Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Cole and Bahá'í 2 Cole's real name 3 Cole and scifi 4 Housecleaning and touch ups 5 Refrences 6 Yale appointment 7 antisemitism 8 Selected Bibliography 9 John/Juan 10 summarization of criticism removed 11 external link removed 12 Summary 13 Distortion of Karsh's article 14 Likudniks 15 Views and controversies -blog driven? 16 Karsh quote appearing 3 times 17 POV banner 18 James Joyner Karsh Anti-Dote CounterBalancing Quote would get deleted by Isarig & C0 19 Wikipedia Karsh & Cole: After a year of getting slimed JC has had enough 20 Application of WP policy and guidelines 21 Attention Armon, Isarig, Silverburg Can't have cake and eat it too 22 Reply to Will 23 More on the Karsh quote 24 Organization, blog information

Cole and Bahá'í

Note from Elizmr: I've archived the discussion to this point, and inserted more appropriate title to this part of the discussion. Will add correct diacritics later. Elizmr 22:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr's idea about including more of his Baha'i story on the "Controversies" page has some merit. He was definitely in the thick of Baha'i controversies from around 1995 to around 2002, to the point his name was virtually synonymous with Baha'i dissidence in cyberspace. The down side is that it's one more thing for editors to argue about, because this is definitely a story with two sides. Do we want to open the whole can of worms? Can it be justified in terms of being "encyclopedic"? As for my anonymity, there is a practical reason for it: My name would be recognized as someone who was on Juan's side in the Baha'i controversies on the Internet. I like to make contributions to Baha'i articles occasionally, and would rather have my writing or talk page arguments judged on their own merits rather than simply because of who I am. I could register, and create a pseudonym, I suppose, but I haven't done that. 69.232.171.3 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As for putting more of Juan's Baha'i story on the Controversies page, it will take me a little bit to pull sources together -- and some might object to the sources, which, on Juan's side, are mostly emails. Where I foresee the edit war is not with the editors who are already there, but with Baha'is. In any case, I'll have to be meticulous about sources for this -- and watch for unsourced statements that come from subsequent editing.69.232.171.3 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, 69.232.171.3! I think this belongs in the article, but agree it needs to be very well done and meticulous. I agree email should be mentioned. My concern was that Will's version didn't specify anything about the content of the emails--it was really a comment about the way the sentence was written. How about this for a less POV and more informative section on the the main page, how about something like this: "In the early 1990s, Cole became a regular participant on the Bahai listserv. After Bahai religious officials raised concerns regarding some views of Bahai Cole expressed there, Cole resigned as an official member of Bahai. He later made a private declaration of faith, but this is not something recognized by the Bahai religion" Please feel free to edit and post this. Elizmr 14:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, Elizmr, except for one small mistake. It wasn't a "Baha'i listserv", but an academic listserv run out of the University of Indiana. How about we substitute "the academic email list Talisman, which was devoted to the intellectual discussion of Baha'i topics."? Just FYI, Juan wasn't the only Talisman poster investigated -- there were five others -- three resigned, one was sanctioned ("lost administrative rights" in Baha'i parlance), and the other hung in there and tried to keep his head below radar. It's just that Juan stayed active on Baha'i lists after this happened, loudly protesting, which is what made him notorious. He also wrote academic articles which were critical of the Baha'i administration. One of his greatest positive accomplishments, though, was the creation of H-Bahai, which has made available a wealth of primary sources on the Baha'i Faith which were hard to come by before. His book *Modernity and the Millennium* is the first book about Baha'u'llah published by an academic press since the early 1900s; it's ground-breaking. I can document the Baha'i administration's extremely negative response to it, and attempts to prevent a Baha'i publisher from promoting it. 69.232.171.3 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciated correction; I had no idea what Talisman is/was. I'll post this. I hope you'll put some of the stuff on Bahai on the main page in the appropriate sections as well as contributing on the controversies page. We have been hoping for some additional information in this article about JC's academic contributions. Elizmr 15:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the last suggestion, just as Will did not believe that leaving the word "investigation" was neutral because it assumes guilt on Cole, I don't believe the last suggestion is neutral because it doesn't give the context of what was going on. And just as I am not a neutral observer in this discussion as I am a Baha'i I don't believe the anonymous editor is totally neutral, as he has already indicated he agrees with Cole. There is much more behind this newsgroup/acadamic listserve. In those listserves suggestions to modifications to Bahá'í procedures, including how to prevent perceived abuses of authority, were made. The assertions, however, overlooked important Bahá'í principles which provide the methods and channels for the voicing of such grievances or disagreements, and which are designed to lead to resolution of problems while preserving the unity of the community. The Universal House of Justice has written "Bahá'ís who are attempting to arouse widespread dissatisfaction in the community and thereby to bring about changes in the structure and principles of Bahá'í administration, making it accord more closely with their personal notions. Such an activity is closely analogous to the pursuit of a partisan political program, an activity which is accepted and even admired in most societies, but is entirely antithetical to the spirit of the Bahá'í Faith. It promotes an atmosphere of contention, and Bahá'u'lláh has expressly stated: 'Conflict and contention are categorically forbidden in His Book.' and that "There are numerous individuals who share the ideals of the Faith and draw inspiration from its Teachings, while disagreeing with certain of its features, but those who actually enter the Bahá'í community have accepted, by their own free will, to follow the Teachings in their entirety, understanding that, if doubts and disagreements arise in the process of translating the Teachings into practice, the final arbiter is, by the explicit authority of the Revealed Text, the Universal House of Justice."

