Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Warning tags as permanant fixtures

I'm removing the {{NPOV-section}} tag again, but I won't do it again. Before it's restored however, I would like some comment on it as a "permanent fixture". If we have editors here who object to any mention of controversies which have been established as notable, and are properly referenced, then under what circumstances do people think this tag can ever come off? If the issue is simply one of neutral presentation, then I think we've largely achieved that. I don't see any current objections on that basis. <<-armon->> 00:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for taking this to the talk page. But, there are no "editors here who object to any mention of controversies which have been established as notable", so if want responses it would be better to address or at least characterize the actual disputants.
I would answer that the neutrality tag isn't and was never intended to be a "permanent fixture", if it was no one would be debating the way to properly represent these "controversies". So, it's not a permanent fixture, but it exists as long as the neutrality is disputed, pretty much by definition. While I can sympathize with the sentiment that the tag is seemingly permanent, obviously it's not and the focus should remain on the content of the disagreement.
The most overlooked and simultaneously the most relevant issue seems to me that these charges simply aren't notable. I think G-dette explained this best, in the form of an appeal to common sense. It's already the longest section and by the present standard perhaps a dozen more items could be included with equal (and equally questionable) justification. Also, pointing to a specific guideline we have WP:NOTE, which says "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Not one of the citations in the "criticism" section meets this criteria, and rather than being notable, each instance of criticism seems to have expired on impact and never to have created a genuine "controversy". An example of genuine controversy would be, for example, the Al Franken Book Controversy. That was actually in the news and fairly distinguished from one-time op-eds. Abbenm 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting the policy. By definition criticism of Cole is independent of the subject himself - Cole. What remains is to classify the notability of the author of the criticism and the venue in which it was published. The term "independent of the subject itself" is meant to exclude self-published material that is not otherwise notable, not to represent a firm requirement that every source be also commented upon by another source - which equates to an illogical infinite recursion anyways (and if taken literally would exclude ALL sources that don't also report on each other). - Merzbow 04:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You are a thoughtful editor and I don't disagree to engage in any fight, but I am not sure that a re-reading will necessarily convince me differently, though I will try. If you visit WP:NOTE, you'll see that the words I put in bold link to a page on independent sources where it says an "independent source is a source which describes a topic from the outside." Also on that same page under the explanation section it says independent sources are necessary "to avoid writing on topics from a biased viewpoint." At minimum, those cited certainly aren't unbiased.
Critics like Karsh, Hitchens etc. are personally invested in their viewpoints, combined with Cole they essentially "are" the controversy itself. The "recursion" would stop at the moment you found a third party that wasn't personally endorsing/invested in one side of the dispute or the other like Cole and his critics are in their respective political views. Does that sound reasonable? I don't see how an opinion that starts and ends with a single article without being reproduced or reviewed or revisited anywhere outside of the disputants themselves constitutes a noteworthy event.
I remain ready to be convinced I'm wrong, but I fear that the present interpretation opens the flood gates for every op-ed ever written, giving plenty (too much) slack for POV's to slip in from all directions and dragging Wikipedia down into a fray it's supposed to stand above. Abbenm 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC) One more thing. Since all these guidelines are fairly interconnected and reliant upon one another, the WP:BLP page has another helpful sentence: "If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." That seems very applicable to me, and I think an uninvolved third party is a fair requirement for inclusion in this article. Abbenm 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The sentence from BLP you quoted is meant to apply to Wikipedia editors pushing an agenda, not to reliable outside sources with an agenda who are quoted in a criticism section. The very next sentence makes this clear: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." Assuming that a specific critic is a notable person and his criticisms can be found in a reliable source, there is no additional requirement that the criticism itself must be in turn reported on by an putatively neutral observer. Although such reportage can give credence to the notability of a given dispute, it is just one more aspect to be weighed, not a necessity. - Merzbow 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that this is a discussion about notability and a standard of "neutrality" being applied on top of the requirements of WP:RS -not about the use of the tags. Merzbow's points are correct, and this particular objection has already been raised and addressed. <<-armon->> 08:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
But the existence of the tags themselves is related to those issues, which is why I reiterate them. Abbenm 20:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow quotes WP:BLP: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. It's pretty clear we have a violation of the part I just highlighted in bold. As for the tags, they must stay on until the dispute is settled, and it clearly has not been. csloat 12:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit

I also deleted the reference to the "furious debate in the blogosphere". It didn't fit in the edit summary box.--CSTAR 03:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: the fact that I deleted it did not fit in the edit summary box..--CSTAR 05:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "He also accused Hitchens of stealing his private emails, being a drunk"

