Talk:Juan Cole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Juan Cole article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.


Contents

[edit] Improved Off the Map

Let me give my suggestion for this paragraph, which is quite honestly hard to read as it stands now. I edited in a paragraph that I think is an improvement, for the following reasons: 1. it is similarly short but has much more real information; 2. it presents both sides (Cole and Hitchens) and summarizes their important arguments in a more NPOV way; 3. it leaves out the name-calling that does not belong on a biography page - but someone who cares can look up the gory details; 4. it is more comprehensive (it includes the context for the Nazila quote); 5. it is not as confusing (I couldn't tell who the Hitchens quote was supposed to belong to - it read as if it was a translation). 6. I also changed the heading title since it didn't seem appropriate. What do you think? Thank you, Jgui 05:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Great work; thanks. The one thing I would add is the comments Cole made about his actual opposition to the Iranian regime (which is quite vociferous). I'd be tempted to add his point that Hitchens actually agrees with him, too, but I think it isn't necessary. If there are no objections I'll add the former in a few days. csloat 05:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it may not be needed. See the Views section that I added on Iran; it pretty well sums up what he feels about Ahmadinejad. Jgui 06:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The section looks good, thanks Jgui. I don't think it needs to be expanded any more now; since the focus is on Cole and Hitchens, if more from Cole is added, so should more from Hitchens. - Merzbow 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Cole's specific argument against Hitchens' specific argument should not be ignored. Hitchens called Cole an apologist for Ahmadenijad and Cole responded by affirming his profound and personal opposition to Iran and to Ahmadenijad. This should at least be mentioned if not quoted directly. Merzbow, that argument is rather silly -- this is not about balancing the word count between one party and another; it is about accurately representing the "debate" that occurred. If Hitchens is quoted calling Cole an "apologist" for the Iranian regime, Cole should be allowed his response. After all this is a page about Cole. csloat 06:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
We can argue for ages about whose argument intrinsically needs more space to represent, and we're never going to agree. The best way to compromise in situations like this is to give equal space. It's worked in many other article (like the Criticism of Islam subtree), it can work here. - Merzbow 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If this were the Criticism of Cole page you might have a point; in a WP:BLP you don't. Also we're not talking about how much space to give each argument; we're talking about whether to represent one side of the argument (Cole's) or not. csloat 07:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
BLP makes no requirement that a person criticized be given 3x the space to respond. In de-facto criticism sections we will represent both sides equally. It's the only way to do things fairly in cases where editors are naturally inclined to believe that "their" side deserves more space because they happen to agree with it. - Merzbow 08:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
So if Hitchens makes 2 arguments and Cole responds with 3, we should censor one of Cole's arguments in order to create a phony sense of "balance"? csloat 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No, we would make an editorial decision to either summarize the three arguments more or present only the most notable two. - Merzbow 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have no objection to summarizing the arguments but "present only the most notable of the two" sounds like censoring one to me. In either case, I am against the idea of imposing "balance" on a debate when it doesn't exist in reality. I respect your sense of fairness, but I feel your way of enforcing it is drastically flawed. We have a whole page on the Holocaust; should we give "equal time" to Holocaust deniers on that page so that we can present the "other side" of the debate in a "balanced" manner? csloat 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
On issues where the pre-existing notability of certain sides hasn't been pre-established by a consensus of tens of thousands of scholars in discussion over 60 years - like the Holocaust debate - the default state should be to give equal time. When the relative notability of Hitchen's accusations and Cole's responses has been accorded the same examination, then I will grant your point. - Merzbow 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what you're saying; it's the implementation that is flawed -- again, I don't think it is WP's job to impose "balance" on a debate by censoring one side or letting another side soapbox when a more accurate depiction of the debate is possible. In this case, all I'm advocating is that we fairly report both sides (and you seem to agree with that point). csloat 01:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I also added Cole's views on Iran in the Views section, since they were so forcefully written and strongly felt in the citation I was reading for the above change. Thanks, Jgui 06:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This version by Jgui [1] is in my opinion an accurate and verifiable portrayal of the Hitchens Cole dispute. --CSTAR 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks more fluid and to the point to me. Abbenm 18:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with CSTAR and Abbenm on this point; the current version by Jgui is far more acceptable, and it seems to satisfy the problems raised on both sides of the dispute among editors. Armon's edit warring is entirely destructive to this process. csloat 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I too can live with the current version. Since the RfM is apparently on ice, perhaps we can do a poll/RfC thingy now and see what the general view of the current revision is. Wachholder0 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that any version of this article which uses pov original research like "This article plainly shows Cole's frustration" and states Cole's excuses for Ahmadinejad's statements as if they were fact could be thought of as a "better" version. Jayjg (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, what are you talking about? --CSTAR 22:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
He's talking bout a revision made not to the "wiped off the map" section, but to the Iran section. And I think he's right on that specific point, it's a weird phrase that probably shouldn't be included. However that is not relevant to the translation section, which was also reverted. Abbenm 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I agree there. But this comment here on the "Wiped off the map section" is misplace. --CSTAR 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. The inferior version of the "Wiped off the map" section stated, for example Cole felt the speech had been mistranslated to incorrectly imply a military threat. He noted that Ahmadinejad had been quoting Khomeni, and stressed that the speech was about the "occupation regime" and "is about what sort of regime people live under, not whether they exist at all." We have no idea how Cole feels about anything, we only know what he has written. In addition, he claimed (not "noted") Ahmadinejad had been quoting Khomeni, since it's not a given fact Ahmadinejad was doing so. Also, it's not up to Cole to "stress" what the speech is really about; he can certainly argue or claim it is about that, but he can't "stress" it as if Cole's opinion on this is also a given fact. The inferior version of the section was riddled with issues like this, and it deleted some well-sourced and relevant information. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but one of your points is simply preposterous. That Ahmadenijad was quoting Khomeini is a well-known fact, and it is not denied by Hitchens or anyone else. Nobody is helped by having Wikipedia cast doubt on Cole's statement in that regard. csloat 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
OK you certainly have a point about the statement "Cole felt" or "Cole stressed"; however, much of what you deleted are quotes, which are in fact what Cole has written. You also deleted a full sentence that included the disputed translation. To refer to a translation in any other way is, in my opinion, tendentious.--CSTAR 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not add the quotes to the current version, then, which at least is written in an NPOV way? Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
We have a full article on Ahmadinejad's comments. This describes the Cole/Hitchens fight of which the erased points about Hitchens stealing, warmongering, and drunkenness, are germane. IMO, it's tendentious to remove what caused notable controversy and to reframe it according to what is thought to be Cole's POV. <<-armon->> 23:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The name-calling is not germane or notable at all. The only thing notable here - the thing discussed by WP:RS's - is whether Ahmadenijad's comments represented a real military threat to Israel or not (and, it turns out, Hitchens ultimately agrees with Cole on that point). In any case, as I said, I support the Jgui version with the modifications recommended by CSTAR above. Certainly Cole's POV should not be represented as fact, but we should make minor adjustments to fix that rather than revert to the extremely tendentious version. csloat 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've incorporated the more detailed description of Cole's position from the previous version into this one. What does everyone think? TewfikTalk 23:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I am still absolutely against reproducing non-notable charges like alcoholism and email-stealing. - Merzbow 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Check the cites. It's not tenable to say they were non-notable. <<-armon->> 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not tenable to say that they are notable. The fact that some other bloggers went into a tizzy about this is not relevant. The name-calling is only put in here to make Cole look bad in a backhanded way. Let's just stick to the substantive arguments. csloat 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
What Cole wrote is what he wrote. What other people commented on is what is notable, not what editors here think. <<-armon->> 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Cole wrote a lot of things, not all of them notable. This is among the least notable. Again, blog tizzies do not make something notable. The NYT and the Guardian commented on the substantive issues here, not the name calling; it is the substantive issues that are notable, not what some blogger got upset about. csloat 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
He also accused Hitchens of unethically using his private emails, having a "debilitating drinking problem", and pushing for a neoconservative-backed invasion of Iran. These are very serious claims, and Coles wrote that about a world-famous journalist! Many notable people commented on it. Are you seriously asserting it is not notable? Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
These name-calling claims are not notable as they have not been discussed by any WP:RS. When such reliable sources mention the dispute at all, they discuss the substantive issues of translation and of the "threat" represented by Ahmadenijad, not Hitchens' (well known) drinking problem. That Hitchens is a drunk is not disputed; he himself is proud of it and wrote an article to that effect, so it should not be used here to make Cole seem like some kind of slanderer. The claim of stealing private emails is bogus, as you should know - Cole accused Hitchens of unethically obtaining an email from a private email list, a matter that Hitchens responded to by saying that it was the person who sent him the email who is ethically suspect. Lame response, but whatever -- Hitchens did not deny Cole's basic point there. That hitchens is pushing for a neoconservative backed invasion of Iran is not really all that notable or astounding either. The problem here is using these claims to make Cole look bad, when the claims themselves were not reported on by any WP:RS. When reliable sources do discuss this argument, they refer to the substantive issues (e.g. the NYT article and the Guardian article), not to the fact that Hitchens is a well-known drunk. Hitchens also called Cole a "minor nuisance," a "fool," and an "ignoramus" -- shall we quote that too, and delete Hitchens' substantive points, as you suggest we do with Cole?csloat 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Tewfik's compromise is good. It expands Cole's points which was one concern, and keeps the cited second section, which was the other concern. <<-armon->> 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW - Nazila did not translate that passage as saying that "Israel should be 'wiped off the map'", she translated it as "Our dear Imam [Khomeni] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map". Please keep it the latter or find a source that quotes her specifically as saying that "occupying regime" means Israel. - Merzbow 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever changes are subsequently made to this section, please retain the full sentence containing the disputed translation.--CSTAR 02:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. <<-armon->> 12:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed a sentence with Cole's views on Ahmadinejad. Cole has publicly stated Ahm. is une merde, and I don't think we should imply anything else. However, these views don't seem relevant to this section IMHO. --CSTAR 05:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I tried to address the complaints about my original text, and fitted an improved version of some of my original text into the current version. I left the Hitchens text as it has evolved, except I added the "claim" since without it, it read that Cole misinterpreted (which is actually only what he is claiming). On the Cole stuff, I left the statement about Ahm, since Cole makes a point of including it to be clear that he is not attempting to support Ahm. And I rewrote or used more extensive quotes to address all of Jayjg's comments about "NPOV" - thanks for the suggestions. But I disagree that I deleted "well-sourced and relevant information" since I deleted only the scurrilous comments and their blog citations that in my opinion certainly do no belong here. But although I don't think the sentence should be here (I agree with csloats comments on this), I put in a shortened and less inflamatory version which is at least tolerable, and I left all of everyone's favorite citations (although I hope someone will delete some of them since it looks silly to have so many). Let me know what you think, Jgui 07:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice. - Merzbow 08:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yet again, the notability of Cole's accusations are indisputable and cited. If you want to clean up "inflammatory" statements, you can begin with the Iran section. There is no reason for euphemism here, and the objections are weak or hypocritical, and depend on ignoring the evidence. <<-armon->> 12:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion left off here if I'm not mistaken. Maybe you missed it, but it would be better to reply there (or here, but to those points) than to re-state a disputed opinion as if it's fact. Abbenm 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
All I see up there is an accusation of bad faith and speculation about my motives. Unlike Cole's blog post on Karsh which had no secondary source support, the post about Hitchens, did, and the specific accusations noted were commented on extensively. That's a BIG difference. <<-armon->> 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think jgui's version of the "Map" section is a good compromise, and I've reverted back to it. I think it's a candidate for a solid consensus version (with armon appearing to be the only holdout). Can all editors respond here to indicate their support (or not) of it? - Merzbow 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:
  • It's not clear to me why Cole's opinion of Khomeini and Ahmadinejad are there; The section seems clunkier with that added phrase. I suppose one could argue that it's a response to Hitchen's accusation of apologist, but in the current ordering it doesn't have the position of a response.
  • I object to the use of "surprisingly personal"; I don't think that with these two very polemical individuals this is a surprise at all. In any case, the term is too subjective.
  • I think one can safely delete or replace some words. "Cole pointed to"? Yuck.
--CSTAR 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the non-editorializing version of Cole's accusations, "surprisingly personal" is risible. Also, the cites were not all to bloggers. I've also restored the old heading -I don't know what the problem was with it, and it wasn't simply a translation dispute. I think your other points are also valid, but I've limited my edit to those two issues. <<-armon->> 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have much to say one way or the other about whether the ColeHitchens accusations against Cole should be included or not. I wouldn't, but I can't see why anybody gets worked up about including them. However, it is fair to note Hitchens made (or implied) other accusations of a "personal" nature: for example But this apologist, who affects such expertise in Persian, cannot decipher the plain meaning of a celebrated statement and is, furthermore, in need of a remedial course in English. Saying somebody "affects expertise" is in my opinion a reference to a character trait. So Hitchens is not above the fray by any means. --CSTAR 23:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't assert that Hitchens is above the fray, however that wasn't what was generally commented on, rather, Cole's response. i.e. this, and this <<-armon->> 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
cstar, I think you have correctly identified the issue - that this was a tit-for-tat (where the first lob in this one was actually thrown by Hitchens), and if we start quoting one we will have quote the other in order to achieve NPOV. That will consume a lot of bandwidth, and it seems clear to me that this simply does not belong in a biography anyway. If we keep the sentence I have added back (with edits to address the complaint about "suprisingly personal") then we have a summary of the situation that can easily be researched in depth simply by clicking on links. I also changed the title: "Cole, Hitchens and 'Off the Map'" just seems amateurish to me - it sounds like its from a High School paper. Why on earth should Hitchens' name be in the title of a section in Cole's biography? Let me know what you think, Jgui 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Uhhh, Hitchens name is there because the paragraph describes a dispute they had. I fail to see how clarity in a subheading is "amateurish". <<-armon->> 01:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
armon, the old version that you restored talks about bloggers, which is why I included that language. The wider coverage is implicitely covered in the first half of the sentence, just as it was implicitely covered in your first sentence. Thanks, Jgui 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should be striving for concise clarity, I don't think your sentence achieved that. <<-armon->> 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I like Armon's last version. The headings he has used are more descriptive and refer to something the reader will have heard about. Elizmr 01:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I think this Armon version [2] is the best of the recent iterations. Elizmr 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment and reply to JguiRe: Why on earth should Hitchens' name be in the title of a section in Cole's biography?

