasn't clear you weren't a brit from it (certainly brits can be sued in their own courts for libel?). I thought there was something about you attending British universities somewhere, but of course an American can do this. And the "commarder" name probably threw me off too. Anyway, I don't consider being a Brit an insult at all, but sorry for the mistake. Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The "tourism" part implies that someone non-british is involved in the lawsuit. Consider that you are equally mistaken on the BLP issue.csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, I actually teach a course on "Freedom of Speech in the US" at a University here. I teach several different courses; this one I have been teaching on and off for almost a decade now, so I am quite familiar with libel law here in the US. I am familiar with all of the relevant Supreme Court decisions on the topic, and I've even read some of the opinions pretty carefully. I am far more familiar with "what constitutes libel and freedom of speech" in the US legal system than I am with the British (though as I said I have some familiarity with the British system too, and, like you, I vastly prefer the American). So I don't think you can pin this on my Britishness ;)

• Great, so let us have some freedom of speech here on this page. How 'bout it???? Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a public blog. There is free speech on this page. But stuff that is not relevant or violates wikipedia rules does not belong on it.-csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, folks, I know we have had some heated arguments on all these issues. But I also think I have been doing more than a reasonable job of listening to the other side and taking the arguments there seriously. I don't feel like the other side has been forthcoming at all on these issues. I am sick of fighting about this stuff - as I have said before, I'm not even that into Cole! But this anti-semitism thing rubs me the wrong way. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. If you want to call Cole names, do it on your blog. The fact that you can find an article in New Republic to back you up doesn't make the argument less scurrilous or less a violation of WP:BLP. Not everything printed in a WP:RS must be duplicated here on an encyclopedia.--csloat 08:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, we know how you feel about the antisemitism thing. We are not calling him an "antisemite" but saying he uses an arguing style that antisemites have used. You know logic. That doesn't make him an antisemite. Isn't there any way we can say this on the page without you deleting it? It is important to some of us and we are reasonable fair-minded people too. Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You write "we are not calling him an "antisemite" but saying he uses an arguing style that antisemites have used." That's one of the most weaselly assertions that I've ever seen in WP (which is saying something). It's especially twisted since what we're really talking about is Cole's criticism of senior government officials who have actually played a very visible and active role in the government of another country to the detriment of their own. Cole says that's dual loyalty. Rather than debate the merits of his argument, a few people (also by coincidence with close ties to this other country) have labelled him as antisemitic. It doesn't matter whether the information is important to you. This article is not about you. The only question is whether the information is important to understanding Cole and one of the principles of BLP is that articles should not give undue attention to fringe, minority or partisan viewpoints. --Lee Hunter 19:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Cole's critics are "fringe, minority, or partisan" is only your opinion, Lee. Why don't we just allow them to be quoted on the page? Elizmr 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not just Lee's opinion, it is easily verified. These quotes do not appear in any serious studies of the Middle East that Cole has been involved with. There are no academic discussions of Cole's arguments that would be caught dead citing these quotes. We shouldn't quote them on the page because they are non-notable, scurrilous attacks, and they are blatant violations of WP:BLP.csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. We're reporting his critic's charges, we're not making any judgment about their veracity. Anything else, either sanitizing, or mudslinging on our part, is a violation of NPOV. This is the point of division between the two sides of the argument here. Armon 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. I wrote, "We shouldn't quote them on the page because they are non-notable, scurrilous attacks, and they are blatant violations of WP:BLP". The fact that they are quotes from someone else is not something I am denying. Should we start a section on the George Bush page entitled "Demonic Controversy" and quote Hugo Chavez as if there were a legitimate dispute about whether Bush is actually the devil? Not every quote from every notable figure is encyclopedic. This section is not because it is specifically enjoined in BLP.csloat 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

These quotes mainly refer to Cole's extraacademic blog type work. Why would someone go to discuss in a peer reviewed academic source? YOu can repeat yourself all you want, but it doesn't make what you say true. Elizmr 20:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it applies to his extra-academic work is irrelevant. They are still vicious personal attacks by a tiny group of people with a vested interest in the institutions and governments that Cole criticizes. Moreover the attacks are not based on any factual information but are only suppositions about Cole's motivations. In other words, if Cole criticizes a government official who happens to be Jewish he must be anti-semitic. Oddly the converse is NOT true. If he speaks positively of a Jew he's still anti-semitic. If he criticizes a government official who happens to be Christian he's not anti-Christian. --Lee Hunter 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant to Sloats comment above. Could we please discuss each intended quote on it's own mertis here rather than just dismiss and sideline anyone who says anything bad about Cole? Elizmr 20:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not dismissing "anyone who says anything bad about Cole." We're dismissing specific claims made by people with an agenda and based on false innuendo about what they claim Cole must be thinking. The disputed material is here:

Cole's claims that certain US government officials hold dual loyalties to Israeli interests has been attacked as an "anti-semitic conspiracy theory" and an example of new antisemitism.[17] [18] Efraim Karsh, professor and Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, writes; "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings." [19]

The claims here, we have shown, are bogus. You have ignored most of the arguments about this above. This debate is a wash.--csloat 21:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, My opinion is that the second quote is notable made by a notable person and should be in the article. Elizmr 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that it matters to this conversation but I find Karsh's article to be a fascinating exercise in propaganda. For example he quotes Cole regarding a Zionist cabal using "sneaky methods of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of intelligence". The quote is real, but if you read the quote in context [2] you'll see that Cole was very explicitly and painstakingly referring to the Neocons in general and Dick Cheney in particular. Disinformation indeed. Later in the same article, Karsh makes the rather astonishing suggestion that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to Israel because "During Saddam's 25 years in power, Iraq killed not a single Israeli." I guess firing Scud missiles at Israel, financing the Intifada etc doesn't count. Karsh's article is cleverly written but doesn't amount to anything more than collection of half-truths, innuendo and misplaced facts. --Lee Hunter 22:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Karsh may be "notable" in some senses, but not for his illogical criticism of Cole. Again, Elizmr, you've ignored most of the arguments made on this topic and fallen back on a weak assertion. I think it's appropriate to make the change to the article now, since nobody has made a substantive argument defending the false innuendo. csloat 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT, and re-read WP:NOR. You are performing analysis regarding the veracity and nature of the criticisms, and/or the agendas of the critics. This is forbidden by core policies on WP. You need to understand that however strongly you hold your opinion, it's not relevant. Armon 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR says "The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research." --Lee Hunter 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but who's the tiny minority in this case? Jews? Right-wingers? Neocons? Likudniks? Jews in total (left or right) are a tiny minority of the world's population, but I don't think that was what was meant by the policy. I don't think the other's POVs was what was meant either. The criticisms come from his ideological opponents, not flat-earthers. Armon 02:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Armon, that's ridiculous. Do you seriously believe that all Jews think Cole is antisemitic? Most of us have never even heard of him. The tiny minority here is Karsh, Joffe and Kramer. The latter two are associated with Campus Watch and MEQ and have an open agenda opposing MESA (the main professional organization for Middle East Studies, which Cole presides over). This is not my POV - they have gone as far as sponsoring proposed legislation in Congress attacking Middle East studies departments! I haven't researched Karsh's view on the proposed legislation, but his opposition to Cole is more than just the disagreement of a fellow academic; he has launched a scurrilous personal attack on him based on whatever offended him about Cole's blog. But my point is that Karsh and friends are in a tiny minority; their opinion about Cole's alleged antisemitism is a fringe view, and it is one that is vehemently rejected by Cole himself. Again, I think that to make the claim that someone is "secretly" antisemitic is both nonencyclopedic and totally offensive.csloat 10:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. I never presumed to know what all Jews think. However, given his attacks on Zionism, Israel, and "The Lobby", it wouldn't entirely surprise me if, in general, Jews don't share your enthusiasm for Cole. There's also plenty of similar opinion which doesn't meet RS. That we don't present it here doesn't mean it doesn't exist but it does mean it's not just these 3 guys. Armon 13:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not putting this analysis in Wikipedia, so your references are irrelevant. This analysis shows why the passage you are so vehemently fighting for should not be in Wikipedia. The odd thing is, you have not yet suggested a single reason why it should be here. Until you do, there isn't even a debate here. This isn't about my opinion at all and it never has been. This is about scurrilous and illogical attacks on a scholar's character being inserted into his biography.csloat 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's about notable criticisms. Your rationale for removing them is OR. Armon 02:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No; there is no evidence whatsoever these claims are "notable" other than your insistence. An article in the New Republic is not enough to establish notability. And you are totally misinterpreting NOR, which governs what may be put in the article, not what an editor may say in talk. And these claims are not even rightly "criticisms"! They are claims about what the authors think Cole is secretly thinking. It's just completely bogus all around.csloat 10:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This does appear to be a common line of criticism, but it may be best—it would at least minimize disputes here—to stick to secondary sources that describe the controversy, rather than articles and web posts that are engaged in the conversation. Even if it is not a major piece, there must be secondary sources on this issue and a minor summary in such a source would give a good baseline and grounding for the article here. —Centrx→talk • 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not a common line of criticism; the only reason it appears that way is because some wikipedia editors are insisting loudly that it is. That's not enough. If a notable third party source cannot be found describing the controversy as a controversy, it just isn't a notable controversy, no matter how many times a wikipedia editor insists that it is.csloat 10:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you give us some examples of what you mean? The problem, from what I've read and what's in evidence here, is that Cole is a polarizing figure so getting a source which isn't taking "sides" is a bit of a problem. Armon 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find one on Juan Cole, but examples of the sort of quality reporting that warrant being sources in encyclopedia articles can be found at [3] and [4]. Credible sources do write about things that happen on blogs, and there are tons of these secondary sources. If none of them have written anything on an issue, then you need to question whether it warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia, or whether a properly verifiable article can be written on the issue, but I think reliable sources can be found on this issue, even if it something like "According to Juan Cole, who has been criticized for his views on Israel" (something a bit more specific), that's legitimate, but it does not give license to then cite a whole narrative of blog posts. Also, think longer term. Non-neutral non-well-sourced statements are not going to be found in the article in 6 months time, even if one were to have free rein over the article over the next week. —Centrx→talk • 04:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK but the content csloat objects to comes from the New Republic, WSJ, MEQ, and ironically, The NY Sun. These are all secondary sources even if they are "anti-Cole". There is also another secondary source, sympathetic to Cole, which discusses the same criticisms. The problem is not that the sources are "bad", it's that he doesn't want it reported, period. Armon 05:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Those may be appropriate, but beware that it is the New Republic magazine and not a blog on the New Republic website. As for the ones today, "Front Page Magazine.com" does not look to be even close to a reliable source, and the "Middle East Quarterly" may or may not be reliable, but that it is published by an organization that "seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East.", I doubt it; it's certainly not Foreign Affairs or Political Science Quarterly. —Centrx→talk • 05:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

MEQ is extremely partisan and its editorial board - particularly Kramer and Pipes - have an open agenda of attacking the mainstream of Middle East Studies for being not pro-Likud enough. Armon's claim that I don't want this reported period is false; I just don't want a soapbox given to illogical views about what Cole secretly thinks when Cole explicitly states the opposite point. Even when such views are published in partisan rags like Frontpage or not-quite-as-partisan rags like TNR. I just don't think a big deal needs to be made of this anti-semite thing. Indicate that Cole's views on Israel or on US foreign policy are controversial among a certain crowd and leave it at that. I don't see the need or rationale for Karsh grandstanding about the Protocols of Zion. I find it completely offensive as it makes a mockery of real antisemitism.--csloat 07:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

MEQ, Kramer, Pipes, etc. are no more partisan than Cole himself. That you find Karsh "offensive" is entirely your prerogative, but I'm amazed that a person who claims to teach a "free-speech" course can't abide letting the reader make up their own mind regarding a notable criticism, from a notable critic, in a RS. "Cole's views on Israel or on US foreign policy are controversial among a certain crowd", great, how about "...controversial among evil fascist rightards who can't think logically"? Even better! Armon 11:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is it's faulty logic and it's not encyclopedic. You haven't established its notability anywhere. Not once. I have no desire to engage your hysterics on the issue -- you're the one talking about evil rightards, not me. If you didn't personally attack me you might get along with me better.csloat 12:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK struck out. The shot about your job wasn't cool. 13:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry. Armon 00:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

MEQ is extremely well referenced and there is nothing non-notable about it. They are part of the dialog. There is more than one valid POV on the middle east. Elizmr 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't mean this as a personal attack, Sloat, but honestly I was also quite suprised to find out that you are interested in the freedom of speech. It seems quite ironic. I know that you are argue that the criticizers are non-notable, the only three people in the world think what they think, are mouthpieces for "likud" party policics (which seems to be the code word for anyone who thinks Israel has a right to continue to exist as a Jewish state), etc. But why not loosen up and let a few critical things be on the page? What difference does it make? I just don't get it. Elizmr 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

MEQ is blatantly partisan and represents a fringe view of "scholars" who have an open agenda of attacking Middle Eastern Studies. I'm not saying it is inherently non-notable, but it is not the same sort of publication as, say, the Canadian Journal of History, to take a totally random example. Claims and articles from MEQ should be treated with scrutiny as claims from other sources; they do not get to bypass WP:BLP just because they are in a journal that some people think is scholarly. As I have said before, not everything published should also be published in an encyclopedia. I never said there was only one valid POV on the middle east, so I assume your comment there was not directed at anything I said. By the way, the discussion has gotten away from the antisemitism stuff, so I'm assuming Elizmr and Armon have accepted the arguments against that material. It's clear that the debate is a wash, and that they have forwarded no arguments defending those quotes, so it is probably time for the admin to remove that paragraph. If I am incorrect about that, it would be nice if Armon and/or Elizmr would address the arguments above rather than focusing on side issues like my view of freedom or the validity of scholarship in MEQ.

As for your second claim, it may not be meant as a personal attack, but it is quite absurd. Being interested in "the freedom of speech," as you put it, does not mean I am supportive of anything possible being said in any forum whatsoever. I am not in favor of the "free speech" of painting swastikas on synagogues, for example. I think WP:BLP specifically enjoins fringe attacks on subjects of biographies, and that's exactly what we have here. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or public park. I do not object to you posting whatever scurrilous attack on Cole you want to post to your blog, or sending a letter to the editor, or whatever. But it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. That is not a free speech issue. Your comment about the meaning of "likudnik" is both irrelevant and illogical. "Likudnik" is not a code word for anything; it is a word for someone with a devotion to the policies of the Likud party. No reason to speak in "code"; its meaning is out in the open.