This sentence has been slightly changed recently and has sources, but I don't get the point of it or why those specific statements among many others by Cole are being elevated to the level of inclusion. I could pull up the relevant sections of wikipedia guidelines, but after all this disagreement over citing Cole's blog, a blog not immediately involved is being cited, and an alternative media source? Can someone offer a justification for this? Abbenm 03:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC) My mistake on Metro News. I see the sources on this. Without commenting on the translation controversy itself, this isolated line nonetheless smacks of overemphasis on a side note. Thoughts? Abbenm 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have always been reticent to report name-calling accusations verbatim because they can be overly prejudicial to the the accuser or the subject. Here they are indeed a side-issue to the main argument, which is of far more importance in the scheme of things - whether A. was indeed threatening Israel, and whose translation was most accurate. - Merzbow 04:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the sentence. Removing a simple statement of fact, without editorializing, and supported by one primary, and 3 (actually 4 this is not actually a blog) secondary sources, is simply untenable. I was asked for one cite to support this, I provided 3 which commented on the "name calling". Another thing which was removed was: This produced furious debate among bloggers. [1]
I fail to see how this is taking sides, it's also a simple statement of fact backed by 3 other sources. Yes, it describes debate in the blogosphere, but Cole's a blogger. <<-armon->> 08:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually the main argument wasn't about translation issues. See below to CSTAR... <<-armon->> 09:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a blog. The main argument is about whether a certain statement should be translated as a military threat against Israel or not. This other stuff is a side show and it is completely insulting to anyone's intelligence to take it seriously in an encyclopedia. But I'm not surprised. Anyway, if you want to quote this stuff, quote it completely. "Accused Hitchens of stealing private emails" is bogus, and out of context. The "debilitating drinking problem" is a well known fact about hitchens that he himself proudly boasts of. Being a "warmonger" - well, that's a subjective assessment, and I don't really think it matters if Cole says it, but I don't see how it is notable at all. Plenty of people consider Hitchens a warmonger and I don't think anyone cares all that much. csloat 11:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd also remind participants that several of you were very strongly opposed, and still are, to Cole's "scurrilous propaganda technique" phrase because it was "name calling", why now should accusations that Hitchens is a drunk be included? Whatever the "main argument" was, I don't think it was about Cole's particular statement about Hitchens being a drunk and an email thief. I would also agree with and emphasize Merzbow's entry above. Being a fact in and of itself does not free an entry from the issues of neutrality, undue weight, etc. that have affected every other aspect of this Cole page. Abbenm 15:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If you're attempting to point to an inconsistency, I suggest you re-read the objections (plural). One objection, which is pertinent here, was that the post about Karsh was self-published had no reportage in secondary sources. Not the case here. <<-armon->> 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The objection you mention was most certainly secondary to the fact that it was held to be "name calling". Your sources would have helped supposing Cole's statement was relevant. But it's rather about the triviality of an interjection that was already summarized. The opening sentence already says Cole and Hitchens "traded barbs". Why is it necessary to go beyond that and specifically mention what those barbs are? It's just a silly and immaterial sentence. Abbenm 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is it necessary? Because it's informative, it's what happened, and it's what people were talking about. It either sparks the reader's curiosity to look up the cites and see what was said, or gives them enough info not to bother. <<-armon->> 11:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You are also conflating what's possibly a caricature of Isragi's arguments with my own. Get him to clarify.
Speaking for myself, what I found problematic was the fact that Cole's Karsk post was, a) self-published, and b) unreported in secondary sources, and c) an attempt to provide content to WP via such a source. I also asserted that in light of this, the BLP issues re: Karsh should be looked at for consistency -as BLP was being used as a pretext to remove perfectly properly cited material.
I also argued, which is a completely separate point, that if the charges of AS are serious, and I don't dispute that, then I would prefer a better response from Cole than "Oh, he's just a propagandist" and "my friends don't think I'm antisemitic". I still don't think any of this was properly addressed, but I also see it as a lost cause when the constant assumption of bad faith means it's not going to be.
Since you've raised my supposed inconsistency, I guess it's only fair to ask how you explain yours. <<-armon->> 11:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, but I never agreed with the characterization of Cole's reply to Karsh as name calling in the first place, which my past edits on this talk page make clear. For yourself, you've referred (bottom paragraph) to Cole's Karsh response as ad-hominem, and regardless of whether you explicitly argued that in the context of the Karsh disagreement, you believed it was ad-hominem; but you apparently don't believe it's similarly contentious to include Cole's calling Hitchens a drunkard. I brought up this up not because I believed Cole was name-calling then, but because if you aren't going to be convinced by other editors in disagreements over content, you might at least be motivated to stand consistent with your own previously expressed position. Abbenm 21:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
OK and how about this and this? If my goal here was to create the most absolutely airtight edifice of a consistent position, or bad faith, I could have easily just not mentioned the History News Network cite I found. I'm attempting the follow the facts backed up by RSs - that is the position I'm attempting to stay consistent with. This is why I don't find your assertion that it's "...just a silly and immaterial sentence" all that convincing. Even if I am "inconsistent", I don't think that makes your position better by default. I don't recall you advocating "summarizing" Cole's Karsh post to the uninformative degree you're advocating now, and that was without any secondary source support. <<-armon->> 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, nice try, but on more than one occasion I expressed willingness to go with a generalized summary as opposed to including specific charges, including once on your talk page in a statement you explicitly acknowledged. And it was explained by many editors that Cole's blog counts as a RS in certain contexts.
The sentence is silly and immaterial because it shows unnecessary and excessive interest in the specifics of how exactly Cole attacked Hitchens. And like I said before, the opening sentence already says they "traded barbs", so the "informative" factor you are so concerned about is already covered.
The difference between "trading barbs" and "Hitchens is a drunk" which you are so interested in presenting, is not that the article becomes more "informative" but that the charges, removed from the arguments in which they are made, serve to characterize Cole as a hotheaded mudslinging partisan who just throws around insults. Now maybe it was an accident or inadvertent that you found yourself in defense of another edit which sneak-attacks Cole, which I am willing to forgive and discuss before editing the page. But slipping in contentious and disputable sentences, reverting changes to them, and being unresponsive to disagreements with your edits does not show interest or willingness to co-operate which is essential to make the editing process accurate and workable for everyone involved. Abbenm 05:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Armon's sophistry boggles the mind. When he first started all this edit warring by removing Cole's response to Karsh, his explanation was WP:BLP issues involving name-calling. That he continues to insist on calling Hitchens a drunk and a warmonger in this biography is ludicrous. This sort of stuff is exactly why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously, and it is a shame.csloat 02:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
<yawn> You seem to take WP seriously enough, it's obviously your battleground. <<-armon->> 11:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, are you saying that Armon is calling Hitchens a drunk and warmonger? Cole has said that, Armon is just quoting him. These are quotes from Cole and they are illustrative of the way he engages in discourse with those he disagrees with. They should stay in the article. Elizmr 14:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP's roll in Karsh response