Why not? It is about Cole and Hitchens. I believe the section has room for improvement, but I don't see the title as an issue. I still have an issue with the ordering of the section and the claim of "unethical use of private email" (Cole said that Hitchens wrote his essay using material that circulated in a private email group). I also would note the fact that accusations went both ways. --CSTAR 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
OK how about this?
Hitchens also impugned Cole's command of both Persian and English, and Cole accused Hitchens of unethically using his emails to a private discussion group, having a "debilitating drinking problem", and pushing for a neoconservative-backed invasion of Iran. <<-armon->> 00:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Cstar, I don't object to the section heading on fairness grounds, I just think it reads amateurish, and is not worthy of a serious encyclopedia. But if there is a consensus on any title, I'm OK with it.
Cstar, I agree that the ordering is wrong in the Elizmr favorite version as it stands now. There is no logical flow from the Nazrila quote to Hitchens bashing Cole and it is jarring. There is a logical flow when Cole's comments are put first since Cole is responding to the translation and sets the stage for Hitchens talking about Cole.
And why was the Cole argument rewritten in Elizmr's favorite version to weaken it? Since we're describing a debate, shouldn't both sides of the debate get their best presentation?
Finally on the Cole Hitchens quotes. Hitchens did a lot more than "impugne Coles's command of Persian and English". That's a very antiseptic way of putting it, and sounds like the kind of thing an average writer could do in the course of writing an average article. But it is far from the truth. In fact during their spat Hitchens called this tenured professor a "minor nuisance on the fringes of the academic community", "in need of a remedial course in English", "10th rate", "a sordid apologist for Islamist terrorism", "Professor Juan Cole does not know what he is talking about, in any language", "his English is lousy", "He is a complete dim bulb", "shows what an idiot Juan Cole is", "Cole, who is the embodiment of the mediocre" as well as comment on Cole's "illiteracy". And lets not forget that it was Hitchens who started this name calling, and it was Cole who responded.
Any reader who wants to get into this can do it easily using the overly-copious cited references and a couple google searches. But let me ask you this question - do you really think these quotes belong on a WP biography page? Because it will be necessary to include some of these to set up the reasons for Cole's response. It is far better, in my opinion, to describe it as I have done without quotes from either side, and leave it to the reader to research if desired.
I am restoring my version plus changes but leaving the present section heading since Elizmr's only complaint was about my heading. The only reason given for putting in "Elizmr's favorite version" is that "I don't think [Jgui's] sentence achieved concise clarity". If that is the only problem with my paragraph, then perhaps someone could tell me exactly what that means and how one judges and achieves "concise clarity"? Cheers, Jgui 02:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Your version is not acceptable and your chonology is wrong. The Slate article came first, and most of insults you quote were actually a response to the blog post. <<-armon->> 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Jgui. If this is going to be a name-calling slugfest, let's not forget the insults slung by Hitchens, (who has written that his daily intake of alcohol is enough to kill or stun the average mule). I prefer to keep it professional on both sides. In any case I have another proposition -- why not put this stuff in a section about Cole's views on Iran (which is, of course, his main area of academic expertise, both in terms of language and history)? If this is truly to be an encyclopedia entry and not just a "battleground," that would be a much more appropriate solution, and the Hitchens/Cole spat would be a part of that section rather than a main focus of this page, which seems rather ridiculous. Just a thought. csloat 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This section describes the Cole/Hitchens fight of which you two are determined to erase Cole's notable accusations of Hitchens stealing, warmongering, and drunkenness. Again, this is simply a tendentious attempt to remove/obscure what caused notable controversy, in fact, there was speculation that this had some effect on his Yale appointment [3]. This is why it is both less clear, and POV. Sloat's idea is a transparent attempt to do the same by other means. His first objection if this was moved to the Iran section would be that any details of the controversy would be "off-topic".
If Cole gets into notable battles, and he does, they will get reported here. Again, we have a full article on Ahmadinejad's comments and the analysis of them. We also have a section in this article for Cole's views on Iran which should probably be more illuminating than an offloaded quote from the spat post. I've raised a similar issue regarding the Afghanistan section, but apparently no one's very interested in improving those sections, and would rather raise any number of specious objections to a far less problematic and better cited passage. Is it inflammatory or antiseptic? It was too much detail, and now there's not enough. This is not reasonable, it's disruption. <<-armon->> 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not "disruption"; this article is being treated as if it's someone's personal gossip column, and it is perfectly normal for a group of unrelated editors to take serious issue with this. That "no one is very interested" in improving unrelated sections of the article is not relevant to the problem that a particular set of editors are very interested in bringing a lot of attention to a particular spat of blog fights. Chris Cunningham 14:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you ever have anything to add to the discussion other than accusations of bad faith? You bore me. <<-armon->> 14:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I could repeatedly go on about how notable two bloggers calling each other poopy-heads is, and how such discussion is of vital importance to a biography article, but I see that side is already well-covered. Currently there's no constructive discussion going on, so I'm sticking to copy-edits and leaving notes in the summaries. At some point I'm sure both the name-calling in the article and the name-calling in talk will calm down. Chris Cunningham 16:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh please, Armon, there is no accusation there of bad faith and he makes the point that you are wrong to call these reasonable arguments disruption. And, in fact, your post repeatedly accuses me of bad faith and even predicts my behavior. Again, you keep saying this name-calling is notable but you only want Cole's name-calling reported but not Hitchens'; every version of the paragraph you have put forward presents Hitchens' arguments as reasonable, deletes Cole's substantive arguments and substitutes the name-calling. It's tiring. You justify this with repeated references to other blogs as if that makes it notable (yet you are always the first to insist on WP:RS on other matters). All I'm trying to do is give this some perspective -- this guy is a reknown expert on Iran, and this spatfight is a tiny blip on the radar of his career; let's put it in that context where it belongs rather than blowing it up as if this was the most important thing in the world. We still don't have any WP:RS that seems to think the name-calling is important; that some blogger speculated it had something to do with the Yale job (another blip on the radar) really doesn't change that. The only thing notable about this controversy is that someone who is known for attracting a lot of media attention (but who doesn't speak Persian) publicly accused Cole (an academic Persianist) of mistranslating the Iranian president's threat and of therefore being an "apologist" for the regime. That they called each other names during the ensuing argument is unprofessional, perhaps, but really not notable. (and, in the world of blog arguments, it isn't even that unusual). csloat 16:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re do you really think these quotes belong on a WP biography page?. Maybe that's not the right question to ask. The problem with this section is that it is notable in one way and not notable in another. It certainly was widely reported in blogs and in opinion columns, but none of the references listed can be considered hard news items (as opposed say to Michel Bachmann's recent pronouncements on the Iranian plan to divide Iraq). Whose account of events should we then use? Joel Mowbray's editorial in the Washington Times? Some blog? Cole's account? However, I'm not going to waste time on arguing for non-notability, because (a) I'm not sure it's a good idea to try to microinterpret the byzantine guidelines and policies regarding WP:OR and WP:RS which on an admittedly cursory examination [4] seem to change every two hours (b) Even if an argument for non-notably were presented, I would still favor inclusion of some reference to the spat, because of its interest, possibly even salacious or morbid interest. So what should we say? Unfortunately, in this instance all we've got is a bunch of quotes. Perhaps, in some cases, we might get by with a reasonable paraphrases, but most certainly not regarding the actual translation.