As for your final question, "why not loosen up and let a few critical things be on the page?" I'm not sure who that's directed at. There are already critical things on the page and I'm not objecting to "a few critical things." I'm objecting to incendiary charges of racism that are non-notable and violate WP:BLP. I have no objection to valid criticism from reliable sources. My objection is to a bogus and ill supported claim about what Karsh thinks Cole is really thinking even though Cole says the opposite.--csloat 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like the following to stay in the article, as I have said before:

Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings." [19]. I think this is an important crit of Cole and is made in a good source by a recognized academic. No one called Cole a racist. This is a much more nuanced point. Elizmr 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Then it is incumbent upon you to respond to the reasons why this quote violates BLP, is not notable, is illogical, and is in no way an "important" criticism of Cole. You're just repeating yourself.--csloat 02:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This quote does not violate BLP. You seem to be under the false impression that every negative comment about an individual violates BLP, but that is not the case. As WP:BLP tells us: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. This particular allegation meets all the requirements - it was notable (notable enough for Cole to respond to it, and for a mainstream publication to publish it), it is relevant , and it is well documented. Whether or not the allegation is "logical" is something that we as editors are not allowed to touch - that would be OR. You are welcome to your opinion that this notable criticism of Cole is in no way improtant, but realize that this is just your opinion, and other editors disagree . Isarig 02:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be under the false impression that I am against any critical quote. I am against this quote (and statement of the issue as one that is factual), I am not against any criticism. It would be as if we treated seriously the claim that Bush is the devil. Logic is an issue in BLP as you are aware; BLP specifically cautions against "positive or negative claims that rely on association," for example. This is not my opinion; it is a fact. Again, you have not established notability; the fact that Cole responded to it does not inherently make it notable. Shall we include that Cole responded to Lewis' view of 18th century Arab nationalism? This is not a valid viewpoint about which there is honest disagreement; this is speculation about what is in Cole's head by someone who has no way of knowing that. It's not encyclopedic; it is libelous, and it is a violation of BLP.--csloat 05:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If I a under that impression, it is because you have consistently opposed any criticism of Cole. The article does state as fact that Cole is an anti-Semite. What is stated is that he has been accused of echoing antisemitic canards by notable academics - and that is factual - he has been so accused, and that accusation was printed in a mainstream, reliable source. That is enough to make the claim acceptable without violating BLP. The accusation does not rely on association- it does not claim Cole is an because his friends are antisemitic - it make the claim that his writings directly echo common antisemitic canards. As for notability- I repeat: This was a claim made by a notable academic, in a WP:RS, which was subsequently reprinted in many other outlets, and became prominent enough for Cole to publicly address on his blog and in other reliable sources. The onus is on you to show why it is not notable, and to meet that burden, you need to do more that assert that to be the case. By th esame token, if you wnat to add that Cole's response to Lewis in Notable, I won't object. Isarig 05:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The onus is actually on you to show that this scurrilous attack is notable. A third-party commentator from something like the Chronicle or the NYT discussing the allegedly notable dispute between Cole and Karsh in a neutral manner would suit me fine. I'm sick of arguing the point -- find that sort of source to quote and I won't object. Otherwise you are taking a ridiculous charge about what Cole is "really thinking" from someone who has no way of knowing it and elevating it to the status of encyclopedic content. It's as libelous as your claim that Cole is a "jewbaiter."--csloat 06:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We have shown it to be notable. If you're sick of it, then stop being intransigent. Repeating yourself and gatekeeping for what, 6 months, is going nowhere. There are two fundamental ways of biasing and article, via inclusion, or exclusion. Whether you intend to or not, you are attempting to bias it by the latter means. You have failed to show that the source is not a RS, that Karsh is non-notable, or that the criticism itself is. Wikilawyering about BLP, when it clearly meets the criteria of what's allowed, hasn't worked either. The only valid points I'm interested in, are only those which insure that it is presented in an agnostic, NPOV, manner. Armon 13:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agnostic and NPOV sounds great to me. Your John Fund opinion piece is neither. Stop personally attacking me, Armon, it has gone beyond abusive.--csloat 20:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. Armon 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's bogus. If there was a legitimate debate on this issue, some third party would have commented. We have third parties commenting on far more polarizing figures (e.g. Bush and Chavez) in a dispassionate manner. You're making excuses in order to turn this into a smear piece.-csloat 23:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sloat--You are making up conditions that don't exist for inclusion of something in Wikipedia. You said somewhere above that criticisms of Cole's non-academic bloggery had to come from peer reviewed academic literature, and now you say that there has to be third party criticism of any criticism we include in the article. This is all complete b*llsh*t. I want to include this sentence: "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings." This sentence does not break any Wikipedia policy and is not racist. It is a fair criticism of Cole's extraacademic work made by a prominent academic. It is not accusing him of racism. Please stand down stop censoring this sentence out of Wikipedia. Elizmr 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of censorship and there is no need to curse at me. You are incorrect about making up conditions. Wikipedia shouldn't be publishing non-notable scurrilous attacks like this one. If no neutral third party has commented on it before ever, why should Wikipedia be the first?csloat 00:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Views section

We need to merge and/or add more content here. So let's list his notable views here so we can agree on what is and isn't. Armon 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1. On al-Qaeda's "Doomsday Document"? -from old V&C page, not mentioned here yet Armon
2. On Islam and terrorism? --from old V&C page, also not mentioned Armon

Controversies and criticism section

Same here for this section. Let's discuss what to add from the old V&C page. Armon 01:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

^{I've refactored this section for clarity -hope no one objects. Armon 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)}

Proposed inclusions, please add more- (other than the antisemitism stuff, see above):

• Yale appointment: See hereArmon

There is already enough mentioned about the Yale thing on this page.--csloat 07:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why am not surprised that's your position? There's no mention of the storm of controversy surrounding his Yale appointment. Armon 10:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised you have a snarky comment about my straightforward statement on this issue? There is in fact a mention of it: "In 2006 Cole was nominated to teach at Yale University and was approved by Yale's sociology and history departments; however, the senior appointments committee overruled the nomination." With a link to this article, which mentions the alleged "storm of controversy" if anybody really cares about what goes on at faculty meetings. Honestly, Armon, this is already old news; it certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia biographies are going to get pretty lengthy if we need to go into long analyses of jobs that the subject of the biography didn't get. If you're going to open up this can of worms any further than this, as you know, you have an uphill battle to go that will result in a very long entry on the ridiculous topic of "Yale considered offering Cole a job that he did not seek and then they chose not to offer it to him."--csloat 10:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not every potential job someone is up for creates enough controversy to become the subject of a round table discussion at the The Chronicle of Higher Education. I also take a dim view of your threats to disrupt the article. Armon 11:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to including a link to the Chronicle instead of the Jewish Week article. I take a dim view of your making stuff up. I never threatened anything. If you can't discuss this in good faith, I'd prefer not to. Good day.csloat 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did the Commodore "threat[en] to disrupt the article"? I think the article already contains a pretty good synopsis of the criticisms of Cole. Indeed, there is far more critical information than can be found in other articles about pundits with controversial views (e.g., there is no "criticism and controversy" section in Charles Krauthammer's article). Wachholder0 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Given his past behavior here, I took his "can of worms" sentence as a not-so-veiled threat to filibuster, gatekeep, editwar, etc. Armon 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

though there is the counter-example of the virulent criticism that appears on Christopher Hitchens page. Admittedly, he is more of a journalist-provocateur than a serious academic, as JRC is. Wachholder0 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The nature of Cole's blog, where 99.9% of the controversies stem from, can't properly be called "seriously academic". Armon 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A valid point. I think he still tries to maintain a (slightly) less polemic tone than Hitchens. Wachholder0 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference is Hitchens is not an intellectual or academic; he is a pundit seeking media attention. Cole arguably seeks such attention as well, but as an academic commentator, not as a star or center of controversy in his own right.-csloat 06:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hitchens came in as #5 on the The Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals list. Your opinion is not a RS. Armon 12:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Did someone delete my response to this? To reiterate, this is what Foreign Policy stated about its own poll: "The poll was in one sense a victim of its own success. Word spread around the Internet very quickly, and at least three of our top 20 (Chomsky, Hitchens and Abdolkarim Soroush), or their acolytes, decided to draw attention to their presence on the list by using their personal Web sites to link to Prospect’s voting page. In Hitchens’s and Soroush’s case, the votes then started to flood in." So, I will concede that Hitchens' blog was popular enough for him to skew the poll results on this issue, but that does not make him a scholar. Where did he get his PhD? What faculty positions has he held? What scholarly journals has he published in? Your citation proves my point - Hitchens is a pundit who seeks to be a center of attention, not an intellectual in the scholarly sense. He is no match for most of the other public intellectuals on that list, and he is certainly not the type of intellectual Cole is.-csloat 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean the type that didn't even make the list they voted from? Maybe someday -after all, he's got a PhD! Armon 16:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean the type capable of doing sustained and serious research. Not the kind who doesn't even know what that is. Please stop mocking me Armon, it is really annoying.-csloat 16:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just wanted to make sure I understood you because apparently I do that a lot. So "The difference is Hitchens is not an intellectual or academic" means he's "not a researcher". Armon 16:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hitchens is not an intellectual; he is someone who seeks media attention in his own right. That was established above. You cited a web survey as evidence otherwise and I showed you he stacked the vote, adding more evidence to my own claim. The stuff about Cole's PhD is a side show you started that appeared condescending and sarcastic. Hope this clears it up. csloat 16:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You've not "established" anything, merely shifting the goalposts again, and simply asserting your opinion. By your logic, Noam Chomsky is an even bigger "stacker" and "attention seeker" because he came in as #1 on the vote via his "acolytes". Though I suppose that because Chomsky is a Prof at MIT, and not a crummy stonemason like Socrates, it's OK. Armon 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to what point you're trying to make here. I also reviewed carefully and could not find anywhere above where I wrote a single word about Chomsky. Since you brought him up, however, the article makes clear that in Hitchens' case and not in Chomsky's, there was a flood of votes after the self-promotion. So Chomsky is not quite as big a stacker-of-the-vote as Hitchens, according to the Foreign Policy article, if you're interested in reaching such conclusions. But what exactly are you trying to prove here, and what the heck does it have to do with "shifting the goalposts"?? You're the one who posted this rating of public intellectuals as if it had some sort of significance in the real world. I simply pointed out that your "evidence," as it were, was totally flawed, and that if anything it helped prove my point because it showed that Hitchens was a shameless self-promoter. If you want to say the same of Chomsky, be my guest, but I think we're dealing with intellects that are worlds apart. Again, I'm not sure why you're continuing this argument -- the one piece of "evidence" you brought to bear in favor of Hitchens' intellect has been shown to be flawed so now you are attacking me. Are we through here? csloat 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm done. It's utterly OT and I've made my point even you don't see it. Armon 03:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Baha'i break? Armon

Why would JRC's personal religious issues belong in the "controversy" section? It's mentioned earlier in the article. Wachholder0 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Biographical background? It was included before so I'm asking. Armon 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it could be addressed in more detail, but I am uncertain that his split with the Baha'i faith is controversial.Wachholder0 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, his "split" is from the Baha'i religious authorities, not from the faith, and was controversial within that community. I think we need to establish either; how much of a "schism" it was within Baha'i -in which case it's notable, or; if not, whether his break had a notable effect on his personal/intellectual development. It seems that his earlier work was more focused on Baha'i than now. Ideally we'd have a RS discussing the significance of that. Armon 05:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms as part of larger socio-political conflict.

I have been thinking about this, and these criticisms are not unique charges being made against Cole, but rather part of a larger socio-political conflict. Thus many of the more hotly disputed points could be partially addressed by putting a see also section at the end guiding readers to:
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
- New antisemitism
- Anti-Zionism
Also, I am not sure that eliminating the controversy page was such a good idea, since it acted as a honey trap for the more outrageous partisans. Wachholder0 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point but I don't think it's the role of an encyclopedia to set up honey traps. If the material is not encyclopedic it doesn't belong here, whether or not it is sequestered in a bogus page created to avoid the rules.--csloat 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

True. It did create a pleasing period of stability on this page, but I admit that is not a suitable justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wachholder0 (talk • contribs)

I'm in favour of offloading as much of the "larger socio-political conflicts" to other pages as possible, without obscuring Cole's participation in them. The notable controversies should be as succinct as possible without degenerating into quote-wars and soapboxing like the V&C page did. Armon 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Elizmr 00:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable controversies, such as jobs Juan Cole didn't apply for and didn't get, or incendiary claims of racism against Cole by a fringe minority, do not belong on any page on Wikipedia. Save them for your blogs, folks.--csloat 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A controversy that has made it to The Chronicles of Higher Education, as well as to numerous other notable media outlets is clearly notable. Allegations of antisemitism, made by notable academics and published in mainstream media are equally notable. Isarig 00:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So shall we have a section on the George W. Bush page entitled "Controversy over diabolical nature" with a quote from a notable source that has been published in many reliable sources indicating that there is controversy over whether George Bush is the devil? We've been through this before. If you can't refute the arguments that have been presented, or offer a single reason why this charge benefits the page (or explain how it is consistent with WP:BLP), then please stop repeating the assertions that have already been refuted. Again, this debate is a wash.-csloat 01:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isarig. And, yes, by all means, please edit GWB's page. Elizmr 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're joking? Or you really believe a discussion that takes seriously the question of whether George Bush is the devil would be an appropriate use of an encyclopedic biography?--csloat 02:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you bring that up, because as it happens, there is an entire WP article dedicated to Criticism of George W. Bush. The page is full of allegations that Bush is stupid, that he is a threat to global peace etc... - claims at least as offensive as the allegation that Cole's writings are conspiratorial and echo some well-known antisemitic canards. The sources for those claims include such notable and reliable sources as the extremist partisan ImpeachPAC blog, and the "Wonkette - DC Gossip " blog. Surprisingly (or not), when you look at the page's Talk page, it is not tagged as a BLP (nor is the full page criticism article of Tony Blair, for that matter). So it seems we are faced with an interesting double standard here: Cole, the darling of certain editors, is to be immune from any criticism, and heaven forbid that we dedicate a page to an expose of his views and criticisms thereof, and any hint of criticism of his controversial views is censored, often under false pretexts of 'unreliable sources' or 'violations of BLP'. At the same time, Cole's political opponents can be smeared with impunity , and have whole pages dedicated to criticisms of them, from blogs. To your actual argument - as Elizmr wrote, by all means, go to the Criticism of George W. Bush page and add a section that Hugo Chavez has claimed that Bush is the Devil. That was a notable event that received worldwide coverage, and is certainly worthy of mention in the article. And likewise, when the head of Mideast studies at a prestigious UK university claims that Cole's writings echo antisemitic canards, and such criticism is printed in a WP:RS - there's no reason not to include it in this article. Isarig 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, quit the pathetic grandstanding; some of us are trying to engage a rational argument on these issues. We're talking about a specific charge of racism, not all criticism; Cole is nobody's "darling," and nobody is advocating censorship. I agree that there;s a lot of BLP problems with the criticism of Bush page, and I'd support them being addressed. I am vehemently opposed to a section of the biography that treats seriously the claim that Bush is the devil. It's nonsense that nobody in their right mind should take seriously, and it should certainly not be entertained in an encyclopedia. The same is true of this jewbaiting nonsense. Have a nice day.-csloat 05:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling your interlocutor's arguments "pathetic grandstanding", and implying that they are irrational is not only a violation of WP:CIVIL, but is unlikely to convince anyone of your arguments. The charge of racism is no different from any other charge (of stupidity, or threat to peace) as far as BLP (and incidentally, Bush is also accused of racism on that page). I did not suggest that we treat the claim the Bush is the devil as serious - I suggested that the accusation the Chavez made is a notable event that can be mentioned, without violating BLP, just like the accusation by a rapper that Bush doesn't care about black people, or the accusation by a notable academic that Cole's writing echo anti-semitic canards. Isarig 05:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Those arguments were pathetic grandstanding; it's a fact that they were irrational, not an implication, and there is nothing uncivil about noting the irrationality of irrational arguments. I don't disagree with you about the Bush page. I agree, we can point out that Chavez made an irrational claim, and if you want to point out that Karsh made an irrational claim, that will be fine once the Karsh claim gets the attention that the Chavez claim got. I'll wait to hear about it on FOX news. Seriously, even a single third party article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed or the Wall Street Journal would do the trick. I'm really bending over backwards trying to treat this nonsense as potentially legitimate, but other than your vehemence, you have no actual evidence to back up the point.-csloat 06:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, the Wall Street Journal

Mr. Cole says that he is often unfairly attacked for being anti-Semitic, when in reality he claims he is only critical of Israeli policy. But Michael Oren, a visiting fellow at Yale, notes that in February 2003 Mr. Cole wrote on his blog that "Apparently [President Bush] has fallen for a line from the neo-cons in his administration that they can deliver the Jewish vote to him in 2004 if only he kisses Sharon's ass." Mr. Oren says "clearly that's anti-Semitism; that's not a criticism of Israeli policy." (Exit polls showed that 74% of the Jewish vote went to John Kerry.)"