I added a few sentences about the fact that Cole's response, and thus much of the content of the paragraph, was inspired by JC's (old) wikipedia article. It is worth noting, since wikipedia and wikipedians, at least in JC's view played some roll in this incident. This is from the same JC post alre,ady cited, so I just moved the ref down rather than repeating it. Wachholder0 17:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sentence reads: Cole complained that right-wingers keep distorting wikipedia articles about him, and responded directly to Karsh in his blog. Cole cited here: Juan Cole: Complains that rightwingers keep distorting Wiki entries about him. At the time he wrote the blog post, there were two Cole articles, this and "Views and Controversies". V&C has since been deleted as a POV Fork. Is this acceptable? <<-armon->> 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official translation?

I'm not disputing that it isn't official, (of course I am challenginging it..) but I don't see this statement is supported by the referenced NY Times article. Here's what the Times says in the citation:

This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry.
The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency (www.isnagency.com). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi.

If you find a reference in the NY Times that says it's official, that's certainly acceptable, but I don't think the citation supports this claim --CSTAR 05:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong NYT article. Try this: [1] "All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Isarig 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Please note that I'm merely performing due diligence and checking out the supporting references. In this instance, the supporting reference is [30] which did not provide the needed statement.--CSTAR 05:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I do have an objection with the current sentence since it puts the contentious phrase "wipe off the map" in quotes. The meaning "Wiping Israel away" given by the official agencies unmistakably means getting rid of it, but we are talking about a dispute between Htichens and Cole involving nuances of translation (including the word "map"). So at the very least we should remove the quotes and replace it with something else such as "wipe away" as provided by the above citation.--CSTAR 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hitchens: Not even Professor Cole will dispute that, in the above passages, the term "occupying regime" means Israel and the term "world oppressor" stands for the United States. (The title of the conference, incidentally, was The World Without Zionism.) In fact, Khomeini's injunctions are referred to twice. Quite possibly, "wiped off the map" is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said, and what it is mandatory for his followers to repeat. So, I give it below, in Persian and in English, and let you be the judge:
Cole: 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.
I suggest leaving it as it is. The scare-quotes and link to the main article is enough to inform the reader that this was a disputed translation, As for Hitch and Cole, it's a phrase they both used, and the "nuances of translation" wasn't the thrust either of them made. The point was that Hitchens was arguing that Cole is an apologist - Cole was arguing that Hitchens was a warmonger. See this, which is endorsed by Cole here. <<-armon->> 09:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Armon' The article in your version claims that the official iranian translation supported the "wiped off the map" translation. The evidence cited above, (the NY Times article linked to by Isarig), doesn't support this assertion. I'm happy to leave it exactly as suggested by the article, but to put it inq quotes asnd say it is the offical Iranian version is just wrong. As far as the drinking problem accusation I have no real objection (although frankly, armon I think it's a bit silly t put it in there). --CSTAR 16:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed it. The official Iranian summary states He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. [2], but that's reported in the main article and they were arguing about the NYT version. <<-armon->> 01:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If we quote Bronner's piece (the NYT article that states "all official translations") then we have to quote Cole's response to Bronner. Also, if we want to include Hitchens' non-notable charge that Cole is an "apologist" for Ahmadenijad that is fine but we then must include Cole's actual statements about the man - that he is a "crank" and a "fascist," and let's be sure to cite Cole's "scorecard" on the issue right here. It turns out Hitchens is far more of an "apologist" if we must observe such things; but, as I said, it's really not notable.csloat 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes and we should be sure to include this Cole passage from the source Armon cites above: "I personally despise everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini, who had personal friends of mine killed so thoroughly that we have never recovered their bodies." If we're going to give any credence whatsoever to Hitchens' embarrassingly pathetic attempt to paint Cole as an "apologist" for Ahmadenijad or Khomeini, let's be sure to quote what Cole actually said about the issues. csloat 12:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are differences of opinion on the relative merits of their arguments. Don't remove cites, don't argue Cole's case, and please stick to the matter at hand. <<-armon->> 12:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
None of that is responsive to the above. Again, if we are going to make this about the dubious charge that Cole is some kind of "apologist" for Iran, the above material belongs in the article. csloat 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Views on Afghanistan