Anyway, I prepared to live with almost anything, so long as the full quote of the translation is there and some mention of Hitchens less than decorous characterizations of Cole are also there. --CSTAR 05:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess you're OK with what I proposed. <<-armon->> 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC) If not, then how would you write the sentence(s) to include Hitchens' barb? <<-armon->> 14:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cstar, OK I guess there is still a debate needed on the last sentences - for whether it is preferable to summarize that there was a vitriolic dispute and provide citations, or is it preferable to insert quoted accusations such as idiot, illiterate, unethical, debilitating drunk into the text of this biography. Its pretty clear to me which is preferable, but lets put that aside for now and temporarily leave the unbalanced quote sentence provided by armon and deal with the other editorial issues. You complained about the sentence order, and I agreed with you above. Unless someone gives a reason for putting Hitchens first, we seem to be agreed that Cole should go first since it has improved clarity. I will make this change. Armon has inserted a paragraph that weakens the Cole argument, but has given no justification for doing so. No one is trying to weaken the Hitchens argument - so no one should try to weaken the Cole argument. I have left the Hitchens argument exactly as Armon inserted it since he apparently prefers his version, but will change to use the preferable Cole version. I would hope that this version is acceptable to everyone, with the exception of the last two sentences about their personal dispute that still needs discussion. Please do not make changes without discussing them here first. There should be no need for reversions prior to this version - make changes to this version to avoid edit-warring with versions that get more and more out of sync. Thank you, Jgui 15:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I just did. The Slate article came first. No one should try to amplify the Cole argument either. As for edit-warring, take your own advice. <<-armon->> 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Armon, this is simply untrue. The Slate article was in response to Cole's writing on a private email discussion group, i.e. Hitchens was reacting to Cole's private email (quoted here). How do you justify gutting the Cole argument? Jgui 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's get a show of hands - who thinks the "drinking problem" sentence should be summarized as Jgui has done, or should continue to mention the accusations in detail, as in armon's version? I think it should be summarized. - Merzbow 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Summarised. Wikipedia is not an almanac of flame wars. Chris Cunningham 17:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Another vote that it should be summarized. Jgui 01:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Front Page Mag link