The long story is that this is not a black or white disagreement. If it is going to be expanded it needs more context, and as the anonymous editor pointed out, most sources for the disagreement are in e-mails, on personal websites, and forums, of which most would not pass as sources for the disagreement. I am ok with the old wording, however. -- Jeff3000 15:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeff--my apologies for adding the section before you weighed in. I am now confused about which version was the "old" wording. Could you take a look at what is there now and comment? Thanks for weighing in. It is really helpful to have this content and I'm sure it adds to the 3d portrait of cole on wikipedia that we are trying to create. Elizmr 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries, there was no need to wait until I weighed in, since I was not an active participant of this discussion. I have made some changes to the current text, but while I tried to be somewhat neutral, my bias may have definitely slipped in. In regards to this new edit I think the anonymous editor will state that it does not necessarily conflict with Baha'i principles (I disagree with him), but I think to remain neutral the "deemed to overlook" is probably better. The old wording I was referring to was "Cole became a Bahá'í in 1972, and has authored many books and articles on the Bahá'í Faith. He left the organized Bahá'í Faith in 1996, but later declared that he recovered his private faith". -- Jeff3000 15:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jeff, I think your edit makes it clear that it was the view of the Baha'i institutions that Cole's statements conflicted with Baha'i principles, so I don't have a big problem with that. (Whether they actually *did* conflict would be a discussion for another place and time, of course.) However, what I would quibble with is that the House's statements on "internal opposition" emphasize "teachings" more than "principles". From the April 1999 letter: " a campaign of internal opposition to the Teachings is currently being carried on through the use of the Internet, a communications system that now reaches virtually every part of the world. Differing from attacks familiar in the past, it seeks to recast the entire Faith into a socio-political ideology alien to Bahá'u'lláh's intent." From the August 1999 letter: "[Cole] is a deeply embittered individual who, as his book was in preparation, had just denounced in the most intemperate language an apparent twenty-year allegiance to Baha'u'llah, in the wake of a failed attempt on his part to impose his private ideological agenda on the Baha'i community's study of Baha'u'llah's Message. Modernity and the Millennium represents an effort to provide the current stage of this long-running scheme with the underpinnings of scholarly rationalization." Essentially, what the House objected to was that Juan was writing about the Faith from a secular, academic viewpoint. The letters don't talk about confining criticism to proper channels, or resolving difficulties through consultation and that kind of thing (which is what I assume you mean by "principles") -- they complain about presenting the Faith in "materialistic" fashion, and the ideas that result from that.69.232.171.3 18:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if the current version is ok with both of you (and anyone else interested). Elizmr 19:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't in on the discussions on Talisman, but from my reading as I understand it, there were discussions, among other things, on modifying Baha'i electorate principles. These were the principles that I was referring to, and to which the one of the quotes that I included refers to. Of course, after this disagreement, much more happened, including the confining criticism to proper channels discussion, and the alleged materialistic presenting of the Faith. Now are Principles and Teachings very different; sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. If you take the Teaching that conflict and confrontation are in no wise permissible, and apply it as Shoghi Effendi did when claryfying the Baha'i election system, then they are not very different at all. Of course this is a point of view. Regardless, I'm ok with the way the text stands as of now. -- Jeff3000 19:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey all. I did a small re-write based on the conversation here, my own historical recollections (I also know some people who were involved on both sides), and my hopefully emerging NPOV skillz. I'm hoping that the matter is now left neutral, with both sides' views adequately summarized, with no fault implied in either direction. The progressively more heated nature of the dialogue which culminated in his resignation is hopefully also captured, without being needlessly wordy, nor fault-finding. Please let me know if it is acceptable. Please do bear in mind, I am a Baha'i, and therefore may not be entirely objective. I have attempted, however, to be entirely fair, and I have great love for several of the folks involved in that unfortunate affair.