In 2001, Cole criticized journalist Robert Fisk in a letter to the London Independent for charging the U.S. with "war crimes" in Afghanistan. Cole argued that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan would likely prevent a large scale famine: "If Mr Fisk is so upset about the death of a few hundred murderous thugs who went back on their word to surrender and viciously fell upon their captors, how would he have felt about five million corpses in the great Taliban famine? If this mass-scale starvation is avoided, it will be because of the brave US pilots whom Mr Fisk slanders as criminals."[13]

This looks more like an attempt to argue that Cole is "tougher" on the WOT than Fisk (not difficult) than a presentation of his views. Is the reader meant to infer that Cole supported the war against the Taliban, or that Cole doesn't think US troops are war criminals? These are two different issues. Rather than leaving it to inferences, we should simply state Cole's position and cite them. A letter to the editor criticizing someone else's position is not the best way to do this. <<-armon->> 02:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from Cole's letter and is far preferable to a summary of Cole's position presented by a Wikipedia editor who is virulently anti-Cole. csloat 02:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that we've got that out of way, any other comments? <<-armon->> 11:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Your explicit argument is that a direct quote should be paraphrased in order to change the intended meaning. I'm open to a suggested rewrite if one is presented, but I'm opposed in principle to the sentiment. Chris Cunningham 15:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow I didn't realize that was my explicit argument. I thought I'd asked for clarification of his position with better cites. BTW, what did you think I was going to do, hide the fact he's against famine? <<-armon->> 02:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea what you were planning to do, to be honest, but what you actually said was that a letter presented in Cole's own words was a poorer reference for his opinions than a theoretical paraphrasing of them linked to some other citations. And what I said was that I didn't agree with the sentiment, but I'd be happy to change my mind were the theoretical rewrite and accompanying citations an improvement. Chris Cunningham 09:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not quote farm. When a response is overly confusing or contains ad hominem that may be adversely prejudicial to either party (and Cole's responses are usually both, so we are doing him a favor), or just for reasons of copy-editing, we can summarize. In fact, our default behavior should be to summarize, and only to quote directly where there is an exceptional reason to do so. - Merzbow 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
If someone could suggest what they think is wrong with the current section and explain why it should be changed and what it should be changed to, perhaps there would be more to go on; at this point the dispute over this section is entirely theoretical. csloat 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Read this section -or even the post immediately above yours. It unclear what his position was on the Afghanistan war, a letter to the editor disputing US troops are war crims is a poor cite, and poor way to present his views, WP is not a quote-farm. By a better cite, I'm looking for his views on the subject published somewhere. <<-armon->> 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It must have been a tiny speech

Here's what the article says

Cole and Christopher Hitchens traded barbs regarding the translation and meaning of one of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speeches, which Fathi Nazila of the New York Times's Tehran bureau translated as saying that Israel should be "wiped off the map".[30]