I removed this link on grounds of reputability and notability. One does not have to look far on the Internet to find critiques of public figures on partisan websites, and I hadn't previously believed that the mere existence of such critique was grounds for inclusion. The link in question calls Cole all sorts of crazy. The article as-is already does a pretty good job of pointing out that the Right generally thinks Cole is a terrorist sympathiser, so I don't see the value in exaccerbating this with more partisan links. Chris Cunningham 09:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a supporting cite for the statement regarding his critics POV. It doesn't violate BLP, so please stop removing it. <<-armon->> 10:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
How doesn't it violate BLP? It's weaselly ("some people"), it tars by association (strong claims given legitimacy by inclusion) and it's from a site for which no-one has vouched notability (and which is plainly partisan). In other cases (Hitchens) at least the hosting site had legitimacy, and aside from the name-calling the claims contained within were facts which could be backed up and not just opinions. I'm removing this again; Hitchens is one thing, but leaving in random freeps is quite another. Chris Cunningham 10:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I see you've taken to reverting copy-edits now. I'm sure there's a good-faith explanation for that. Chris Cunningham 10:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider it simply a "copy edit" when whole sentences and citations are removed. You removed a response from Cole on the AS charge. <<-armon->> 10:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you didn't. I either misread or looked at the wrong diff. You just removed mention of more than the 2 named critics. This is inaccurate and strange in a section concerning "Criticism". <<-armon->> 11:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
"more than the 2 named critics" were given by the weaselly term "others". Of these "others", one is a hard-right site of no established notability. And yet again, you've reverted copy edits to tense. This is still a BLP violation and it's going back again. If it is established that Cole has received notable criticism from sources more reputable than random hard-right websites, feel free to cite them by name and this can be discussed. The current wording is a smear of no noted credibility and has no place here. Chris Cunningham 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You have violated 3RR. Please revert yourself before you are blocked. <<-armon->> 12:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Removal of content which violates BLP does not, to my knowledge, count as edit warring. I still maintain that this is a BLP violation. Chris Cunningham 12:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For the time being, this revert has been justified as sufficiently contentious BLP grounds. Chris Cunningham 15:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You were strongly cautioned on your Talk page that this is not a clear cut case of WP:BLP violation, and that you were being given the benefit of the doubt, provided you stop edit warring. I see you've decided to push it, so I will report you again. Isarig 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
"Push it"? Unbelievable. What does the benefit of the doubt count for if the smear remains indefinitely due to a series of like-minded editors using 3RR litigiously to prevent it from being removed? (this is obviously rhetorical, given this poor article's long and cynical history.) Chris Cunningham 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As your subsequent block shows, it is quite believable. The benefit of the doubt is with regards to your personal conduct - that you were operating under the (mistaken, but good faith) belief that this is a clear-cut case of a WP:BLP violation - and hence you were not intially blocked for an egregious 3RR violation, but strongly cautioned not to do so anymore. Since you persisted in the reverts, despite the warning, your actions could no longer be considered good faith, and you were blocked. Many editors do not share your POV that the criticism of Cole is a smear, and the soluion is for you to get consensus here, not to disruptively revert those parts you disapprove of. Isarig 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. In armon's version (or at least the version he reverted to) it says this:Alexander H. Joffe in the Middle East Quarterly writes that "Cole suggests that many American Jewish officials hold dual loyalties, a frequent anti-Semitic theme", and other critics accuse Cole of being anti-Israel and of apologizing for radical Islam.[45][46][20] Isn't this lumping two different criticisms? Apologist for Islam (noted by Hitchens as in the Wipe Out dispute) and the dual loyalties and antisemitism which is the subject of the section? For this reason I think Chris Cunningham's version is preferable. I am avoiding the notability issue of Front Page Magazine since the source is cited explicitly and any reader can find out its location in the political spectrum and possible biases.--CSTAR 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page because of the reverting. It seems to me that either Front Page Magazine is the only source for the claim, in which case it shouldn't be used as a stand-alone source because it's extreme and it seems to give its contributors a free hand to say what they want, or other sources are in agreement with it about Cole, in which case those other sources should be used instead. But if Front Page Mag is the only source for the claim, then that should give us pause for thought. BLP takes precedence in situations like this, and I accept that this is a borderline example because no alleged libel is involved, but even so, we need to be careful. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The repeated deletions eliminted not only FrontPage Magazine (which I agree is a source that should be used with caution), but also Slate, which is a reliable source which is not in the same category. Isarig 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
FPM is NOT the only source for the claim. FPM, Hitchens in Slate, and Joffe all hit on both themes. The sentence should be rewritten to present just the general accusation, with all three cites included, instead of quoting Joffe in particular and then proceeding to the general accusation. - Merzbow 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I just want to make a few points which I think are salient. 1) the BLP issue was raised later after 2 other editors, including an admin had reverted. As there isn't actually a libel issue, this is a misuse of BLP in order to get a leg-up on a content dispute in which he objected to "random freeps". This is just wikilawyering. 2) It's only "my version" in the sense that I was defending a formulation of the criticism section which had finally reached some kind of consensus until this BLP claim was thrown out. 3) I doubt anyone would argue (at least I certainly wouldn't) that FP isn't strongly partisan, but it's hardly "extremist" and I doubt it could be called any more partisan than Democracy Now!. The citation was one of three supporting the sentence. This, in my understanding, is the proper way of using partisan sources, not on their own, but supported by others. However, if it is simply an issue of the one citation, it's easy to replace, and the full sentence can be restored using the other two. CSTAR's observation that it lumps two different criticisms is a different issue which can be corrected with a rewrite, rather than a deletion. <<-armon->> 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with above. Elizmr 21:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't. Frontpagemagazine is far more objectionable than Democracy Now, which, although it is also partisan, also tries to report straight news. Frontpage is all partisanship (and it is quite extreme; it seems obsessively focused on character assassination of academics). More to the point, DN is not cited here as a source of praise or criticism whereas FPM is. If you guys are right and there are other sources for the claim, what's the harm in just leaving out the FPM? csloat 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome to the POV that 'Frontpagemagazine is far more objectionable than Democracy Now', but please realize this is just your personal POV, and others see it differently. From a WP persepctive, there is no difference. I don't understand what you mean by "If you guys are right and there are other sources for the claim"- the revert is there for all to see, and it revrted the Slate refernce. I'm ok with restoring the claim sourced to Slate. Isarig 23:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome to your POV that it is just my personal POV, but it is actually an easily verifiable fact. csloat 05:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Really? It's not only a 'fact", but an 'easily verifiable' one? Go ahead and prove it, then. Amuse me. Isarig 06:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No thanks; I'm not here to entertain you. csloat 06:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
That's ok, I didn't think you'd be up to the task anyway, and the previous edit was entertaining enough. It never ceases to amaze hoe partisna editors are convinced their their personal opinions and preferences are "easily verifiable fact". Isarig 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, but I won't be goaded into this argument by immature swipes here or on my talk page. csloat 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove the Slate link, I just consolidated it with an identical section (using the same citation) further up the article which concentrated entirely on Hitchens' claims. Whoever added Hitchens criticism all over the place didn't really know how to use the name attribute to avoid repeating citations. This was simply copy-editing. While I was at it, I noticed the ugliness of having two cites next to each other for different claims, saw that one of them was a hit-job from a questionable source and removed it. My post-3RR revert was a good-faith move on the assumption that you hadn't actually seen the 3RR nom. It appears now that you had no intention of following the spirit of said rule anyway.
As for this interpretation of BLP, BLP also says that articles should be edited with a degree of sensitivity. When the subject himself has noted that the article goes out of its way to inflate negative material on him, I'd say this was grounds for concern. I consider allegations that I'm wikilawyering to be psychological projection. Chris Cunningham 08:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologist?In his Slate article, Hitchens made two apologist claims: a specific claim that Cole was an apologist for Ahmadinejad and the different (and less specific) claim that he is in the fringes of the "academic Muslim apologist community." Is this the same "apologist claim" as the assertion thatCole is an apologist for radical Islam, made in the FrontPageMagazine.com piece by Harris? I think we are on flimsy ground if we assert that Harris and Hitchens are making the same point or even that Hitchens is making a single "apologist" claim. I think that without further clarification, this is an example of "name calling".--CSTAR 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Harris charge, which appeared in FPM has also been reproduced on George Mason University's History News Networks [5]. Can we put this back in now, or are we now going to claim that HNN is also a partisan, objectionable, character assassinating source? Isarig 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Isarig, that's not the question I was addressing. As I said specifically above, I didn't cite its appearance on FPM as the issue.--CSTAR 00:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
We can reword it as we wish, but Hitchens is directly calling him an apologist in the very passage you quoted, how you can say that's not an "apologist" claim is beyond me. - Merzbow 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I was not responding specifically to you. If you'd like, we can reword to reflect which sources specifically claimed he was an apologist for radical Islam (HNN, FPM), and which sources claimed he was just an apologist for Islam or Ahmadinijad. Isarig 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but an apologist for what? In one case he's calling him an apologist for Ahmadinejad. Is that the same thing as an apologist for radical islam? In the other he's on the fringes of some "muslim apologist community". Could you clarify this: what is the specific apologist claim Hitchens is making?--CSTAR 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC) or rather, is this the same claim as being an apologist for radical Islam?--CSTAR 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are more sources for criticism, from a superior publication. From National Review: [6], [7], and [8]. Specific quotes in these articles echo the dual loyalties, anti-Semitic, and anti-Western accusations. - Merzbow 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but text search reveals that in none of them does the word "apologist" appear; (in fact apol does appear, but as "crapola"). So what specific criticism in any of these three articles is an accusation of being an "apologist" for radical Islam?--CSTAR 00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say they supported that particular wording of the accusation, but similar accusations of equal seriousness. We need to come up with a new rewording that incorporates all these sources. Maybe we quote none and generalize them all, maybe we quote all a bit and generalize none. But they are certainly all echoing the same themes, even if their particular wordings are different. If we're not going to reduce this section to a quote-farm, we need to admit that we do have editorial discretion to draw inferences between differently-worded by similarly-themed accusations. - Merzbow 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that editorial discretion may be needed, but finding suitable compromise wording here isn't going to be easy.--CSTAR 03:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