Now let's move on. Armon 13:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the oddest bit of supposed "anti-Semitism" I've ever seen. Cole is talking about what he believes the neo-cons told Bush. In what way is this "anti-Semitism"? If Cole simply said "I think that kissing Sharon's ass would impress Jewish voters" then yes, it might be vaguely anti-Semitic because that would be Cole expressing a low opinion of the intelligence of Jewish voters. In fact, he is simply discussing the strategic thinking of the neocons in the Bush administration. Does believing the Bush crowd are incompetent fools makes a person anti-Semitic? --Lee Hunter 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, these guys don't seem to care about faulty logic; the goal is to slander Cole, so any quote they can find to do it will do the trick, no matter how ludicrous the content. As long as there are three editors willing to fight tooth and nail to keep the slander in the article, it doesn't matter how flawed the logic is. Personally I'd want to see a third party objective source talking about this as a controversy before it goes in here; otherwise, Wikipedia is the only such source. That's a really bad position to put wikipedia in, and it smacks of WP:NOR. All they can find are openly partisan sources who clearly take one side of the issue. I'm sure I can find many sources saying Bush is the devil, but that does not make it a serious dispute worth taking seriously. It's amazing though, they are so focused on slandering Cole nothing else matters - so when I make that argument, their reply is, go ahead, put an "Is Bush the Devil?" section on his biography. Editors should be here because we're committed to Wikipedia as a project, not because we're committed to legitimizing a certain POV. It's my bad for including the WSJ in my list of possible sources; Armon used that to misinterpret what I was asking for (which is a neutral third party account, not another opinion from another partisan on the issue -- this one even a bigger hack than Karsh. It's obvious the logic is faulty; Fund even admits it when he acknowledges parenthetically that the neocons were dead wrong about the Jewish vote.csloat 22:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. It didn't take you long to attempt to shift the goalposts. In any case, it's obviously not OR, and your opinions of his critics are irrelevant. Please stop filling up this talk page with immaterial comment, either about Cole's critics, or other editors supposed motivations. Armon 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. It didn't take you long to ignore the arguments and mischaracterize my position. In any case, it's obvious that you are unable to find a third party commenting on this alleged dispute and that Wikipedia should not be the first third party to do so. Please stop filling up this talk page with immaterial comment, either about Cole's alleged antisemitism, or other editors supposedly shifting goalposts. csloat 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's in the WSJ, I'll give you that. It's an opinion piece that takes one side of the dispute and not a third party statement of the conflict, which is all I've been pushing for. Apparently such a statement either doesn't exist or you are not willing to find one? At this point I will back off deleting any mention of it since you have shown the WSJ is willing to publish this scurrilous attack, but we'd be remiss in excluding Cole's response to the attack. If there's going to be a discussion of Cole's alleged antisemitism here, it must be written (as you state above) in an agnostic and NPOV manner.-csloat 20:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We have already mentioned that Karsh called JRC anti-semtitic, but I agree that the controversy surrounding JRC's remarks could be addressed in greater detail, but it must be carefully phrased and balanced. A clinical attitude is in order. Wachholder0 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we need any greater detail than what we already have. Please comment below. Armon 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Since the article is currently locked, could the admin who did so please tag it? Wachholder0 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Wachholder0 04:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on "allegations of antisemitism" passage

The currently protected version of the page contains the following passage:

Cole's claims that certain US government officials hold dual loyalties to Israeli interests has been attacked as an "anti-semitic conspiracy theory" and an example of new antisemitism.^{Juan Cole, Media - and MESA - DarlingJuan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies}
Efraim Karsh, professor and Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, writes; "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings." ^{Juan Cole's Bad blog} Cole says the allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. ^{The Misuse of Anti-Semitism}

Csloat's objection to the inclusion of this passage is noted. I think it's fine the way it is because it's concise and simply reports the criticism. Comments? Armon 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is good and addresses Sloat's position which I agree with that we should include Cole's responses to criticism. Elizmr 00:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. First, scurrilous attacks should not be on Wikipedia even if they are sourced. Armon has been asked to provide a neutral third party source discussing this and he has come up dry. But if we are going to include this smear, Cole's response should be included more clearly. It would require a quote from Cole specifically responding to the claim. Another sentence may be enough to do the trick, but if more is added to the smear, more will likely need to be added to the response (as you know, Cole has indicated his thoughts on this in a number of places). If this goes up, I will help with the process of adding the response, but I think it's time for some kind of RfC or admin ruling on whether this smear belongs here at all. It would be nice if the admin who protected the page entered the discussion.-csloat 00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Then please propose the sentence. Armon 00:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already proposed a solution - remove the scurrilous attack. If the attack is going to remain up, I will help work on a response.csloat 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you're unwilling to participate, that's fine. As I said, your objection is noted. Armon 01:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For your convenience I have hilighted my comments indicating my willingness to participate. Please stop mischaracterizing my comments - it is highly annoying. And please stop condescending to me - it is a WP:NPA.--csloat 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is fine as it is. Every one of csloat's objections has been addressed - including the final one that a mention of the dispute be provided from a source such as the WSJ. It is amusing that on the one hand csloat claims this is not a notabale dispute, and at the same time maintains that more of Cole's response to this allegedly none-notable dispute be provided, since "Cole has indicated his thoughts on this in a number of places" Isarig 01:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I will let you know when my objections have been addressed. You are well aware of my problems with the WSJ citation - please stop distorting my comments. Thanks. csloat 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your problem with the WSJ is that it quickly met your stated requirement - "even a single third party article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed or the Wall Street Journal would do the trick."- which forced you to move the goal posts. Your objections were noted, but since you keep inventing new objections every time we meet your previous ones, they are rightfully treated as disruptive POV, rather than a good faith attempt to resolve this dispute. Isarig 02:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make false claims about my motives. I did not move the goal posts nor invent new objections -- you are well aware I was asking for a neutral third-party analysis, not a smear piece from someone with a horse in the race. True, my bad for using WSJ as an example, because it allowed for the mischaracterization of my claims, but it was nonetheless clear what I meant (and, if it wasn't clear, I explained it after the ludicrous Fund article was cited). Stop condescending to me and stop personally attacking me. You may wish to review WP:AGF and WP:NPA for details on wikipedia's policy in this regard.csloat 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not making false claims about my motives - I am accurately describing your actions. You did not ask for a "neutral third-party analysis, you asked for a "a single third party article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed or the Wall Street Journal" - and you got it, at which point, by your own admission above, you realized you had made a mistake in asking for a WSJ article, and changed your request to "a neutral third-party analysis. That is defined as moving the goal posts, a term you are apparently unfamiliar with. You have some nerve to ask people not to attack you, when every single one of your edits is either a personal attack, an uncivil comment, or a condescension, and more often than not, all three. Isarig 02:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. If you read the comment in context you can see that I meant a neutral third party analysis but even if you don't, you can see that I explained that afterwards. That is not changing the goal posts; it is re-explaining something to someone who claimed to have understood it incorrectly the first time. I have attacked the arguments here, not the person, so stop characterizing my claims as personal attacks. Thanks.csloat 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that csloat, at this point, is simply being disruptive, but let's keep things on topic. Armon 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks Armon. What am I disrupting exactly? It takes a lot of nerve to personally attack me after making phony charges of personal attacks on my page.-csloat 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Article disruption

Regarding csloat's disruption:

Regarding this supposed personal attack: Article talk pages are for discussing the article. They are not chat-rooms, Usenet groups, or blog comments, in which to fill with off topic cruft and silly tit-for-tats. Despite meeting all of your requirements, you've quite clearly shifted position in order to invalidate it. That is your prerogative. It is also the prerogative, and quite reasonably so, for others to view that as a less-than-good-faith position, especially as you haven't shifted your objection to the passage one iota. Rather than submit the improving sentence you alluded to, you are instead flailing around for another means of scrubbing the section, and impeding any progress forward on the article. Your position has been repeatedly shown to be untenable, so now you want an argument about NPA. Stop it. Armon 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am discussing the article, specifically, the attacks on Cole that you wish to put in the article. Why must you make this personal? I have not shifted position; as explained above, I was reexplaining my position because it obviously was not clear to you the first time. If you read my comments in context it should be clear what I was asking for -- but what's the difference? The editing on this article should be done in accordance with WP:BLP, not in accordance something you happen to catch an individual editor saying. Please assume good faith when arguing about this. Your characterization of my motives is incorrect and demeaning.csloat 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your motives aren't my concern, your behavior here is. Cut it out. Armon 03:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We agree on something - my motives are not your concern. Please stop commenting on them. And do not order me to "cut it out" - as I have explained, I have done nothing to "cut out."-csloat 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh* I made no mention of your motives. OK, keep it up then, it'll just be more evidence at some future RfC or arbcom. Armon 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For your convenience, I have highlighted where you mentioned my motives (feel free to remove the highlighting once you have seen it; I highlighted only for your convenience, and not to make it seem as if you had done the highlighting). Also, RfCs are procedures that are in place to help improve wikipedia, not to be used as threats against other users. Please don't threaten me again. Thank you. csloat 06:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Discuss the content of the article, not other editors. Do not accuse other editors of personal attacks for minor slights, do not threaten other editors with consequences. —Centrx→talk • 07:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement of the current issue

• Armon has referenced the disputed passage which now exists in the article [5]
• Sloat insists that the criticism outlined by Armon above should not be in the article becuase it is "scurrilous". Other editors do not feel that the criticism is "scurrilous". g
• All editors agree that the quote is made in an acceptable source.
• Sloat feels the author is not notable; other editors feel the author is notable.

Sloat feels the author is not notable on this specific topic (i.e., the secret thoughts of Juan Cole), not in general.csloat 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The specific topic is Cole's blog, not his "secret thoughts". Elizmr 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I say "secret thoughts" because Cole's blog actually contradicts what Karsh is saying, and Karsh admits that. Karsh says "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" -- acknowledging that Cole rejects them explicitly -- "but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings" -- that is, implicitly, Cole accepts the basic premise of the Protocols; in other words, his writings betray his "secret thoughts." I suppose "secret thoughts" is a poor word choice but you get my drift -- Karsh is criticizing what Cole thinks based on alleged extrapolation from something he has written (Karsh never actually indicates what the problematic sentence is) rather than criticizing something Cole actually said. Hope this clears it up. csloat 18:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What Karsh is doing is called analysis, which is what someone in a RS is allowed to do -unlike us. Armon 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've asked you before to stop condescending with your links to words you know I know the meaning of. This is not analysis; it is an assertion about what Karsh thinks Cole thinks. And we are not prohibited from analyzing; we are enjoined from publishing our original analysis as an encyclopedia article.csloat 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Then please accept my apologies. I mistook your performing an analysis of Karsh, to mean that you thought it was relevant, or had a bearing on the article. Armon 03:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's quite relevant and has bearing on the article, as noted. I'll accept your apologies for the condescending tone of nearly every post you've addressed to me, however.csloat 22:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sloat says the quote cannot be presented neutrally. Elizmr says it can be presented neutrally as a bare quote without any surrounding editorial commentary (see this comment above [6])
• All agree that Cole's replies on the specific points raised should be included after the remark by the critic. Armon has supplied a proposed Cole reply.
• Sloat does not feel Armon's proposed reply is adequate. Armon asks Sloat to supply the text he would like to add to articulate Cole's reply. Sloat says he will not do this until the article is unlocked and the sentence is added. Elizmr 14:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sloat thinks actual quotes from Cole are better than the paraphrasing of an openly anti-Cole editor.csloat 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment -Two points/clarification. I don't think anyone else is arguing that Karsh is non-notable, and the passage in question is already there -as well as Cole's response from a RS. Armon 15:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC) I also propose we discuss the "response sentence(s)" now and avoid the edit-wars which got the article locked in the 1st place. Armon 15:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. Karsh may be notable but not on the topic of psychoanalyzing Cole.csloat 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I object to Sloat's characterization of Karsh's criticism as "psychoanalysis". It is OR. Elizmr 16:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly OR Armon 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Simply reading the quote, which is about what Karsh thinks Cole really thinks. We know this flies in the face of what Cole actually says. No OR involved. Perhaps the word "psychoanalysis" is not to your liking, but I think you know what I mean.csloat 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Though I wouldn´t say the quote is scurrilous, the inclusion of the term "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is certainly a cause for concern; under from the most restricted interpretation of the sentence, Kramer asserts that Cole rejects the Protocols. However, that is not the only possible interpretation: under another reasonable interpretation, Kramer could be saying for instance that Cole's rejection of the Protocols is really phony. In that case, I believe that for balance, it would be necessary to include one of Cole's quotes which specifically addresses that interpretation.--CSTAR 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think what Karsh is saying is that unclear -- he rejects Cole's rejection of the Protocols and is claiming that Cole's reasoning process is the same as the Protocols. It is a scurrilous (IMHO) propaganda technique -- he doesn't outright call Cole a Nazi, but instead he allows the reader to draw that conclusion by stating that Cole's basic argument is the same basic argument that was promulgated by the Nazis. It's an irresponsible claim, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to give it legitimacy, IMHO. csloat 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it´s possible that was what Karsh was trying to do. Proving that interpretation, seems to me to require an analysis of motive, and is very difficult to do in the context of Wikipedia. I think the best that one can say is that the statement is ambiguous in that regard. As editors we have to be very careful when we include quotes that have multiple interpretations, some of which may be regarded as "scurrilous attacks". I think the reason is clear. For example, suppose in an article about Ohlmert, one included a quote by somebody that said "Ohlmert may profess to do X in regard to Paletsinians, but in fact Y". The inclusion of that quote, by itself, would be in my view be tendentious and violate NPOV.--CSTAR

I don't think your example would be problematic at all if added to an article as a quote from a recognized expert and followed by something relevant Ohlmert might have said in reply. Anything can and does have multiple interpretations. That is the nature of reality and how humans percieve it. This is not a reason not to include something in Wikipedia. Elizmr 11:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is a slippery slope. The point of an encyclopedia is to explain, not to include mystifying quotes. --CSTAR 18:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

PS, I didn't intend to be flippant. To clarify what I meant by mystifiying, see my response to Armon below.--CSTAR 18:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know CSTAR, even if we assume csloat's interpretation is correct, the fact that a target of criticism (or someone else) views it as "scurrilous" can't and shouldn't be the standard by which criticism is included. Doing so would effectively mean that partisans of all stripes could pretty much scrub any criticisms they don't like, regardless of whether it's notable and from an RS. Reading WP:BLP, I see the necessity for RSs repeatedly, that seems to be the standard, not what the object of criticism objects to. In any case, I'm unclear on what you're saying regarding the currently protected version. Armon 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Armon, I don't think that the claim that any editor can scrub undesirable criticism logically follows from what I said. The objection here is specifically the inclusion in the quote of the term "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and Karsh's association of Cole with techniques used in that document. In this instance, it is my opinion that CSLoat's analysis It is a scurrilous (IMHO) propaganda technique -- he doesn't outright call Cole a Nazi, but instead he allows the reader to draw that conclusion by stating that Cole's basic argument is the same basic argument that was promulgated by the Nazis. is basically correct, save that I would have used another characterization instead of "scurrilous". I think that's one of the dangers of including quotes. I accept the claim that Karsh is a notable figure, but the same can be said of many other individuals, even in cases where they have well known agendas. I think that editors have a responsability (a) to understand the material (such as quotes) that they include (b) make a good faith effort to ensure that the quote captures some point clearly.