So the article is saying Ms Nazila translated the entire speech as three words? (OK maybe six). I suppose it's possible, but however airy and baroque Mr Ahmadinejad may be, surely he must have said something else. At one point the article said that the Cole-Hitchens dispute centered around a passage. This is amaturish editing, without regard to the minimal standards of plausibility. Or maybe it's somebody's idea of a joke. --CSTAR 18:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it was a mistake? Merzbow's fixed it, though I suppose you could have as well. It would have been a lot less to write than this out of character snark. Last thing we need. <<-armon->> 02:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Fixt. - Merzbow 02:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to armon. Out of character snark? I explicitly put in "passage" here and you explicitly took it out here in an edit with no other modification. Of course I can't divine your motives, but a good guess would be to establish conformity with your previous edit. If snark is the last thing we need, then you know where to begin. --CSTAR 03:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit I was "supporting" was one made to address your point here here, which I agreed with here. I misread the sentence after I edited it and thought it read to say they were arguing solely about the phrase. This is why the edit summary says "'a passage in' -not just about the passage." If you feel that requires insults (in an underhanded way, rather than coming right out and saying that you were talking about me) instead of assuming good faith as you've just lectured me about here, then I'll have to note that your pronouncements on the subject only go one way, and I'll have take them a lot less seriously. There's always room to improve, but I think I'm doing reasonably well given that every other comment directed at me is some sort of accusation of bad faith. <<-armon->> 05:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to armon To be clear, armon, I was not accusing you of bad faith. Clearly, I thought that edit was bad (in fact when I read it, I thought it was a joke-- the vapid Ahmedinejad being reduced to 3 words). I didn't fix it for two reasons (a) I am never sure the reasons behind additions or deletions in this article and don't want to get into tedious wiki alphabet soup discussions if I can avoid them (b) If I can cajole contributors to be a little more responsible about the boring details of editing (making sure articles arent making silly claims at the least, and that the references cited support the claims) then I'll risk being called out on snark. I admit I make mistakes myself, and I hope I'm prepared to take a humorous jabbing for them when I'm caught. --CSTAR 01:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I hope you'll understand that humour can fall very flat in the context of heated debate and bad-faith accusations. I don't know if it counts as a boring detail, but I'd appreciate your help on the "Views on Afghanistan" section given my supposed "conflict of interest". <<-armon->> 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I did a search on "conflict" on this page and nothing turns up as conflict of interest. What exactly are you referring to?--CSTAR 02:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This. (tongue firmly in cheek) <<-armon->> 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Cole/Hitchens

We've gone from arguing about whether the Karsh section was at all appropriate to inserting a new section. The Controversies section is by far the longest section - more than twice the length of the Views section. It's just a littany of complaints against Cole. They can be published elsewhere, but this is an encyclopedic entry. -Thucydides411 01:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Due to your unilateral actions and ultimatums, we've gone from trying to reach a compromise on this section through mediation to making bold, non-consensus edits. You have only yourself to blame for this. The controversies section is now about equal in length to the views section - which is quite appropriate for a public figure whose primary claim to fame is the controversial nature of his partisan blog. WP used to have a separate "views and opinions" article about Cole, but editors with the same viewpoint as yours objected to that. I'm happy to go to that format again, but I will not agree to the whitewash that Cole's supporters are pushing for. Isarig 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Blanking is Wikipedia:Vandalism your opinion re:NPOV notwithstanding. See section above where I've identified a problem with part of the views section. You could help out there as I'm meeting some resistance for not being sympathetic enough. <<-armon->> 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, welcome back: I thought you had "ceased interaction" with me. What are we whitewashing? Cole hasn't committed any crime that we're trying to "whitewash." This is an encyclopedia and not every minor spat has to be detailed. -Thucydides411 01:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blanking isn't in itself vandalism. It depends on what's being blanked. In this case it's called for. -Thucydides411 01:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly , you don't have a "veto" -so yes, it is. <<-armon->> 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cole's complaints were about this specific article: "The wikipedia entry on me is constantly being distorted by a small group of far rightwing activists who put the comments of my ideological critics up into the body in an attempt to discredit me." If there is any doubt after that sentence, he continues by specifically replying to the content of the "Dual Loyalties" section: "I never replied to the smear of me 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." -Thucydides411 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The subject doesn't have a "veto" either. <<-armon->> 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Armon, your talk of "vetoes" has no relevance to either of my two previous posts. My second post is in response to the claim that Cole was not specifically complaining about this article. -Thucydides411 03:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's relevant to your first point and insistence on reverting. It's relevant if you argue that criticism must be removed because Cole objects. But yes, your second point is different, sorry. I responded above, but here it is again: The HNN cite is titled: Juan Cole: Complains that rightwingers keep distorting Wiki entries about him. At the time he wrote the blog post, there were two Cole articles, this and "Views and Controversies" -Karsh was in both. V&C has since been deleted as a POV Fork. The other problem is that WP articles are constantly changing -he may find it as objectionable now, or not. <<-armon->> 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Wikipedia charge