i haven't visited this article in a while on purpose. that's the defn of insanity, repeating the same futile actions to have them reverted. Surprisingly, i was able to read it w/o any hairs on my head standing up. I was amazed that some of my long ago edits were still there. the article seems fair and balanced. if anybody watched Ahmed Nejad and Diane Saywer on TV, he explained his "vanishing from history" remarks pretty well. He explained how the Soviet Union vanished from history w/o anybody getting killed or invaded. Anyway, good to see the article in fairly reasonable shape. I certainly not going to get involved. useless to contribute in this kind of format in controversial topics w/o strong allies. Keep up the good work. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Sorry, i was nonobservant, didn't even notice it was locked up again.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 20:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As the discussion seems to have petered out, I'm assuming it's okay to unprotect. Happy editing. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leave it be

I think the article is actually in a very good state right now. It provides a comprehensive description of Cole's activities and presents a pretty balanced selection of statements in the various controversial sections. In an attempt to keep the article from spinning out of control again, I am going to insert tags in the article urging editors to discuss changes beforehand. Wachholder0 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is now one of these at the top and at the beginning of the "Hitchens" and "Criticism" sections:
!-- This is a controversial topic that has been the subject of heated debate and edit warring. PLEASE DISCUSS PROPOSED CHANGES ON THE TALK PAGE before making any but the smallest edits. Edits made without discussion are likely to be reverted. --
Wachholder0 16:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The tags are a good idea. There are still some significant WP:UNDUE problems -- the Yale non-appointment, for example, still takes up most of the page, and appears high up on the page, whereas Cole's actual accomplishments are given short shrift. I'll try to attend to these issues in the future -- certainly the Yale section should be shortened to a couple sentences and not have a separate section. I think the wording as current is fine, it just seems way too long under the circumstances. Same with the Hitchens section but that may be unavoidable if everyone is to be happy with it. In the longer term however, the longest sections of this article should be about Cole's actual accomplishments and well known views (e.g. his peer reviewed works, his frequent translation work on his blog of the Iraqi and Arab media, his media appearances, and his articles in popular media) rather than his little spats. csloat 22:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lead

I narrowed the lead sentence since it was misleading about Cole's appointment at Michigan. He is a professor History rather than a specific type of history. Assume this will be ok with everyone since all the qualifiers are amply discussed in the body of the text. Elizmr 18:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Elizmr 18:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed this as your changes were misleading. I assume everyone will be ok with this since it is a fact easily verified from his vitae. csloat 20:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
As Sloat says, the job description is copied directly from his CV. I don't understand how this could possibly be said to be misleading, unless Cole is lying about his job description on his CV. As for the expert comment, the reason he gets on the teevee is because of his "expert" status. Removing this from the intro has the effect of downplaying Cole's middle east experience, which is (or should be) the primary focus of the article. Chris Cunningham 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the UMich site, the appointment he has is in "history". My change was accurate, but I wont revert. Elizmr 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's what the University of Michigan site says. Your edit was totally inaccurate and, if you want people to WP:AGF, please check your facts before making edits that you know will be incredibly tendentious. csloat 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the most correct way to phrase would be that he is a "Professor of History" with expertise in x, y, and z. "Professor of" refers to one's academic appointment rather than one's research interests, doesn't it? Elizmr 22:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it appears on his vita or on the U Mich site, and it's also not what you put on the article. His appointment is in the Modern Middle East - I don't see what is objectionable about that. I think the lead is fine as is. csloat 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitchens again