If Karsh's intent is to say that Cole's reasoning process is similar to Nazi propaganda, then that should be unmistakeably clear. As it stands now, the quote seems to me to be an underhanded smear.--CSTAR 18:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, but let's clarify somewhat. csloat's and your position on the quote/criticism is pretty much exactly the same as Cole's. If we give primacy to the interpretation of the person who's being criticized that it's a "smear", or focus on the "agendas" of a person's critics (or, for that matter, those "far rightwing activists" who advocate including it) we can easily end up with the unwanted and inadvertent effect of whitewash and bias, because we, in effect, are giving who's being critiqued, a veto over what's presented. I think that editors have the responsibility to resist this, however unsympathetic they are to a given criticism.

In any case, I don't see the Karsh quote as unclear or ambiguous at all, Karsh is stating that whether Cole is an antisemite or not, his conspiratorial writings about the machinations of a cabal of "Likudnik" neocons is reminiscent of the Protocols and remain problematic. That is his view -it may be harsh, and he may be oversensitive, but that's what it is. If you keep in mind that a Protocols-type "cabal" doesn't mean that every Jew is in on it, you can easily see why Cole's critics could come to that conclusion. Armon 04:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. My concern is the balance shifted the other way with either an extended quote, or a sort of messed-up summary of one of his blog posts, like the following paragraph re: Cole's expertise, which brings Bernard Lewis into it for some reason. The notion that criticism can't be presented without an instant rebuttal, or "equal time" is a dubious way of insuring NPOV. Armon 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Balance" is not the goal; the goal is accuracy. A quote from Cole is far preferable to a summary written by an editor who clearly and openly thinks Karsh is right that Cole is a secret antisemite. csloat 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The writer, Lee Hunter, (see diff) has been quite clear that he doesn't endorse that view. If you mean me, you are also incorrect. I feel strongly that the criticism should be presented, I understand how they may have come to that conclusion, I am agnostic about how "true" it is. Only the first point is relevant to WP, or our discussion here. Armon 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The diff shows Hunter modifying a statement that you wrote, Armon; yes, I meant you. If you are agnostic about how true this statement is, why have you defended it so vehemently? It's not relevant though - I'm willing to accept your statement that you don't agree with Karsh. Nevertheless I think Cole's words are superior to yours (and/or Lee's) for this purpose. Again, however, as you know, I support leaving this stuff out entirely as I don't feel this dispute is notable to begin with.csloat 23:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've defended it because it's notable -as I've said. Please review the (endless) discussions without jumping to conclusions regarding what you think I think. Armon 00:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And I've stipulated that you think whatever you say you think; as noted in the post above, that's not at issue.csloat 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: the critic in question is Karsh, not Kramer. The protocols are mentioned in his quote, and are relevant to the point he is making. The article is not saying that the quote is true (that would be concerning), but is just reproducing the quote. I will find Cole's direct reply. I believe that Will reproduced it somewhere. Elizmr 16:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it´s Karsh my mistake.--CSTAR

HERE IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM COLE"S REPLY found at [7] Karsh's article was a "smear...gotten up by Marty Peretz of the New Republic and carried out by a far rightwing Israeli historian named Ephraim Karsh, some time ago. It was beneath contempt. ...Karsh used scurrilous propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Of course, he put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism. No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment." Shall we use this direct quote? Elizmr 16:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We haven't determined that the Karsh quote is to be used at all; see the dispute above. However, if it is to be used, yes, I think this direct quote would be appropriate (though it need not be this long).csloat 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Focus on the reliability of the sources. The front page of "Front Page Magazine" has things like "The hate-Israel campaign heats up in Stanford.", "How the devotion to leftist politics led to the most unethical conduct of a district attorney to date.", and "“Freshmen moderates” won’t alter the Democratic leadership’s plan: surrender, full speed ahead." Middle East Quarterly looks better, but it is published by an organization with a specific agenda, that "seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East". Whatever that means, it is not neutral and it is not an academic journal. This is an encyclopedia article, it needs neutral, reliable, secondary sources, and it is not important that topics without those sources be included. —Centrx→talk • 19:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Karsh quote is neither from Frontpage, nor from MEQ, but from The New Republic, which is clearly a WP:RS. Isarig 20:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, and additionally, the topic under discussion in Karsh's article is Coles extra-academic blog which is not neutral in itself. Asking for an academic journal source to comment on this extraacademic blog seems inappropriate. Elizmr 20:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Karsh piece looks to be much more reliable. Also, there are reliable sources that comment on the blog. Note that the article is not incomplete if it is not contain every criticism of him and his blog. If there aren't good sources on something, if a neutral third-party has not seen fit to comment on a matter, then it does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"if a neutral third-party has not seen fit to comment on a matter, then it does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article." -- I agree. Karsh is not a "neutral third party" (the article in question is clearly an opinion piece titled "Cole's Bad Blog"). When a neutral third party comments on the alleged proto-Nazism (or whatever it is) of Cole, then the encyclopedia article might reasonably include such information. I don't think we're there yet.-csloat 21:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any requiement that only "neutral third-party" commentary be included in WP articles. The requirement is only to have verifiable information from reliable sources, and to write them in a NPOV way. Isarig 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Any reliable source is necessarily a neutral third-party. —Centrx→talk • 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not stated anywhere in WP:RS. Obviously, a neutral source wouls be preferable, but there are relaiable sources which are not neutral. regardless of this issue, TNR, as a source, is neutral, even when it quotes a non-neutral party. Isarig 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong Centrx, but I think he means, "...for the purposes of WP". Armon 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

TNR is not the source - Karsh is. TNR is where Karsh published. Yes, TNR is verifiable, but the article in question is a smear piece (not my opinion; it's in the title of Karsh's piece) and Karsh obviously has a "horse in the race." When making the claim that a controversy is notable, we should have a neutral third party who comments on the controversy as a notable thing. Otherwise we are just printing two sides of a thumb wrestling match. Fun stuff for blogs and the like, but not for an encyclopedia, IMHO. csloat 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

TNR most certainly is the source. For the purpose of WP:RS, we evalute the publication, not the person. Note for example that in Centrx's previous analysis of sources, he evaluated MEQ - not the contributors to MEQ (who are academics and notable in their field. Simlarily, when evaluating Frontpage, he evalauted the website, it's headlines, etc.. - not the contributors (who include journalists, bestselling authors and notbale academics). And to top it off, when you were defending Salon.com as a source here you wrote "what matters is that it is widely considered a credible and accurate source of journalism" - no reference to any individual contributor or article. So it's clear you know that is the critera on WP. We have TNR, a WP:RS jsut liek Salon.com, quoting a notable academic in the field of ME studies. No matter how much you personally dislike the critic or his criticism - this meets every WP requirement for inclusion in the article. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Isarig 01:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Karsh is the source; his slander is published in TNR. If you are stalking my comments on the salon.com article, you should have read the rest of them rather than cherry picking. I started an entire section there indicating I thought that we should be evaluating the author of the quote, not the publication, once the pub rises above a certain threshold, which both TNR and salon clearly meet. The point here is Karsh is part of the conflict, he is not a neutral third party observer to the conflict. The issue is not whether TNR is a WP:RS. The latter question is a red herring. Please stop personally attacking me by telling me to stop "disruptive" behavior - I have as much right to participate in this discussion as you do. csloat 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You can keep repeating that, but it is simply not true. I point you again to the analysis of Frontpage, and MEQ, and to your own staunch defense of Salon.com as a WP:RS, in spite of the admitted bias of its editors and journalists. Karsh is indeed a part of the dispute, but his opinion has been carried by a WP:RS - so there's no reason to exclude it. If we adopt your ridiculous line of reasoning, we'd have to exclude any kind of criticism, because by definition,, a critic has taken sides. (as an aside, for someone claiming to be a teacher of free speech issues, you should know the differnce between slander and libel, and that opinions are generally immune from charges of libel. You would also note that Cole never claimed the TNR article was libelous, and for good reason. ) Isarig 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments about this. If you're going to stalk my edits and quote them elsewhere, at least try to get the context right. If you'd like to attend my free speech course in order to address your misunderstanding of these issues, I'll be teaching it again next Fall (this semester is almost over, sorry). csloat 22:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am hardly likely to want to be educated about free speech by someone who does not knwo the difference between slander and libel, or that opinions are immune from claims of libel. Isarig

You're wrong, and if you took my class, you would get a correct impression of issues or you would flunk the tests. You're baiting me; I shouldn't bite, but I will. The distinction between "slander" and "libel" was neutralized a long time ago; while you're right that I probably should have written "libel" instead of slander to be technically accurate, you're basing your high-and-mighty posturing on a distinction that dates back to before the invention of the radio. The distinction has no currency in contemporary common law. But you probably know well that I was not trying to use the term in a technical legal sense; your pouncing on this is just a way to veer off of the debate and to posture. As for opinions being immune to libel, I don't know where you learned that. At least in the United States, you're dead wrong; that much has been clear since the Court's ruling in Milkovich.csloat 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between libel and slander is very real, and has very real practical implications. If you do not know them, you should not be teaching a course on free speech. I made an off-hand remark, which you you could have handled by admitting your were wrong, and correcting yourself to say "libel". Instead, you choose to dig yourself ever deeper. That is your prerogative, but you are worse off for it. You are also wrong, or at least grossly oversimplifying th significance of Milkovich, and contrary to your claim, opinion remains protected speech. See for example this. You should not be teaching free speech if you do not understand this. Isarig 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're just blatantly trolling now. I know the distinction and I provided two reasons why it wasn't relevant, and I even acknowledged that "libel" is more technically correct. If you take the class you would read experts - other than me - explaining the issue in terms you can understand. I am not "grossly oversimplifying" Milkovich. I cited the case in response to your incorrect claim that "opinions are immune from claims of libel." They are not, and I cited the only Supreme Court precedent on the issue, a case you have never read and probably never heard of until I cited it. I never said opinion was not protected speech, as you well know, and my expertise to teach this class - which I have been teaching for about a decade - has nothing whatsoever to do with this page. csloat 02:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you do know th edistinction, which makes one wonder why you used the wrong trem initially (not just in this article, BTW), and why, when I pointed this out to you, you claimed that "The distinction between "slander" and "libel" was neutralized a long time ago". perhaps you jsut simply don't know when to concede you are wrong, even on minor, trivial, off-topic points, and preffer to dig yourself ever deeper into embarassing holes, rather than admit a mistake. That would explain a lot about your disruptive editing on this page. You did not provide and reason why the distinction was irrelevant, let alone "two reasons". Your one comment, reagrding the pre-radio days might have been relevant had the Karsh quote been made on radio or TV, but it was not. Give it up, you are embarassing yourself and your students. Isarig 03:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You should have dropped this long ago. It's a bit surreal to be personally insulted about what goes on in my classes by someone who has never set foot in one of them. These attacks are beyond the pale and should be reported. It's even more surreal that you continue the attacks after I have shown decisively that you were totally wrong about one of your two "points"; you cling to the other point now as if that was the only one we were discussing and use it to say I am "embarrassing myself" and my students! You claim not to have understood my two reasons why the distinction is not relevant to my statements here, so let me review them: #1 - the distinction has no currency in contemporary common law. You say this is only relevant if Karsh is speaking on the radio; that makes no sense. The distinction itself was made obsolete by technology. A little history - the term "libel" literally means "little book," and it was used in English to refer to any kind of speech that was objectionable -- e.g. "blasphemous libel," "seditious libel," etc. The use of it in common law to mean the written form of defamation is relatively new, and the distinction between written and spoken defamation is no longer current because spoken defamation can these days be just as destructive to reputations as written. Here's what Tedford and Herbeck have to say about the issue: "The invention of radio and television, as well as the technology of filmand tape recording, has neutralized the rationale of the common law for the libel-slander distinction." (Freedom of Speech in the United States) I hope that clears up #1. Now on to #2 - and this one is more important than #1, so listen (read) carefully: I wrote "I was not trying to use the term in a technical legal sense." I have never suggested that Karsh should be sued, nor have I suggested legal action has anything to do with this dispute - that has been all you. I was using the term in a layperson's sense, where the distinction has even less currency. You have pounced on the technical distinction in order to insult me and to take some sort of argumentative high ground, and then told me I shouldn't be teaching. What do you do for a living, Isarig? How would you feel if I did five minutes of research on google and came back with some sort of thing I thought you said wrong and used it to claim you should be fired from your job, or that you are embarrassing yourself and the people you care about? It is ludicrous that I should even have to explain this. Finally, let me remind you (#3!) that I have in fact acknowledged from the beginning of this silly debate that "you're right that I probably should have written "libel" instead of slander to be technically accurate." So I have indeed even met the one condition you claim would have saved me from embarrassment! All of that aside, there is one more point here that I must emphasize -- my expertise as far as teaching my own classes has nothing to do with this page at all. So let's be done with it. csloat 21:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why Karsh is clearly labeled a critic in the criticism section. The controversy has been noted by other parties in other RSs -as you are well aware. Armon 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)\