I don't think Cole's charge against Wikipedia is notable enough to be in the article, since it is not reported on by anyone else - it's a completely self-published charge. The HNN cite armon gave is not reporting, if you look closely it just mirrors the exact text of Cole's blog post (and actually says so at the top). Before allowing this I'd like to see secondary reporting like that armon found for the "drunken Hitchens" charge. - Merzbow 03:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the best (only) "secondary source" I could find. ALL of the charges are "completely self-published" and this was a central point in the failed mediation. The only thing we have with any form of editorial oversight is HNN's headline on the reprint. Other people should take a look for other secondary source as well -maybe there's more. <<-armon->> 03:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not at all past the 3RR limit. My reverts were unrelated to one another, and those regarding the Wikipedia claim were sourced in the discussion and added more detail to the article. Cole's blog is a perfectly valid source to use in this context, as it is his direct reply to charges made directly against him, and thus best represents his response. On a more general note, though, the Controversies section has to be significantly shortened. Is the translation spat really important enough to appear here? As it is, we are spending more than twice the words on the Controversies section as on the Views section. -Thucydides411 03:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Then the best solution is to work on the Views section. Frankly, if editors opposed to "too much criticism" keep trying to delete properly sourced criticism rather than providing improvements to the article, I'm going to call foul. <<-armon->> 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3RR applies to any 4 reverts made in a 24-hour period; they don't have to be related. Cole's smear against Wikipedia was not a relevant response to any of the charges Hitchens made in his published article, not by any stretch of the imagination. His accusation that Hitchens is a drunk, while also not a relevant response, was reported upon by several secondary sources, which is the crucial difference. - Merzbow 05:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Cole's Wikipedia comment does not seem notable enough. I am ok with citing his blog in certain cases but this instance does not appear either to be notable or a response to (non-wikipedia) published criticism. I sympathize with Thucydide's interest in shortening the criticism section but for the same reasons I think this comment should be left out. It is also strange to read a wikipedia page refer to itself, and I would be surprised if style guidelines allowed that. Abbenm 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Baha'i section, while a controversy, I don't think counts as criticism; in fact, it reflect favorably on Cole, at least to me. That leaves the other three sections. The "Yale" section can certainly be shortened. That will leave the three criticism sections properly sized with relation to the article as a whole, especially compared to articles about similar individuals like Daniel Pipes. - Merzbow 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
In addition, we can create a Criticism of Juan Cole article to hold any overflow of what might be termed criticism, like has been done for hundreds, if not thousands, of subjects on Wikipedia. - Merzbow 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that was attempted before, but the page got closed down and there were accusations/suspicions that it was being used to get around certain WP guidelines. I don't know what is true and what isn't (it was before I became familiar with the debate), but there is probably a large amount of precedent that would affect such a page. Abbenm 06:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It depends. All attempts to close down the for-all-intents-and-purposes Rachel Marsden criticism page, Marsden-Donnelly_harassment_case failed, despite an ArbCom case that concluded her coverage in Wikipedia was unfairly negative. Precedent is that there is clearly a place here for substantial, well-sourced criticism of public figures, and Juan Cole is far more of a public figure in the U.S. than Rachel Marsden. I honestly shed no tears for him, he holds back NO punches when he himself goes after his critics on his blog, as we have seen above with Hitchens. Darn straight that we can and will treat him fairly, but he is no object of pity. There are many, many other public figures on Wikipedia with criticism or de-facto criticism pages, and I would be astounded if a well-sourced Juan Cole criticism page didn't survive an AfD; it would only be in danger from an overzealous admin with a quick speedy-delete trigger finger. - Merzbow 08:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I see the bad faith charges cut both ways around here. Regardless, it's evident that there's little point in arguing for neutrality-through moderation when one side sees criticism of public figures to be an important function of Wikipedia, so all that's left to do is to expand the neutral sections of the article so that the swiftboating is downplayed. Chris Cunningham 08:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
So you don't think that criticism of any person should be reported upon by Wikipedia at all? Policy and multiple ArbCom precedents have established that reporting well-sourced criticism is in fact an integral part of Wikipedia's public duty. It must, however, not overwhelm other portions of the article; rule of thumb seems to be at most 25% of an article should be criticism. The Marsden page went to ArbCom because it was majority criticism and was essentially frozen that way by group of admins who did not understand issues of undue weight. The Cole article as it stands now is probably balanced. - Merzbow 18:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Also Chris, a comment on a dubious actions of a hypothetical admin in the future is not an accusation of bad-faith, unlike your assertion that editors in the here and now are "swiftboating". Comments like that undermine the value of your comments, and render your edits suspect. For example, I looked at your reorg of the page, though it had merit, looked at talk, and rolled my eyes, but I'll keep your edits and rationale separate.
As for creating a secondary Cole page, I'm against it. I was also against creating the V&C page, it was terrible, and we should just merge. Anyway, there are the links if newer editors want the background. <<-armon->> 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I also read the Marsden case and pages, I don't think it applies here. <<-armon->> 23:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term "swiftboating" is highly inappropriate here on so many levels. The swiftboat ads contained untruthful material which was prolulgated by the Bush camp in order to discredit an opponent and win an election. Anyone who describes reasonable criticism made by critics about cole with terms like "swiftboating" can only be doing so to discredit and silence. It is like calling me a "far right wing activist" (see below). It is outrageous. I feel that whoever uses the term should retract it if they want to be taken seriously and expect others to WP:AGF about their contributions Elizmr 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about your politics, and I agree with you about the term "far right wing activist" as you don't seem to fit the label. But "swiftboating" doesn't seem out of line at all. Untruthful material (e.g. accusations of antisemitism) promulgated to discredit an opponent? Absolutely. Reasonable criticism? I don't think so. csloat 07:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we strongly disagee on this and we've been over and over it. The most fair thing for you to do at this point would be to allow both viewpoints equal time and neutral bandwith rather than using terms like "swiftboating" to characterize the viewpoint you don't like. Elizmr 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
First, I am not preventing any viewpoint from being expressed. I'm only advocating allowing bandwidth for Cole's response. As for the swiftboating charge, as I noted above, it is completely accurate. The fact is that when Cole does talk about Jews or antisemitism it is very clear that he is not an antisemite; the charge is false and it is not based on any evidence whatever. So "swiftboating" is accurate. The fact that some otherwise intelligent people actually believe the nonsense is beside the point - it speaks to the power of ideology, I suppose, but it hardly invalidates the term "swiftboating." Let's keep in mind that there are also plenty of people who still believe that John Kerry didn't deserve those medals. Anyway, there's really no point in debating what sorts of terms are acceptable in the talk page; nobody is advocating adding the term "swiftboating" to the article, so let's move on. csloat 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It is disingenuous to suggest that the problem here is that both argeuments are not "given equal time", either in the article or in the heads of its editors. Repeating smears as news lends them undue credibility, which is the whole point of the argument. If CNN didn't repeat the swiftboat charges then people wouldn't have doubted Kerry so much. Chris Cunningham 09:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As noted by sloat, egrecious allegations of antisemitism and apologism for radicals are not reasonable criticism. I've made no comments on the political persuasions of editors on this thread at all, save for the bad-faith comments (and I'm still unconvinced that an argument several months long concerning serious political allegations is driven entirely by pursuit of journalistic integrity). Chris Cunningham 09:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You have to divorce your personal political views from the standards put forth by policy for the inclusion of sources. If none of us did that, then this encyclopedia wouldn't be possible. - Merzbow 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Merzbow. Elizmr 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about personal politics. I've never divulged my personal political views on here, and they're irrelevant to whether this is a smear or not. Chris Cunningham 09:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another attempted mediation