Armon, if you refuse to explain your reverts, don't revert. I explained clearly the issue and you simply reverted without a comment. I delketed the sentence that says bloggers were getting their panties in a bunch about this because it is not notable at all -- what is notable is what is in WP:RS about this, not the fact that some bloggers got upset. Secondly, I provided context for the "drinking problem" quote. I'd rather it was not there at all - it is not at all the notable part of this dispute - but if it is to be there, it should be in context. (To be fair, we should also report that Cole later accepted Hitchens' friend explanation that Hitchens was not drunk when he wrote that nonsense). Overall though, I don't think we should have it at all, but if we do have it, it should not be deceptive. Armon if you wish to revert those changes please respond to these two points clearly. csloat 08:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Armon made in the edit summary the cryptic claim that this violates BLP. First, that does not explain why he is restoring the non-notable stuff about bloggers complaining about this. Second, it is false. It does not violate BLP; it only reports accurately what Cole stated (which is based on facts that Hitchens himself acknowledges, and is even proud of). Third, if it violates BLP, so does the "debilitating drinking problem" quotation, so it should go entirely. You can't have it both ways Armon. If you are going to be this stubborn about your ownership of this article, you need to at the very least be consistent. csloat 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length. The notability of the bloggers sentence is established by the cites, but that doesn't mean Cole's blogged assertions about Hitchens are repeatable here. <<-armon->> 09:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The comment that bloggers are all abuzz does not become notable just by referring to bloggers. And all three references are to blogs, even the c|net blog. If Cole's blogged assertions are not notable, delete them entirely; that was my point above. You cannot have it both ways.
By the way, Andrew Sullivan commented that Hitchens was actually not drunk when he wrote his article for Slate, and Cole responded that he was "sorry to hear that," noting that he had "hoped that the purloined email and the bizarre characterization of my argument, and the attempt of this Western journalist who is clueless about reading Persian texts to correct my philology, was the mere result of too many whiskey sours taken too early in the morning."[1] It does help contextualize the comments Cole made, though I'm not sure it helps with any BLP problems (especially when Cole says that if Hitchens wasn't drunk then he was "asinine" and without ethics). I'm not trying to whitewash Cole's insults here but I think they have a context, and simply placing "debilitating drinking problem" in quotes like that really distorts the conversation.
Again, I think we can solve all of this by simply leaving it out. But if we keep it in, it is both inaccurate and unfair to wrench it out of context like that. csloat 09:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, there is a third major argument that Armon must respond to if he expects his edits to stay in place. He reverted the intro so that it gives a completely false representation of Cole's title and expertise. That was discussed above when Elizmr made that change, and it was agreed that the change was incorrect. Armon are you claiming Cole is not a Professor of History in Modern Middle East and South Asia, as it says on the University of Michigan website, on his vitae, and everywhere else his title is given? Will you support that argument or will you simply keep reverting without comment like you have with your other reverts? csloat 01:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

Would it help to have a sandbox to showcase alternative introductions to the article?

I used to do something like this when I was an active Mediator, and it usually helped a lot. --Uncle Ed 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you proposing /intro as an alternative introduction? If so, why do we need to say they are controversial? Some of what Cole says is controversial I will concede, although much of what he says as a commentator is fairly standard left-of-center political fare. Do we say Hitchens is controversial in his intro? --CSTAR 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with CSTAR. There is no need to mention "controversial" -- in fact, outside of the worldview of right-wing blogs, what Cole has to say (both academically and on his blog) is completely noncontroversial (though somewhat left-of-center, as CSTAR says). He certainly isn't on the far left. Someone should also restore the word "expert," which was deleted by an anon ip, and has already been defended above. csloat 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So dive in and fix it. No one will be accused of 3RR in the sandbox. It's part of the talk page, make changes as often as you like. --Uncle Ed 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, why are you taking out the word "expert"? Nobody has seriously suggested Cole is not an expert in these matters, and that's the only reason his opinion is sought out by the mainstream media and by the US Congress. And nobody has raised a question on talk about his expertise. I don't think it should be controversial at all. csloat 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Karsh and Martin Kramer among others have challenged his expertise on the contemporary ME, especially regarding Israel. This doesn't mean they are correct, but I think Ed's sandbox version which simply shows not tells, is NPOV. <<-armon->> 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
They have disagreed with him but they have not denied that he is an "expert." Again, his expertise is established by his credentials, not by the number of people who don't like him, and we know for a fact that his commentary is sought out by the NYT, by CNN, and by the US Congress, among others, because he is considered an expert. csloat 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No, re-read the cites. He's also been criticized for speaking on topics outside of his expertise. Cole himself states:
"My main expertise is in the past, but if I have to extrapolate into the future, I would say: no good news any time soon and an obvious exit strategy is not apparent to me." and;
"Although I've focused on the early modern and modern periods, I hadn't, before September 11, written anything major on contemporary history. This was not for a lack of interest in contemporary affairs or a neglect to follow them, but because I felt that the roots of modernity in the Muslim world were still poorly understood, therefore that was the contribution I could make. Public interest in most of the Middle East was slight at that time; the Arab-Israeli conflict was all that people were interested in and that was not my specialty." [9]
This is why Ed's formulation is superior. We state facts, we don't imply that he has expertise on all the topics that he comments on -an expertise that he doesn't even claim. <<-armon->> 00:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
In that passage you quote he actually does clearly claim expertise in the modern middle east. "Modern" does not mean "right now." And saying he is an "expert" in the intro does not imply he is an expert on "right now" (even though he certainly is in some aspects). There is nothing implying he has expertise on all the topics he comments on - that would be silly. When he excoriates the anti-semitic film "The Passion," for example, nobody suggests he has expertise in film criticism. Again, it is his expertise that makes his opinion sought-after. That much is obvious. csloat 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] drunkard