That's why Karsh is not a RS on the notability of this "controversy." If the controversy has been noted by other parties on other RS's, that is who we should be quoting or citing. This is what I asked for above, which led to the accusation that I was shifting goal posts -- if there is a neutral third party commenting on this controversy as something notable, let's hear it! Earlier you insisted that no such third party existed; if you have found one, cite it so we can discuss. Thanks!csloat 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I expressed skepticism that one which everyone will agree is "neutral" exists. That's not WP's standard (or any other standard, for that matter) for inclusion, and you are simply setting impossible goals and time wasting. Show me a commentator which both GWB and OBL agree is "neutral" and I'll change my assessment. Armon 02:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bush and OBL are not the issue here. Also, I am not asking that both Karsh and Cole agree someone is neutral; I am only suggesting that the controversy is not notable if there is no neutral third party who has bothered to take it seriously. Not neutral in the sense that everyone agrees that they are neutral but neutral in the sense that they are not obviously taking sides (as Karsh is). I can show you plenty of third party sources discussing the conflict between bush and bin Laden, as you know, so clearly it is a notable conflict. This one is not. csloat 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Armon. There is no reasonable argument for getting rid of Karsh here--he's certainly part of the dialog on this issue, has an equal academic standing to Cole in a relevant field, and he's writing in a source acceptable on Wikipedia. Elizmr 23:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If a neutral third party has commented on the notability of this controversy we should start with that. If they quote Karsh we can move on from there. csloat 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Competely disagree for reasons stated ad nausem above Elizmr 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well; your opinion is noted. csloat 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So is yours, but neither of us is the "editor in chief" of Wikipedia. You are requesting that we go outside of normal wikipedia policy for this particular case. I argue that you are making an attempt to censor the encyclopedia by arguing that Karsh's statement can't appear along with Cole's response on an area within Karsh's recognized area of expertise. Elizmr 00:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not; I'm suggesting that normal wikipedia policy is to avoid scurrilous slander. I'm suggesting that Karsh is not a reliable source on the notability of this alleged controversy. I'm suggesting (and at least one admin appears to agree) that a neutral third party commenting on the controversy as notable would establish more basis for including such a thing in an encyclopedia. Your claim that I am making an attempt to censor wikipedia is bizarre nonsense. I have not contacted any government institution asking for Wikipedia to be taken offline. I have no power to censor wikipedia from anything other than my own computer (and as you can see, I haven't done that). Karsh's "recognized area of expertise" is neither the inner thoughts of Cole nor the notability of controversies regarding Cole. On the former he is clueless (and that's basically what his quote deals with); on the latter he is a party to the conflict invested in portraying it a certain way. csloat 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Censor" is a bit imprecise, rather, whitewash. Armon 02:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you at least try to discuss the issues and refrain from personal attacks? Thanks. csloat 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Elizmr 11:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We disagree that this is scurrilous slander. Despite your opinion that he is "clueless", Karsh is a middle east politics expert and has an academic appt in the field. Cole's blog deals that that area. Karsh is commenting on Cole's blog. Elizmr 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-read my comment. Karsh is clueless about the inner thoughts of Cole. If you think his expertise gives him some mind-reading capabilities, please indicate the source of your information. Karsh is not just commenting on his blog; he is making a statement about what the blog allegedly reveals about Cole's secret thoughts. csloat 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Karsh quote does not require or imply any mind reading capabilities. He is stating his opinion that Cole's writing repeats the same anti-semtic canards presnt in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Isarig 22:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the only action which would be acceptable to all parties is inclusion of the quote, with Cole's assesment. However, it has to be very carefully written so that it is clear that WP does not endorse either the quote under any interpretation or their negations. For the record, I would like to point out that this illustrates a failure of Wikipedia as pointed out by another editor on another matter entirely: stressing process over content. --CSTAR 18:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR, it is only your opinion that this is a mystifying quote. I wrote above how the quote could be presented neutrally without poisioning the well. Elizmr 18:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not only his opinion; it is mine as well, and it is backed up with reference to the quote itself. I still have seen no evidence at all - in fact, not a single argument - suggesting this quote is actually notable. csloat 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see some evidence, please read the comments on this talk page above and please stop wasting everyone's time. Elizmr 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The only time I can waste is my own. I have read the comments. You guys try to make a lot of points in response to the claims made by myself and others, but you have not once offered a single reason why this argument would improve the article in any way. The most you have said is this nonsense should be included because it is not forbidden by Wikipedia rules. Hardly a ringing endorsement.-csloat 22:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read the talk page again. Elizmr 22:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm quite sure I haven't missed anything. csloat 22:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to offer my take on this overly-long debate. I complete agree with csloat that the Karsh quote is scurrilous. The implication that a widely-respected Middle East historian somehow subscribes to the Protocols of Zion is the cheapest of cheap shots. It truly is a creepy little attack that doesn't merit any space in the article. On the other hand, I'm not sure that it's worth fighting to keep it out as long as it is immediately followed by Cole's response. In fact, the summary of his response works fine "Cole says the allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy". I think this statement neatly sums up the situation. Perhaps it is instructive to the reader that some people feel so threatened by Cole's criticism that they resort to this kind of attack. When the quote is placed in context, I think Karsh's reputation suffers more than Cole's. --Lee Hunter 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion that this is a cheap shot is just that - your opinion. You find it incomprehensible that a Middle East historian somehow subscribes to the Protocols of Zion , but others do not. If it is possible that a widely-respected, Noble-prize winning physicist can also believe in the genetic inferiority of certain races; if it is possible that a tenured professor of electrical engineering at a respected university can also be a prominent Holocaust denier, I don't see why it is impossible that a professor of Mid-East history will also be a believer in the Protocols of the Elders or Zion, and even less implausible that he will echo similar sentiment in his own political writing even if he does not believe in the Prootocol's authenticity. Isarig

Huh? We're talking about a historian and about historical information not electricity or physics. I would not be at all surprised if a physicist or electrical engineer displayed complete ignorance of history. I would not be surprised if Cole had some dumb ideas about quantum mechanics. However, if Cole in any subscribed to the Protocols of Zion it would be stunning news in the ME history field and would end his career. It seems that only Karsh has tried to float this idea in public (and not in a peer-reviewed journal) and since Karsh clearly has a huge ax to grind, it doesn't seem to be an idea that bears repeating. --Lee Hunter 15:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt that Karsh believes that Cole subscribes to the Protocols. That is what makes the quote objectionable, as Cole points out in his response. I think Isarig is going out on a limb here making an assertion that Karsh is unlikely to try to argue for. Stated otherwise, if Karsh has stated in writing in so many words "Cole subscribes to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion", then let´s have the quote and put ´´that´´ in the article. That would be very informative.--CSTAR 15:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That said, I happy with your conclusion - let's include the Karsh quote, and Cole's response, and let the reader's make up their mind as to whose reputation suffers more. Isarig 02:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The exchange above suggests to me that we have NPOV. Armon

Include both quotes- let the reader decide if the "protocols" quote is specious. Put this in context by linking to new antisemitism and anti-zionism. Edited properly, it will be NPOV. Wachholder0 06:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet it won't be notable. Again, not a single third party commentator has seen fit to mention this phony dispute other than a handful of wikipedia editors. This suggests it is not encyclopedic, and that there is nothing that would be gained from giving this dispute prominence by placing it in wikipedia.csloat 21:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's false. Numerous 3rd parties have commented on this dispute, including Brad DeLong, The Middle East Quarterly and Stephen Schwartz (Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism), as well as numerous blogs which are as prominent as Cole's on blog. Isarig 01:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - third parties in reliable sources, not bloggers. I'm not even sure any of the commentators you've mentioned have commented on this particular (i.e. Karsh v. Cole on the Protocols) dispute.csloat 05:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

MEQ is a reliable source. Schwartz's comment appears in TNR, a reliable source. If we're you're going to claim Brad Delong is not a reliabel source becuase his comment appeared on his blog, you'll find yourself arguing for a very curious double standard: in one case (Karsh in TNR) advoxcating that we look at the person rather than the outlet, and in the other (DeLong on his blog) that we look at the outlet, rather than the person. Isarig 05:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

MEQ (1) is not a reliable source, as shown above, it has a clear agenda, and (2) has not commented on the Karsh v. Cole "dispute." Find a reliable source commenting on this dispute in a neutral manner as a notable issue -- that's what we're looking for here, and you have not to my knowledge produced it. If you have, please forgive my ignorance and quote it again. csloat 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

MEQ is a reliable source. You asserting the contrary does not carry much weight with me. If Salon is a reliable source in spite of the self professed bias of its editors, MEQ, an academic journal with academic contributors is one. As I noted, Schwartz's comment appeared on TNR, yet another WP:RS. Give it up, you will not get to censor this article. Isarig

I don't really care what carries weight with you. As for MEQ, it is not its "bias" that concerns me; it is its agenda, something it does not have in common with Salon. When we're looking for a third party commenting on a debate we don't want that third party to actually have a horse in the race. Again, you have not shown either of these sources actually commenting on the Karsh-Cole "dispute" as a neutral third party, so we have nothing specific from them. I'm not sure where censorship of this article comes in; I have not contacted any government agency nor ISP to ask that this article be removed from the internet, nor have I filed an AfD.-csloat 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, we are not going to agree on this. Please let's agree to disagree. I respect your opinion, CSTAR, Sloat, Hunter, please respect mine. And to throw my 2 cents in, like it or not, it is a well known fact that (very unfortunately), the protocols are very prominent in the ME media. It is not suprising that ME historians and scholars would have internalized some of these themes. Elizmr 02:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't respect your opinion at all, especially when it is stated like that. Cole was pointing out that a specific clique of senior US bureaucrats have been on the payroll of the Likud party and/or the Israeli government, have been outspoken supporters of the most aggressive policies of the Israeli government (they actually wrote the framework for those policies) and they were part of a larger group that engineered a war which has become a spectacular disaster for the United States but quite beneficial for Israel. This is all very much a part of the public record. Cole's suggestion that this tiny group has dual loyalties is an entirely reasonable conclusion to draw from those facts. Your suggestion that this shows that historians are "internalizing" the themes of the Protocols of Zion just dumbfounds me. --Lee Hunter 03:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can't respect the opinions of other editors, you should not be editing this article (or any other article, for that matter). It's as simple as that. Isarig 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not about respect in that sense Isarig. It's about what should and what should not be in an encyclopedia. It matters not one iota whether anyone respects your opinion. csloat 05:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't whitewash what he said. He siad he does nto respect her opinion. If so, he shoudl not be editing the encyclopedia. Isarig 05:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't throw up red herrings. Respect is not the issue. The issue is whether certain things should be in an encyclopedia. csloat 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is no Red Herrings. Editors who profess to not respecting another editor's opinions should not be editing the encyclopedia. Isarig 06:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't get to decide who should be editing an encyclopedia. You have a lot of nerve making such comments anyway, given the many times you have made clear how little respect you have for my opinion on various matters. Your opinion on this issue, like your opinion on my teaching, is noted and ignored. csloat 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Her position (that a perfectly straightforward and accurate recounting of the accepted facts of recent history is somehow akin to believing the Protocols of Zion) is beyond bizaare. Her request that we all "respect her opinion" is laughable. Her "opinion" is at least as much a fantasy as the Protocols of Zion. --Lee Hunter 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As much as it makes things easier for those who disagree with you, I'd suggest you don't self-discredit yourself with cheap insults. Armon 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We aren´t going to get very far discussing who should edit or not WIkipedia. To state the utterly obvious, the fact of the matter is that anyone can, unless explicitly blocked. So in partiular, unless there is a specific suggestion that somebody be blocked for a particular reason this discussion should end.

Your posiiton, that Cole's version of the events is a "perfectly straightforward and accurate recounting of the accepted facts of recent history" is not grounded in fact. We have been through this before, back in May. Cole invents these charges (which you repeat) out of thin air. Regardless, even if her position is entirely false, the proper response is to correct her false claims. If you do not have respect for your fellow editors, you should not be editing. Isarig 04:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The facts are hardly in dispute (except perhaps the esoteric question of whether Douglas Feith physically wrote the Clean Break document as opposed to just being part of the group that conceived it). I've tried to correct her false claims but she insists that they be part of the article because they are her opinion and her opinion somehow deserves to be respected. Well, I'm sorry, but no. If you're going to defame a living person it should be based on something stronger than an opinion. --Lee Hunter 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cole does not invent the charges out of air; his claims are well supported with evidence. Yes we have been through this back in May, and you were incorrect then as well.csloat 05:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig's point is completely valid. The problem is that you guys are tigers. The "connections" and "dual-loyalties" are not as self-evident as you think they are, except that a Zionist is pro-Israel, and a member of a right-wing party in one country may be sympathetic to a right-wing party in another. Wow -truly groundbreaking stuff! Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson's opinion of Feith, and claims that "his department was apparently penetrated by Israeli intelligence" isn't evidence that Feith had anything to do with it, or anything more sinister. Also, in Cole's notorious "Dual-Loyalties" post, he gives Feith as an example of the dangers of Zionist Jews being in government positions. It is perfectly reasonable to take a less-sympathetic view of that, than what you choose to. Armon 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to this post [8]? If so, I don't see where he says anything about the "dangers of Zionist Jews being in government positions". He does say that there is a danger in having senior US officials who are devoted to the interests of a political party of another country whether it happens to be the Baath party or Likud. --Lee Hunter 01:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the "tiger" page a joke? I read it, and it describes the anti-Cole collaborators here quite well. Glass houses and stones and such. As for Isarig's point, it may be "valid," but it is incorrect. Cole's specific complaints about specific individuals, some (but not all) of whom happen to be Jewish, is well founded, and supported by many other voices who have not been charged with antisemitism (or Protocol-reminiscientism or whatever this silly charge is). There is also no evidence at all that Cole's words are meant to be extrapolated to all Jews or all "Zionist Jews," as you seem to claim -- does Cole make the same charge against Noam Chomsky? Or even Alan Dershowitz? No - he only makes the charge against specific individuals with demonstrable connections to the Likud party - not against all Zionists and certainly not against all Jews. If you think this is not particularly "ground-breaking stuff," I totally agree - my position all along is that this whole thing is not notable and not encyclopedic. (As you said, let us savor our moment of agreement).csloat 01:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lee and csloat, please see Dreyfus Affair. Now, take your objections to the criticisms, such as propaganda, insinuations, smears etc. and invert the parties. You will get some insight into the minds of his critics. You will not agree, that's fine, but understanding their position will allow you to mount better defenses of Cole on your respective blogs. As for the charge that I am a tiger as well, I suppose my position that criticism be included in a section clearly labeled as such, is an "absolute" position, but notice how much more limited it is than working out who the ultimate "winner" is. Lee, has agreed that the passage in question has been presented in a NPOV manner. What more do you guys want from me -a conversion? Armon 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Dreyfus Affair? The DREYFUS Affair? Is that some kind of joke? I'm sorry I don't get it. Unless maybe there's some kind of European turn-of-the-century theme here (Dreyfus, Protocols of Zion). What's next, Piltdown Man? --Lee Hunter 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

When have I ever mounted a defense of Cole on my blog? If your point about the Dreyfus Affair is that Cole is like Dreyfus, wrongfully accused of something without evidence and being "convicted" on an encyclopedia, I suppose I agree, but the comparison is overly dramatic. Cole is being wrongly accused of antisemitism (or "Protocol-reminiscientism"), not treason, and the upshot of his being "convicted" in the court of wikipedia will be some nonsense in an encyclopedia entry, not imprisonment. I realize you mean for me to place Feith and co. in Dreyfus's position, not Cole, but in that case your faulty analogy begs the question of anti-semitism itself; it assumes the antisemitism question has already been answered rather than actually offering any analysis supporting the claim that there is something antisemitic about what Cole said. Your claim that your position is more "limited" is quite absurd; your position appears to be the exact opposite of mine (I won't presume to speak for others here) -- you think this particular criticism is encyclopedic whereas I do not. You have not yet offered a single reason, by the way, in all of this argument, why this criticism will improve this article or why it merits consideration in an encyclopedia. I don't care whether you "convert"; I would just like you to acknowledge that this particular criticism, while perhaps worthy of your own blog, has no place in an encyclopedia so that we can move on. csloat 07:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I pity you. Armon 14:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There have been several suggestions about what Karsh really meant in his assertion about Cole and the Protocols.