Just a note; User:JoshuaZ (an admin) has generously offered to semi-formally mediate some of the major disputes on this page. I have placed my statement on the page he created for that purpose, and he has made a slot for Armon (talk • contribs) to do the same. I'm not going to continue to debate with Armon on this page as our direct discussions do not appear productive and he has made it clear that he will revert any edit I make no matter how small or how well justified. I have backed off from editing this page since I don't want to participate in continual revert wars, but I have not backed off from my position on the rationale for such edits. I'm hoping that this administrator intervention will help move this page forward from its current state. csloat 00:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question for the group

Does anyone else think it is weird that Juan Cole feels justified in characterizing me, Armon, and Isarig as "far right wing activists" based soely upon how we have edited his entry in Wikipedia? It would not be OR at all for me to say about myself that I am NOT a far right wing activist (if anyone wants my political credentials, including my history of campaign contributions feel free to drop me an email and I will fill you in). I don't necessarily feel there is anything wrong with far right or far left wing activists, as long as they play fair and don't hurt anyone, but Cole is obviously using the term as an ad hominem slur to discredit editors writing the Wikipedia entry. How do people feel about this? Elizmr 01:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel anything really, aside from flattered at the importance granted to this very amazing collaborative encyclopedia. We have a responsibility to the public and to Mr. Cole to represent him in a balanced way and ensure that the statements made about him on this page are notable and verifiable. This is not a responsibility to be taken lightly. - Merzbow 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that Cole is entitled to his opinion. It is natural to assume that individuals who pursue a sustained attempt to disseminate serious political allegations against a person are politically opposed to them. Cole isn't subject to Wikipedia's policies, in particular an assumption of good faith, and is obviously subject to constant attack from Internet sources. You are perfectly entitled to challenge him on this. Chris Cunningham 09:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're on the left on some or many issues. You may be on the liberal wing of the Democratic party - I can't tell just from this argument. I would say, however, that it seems from your position on this page that you're on the right in terms of the Mideast conflict. That doesn't mean you shouldn't edit this page, but it does look nonetheless like you view Cole as far more extreme than he actually is because of your differing political views. I wouldn't even classify Cole as left; his criteria for judging American policy in the Mideast is actually quite conservative, focusing first and foremost on whether American interests are advanced by any given course action - hence his contempt for the neoconservatives, whom he views as ideologues with no understanding of the Middle East. This, along with the atrocious conditions the Palestinians have faced over nearly the last 60 years, seem to guide his views on the Mideast conflict. What I think really grates Cole is when people posit alterior motives, such as anti-semitism, for his analysis. -Thucydides411 07:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