I believe it is time to either delete the drunkard comment entirely or put it in context, as I argued above. Thoughts? csloat 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I frankly don't see that this adds anything (any effect it has, seems to detract from Hitchens, unless I am missing some subtil nuance in American political dialogue) and out of the context in which it was stated is actually confusing at best and at worst misleading. Does this make Cole look like a whiner? I doubt it; the more likely outcome is that the reader will discover that Hitchens does have an affinity to the bottle (though I better be careful what I say here, as I just discovered on reading this page recently that Sloat was blocked by User:JoshuaZ on what I think is overzealousness in enforcing BLP. Hitchens apparently gets better treatment here than the unfortunate Archimedes Plutonium who gets called just about everything from kook to crackpot.--CSTAR 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And Cole gets better "treatment" than sloats's focus on Hitchens' alcoholism and blow jobs apparently. What's your point? <<-armon->> 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If say "X", my point is "X". --CSTAR 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Defending the indefensible, apparently. <<-armon->> 01:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
How so? --CSTAR 01:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
By ignoring sloat's repeated and egregious breeches of BLP, which is somehow acceptable because of a non sequitur about poorly some other guy is treated. <<-armon->> 01:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
repeated and egregious? Hmmm, I think that's "a little over the top. The incident leading to a block I referred to (in the archived talk page) just referred to sloat's referring to Hitchens as a drunkard, an assertion which doesn't originate with sloat. The point, if I need to repeat it, is that BLP seems to be used rather selectively here, don't you think? Particularly egregious in this case, for the case I brought up as a comparison consists in taunts against an obviously disturbed individual with little chance of rational discourse. And my point was also a question of profound concern: do I need now to worry about an overzealous admin because I said Hitchens has an affinity to the bottle? --CSTAR 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither does the charge of antisemitism originate with Israig, yet you wanted a week-long block and a permanent ban. But, as you've said repeatably, you're not "neutral". <<-armon->> 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Isarig's accusation, I remind you, in an edit summary was "Jew baiting". I see you have some difficulty in distinguishing charges here. --CSTAR 01:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is you who is having difficulty in distinguishing charges here. csloat used the exact same charge to describe Karsh's characterization of Cole here. For some reason, you did not see fit to block him for a week, or even a day, or even gently warn him, let alone propose a permanent ban. It is one thing to be non-neutral, quite another thing to hypocritically employ double standards. Isarig 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
So I understand your statement clearly, are you asserting I am a hypocrite AND employ double standards? I just want to make sure I get your sense clearly. That's a pretty stromg accusation. If you had said I acted inconsistently or failed to do diligence I plead guilty. But you are impugning my character here by using words which I really think are out of bounds of WP:AGF. ANd why? because I thought the ban on sloat was unjustified? Because I thought some poor guy doesn't get the same protection from personal attacks as Hitchens? --CSTAR 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not impugning your character here, I am describing your actions, in an accurate way, which you do not dispute. You wanted a permanent ban on me, and not even a word of caution to sloat, for identical language. That is the very definition of double standards, and you are now hypocritically defending sloat from charges of BLP violations. It is, BTW, not the first time you have done so - the very first time I was blocked on WP for 3RR was in the course of an edit war with sloat, on this very article, in which he violated 3RR as well. You stepped in (depsite being being involved in the edit dispute, but that's another matter), blocked me, but let sloat off the hook. Had I been more knowledgable about WP policy at the time, I would have sought action against you for misuing your admin status. Isarig 04:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You are accusing me of hypocritically employing double standards. That's quite a clear impugnation of character. We are talking about one incident which happened 4 nearly months ago; another which happened 10 months ago. Inconsistent in emitting judgements about them? Yes, I admit to that. As far as the edit to the Juan Cole article, I made one edit revert back to the status it had prior to your block. These time frames in the time scale of WP are enormous; If you look at the guidelines for last year, at least in December 2005, the rules for admin action on articles was much different than it is now, and at that time allowed some flexibility which now doesn't exist. But by all means, if you had a case then, you probably have one now. --CSTAR 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point in "making a case" out of it. Nobody's perfect but the problem is that the disruption sloat has caused has gone on for more than a year and shows little sign of letting up. It's frustrating that you haven't been more proactive in dealing with him in all that time. Yet again, this talk page descends into meta, sigh. <<-armon->> 05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've asked you to stop directing false and abusive comments towards me with every single post you make, Armon; please do so. Thanks. csloat 06:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, this was the edit summary to which I was referring, in which if understand coirrectly, you are explicitly saying COle is a "Jew Baiter".--CSTAR 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, unlike sloat, I do not deny nor seek to mimimize my past actions. That characterization is unaccepatble on WP, I was wrong to do so, and said so, and was rightly blocked for it. Just as sloat was rightlu blocked for his BLP vioaltion which you are defending. Isarig 04:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Please leave me out of this. The block was rightly lifted. Hitchens himself has referred to himself in the same way I did, and it just isn't a BLP violation by any stretch of the imagination. Please let it go. csloat 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean Hitchens refers to himself as a boozehound? The block was lifted because it happened too long ago. The consensus was that you DID violate BLP. <<-armon->> 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know; the word I was temporarily blocked for using was "alcoholic." And I was unblocked because another admin did not think it was much of a BLP violation (though he said it was tactless, and I agreed, and I agreed not to do it again, which I have not). We now know for a fact that Hitchens has described himself as an alcoholic, as has his wife, making the BLP charge laughable, which is why it is odd you keep bringing it up. The only "consensus" that I violated BLP was you and Isarig. Can we please drop this? It is tiring.csloat 06:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
One more point, armon, you are absolutely right, I indeed have said I am not neutral. Can you seriously argue that you aren't are neutral?. In fact I doubt many editors in WP are neutral. What contributors should strive for is neutrality in writing articles. I doubt you can point to a specific instance where I have failed this neutrality test by persistently reverting edits to an article. Yet one further point; I can give as good I get. Despite this, I haven't harbored long-term rancours in WP and have tried to constructively engage you, Isarig and other editors who I have strong disagreements with. --CSTAR 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't expect you to be without bias, and neither do I assert that I'm free of them. I've also attempted to work constructively with you, and I think that due diligence regarding POV, including my own, is perfectly illegitimate. The non neutrality I object to is your protectiveness regarding sloat's constant disruptions. <<-armon->> 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I note that aside from blocks to vandals and blocks in response to 3rr complaints posted on the admin's noticeboard, I have blocked two individuals on sight: Sloat and Isarig. In this instance, I agree with sloat. Why should that be defensive? And perhaps I didn't show my impatience with him enough on the recent editing of the wipe out controversy, despite some areas of agreement with him. BTW due you mean "perfectly illegitimate" above?--CSTAR 03:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No, "perfectly legitimate" -maybe that was a Freudian slip hehehehe. <<-armon->> 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Armon, are you planning to engage the issue here, or just take swipes at me? I'm not the one who publishes articles in Vanity Fair defending alcoholism or blow jobs, so I really don't even understand your insult. But please don't explain it; instead, do you have any comment on the actual issue here? csloat 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
So what "context" do you and CSTAR propose? That Hitchens IS a drunk? <<-armon->> 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That is very funny armon! Context means the surrounding text; in this case, the surrounding text of the phrase "debilitating drinking problem".--CSTAR 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, well, getting back to the article. In what way is "debilitating drinking problem" out of context? I don't see it, so I'll need to have it explained to me. <<-armon->>
Well Hitchens showed up drunk at a class according to Cole's quote. That's part of surrounding text of the quote, no? --CSTAR 04:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hitchens heckled him at a talk and Cole claims he was drunk, so? Does this make Cole's ad hom less of one? The cites don't focus on this previous encounter. <<-armon->> 05:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (I don't think they mention it at all in fact) <<-armon->> 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, you mean you don't even know what the full passage says that you are arguing so vehemently against including? It figures. csloat 06:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What I propose is clearly spelled out above, that the phrase either be stricken or that it be placed in context. The way it is in the article now - the version you are defending - is an out of context comment that adds nothing to the article. Either use the whole quote or strike it completely. And please stop the tangential nonsense about my alleged BLP violation; as you are well aware, there really was no BLP violation; the block was lifted, and since that point we have learned that Hitchens himself makes the very claim I was temporarily blocked for making. So can we drop it? csloat 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the typical non-compliant false choice you give. Either a whitewash, or soapbox. The article should be neither. <<-armon->> 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Non-sequitur. I propose neither whitewash nor soapbox; I simply propose not taking partial quotations abusively out of context. csloat 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Assertion is not argument. Show how it's abusively out of context. Also, look up non sequitur (logic). <<-armon->> 05:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It has no context whatever. The full paragraph provides context. Don't tell me you can't comprehend this. As for non sequitur, I am quite aware of its meaning, but thanks for the link. csloat 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So it appears we have two alternatives here - put the full context of the quote in, or take the quote out. Shall we just vote on it, or does anyone else have anything more to add? It would be nice to move on. csloat 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The full quote is nonsense name-calling... the shorter version is also nonsense name-calling, but is superior because it only takes up 1/5 of the space. The best option, as I've said before, is not to mention this charge at all, but if we have to, then have it be as small as possible. - Merzbow 00:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Why do we "have to" mention it at all? I think if we have to mention it at all, we should at least provide the context -- nonsense name-calling may be what it was, but it was not out of the blue, and the context (Hitchens showing up drunk at a lecture, and the fact that Cole's use of the phrase was exculpatory rather than accusatory) must be included. Otherwise the quote is deceptive -- it makes it appear as if Cole is calling names without cause in order to criticize, when in fact he is calling names based on actual experiences and was doing so in order to explain. csloat 01:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"Exculpatory" -gimme a break. Well at least you admit you're pov pushing. <<-armon->> 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The non sequiturs are not helpful. Yes, as Cole himself suggests, and as Helena Cobban also points out, Cole's comment was exculpatory. And, if you read the context for the comment -- which you claim to not be aware of above -- we would not be having this conversation. csloat 01:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Says who? Some redlinking blogger on a non notable blog who wrote; "Was it ad-hominem for Juan to mention that? Yes, probably, although he was doing so in a quasi-exculpatory way" [10] It's a lot harder to quote mine when the stuff's online. <<-armon->> 01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Juan Cole said it himself when he wrote that he was making excuses for Hitchens' poor arguments. Though, yes, Helena Cobban, who has been writing a regular column for Christian Science Monitor for over 15 years, who is a contributing editor of the Boston Review, who has written five books on contemporary politics in the Middle East, also said it. Quote mining? Another non-sequitur. The issue here is whether Cole should be quoted out of context or not. I am arguing that if we are to quote Cole, he must be quoted in context.csloat 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You're caught fudging the facts yet again and you still want to argue. Amazing. <<-armon->> 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You're making false accusations again. Cut it out. csloat 04:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bloggers