• Isarig seems to say that Cole subscribes to them; Isarig may believe that, but I doubt Karsh does.
• ELizmr had previuosly stated that Cole used methods of analysis similar to those in the Protocols. That is reasonable, except that she needs to be more specific. To give an extreme example, use of modus ponens constitutes a method of analysis, although I realize that's not what she meant. There is a line here which I don't see where it is being drawn by Karsh, and that's why I find the quote objectionable.
• Elizmr has more recently asserted that Cole could have "internalized" the Protocols? Of course it's possible, but again I don't think Karsh himself, when pressed, would go that far.

However, if Karsh (or any academic of similar status) has made the claim that "Cole subscribes (or believes or has internalized) the Protocols" then we should see it and include it.--CSTAR 15:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not said that Cole subscribes to the Protocols - I just dismissed the silly notion that because he's a professor of history, he can't possibly subscribe to them. I have no way of knowing what Cole really believes. That, as csolat has said, requires the ability to read his mind. But I don't see why we could include a hypothetical Karsh quote that says 'Cole subscribes to the protocols", but can't include an actual Karsh quote that says "the themes of the protocols resonate powerfully in Cole's writing". Isarig 15:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Boys, boys, boys. I can assure you I find your opinions, Sloat, Lee, CSTAR to be perhaps as distasteful as you find mine. Really. Put yourself in my place for a minute. I do, I really do. And Lee, I feel Cole's use of the metaphor goes beyond that particular instance you are discussing. And CSTAR, my comments about Cole were to counter your equally extreme one of Lee's that it would be "stunning news" for a ME scholar to subscribe to the protocols and yours that Karsh wrote something he doesn't believe. All of that is what we personally think and thus IRRELEVANT to the article. And, Lee, for the umttenth time, why would Karsh comment on Cole's non-academic blog in a peer-reviewed journal???? And Sloat, please don't throw stones at Isarig from a glass house. You are not a model of civility yourself (and I"m not saying I am). I respect all your opinions and am ok with letting them stand. I think that is in accordance with Wikipedia principles. Can we be done with this and agree to disagree????? Elizmr 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to disagree without a problem - I am not trying to change anyone's mind here. Let us also agree to remove the disputed and non-notable quotation from the article. csloat 20:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, we can't agree to that. We are much closer to consensus on keeping that quote, and providing Cole's response to it. Isarig 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No we're not. Though I guess I should ask, "closer than what?" csloat 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are. The suggestion of keeping the quote in, alongside Cole's response that directly addresses it has been suggested by Lee Hunter, and supported by Armon, Elizmr, CSTAR, Wachholder0 and myself. You are the only one stubbornly refusing to accept that compromise. Isarig 01:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not a "compromise"; that is the side you have been arguing for all along. A compromise involves, well, compromise -- your proposal is for a one-sided capitulation. Please don't speak for others and please stop personally attacking me; you've been warned twice on your user page. csloat 02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a compromise, the current version does not have Cole's quote in it. I am not speaking for others, I am summarizing their stated posiiotns on this page. And I'm most certianly not attacking you - just describing your actions. Isarig 03:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a compromise; it's what you have been arguing for all along. The current version was frozen that way due to page protection, not because it represented any kind of consensus, even among the anti-Cole editors. You are speaking for others when you "summarize" in a manner inconsistent with what they have argued, andyou are attacking me personally when you "describe my actions" in an insulting manner. csloat 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been arguing for the article to stay as is. Adding the Cole quote is a compromise, to which all other editors but you have agreed. Let me remind you that consensus does not mean unanimity, and we are very close to resolving this over your stubborn and disruptive objections. Isarig 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) You have not made any arguments against including Cole's response. That has been noncontroversial so your characterization of your position as a compromise is inaccurate. (2) Once more I implore you to quit personally attacking me. Such insults are a violation of WP:NPA policy and future attacks will be reported as such. csloat 04:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please cease your phony characterization of my edits as a personal attack on you. It is painfully obvious that you are stubbornly resisting a compromise which other editors have agreed to. describing your actions is not a personal attack. Threats, OTOH, such as the ones you are making now, are. The fact that I have not argued against a suggested compromise does not mean that it is not a compromise, it means I accept it. The fact that I am willing to accept a posotion that is different than what the article currently has indicates a compromise. Isarig 04:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No threats were implied; simply stating the rules. I have reported the personal attacks. You can continue to call your position a "compromise" if you like; there is not much I can do about that, other than state that you are incorrect. Have a nice day.csloat 05:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr, I didn't say Karsh wrote something he didn't believe. I said that I doubt Karsh actually believes Cole subscribes in some way to the Protocols; And if Karsh does believe this, then fine, let's have the quote in which he says this. And please note, I have not said your opinions are distasteful. I believe that formulation excessively personalizes this discussion. I have said, explicitly, that I find the association made by Karsh, of COle with the protocols in a way which is not in my opinion entirely clear, an issue of concern. I have also said why.--CSTAR 21:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the Karsh quote unclear?

CSTAR, I responded to your concerns that Karsh was unclear, by paraphrasing it here. You didn't respond, but given the mess this page is in, you probably missed it. I don't think you've established that it's unclear, only that there is a huge difference of opinion among editors here about Karsh's assessment according to their POV. Armon 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I´ll look at it again, but I have limited access to internet currrently.--CSTAR 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's what you say: his conspiratorial writings about the machinations of a cabal of "Likudnik" neocons is reminiscent of the Protocols and remain problematic. OK I agree that that's an interpretation. If Karsh had said that explicitly, I would be less concerned about the quote, primarily because it would be clear to the reader the exact association that Karsh claims between Ole and the protools (even though "reminiscent" is still too subjective an asessment) This of course has nothing to do with the veracity of the claim, but that is not the issue I'm concerned with.--CSTAR 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but I honestly don't see how it's unclear, or that the quote might be regarded either as "confirmation" that Cole is a conspiracy theorist or, a smear, is actually a problem. We could put the whole paragraph in the footnotes. Armon 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that if the quote has the meaning you claim it does, then it is an underhanded propaganda smear, as CSTAR pointed out. Regardless of Karsh's notability, such smears are not in themselves encyclopedic. csloat 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As this is what you've consistently argued, the quote is therefore not "unclear". The problem is simply that you regard it as an "underhanded propaganda smear". Armon 00:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, those were CSTAR's words, not mine, but my analysis quoting them was based on your explanation of the quote; as CSTAR has shown, there are other possible interpretations (though that one is most likely). But the problem as far as wikipedia goes is that the material is not encyclopedic.csloat 00:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand those were CSTAR's words, not yours, but please let's set aside the issue of whether it's propaganda or notable or encyclopedic. The question is -is it unclear? We seem to be in agreement, let's savour it ;-) Armon 00:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Karsh quotes are clear. The best way to avoid an interpretation that is misleading in any way is to use direct quotation(s) for him and for Cole's reply. Elizmr 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Once notability is established, that sounds like a fine solution. So, all we need now is a neutral third party commentator discussing the dispute in a dispassionate manner, indicating that this is actually a notable conflict between Karsh and Cole.csloat 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, you are making up your own rules here. There is no reason that an editor has to prove notability to another editor in order to add content to an article. Elizmr 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't notable it shouldn't stay in an encyclopedia. It's not about adding content to an article, it's about ensuring that the content in the article is actually encyclopedic. This particular content does not appear to be. csloat 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

YOur opinion is noted (again). Elizmr 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr is right csloat, you're making up "rules" out of thin air. Armon 00:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr is quite wrong, Armon, I haven't made up any rules at all. All I've done is insist on notability as a guideline. If you have a better way of determining notability on this issue, I'm happy to entertain it; the problem is you seem to be equating notability with "criticism of Cole." csloat 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Punch this into Google: Juan Cole anti-Semitic OR antisemitic -site:en.wikipedia.org -site:www.answers.com. Cole himself frequently "notes" it. It's reported in WP:RS. You seem to be equating what you'd like whitewashed with non-notability. Armon 14:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cole does sometimes write about anti-semitism, and such comments show up on google, but that is not the issue here. What WP:RS addresses the Karsh v. Cole dispute?-csloat 16:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are at least two issues: One is notability of the quote and the other is finding a working interpretation of the quote so that if it's put in we know what we're writing about. Concerning notability, there are two "opinions" namely that it's notable or it's not. For the record only (and in the interest of full disclosure) I'm of the opinion that it´s not notable, but it's just that, my opinion. I'm not going to spend time arguing for this position.

Given that as a result of this negotiation process, I am willing to accept the quote to enable the writing of this article to proceed (I am speaking for no one else here but myself), I want to make sure we agree on what on what the quote says; this is research to some extent, but not original research. Having said that, we have the obligation to clearly state what Cole's position is that Karsh objects to (that may be stated elsewhere, but it should be clearly stated here, again, for purposes of clarity). There are other issues that need to be settled (such as the correct quantification: one critic says vs some critics say.) --CSTAR 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Status of Compromise

It seems that we almost unanimous agreement on a compromise which would have the Karsh quote in the article, followed by Cole's response to it. This compromise has been suggested by Lee Hunter ("I'm not sure that it's worth fighting to keep [the Karsh quote] out as long as it is immediately followed by Cole's response."), supported by CSTAR ("I am willing to accept the quote to enable the writing of this article to proceed "), supported by Wachholder0 ("Include both quotes- let the reader decide if the "protocols" quote is specious"), supported by Armon ("The exchange above suggests to me that we have NPOV. "), and supported by me. I believe Elizmr supports it as well. If so, I propose we ask that this article be unprotected so that the Cole response can be added. Isarig 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we also need to add, perhaps in the Views section, a summary of the specific Cole commentary which sparked the Karsh quote so that we know that this whole thing arose from Cole's criticism of the Clean Break group (i.e. the guys who advised the Likud party to make getting rid of Saddam Hussein a top priority and then, a couple of years later, helped push the US into invading Iraq). Without this context it sounds like Cole was just making sweeping statements about Jews in government which was very much not the case. --Lee Hunter 23:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we know that Cole's criticism of the Clean Break group sparked Karsh's criticism of Cole? In any case, it's seems notable to me. Just a general observation on the "Views" section -I think we should make sure that we get a good notable and representative sampling of his views, not simply those which have come under attack. Armon 01:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Armon and I agree on something else, it appears. I second this view that we should not simply just be listing those views that have been attacked.csloat 01:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of agreement or compromise here Isarig; what there is is evidence of capitulation to the insertion of non-notable and defamatory material into a WP:BLP simply because three editors are united and intransigent on the issue. None of them have yet forwarded an argument as to why this material would improve this article in any way whatsoever. As Armon said in another context, don't mistake fatigue for consensus. csloat 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence of 6 editors agreeing that we can have Karsh's quote followed by Cole's response. You are the only one stubbornly refusing any compromise. It does not look good. Isarig 04:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, please stop. I have implored you several times to stop personally attacking me. I'm not interested in your thoughts on my "stubbornness" or how "good" it looks. I have also not seen evidence of any compromise, as I said; there is only evidence of capitulation to those who "stubbornly refuse" - to use your words - to follow WP:BLP or to keep the article to notable issues. Personally, I don't own this article or any in Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep making this discussion about me. I'm not interested in your opinion of me, of my classes, of my personality, or anything else. csloat 05:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Describing your actions is not a personal attack. I thought that after you'd been told this by the admin who reviewed your phony report you'd understand that. If we were to use your ridiculous standard, then your calling the actions of 6 other editors "capitulation" would be an insult and a personal attack. You have no way of knowing what motivated them to agree, and their motivation is entirely irrelevant, besides. We have agreement by all editors but you about this compromise, and we will soon proceed to implement it. Isarig 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously dude I'm just asking you to leave me alone. Just lay off. Is it that hard to understand? csloat 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As you can easily verify above, my initial edit introducing this new section did not even mention you. Rest assured this was done intentionally, partially because of your requests to "leave you alone", and partially because you had pretty much willingly placed yourself outside the consensus opinion, so I do not feel there any point in discussing this with you further. It is more than somewhat comical to observe you interjecting yourself, personally, into a discussion that did not involve you, and then whine about editors who will not "leave you alone". Isarig 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your attacks in this particular thread started with the comment "You are the only one stubbornly refusing any compromise. It does not look good." As you know, we don't have "consensus opinion" on this, but I don't see the point of arguing that with you anymore. As you also know, your comments that I am comical and that I am whining are continued personal attacks. Once again, I implore you, please cease and desist.csloat 22:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My comments (not "attacks" - repeatedly mischaracterizing my comments about you, which are descriptive of your actions, as "attacks" are in themselves violations of [[WP:AGF], WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA) started after you had interjected yourself into a debate which did not involve you, and personally addressed me. If you want me to "leave you alone", you'd do well to stop interjecting yourself into debates you are not part of, and making them persoanl. If, on the other hand, you want to continue to do so, and to continue making it personal, stop whining about being addressed personally. Now, once again, from the top: Describing your actions as stubborn refusal is not a personal attack. Describing this situation as comical is not a personal attack. We not only have consensus on this, this consensus has already been implemented in the article. If you don't want to argue anymore - just stop arguing. Isarig 23:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you still talking? csloat 00:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify. My position, which I though was supported by Isarig and Lee, is that the text as it reads now is fine. True, it's not a direct quote from Cole, but it's considered a fair summary of his response to the charges, and references a WP:RS. My concern is that it will turn the article back into an overlong blog slugfest when the issue is not simply a Karsh/Cole dispute. That being said, I'm more than willing to look at alternative versions of Cole's response, but I think we should discuss them here first in order to make absolutely sure that this passage has consensus. Armon 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what you're saying is your position is you would like to see Cole get "slugged" but you would not like to see Cole "slug" back? I can't say I'm surprised, but don't expect such a version of the page to stay that way for very long. The issue is simply a Karsh/Cole dispute, despite your assertion to the contrary -- I've asked again and again for evidence otherwise and you have failed to produce it. In any case, if I'm going to capitulate to the non-notable defamation being inserted into the page, I'm certainly going to do my best to make sure that the description of the non-notable dispute is as accurate and NPOV as possible. csloat 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not addressing what I said, you're simply assuming bad faith and threatening to edit war. Armon 00:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I did neither. Re-read what I wrote; my apologies for any offense taken. I'm not "threatening" anything other than improvement of the article. I believe I've made my position clear here.csloat 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

The current version of the passage re: allegations of antisemitism is not necessarily endorsed, but acceptable:

• Support Armon 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Support alternative formulation of Cole's response:

Support removal of passage:

Support permanent and everlasting removal of Karsh Protocol:

• PuhleezeGodspeed John Glenn! Will 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Since the question is framed as what I "support" (as opposed to what I can live with). --Lee Hunter 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Good point. I've changed it. << armon >> 00:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Lockup

• "the people in charge of Wikipedia have closed the entrance and opened a discussion on her who does not seem that she is going to arrive nowhere." - Let me guess? Karsh? Same crowd. Ah ha. It appears to be so. I"ll notify the Professor. He"ll be amused. In the meantime i've stayed out of the way and we are still here in a time warp. I still have to report Isarig for violation of WP:CIV for calling Cole a "jewbaiter" in an edit log.
  • (cur) (last) 01:21, 13 November 2006 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (Cole is a jewbaiter, so his jewbaiting quotes are in. thsi was moved to v&C, but you've deleted V&C, so it's back here) Unless somebody else has Godspeed John Glenn! Will 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see report here. I am utterly fed up with this sort of nonsense. << armon >> 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Unlock

I will unlock it.--CSTAR 18:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet another edit war and 3RR by sloat

csloat objects to my sentence: "He has expressed sympathy for divestment campaigns, but has publicly opposed a blanket ban on Israeli academics."