::The terms "left" and "right" when applied to the mideast conflict are complete misnomers. The Israeli governemnt is much more "left" in terms of its values and practices than any other government in the Middle East. Look at the record on suffrage, women's rights, gay rights, rights of religious freedom, economic opportunity--Israel takes the more left wing liberal position across the board compared to any Arab or Middle Eastern government including the PA. The Palestinians and their leadership have to take some responsibility--along with Israel--for the state of their people. They have squandered billions and billions of aid dollars--is this Israel's fault? It is not. Is it left wing? Is it liberal? It is not. While their leaders, in English, say that the Palestinians want peace, they have taught hatred to their kids (see "Death in Gaza" for a nice documentary view of this). Is this left wing? Is this Liberal? It is not. They have asked the Jews to acknowledge their right to statehood while refusing to acknowledge that Jews have any right to self determination in the land that is the birthplace of their religion and homeland even as a tiny country comprising tiny tiny chunk of the middle east. Is this left wing or liberal? It is not. They have actually tried to rewrite history to erase the Jews history in the region? Is this liberal or left wing? It is not. I'm not sure why Cole (or defenders above) are calling my politics on the middle east "right wing" Elizmr 00:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you mention anywhere in your post that five million Palestinians live in exile, millions in squalid, overcrowded camps and without citizenship rights in the countries in which they reside? Is the theft (I don't know of any more accurate term - they fled their homes in the war zone, and then were barred from returning by the newly-formed Israeli state) of almost a million Palestinians' homes and property in 1948-49 not worth mention? The tiny chunk of the Middle East of which you speak was until then home to more than a million Palestinians. The crime of Israel's founding was its complete denial of the rights of those who actually lived in the land. -Thucydides411 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Jesus Christ... this is NOT the place for this. - Merzbow 04:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Merzbow, please don't respond to baiting like this. For what it's worth, I think the primary reason affinity for Israel is currently identified with the political right is due to its militarism, which is a defining characteristic of most right-wing ideologies. Chris Cunningham 09:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


I agree this is off topic, I was replying to what others wrote above in response to my comment about Cole's blog post on the Wiki entry and what people thought of his mischaracterization of wikipedia contributor's politics in an ad hominem way in order to make a point. I found it disturbing.

I will further reply now becuase I need to reply to the two comments above which were disturbing. CC--Yes, Israel has been forced to be militaristic in order to defend itself. It was attacked from all sides right after the UN partition and the declaration of independence and continues to experience military hostility on a daily basis. How does this make it "right wing"? In what way have the arab countries and the PLO/PA NOT been militaristic and how do they therefore claim "left wing" status? YOu dno't have to answer this, but please understand that your comment betrays some lack of appreciation of the history of the conflict. Thu, it is clear that you don't think Israel has a right to exist or that Jews have a right to self determination in their homeland, but you might consider that Jews were residing in every single arab or muslim country before 1948 and were mostly forced out by having their citizenship revoked, their rights to work taken away, their property taken away, etc. Look at http://www.jimena.org/ with an open mind and an open heart if you want to begin to educate yourself on this. The original numbers of displaced were about equal on both sides. Israel took in many manyh Jews who fled arab and muslim countries. The US did as well. No one put these folks in camps and used them for political chattle as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt etc did after the 48 war. Please read the transcripts of the UN debates post war of independence and Abba Eban's speeches on this. There were refugees on both sides. Elizmr 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This all off topic, indeed. To state the obvious, there is a lot of anger and bitterness (on all sides) about this issue which lamentably spills onto these pages. The only thing we could possibly achieve here is to recognize that these feelings exists and leave it at that. Perhaps I should add coin yet another Wiki alphabet soup principle WP:NPROX: Wikipedia is not a proxy for territorial or political disputes.--CSTAR 15:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. My purpose in starting this section was to offically protest and question Juan Cole's ad hominem remark against Wikipedia editors. Merzbow and CC made reasonable responses. I should not have responded to User:Thucydides411's off topic and baiting remarks. Apologies to the group. Elizmr 16:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] read this post

Editors who continue to insist on Jew-baiting professor Cole ought to read this post. csloat 09:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by "Jew-baiting professor Cole"? Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I mean, trying to make him look like some kind of antisemitic conspiracy theorist while ignoring the very obvious and real things that he actually says about Jews, Israel, etc. This is ridiculous baiting, and when looked at alongside his actual statements, we see how specious it is. csloat 23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/u/a/Talk%7EJuan_Cole_Archive_14_caf6.html"