I also think we should delete the sentence "This produced furious debate among bloggers.[27][28][29]" As I argued above, this really isn't notable. All of the sources cited are blogs. The hitchens controversy is only "notable" - and barely so - because it was published in Slate and commented on in the Guardian and NYT. The fact that bloggers found something to gawk at is of ephemeral significance at best. Thoughts? csloat 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No they're not. Only one, Language Log is a blog, albeit a notable academic blog which is providing a balanced secondary source analysis of the controversy. The sentence itself doesn't "pick sides". Give it up. <<-armon->> 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Which one do you claim is not a blog? They all look like blogs to me. We don't have any provision for separating out "notable academic blogs." There is no need for insulting and condescending comments such as "give it up" -- I think we'd all be better off if you simply state your position and sign your comment. csloat 22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are the cites for that section:
Philip Weiss, Alcoholism, Privacy and Blogging: the Cole-Hitchens Feud, The New York Observer, May 4, 2006
News Hits staff, Juan up, Metro Times, 5/10/2006
Joel Mowbray, Hatchet man or scholar?, The Washington Times, May 22, 2006
...and for blogger sentence...
Opinion BuzzTracker - Article Permalink: The Cole Report, RealClearPolitics, 2006
This is not a blog
Michelle Meyers, Private e-mail fuels Cole-Hitchens slapfight, CNET News.com, May 4, 2006
This is also not a blog
Mark Liberman, The alcoholic orientalist thief vs. the tenth-rate syntactical train wreck, Language Log, May 7, 2006
Your objection is repetitive and false. <<-armon->> 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Realclearpolitics -- not a blog; just a list of blogs. No actual content; it certainly has no relevance here. C|net -- while C|net publishes articles too, that particular piece is a blog -- it's run on blogma software, it is signed "Posted by Michelle Meyers," it is self-published piece. The "language log" is also a blog, even though you seem to think it is more credible than other blogs in some unspecified way. Again, the point that bloggers are all aflutter about this is totally irrelevant. csloat 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Read the RealClearPolitics article before you comment. Read the Cnet cite as well, "Michelle Meyers is an associate editor who tracks online happenings in media, entertainment and politics." <<-armon->> 01:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It is irrelevant that RealClearPolitics is a political website started by two friends. The actual linked page that you cite as a WP:RS is simply a list of blog links. Totally non-notable. As for the c|net blog, the fact that it is the blog of an associate editor does not make it a WP:RS. csloat 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
RCP "aggregates" opinion on the web. Cnet cite is ABOUT blogs -it's not a blog, it's a news report. <<-armon->> 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That particular piece is a blog entry. See my points above, or look at it yourself. As for RCP, it "aggregates" a list of blog entries. Again, this is not notable. csloat 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
RCP aggregates what they view as notable so we don't have to. It's also part of the fox news website. [11] <<-armon->> 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This is just a list of blogs; it doesn't matter who owns the site. It's not encyclopedic, even if a website considers it notable.csloat 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Secondary sources, not editors opinions, is how we're supposed to establish notability. I'm done discussing this with you. <<-armon->> 05:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, and a list of blogs is not a notable secondary source. I am finished too; I assume we won't have another revert war when I remove this non notable sentence, right? You appear to have backed off each of the citations you were previously claiming as notable. csloat 06:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You'd assume wrongly. <<-armon->> 11:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
So you plan on edit warring even though you have no leg to stand on in the argument? I see. csloat 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We should copy-edit Cole's position on the speech

I think that this was a good edit but I think Cole's position also needs a copy-edit. I don't think a reader who hasn't read the sources would find the following very clear:

Cole wrote that although he "personally despise[s] everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini",[23] that he "object[ed] to this translation". Regarding the term "occupation regime" he claimed it "is about what sort of regime people live under, not whether they exist at all." According to Cole "the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of [Ayatollah] Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all."[23]

Thoughts? <<-armon->> 09:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would help simply to add the actual Cole translation ("vanish from the pages of time" I believe), which seems to have gotten lost here. csloat 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
OK how about this:
Cole objected to the translation for two reasons. First, because he believes that it suggests that Ahmadinejad "wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland", and secondly, because Cole asserts that a more precise translation would be "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time" which is likely a poetic phrase, rather than a military threat.
Here is the source:
The precise reason for Hitchens' theft and publication of my private mail is that I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people.
But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
How's that? <<-armon->> 23:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not just quote the second reason directly, and leave out the first, which is extremely unclear in your rendition, and in Cole's rendition, is basically a repetition of #2? His point is the same in both places; he doesn't think Ahmadenijad is issuing a threat of military invasion against Israel. I see no reason to overcomplicate this. How's this:
Cole objected to the translation because he said "it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that 'the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.' It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks."
csloat 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Or, to preserve Armon's rendition of point #2:
Cole objected to the translation because he said "it is just an inexact translation." Cole argues that a more precise translation would be "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time" which is likely a poetic phrase, rather than a military threat.
csloat 00:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the second is a repletion of the first reason. One reason is that it's not a military threat, and the other is that the translation is flawed. In any case, Cole makes the distinction so we should present his reasons as accurately as possible. If the Hitler/Poland quote is unclear, we should maybe just change it to First, because he believes that it suggests that Ahmadinejad advocates an invasion of Israel... <<-armon->> 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. csloat 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. - Merzbow 02:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored Cole's response to Hitchens, which included his point that he despises Ahmadenijad and Khomeini. That shouldn't be deleted. I also replaced "argues" with "asserts" as mentioned above. Otherwise, this looks good; all we have to do now is delete the next paragraph with all the name-calling and non-notable blog reporting :) csloat 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/u/a/Talk%7EJuan_Cole_54ae.html"