To quote Juan Cole:

Why We Should Not Boycott Israeli Academics

"I thought the divestiture movement and the boycott of academic institutions in the old racist South Africa a good idea, and was cheered to see students at the University of Michigan demonstrating against apartheid in the 1980s. I do not feel the same way about boycotting Israeli academics, as has been called for by hundreds of European scholars since April."

"In contrast, I could support the divestment campaign at some American campuses, aimed at university investments in Israeli firms, because the business elite in Israel is both more powerful and more entangled in government policy than the academics." (emphasis mine)

and here...

"Yet another attempt is being made to institute an academic boycott in Europe of Israeli professors. Academics, please sign this petition and stand up. Israeli academics as a class have not done anything wrong and it is not right to subject them to a blanket ban." (emphasis mine)

This is not even a marginal case of sloat suppressing evidence & accuracy in an effort to advance the POV that Cole is "Pro-Israel" or something. Despite his polite invitation, I'm utterly uninterested in engaging into yet another ad nauseum debate with him on something so obvious, so I've placed the evidence here and reported him for 3RR. << armon >> 02:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've only reverted twice; you reverted three times. A simple statement in talk of what you felt was wrong with my summary would have been appropriate. The "blanket ban" thing is not from the article you cited here, it is from another source. If you were more careful with your editing in the first place you might have avoided this. Why make this about me? csloat 03:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading over everything, I still support the more npov version of the citation. Lee is right that the cryptic reference to divestiture is misleading, and the insistence on "blanket ban" makes it seem as if Cole supports boycotting some Israeli academics, yet there is no evidence that he does. If you want to quote that entire sentence from the blog as a separate sentence I might not argue about it but I'm not sure it's that notable. Why this insistence on twisting Cole's words around over the most minute of points? Cole publishes a clear statement against the boycott, why try to pretend it is anything other than he says it is? What are you so invested in here?--csloat 03:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, Armon is right about the text. Cole does use the phrase "blanket ban" in the second cite and does say he supports divestment from Israel in the first cite. It is towards the end. Why is this so problematic? Elizmr 04:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Armon didn't cite the second cite. Only the first was in his version of the page. The cite actually cited refers to the boycott of Israeli academics; so does the link. He's pulling "blanket ban" out of Cole's blog in order to make a phony distinction between boycotts Cole supports and those he does not. It's a minor point that he appears to be twisting out of context for reasons he won't explain. I think we should use the first cite (which is not a blog) and stick to the phrase "boycott of Israeli academics" (which matches the wiki link). I don't see the point of inserting subtle bias into every minor phrase. An attempt at NPOV would be much better here.csloat 04:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and put both quotations into the article; Armon, I hope you will see beyond our dispute about the Karsh quote (which you will note I have not deleted, despite your claims that I "threatened" to) and WP:AGF about my edits. My edits are not attempts to "suppress evidence & accuracy in an effort to advance the POV that Cole is 'Pro-Israel'." And I have not wikilawyered or violated the 3RR - I was very careful about that; my edits were an attempt to compromise.-csloat 08:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Iraq position

Let's not cherry-pick quotations to make Cole look contradictory. The "complexity" of Cole's position is explained in his 2005 quotation for anyone too simple-minded to understand that there are more than two positions possible on the issue. Isarig felt the need to insert that this quote was "two years after" the war, but without noting that it was a response to a smear campaign by other bloggers who cherry-picked the same quotes Isarig pulled out in order to protray Cole as shifting his position (I'm not sure why that is seen as a bad thing per se; obviously, things have changed in Iraq over time). Anyone who reads what Cole had to say about Saddam during that period and now can see that he has been remarkably consistent on the fact that Saddam was an awful thug and that he always had mixed feelings about US involvement in the region. I don't see the point of using the Wikipedia article to play out blog-debates -- I've filled in other things Cole said (from the same link Isarig used) to make Cole's position more clear, but I also think Cole said enough about Iraq and Saddam that was quoted in WP:RS's both before and after the war that make his position clear. csloat 23:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, let's not cherry pick quotes. Until a day ago, the view section simply mentioned his pre war-stance that the war in Iraq would be "worth it", alongside his criticism of the way the war was handled. You felt the need to add some cherry picked quotes which attempted to portray him as an opponent of the war, who thought it was a "terrible idea", so some quotes that actually reflect his positions during pre-war days, on the eve-of-war, shortly after the war commenced, and years after the war. Some readers may view this as shifting positions, others may view it a 'complex position'. And I see that you can't post a single thing without some uncivil insinuation about the ability of other editors to understand Cole's allegedly "complex" position. Isarig 23:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I felt the need to add a quote explaining the "contradiction" that some bloggers had smeared Cole with. Then you cherry-picked quotes from a page with many comments about Saddam, summarized one of those comments in an inaccurate manner, and ignored those comments that did not support your inaccurate summary - the definition of "cherry-picking." I have added quotes to show that Cole's position was indeed "complex" before the war; the only way to believe that it wasn't is to simply ignore the quotes that you don't like. I didn't make an uncivil comment about any editor; my comment was directed at the bloggers who misrepresent Cole; for Wikipedia editors who appear to be influenced by those bloggers, I have nothing to say other than read what Cole actually said if you hope to understand his position. My point was simply that I don't see this as that complex at all - it is indeed possible to be glad Saddam is gone but also to be critical of the war, and Cole was both. It is "simple-minded" to believe that there are only two possible positions on Saddam; I'm not sure that comment is uncivil or all that controversial. Anyway none of this is relevant - it appears we agree on one thing - "let's not cherry-pick quotes." So let's not. csloat 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This contradiction was not mentioned anywhere in the article, so it's not at all clear why you had to "explain" it. My summary was hardly misleading. I wrote Cole did not oppose war for regime change, and thought Milosevic was worse, when he in fact said "I am an Arabist and happen to know something serious about Baathist Iraq, which paralyzes me from opposing a war for regime change in that country (Milosevic did not kill nearly as many people)." If you don't want cherry picked quotes, I am fine with you reverting back to the version of 19:37, 24 November 2006. Isarig 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Cherry picking if you are confused about my use of this term. csloat 00:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the term, and it accurately describes your additions to the Views on Iraq section. As I wrote, if you want to go back to the version of 19:37, 24 November 2006, that would be fine with me. Isarig 00:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not describe my additions; you might want to read about it. I have no desire to go back to a previous version of the page, but thanks for asking (twice). csloat 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It describes your edits to a 't'. Since you're happy with the current state of the page, let's move on. Isarig 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have, but it would behoove you to read the page on cherry-picking so that you learn to use the metaphor properly. Have a nice day. csloat 22:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You just can't leave well enough alone, nor resist the temptation to condescend, can you? Your edits, which selected a few choice Cole quotes (e.g. "I thought it was a terrible idea") that highlighted his alleged anti-war position, to advance your POV that Cole was opposed to the war, while neglecting a host of other Cole quotes (e.g ""it is a great good thing that [Saddam's regime] is gone." or " I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices "), is exactly what cherry-picking describes as "the act of pointing at individual cases which seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases that may contradict that position." Isarig 23:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

See, you're wrong. That's the problem here, not whether I can "leave well enough alone." You were the one who included supposed pro-war quotes while neglecting those (on the same page you cited!) that revealed a more nuanced position. I did not neglect those quotes; I left them on the page, and even included one myself that said "I will be ecstatic to see Saddam go!" I did not cherry pick; I simply included additional quotes to balance out the cherry picking that had been done by you. I hope this clears up the issue. csloat 23:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sophistry. On 11/24, the article had no anti-War Cole quotes. You added anti-War Cole quotes from his blog, to advance the POV that he was "really" anti war, while neglecitng other quoyes, from the same blog, that had a pro-War feel to them (and you did all this before I added any of the pro-War quotes). You were textbook cherry-picking. Isarig 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. You could stand to look up "sophistry" too, but I'm not interested in pursuing yet another misunderstanding with you. On 11/24, the entry stated "On the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, Cole wrote that he felt the removal of Saddam Hussein from power would be worth the sacrifices to be made by all sides" with a footnote. I added the quote about his position being "very complex" from that point, since the summary that existed seemed to me to elide the complexity of his position. I never tried to make it sound as if he didn't say the anti-Saddam things that you characterize as "pro-war"; in fact, the quote I added specifically included the line "I believed that if Saddam's genocidal regime could be removed by the international community in a legal way, that some good would have been accomplished," which is entirely consistent with the material you wrongly claim I neglected. I also added his comment about the war in Afghanistan, which you could more easily characterize as pro-war, so it is difficult to understand why you think I want to portray him as unproblematically "anti-war." So it's clear I was not cherrypicking. Now let's look at your edit -- even the edit summary makes it clear that you are trying to portray it as if Cole had two or three different positions at different times, even though other quotes from the same page you quoted as his "prewar" position make clear that his position was more nuanced. Classic cherry-picking, yes? It is not until I added the quotes from that same page that you ignored in your edit that we had a more accurate summary of Cole's position on the Iraq war. Interestingly, even the postwar quote you included about the "great good" thing Saddam is gone was cherry-picked; a full couple of sentences makes clear that your version excluded the material that may contradict your position: "The Iraq war has resulted in many human casualties that make any humane person want to weep. I hope the human sacrifice will have been worth it; certainly Saddam's regime was virtually genocidal and it is a great good thing that it is gone. But the continued urban looting is an indictment of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's carelessness." Since the excluded material was in such close proximity to the material you picked out I can only conclude that you were well aware that you were cherry picking the quotes. I hope this clears everything up. csloat 00:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As Sophistry tells us, "a sophism generally refers to ... insincere argument used by someone to make a point". So you "added a quote" - which conveys a certain POV, but negleted other quotes, which conveyed the opposited POV - which is the definiotn of cherry-picking. Isarig 00:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply asserting something doesn't make it true. You could read the evidence above that shows why you are incorrect, or you could simply drop it. Either way, don't comment on my sincerity. csloat 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That you "...felt the need to add a quote explaining the "contradiction" that some bloggers had smeared Cole with" is undoubtedly your sincere opinion. It is however, unacceptable to attempt to rework the text in order to erase such a "contradiction". Please stop it. << armon >> 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor word choice, my bad. Don't order me around. csloat 04:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yale

There is already more than adequate coverage on this page of the fact that Cole didn't get the Yale appointment. Let's not turn this page into the nightmare the V&C page became. There is no need for a huge he-said/she-said section about the results of the Campus Watch letter-writing campaign or about a decision that was made behind closed doors. Jobs that people didn't get may be notable for their "fifteen minutes," but those minutes are long over for this yale thing, IMHO.csloat 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion that the Yale controversy should be removed is noted. The consensus opinion is that this was notable and there is no good reason to re-hash it. << armon >> 04:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. What happened on the V&C page is not something that needs to happen on this page; as you recall, the issues on that page were different - in fact, it was specifically created as a POV fork in order to put up junk that doesn't belong here. As I said, we already have information about the Yale appointment, so the claim that it is "notable" (even if such a "concensus" existed) is not a good enough reason to have this entire section in. Please dialogue about this rather than reverting. csloat 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

npov section

Please take care not to eliminate the npov tag until npov disputes have been dealt with. In the section, even though I have capitulated to the browbeating of certain editors who demand that the earth stop if a bogus quote about the Protocols of Zion is not put in here, the npov issues have not been resolved. Karsh aside, the frontpage and MEQ information about "new antisemitism" was specifically found to violate NPOV, BLP, and RS. That is not just my opinion; I believe it was shared by Centrx and CSTAR (though I'd rather let them speak for themselves on the issue). I could see removing the tag if that stuff is removed - as I've said, I'm not happy about the Karsh junk but I have capitulated on that particular issue.csloat 04:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you are using the tag to make a point. That is not an acceptable use of it. Once it has been decided that the content is notable, the issue narrows to whether it has been presented in a NPOV manner. << armon >> 05:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No; the only point I am making is that there is an NPOV problem here. It has also not been "decided" that this content is notable. csloat 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As you are the only one to have made the claim that it's not notable, I suggest you limit yourself to any NPOV concerns you may have with the text as presented. << armon >> 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not the only one to make that claim; see comments by Centrx above among others. Second, you haven't addressed the NPOV, notability, BLP or RS issues I raised here. csloat 19:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

no more edit wars please

Please Armon, I have tried to make peace with you a number of times. Don't edit war just because it's me. Take a look at the arguments and issues here. You cannot remove an NPOV tag just because you disagree -- you need to actually discuss the issues. As for the Yale thing, you are just ignoring the points I made here. This is already mentioned on the page. We don't need it twice, and we don't need this much detail. Thanks. csloat 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to make peace, I am however, skeptical of your sincerity when any edit I produce, including edits which are impeccably cited, or text which has already been through the NPOV ringer, results in you starting an edit war. << armon >> 05:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is a bug-ugly article with these views and controversies creeping in. This is terribly redundant and provides ample opportunity to confuse readers. The V&C article seems robust enough and is a stand-alone topic. I'd strongly support culling all of these and leaving a link to the V&C article along with something appropriately bland:

"Cole is an outspoken critic of American foreign policies in the Middle East. He has also attracted a broad range of critics. See Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole for additional details."

MARussellPESE 06:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's actually an option and it didn't work as a solution last time. What I suggest doing is edit. I think we should come up with a list of his notable "Views" and notable "Controversies and criticism" and then report them briefly << armon >> 06:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Reviewing the discussion on the old V&C page I have a hard time seeing where concensus to merge was established. I'm not sure where csloat was seeing WP:BLP problems as he's never listed them. Centrix cited the same, but never answered csloat's acknowledgement that the blog is part of the discussion at hand. MARussellPESE 06:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

MARussellPESE, please see here and then here for Centrx's rationale for pp and the merge. No, it wasn't via a "consensus", but the V&C page was overlong and going nowhere good anyway. << armon >> 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The blog is part of the discussion but not every comment on every blog about the blog is notable. In particular, the Yale stuff is not notable for more than a few sentences -- right now we have more information about a job Cole never sought and didn't get than we do about a job he actually holds. It's a little strange, to say the least. It may be time for yet another RfC on this page. This is ridiculous. By the way, Armon, don't hurl false accusations of vandalism at other editors, and please assume good faith. csloat 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Csloat, also see Centrx's instructions to merge "If you have trouble deciding what is neutral and what is appropriate to include in a biography of a living person and to what extent it should be included, decide based on the level of coverage in secondary, published sources, and represent the statements of those secondary sources accurately." I don't see how you can credibly argue that the "Yale controversy" suffers from a lack of WP:RS, and his instructions were to merge that which met the standard. At such time as you take your own advice re:WP:AGF, refrain from edit-warring, and accept that simple intransigence is not an acceptable response to reasoned argument and evidence, you will find the AofGF rapidly returning. << armon >> 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing that, Armon. As I've noted, I've tried; the response I've gotten so far is more charges of bad faith on your user page, spurious WP:ANI filings that misrepresent my actions, and false accusations of "vandalism." I suppose we may have different definitions of "rapid." In any case, for the Yale issue, we don't have any information or argument from you as to how this merits this much consideration in a BLP. The claim that there are RS's (mostly a yale student paper) backing it up does not establish this; perhaps it establishes notability for a brief mention - e.g., what we had before you added four paragraphs on it - but not enough to merit far more coverage than any job Cole has actually held. It's ludicrous, imho, to think that a job Cole didn't seek and didn't get is more notable than the job he currently has or than his vast contributions both to scholarship and to the public sphere. To raise RS is a red herring, since I am not contesting that it is notable enough for a sentence or two of coverage in the section where it was before. What I am contesting is the need for a huge section as if this were a major controversy in its own right.csloat 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you prefer made no mention of the context or the controversy -about which there are a plethora of sources. Other than notes 29 to 36, (yes I know some are repeats) there is this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this -for example. Is it a major controversy meriting its own article? Maybe not -but it is certainly a notable controversy concerning Cole. << armon >> 04:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So we've got two notable WP:RSs in the bunch - WSJ and CHE; the rest are college papers and extreme right-wing opinion mags (frontpage? come on). The WSJ article is an opinion piece by John Fund that is clearly a smear piece; it is no more worth citing than the two responses I linked to his name. The first CHE piece is an opinion piece that mentions the Cole "controversy" in two sentences out of the entire piece -- it's a good piece that all edit-warriors on this page could stand to read, but it doesn't make this controversy worth belaboring for four paragraphs. The final CHE piece is the only thing really worth linking to this section - a forum of bloggers talking about Cole and about "the hazards of academic blogging"; it includes a piece with the title "The Controversy That Wasn't," which pretty much sums up this case. I think adding a sentence to what was already there indicating there was much speculation among bloggers about why Cole didn't get the Yale job along with a link to this and a footnote indicating Cole's response (or simply a phrase or two quoted in the main text) should be enough here - there is no justification for four paragraphs of speculation about what it shows about "the contents of Cole's mind" or whatever. Again, this article should maintain a sense of proportion here; this controversy that wasn't is currently presented as if it were at least twice as important as the totality of Cole's peer-reviewed published work. csloat 06:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

From The Controversy That Wasn't by Erin O'Connor:

“ The Juan Cole controversy struck me as essentially uncontroversial: Cole is free to write what he wants on his Web log, Informed Comment; Cole's readers are free to criticize his writing and to criticize Yale for considering hiring him; Yale is free not to hire Cole. In the absence of evidence that Yale capitulated to a political campaign to sink Cole's appointment, there seemed nothing else to say. But plenty has been said nonetheless, much of it along the lines of the comment by Zachary Lockman, president-elect of the Middle East Studies Association, that the opposition to Cole's appointment was "an assault on academic freedom and the academic enterprise." ”

Emphasis mine. Also:

“ What we do know: Scholars who blog should accept that their writing affects their professional image. If they take controversial stances, they will be criticized. If they behave badly online, their reputations will suffer. Academic freedom protects the tenured (a fast-shrinking group) from punishment when speaking out — but it does not and should not protect them from the unforgiving sorting process that is the marketplace of ideas.
Much ink and many pixels have been expended deploring the energy with which Cole's candidacy was debated. But we should welcome such debate, and we should meet it with more. There is no threat to academic freedom in vigorous public discussion. There is only freedom itself. ”

...and finally, to address why controversies like this are more notable than the totality of Cole's peer-reviewed published work - "Cole's Internet status as Middle East expert emanates from his academic position as Middle East expert; as a public intellectual, he is better known for his blog than his scholarship." However, if you believe that's not the case, I'm open to evidence to the contrary . << armon >> 08:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, all of that is interesting, but little of it is relevant to the question at hand. Yes, Cole's blog is important and well-regarded, and many pixels have been spent discussing it. But only the first paragraph you quote discusses Yale, and your selective hilighting left out "struck me as essentially uncontroversial." Yes, plenty has been said about it "nonetheless," but that alone doesn't justify a long discussion of it here. As I said, a couple sentences, including Cole's response to the "controversy," and perhaps the quote from Lockman that you cite above, should do the trick. Again, no need for bizarre speculation about how this reveals the "contents" of Cole's mind and such as is currently on the page. csloat 15:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The question at hand is: is it a notable controversy concerning Cole? The cite you highlighted supports the opposite of what you're claiming. Her position was that Cole's supporters didn't have a case that his rejection from Yale was a threat to academic freedom. How you manage to twist "Scholars who blog should accept that their writing affects their professional image. If they take controversial stances, they will be criticized. If they behave badly online, their reputations will suffer." into "Cole's blog is important and well-regarded" -is beyond me, but that's not the question. <<-armon->> 23:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why play "gotcha" with my points here? If we stick to the question of improving this page rather than trying to figure out which one of us is "winning," the discussion will be more productive. I've not denied that the non-controversy is "notable"; the question is how notable -- as I've said, a couple of sentences, including the one you've quoted from Lockman, is more than plenty. The quotes you have presented include the comment that it is "essentially uncontroversial." The rest of the stuff that you bizarrely claim I have "twisted" is simply not about the Yale non-controversy at all; that was my point. But let's leave that aside. Again, what you have said is just non-responsive to my points on this. csloat 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're handwaving and avoiding clearly answering the question of whether it is a notable controversy concerning Cole? Does "I've not denied that the non-controversy is 'notable';" mean that you agree that it is a notable controversy concerning Cole? Yes or no? How much space to give it is a different issue. <<-armon->> 06:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're being very productive. This "controversy" was mentioned before you put four paragraphs in about it. I'm not handwaving; I've consistently been clear that if this is to get any space at all it should not be more than a couple sentences. You're the one avoiding the issue; before you put in four paragraphs, there was one sentence on the issue. The dispute is not whether to mention the issue at all; the dispute is precisely how much space to give it. I am happy with the one sentence on the issue that existed prior to your intervention. If you want to add one more sentence I am fine with the Lockham quote and perhaps a quote from Cole. No more is needed; certainly not the lurid detail you've given it. How many times must I say this until we can actually discuss the issue instead of you accusing me of various logical fallacies? csloat 09:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just answer the question. Now you appear to be saying the opposite. <<-armon->> 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop making this about trying to force me to answer your contrived question. I have been consistent throughout -- there was one sentence on Yale, I prefer that to four paragraphs, but I am willing to concede that a second sentence may be useful. You are the one who added four paragraphs, Armon, and you are the one refusing to justify them. I see no point in continuing like this. csloat 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The "contrived question", as you put it, is to 1) establish whether you think it's notable or not, and if so, 2) to end spurious claims that, it hasn't been agreed that it's notable, two days hence. If you don't want to be "trapped" into saying either way, I suggest running for office, not editing here. <<-armon->> 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's just not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is, why must there be four paragraphs about it? You haven't even begun to address that question. Just because you have repeated your question in bold face several times does not make it more important. It is disruptive. I have agreed that a sentence or two on this topic is reasonable. That's all I need to say about it. Please don't start insulting me again Armon - assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. You should be familiar with those pages by now.csloat 19:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the appropriate change to the article, putting the one sentence about Yale (along with the deleted sentence about Cole's current appointment) where it was before and removing the huge section that Armon had devoted to it. I think it is reasonable to add another sentence quoting Lockham and Cole on the non-controversy, and perhaps even to move it to the "controversies" section, but I see no support in any of this discussion for the extended discussion of the issue. csloat 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that was appropriate so I've restored it. There are several reasons for this, 1) there was a notably controversy about this (see evidence above) 2) the version csloat prefers makes no mention of this, 3) the Yale non-appointment is not part of his "Background, education, appointments and awards" and is therefore in the wrong section, and 4) this is merged text from the defunct article which other editors have worked on/argued about/come to some sort of agreement on, it is not csloat's prerogative to unilaterally delete it. <<-armon->> 18:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

None of those "reasons" justifies the extended dissertation you have included on this issue. Please be careful when edit warring; you made another edit that you have not justified (see below). As I said, if you want to add another sentence to this about the non-controversy over the non-appointment I will be fine with it. It seems we should be able to agree on this at this point. Thanks.csloat 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

loyalties removal

I also removed material from the "dual loyalties" section that had nothing whatsoever to do with "dual loyalties." If we want to add a section about "ad hominems from Karsh" or something like that then perhaps the paragraph could go back in. I don't find it particularly notable, but I have fewer objections to the paragraph per se than I do to its inclusion as a "dual loyalties" dispute.csloat 17:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that needs some work. Cole has been criticized for commenting outside of his field of expertise re: Arab/Israeli issues, as well a strong anti-Israeli bias. This is a related, but not strictly the same criticism as that of his conspiracy theories. <<-armon->> 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no "conspiracy theory" involved here. Second, this "criticism" is not one; it is simply a tendentiously worded statement by Karsh that says that Cole represents the mainstream of his field, along with a false charge that Cole doesn't have the background to research what he researches, and Cole replying that Karsh is wrong about the latter. This isn't notable, but if it is, it has nothing to do with "a strong anti-Israel bias" (which is another bogus charge, of course). Either put this nonsense in a separate section or leave it out. Stop the edit war. csloat 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK what do you suggest it be subtitled then? <<-armon->> 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be there at all; I already suggested one subtitle. If you think it should be there, why don't you tell us what you think it is actually about? csloat 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your suggested subtitle for that paragraph, you simply deleted it. Also, I just told you what I thought it was about. How about: "Expertise and bias"? <<-armon->> 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing about bias in the paragraph; "expertise" is fine if anyone else thinks it is notable. I don't; I still think it should be deleted. csloat 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Karsh's critique of his analysis is also a charge of bias. I suggest merging the related criticisms (such as Hitchens' charge) together, rather than breaking them out into a subtitled litany. <<-armon->> 19:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hitchens has nothing to do with this. I suggest (again) removing the paragraph entirely; if not, I suggest the title "Expertise." I also suggest getting other editors (without a horse in the race) to discuss this topic. Frankly, it appears heading down the road to severe WP:BLP violations. "Criticism/Controversy" sections are eschewed in general for good reason; if we must have them, we should be very careful not to make Wikipedia the source of a controversy's "notability." In general, if a neutral third party WP:RS cannot be found discussing the controversy as a controversy, it should not be treated as one.csloat 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Armon disruption

Please do not edit war Armon; if you want to make progress on this page it is not the way to do it. You have not justified four long paragraphs on a "controversy" that your own sources say is "not controversial." I have agreed to another sentence or two on the issue to satisfy your complaints. But you have not justified the changes you are making, and your steamrolling edit war -- which consistently has ignored an entirely separate edit, indicating you are not even reading what you are reverting -- is totally unproductive and unjustified. csloat 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation recommendation

I strongly recommend all parties that you take this to mediation. The situation on the article itself is bordering on blockable edit-warring. Please relax and de-escalate the article edits in the meantime. Georgewilliamherbert 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is edit warring, and if they continue they will be blocked. It is not so important to have a favored revision on a page for three minutes, or even three days. —Centrx→talk • 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am all for this solution and have advocated it for days. How can I take this to mediation?-csloat 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed cites and material based on blog post

I removed the material based on this blog post of Cole's. With all the discussion of WP:BLP as relating to Cole, I believe that it's been forgotten that BLP applies to Karsh as well, and not only on his article. Any material we have on Cole should be able to be properly sourced and I'm assuming that where I've removed this cite, particularly in the biographical section, there will be no problem getting better ones. <<-armon->> 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing the links isn't really the same as finding good sources, though these should be verified elsewhere. Also, in general keep in mind that it is okay, at least provisionally, to have plain, non-controversial statements sourced to reliable primary sources if the information is necessary to have an article without holes on an otherwise notable subject. —Centrx→talk • 23:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing the links was only meant to be temporary. I didn't change the bio text and I avoided using {fact} or {cite} templates because they may be interpreted as me starting a fight. Cole's critics have challenged his scholarship on contemporary issues but, as he is president of MESA, I have no doubt that there are good RSs supporting him. In fact, citing them avoids any claim that he's being "self-serving". I assumed other editors had cites ready to go, but I'll look myself and fix them. <<-armon->> 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I removed Karsh's challenge to his expertise/analysis as well because even though there are RSs challenging him on this, the whole issue needs a rewrite if it's to be included. <<-armon->> 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't be touching this article until it enters mediation, but I vigorously oppose Armon's changes. I'm sorry, but deleting an explicit response by Cole to specific criticism from Karsh is just a way of handicapping one side of the debate to suit your POV. Claiming BLP issues is nonsense; Cole's response raises no more BLP issues than the Karsh charges in the first place. If you want to do away with such issues, delete the whole section, as I have been advocating from the beginning. I want to assume good faith but it is difficult to do so when Armon has so vehemently argued for keeping the Karsh criticism in (as well as the charge of "anti-semitism") despite BLP, and yet now he claims BLP as the reason for deleting Cole's response to the charges. Now we have horrible NPOV issues as well as BLP issues, since we essentially have a biography entry that quotes Karsh and others calling Cole the equivalent of a Nazi and absolutely no response from Cole or any other indication that the charges are baseless. I hope someone besides me has the good sense to restore Cole's response.csloat 01:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually going to ask that Armon restore the material he deleted from Cole's blog for two reasons -- 1 is what I wrote above, that his deletion was completely unjustified, but 2 is that this section is precisely one of the sections specified under the request for mediation. Interestingly, rather than respond to the request as is policy, Armon chose to make more contentious edits to this section of the article, specifically changing the grounds for mediation. I think he should show good faith by restoring the material that responds to Karsh's charge and then agree to the mediation. If he does not agree to the mediation, that is another issue. But until we have agreement to enter mediation (and agreement by an admin to serve), we should not be editing those parts of the article that will potentially be mediated. It would be a simple good faith move but it is up to Armon - as I said, I am not going to revert his edits because I entered into mediation in good faith and because we have both been warned that edit warring is not the way to handle this. His deletion is a clear revert of a change I made a while back, and his explanation for the change is inadequate. Cole's specific response to Karsh is not in any way a violation of BLP. csloat 01:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)