As to anon's thoughts that the House was, in essence, criticizing Juan's "academic treatment" of the Faith, I think it's too simple. A long discussion on "The Science of Religion" in religious studies would be overkill here, but I think their concern was that he was advancing a political agenda within the religion, and one that was, structurally, at odds with an administrative system whose scripturally-defined features he was proposing to change. One can academically (as we try to do here) analyze a religion. However, academics (trained or amateur) often (as we also see here) have an ideological agenda and write to it. The disinterested academic is a rare species. In this I am not criticizing Cole, but rather pointing out what any Wikipedian should have no problem identifying in themselves and writers in general. I'm just saying that Cole isn't immune, and this was not lost on the Bahá'í administration. The sad thing, is that the fine line between observation/analysis and advocacy is truly finer than many of us may safely tread. -- Christian Edward Gruber 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Christian -- of course it's "too simple", but how complex should we get here? My objection to attributing Cole's troubles to his statements on election reform is that it is unsourced. (Was he even talking about that before 1996? I think it became a bigger deal later.) There are all sorts of stories floating around about why the Talismanians got into trouble, but for Wikipedia I think we should stick with what the institutions themselves said about it -- and they don't mention election reform in any of the letters I know about. Those letters talk about materialistic academic scholarship, women's exclusion from the UHJ, separation of church and state, and the role of the mashriq'u'l-adhkar. They also mention a vague "ideological agenda" without really defining it. No doubt all kinds of factors went into the House's decision, but here we need to stick with what we can know for sure; things that are in public statements. 69.232.171.3 21:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and there are lots of subtleties here that would be mind-numbing to someone who had not read the Talisman stuff or the subsequent mailing list discussions. My language around structural differences was intended to convey the area of the dispute without getting too deeply into it. I'm absolutely convinced there is a proper neutral-and-sufficient-yet-uncomplicated wording here, though we may need to iterate a few times to get it. --Christian Edward Gruber 21:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please also see the controversies concerning cole page that this main page links to and feel free to add a somewhat more extensive (but still NPOV) section there detailing some of the nature of the controversy. This will be interesting in terms of shedding light on Cole, and also getting more folks to hear about Bahá'í. It would be interesting if any details about Cole's book could be added there as we are thin on what Cole actually does academically here. By the way, I read the Wikiipedia page on the religion after helping to edit this little section, and found it very interesting. I had heard about the religion previously, but never knew anything about it. Elizmr 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I can take a look, but I haven't read his book, nor am I deeply familiar with him. I merely have a passing familiarity with the conflict, due to my interaction with some of those involved. I am also very overloaded at the moment, but I'll try to take a look later -- Christian Edward Gruber 19:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The current version seems still rather wordy. (Sorry CEG. You did improve it.) (I don't think he's published "many books and articles" on the Baha'i Faith; I think it's "a book and several academic articles" on the subject.) [1] However, the vast majority of his academic work is on Islam with a focus on Shi'i Islam, so I'm not sure that his affiliation with the Baha'i Faith is as germane as the space this is taking up warrants. The Baha'i Faith was a focus of his early career, but Shi'i Islam seems to be the main focus of his body of work.

His thinking about politics in general, and Baha'i politics in particular was and are controversial, to say the least, to Baha'is because there were several points where he diverts directly from Baha'i teachings on Baha'i administration and even further on secular politics. CEG is right. His Talsiman proposals on "reforming" Baha'i administration cut directly across explicitly defined procedures with respect to elections, electioneering, etc. His biography is not a place to flesh this out.

It is really strange for a Baha'i to hear him claim that he has recovered his "private faith", when one compares the Talsiman episode and his post-9/11 punditry to the religion's teachings on politics. Baha'is are to shun sectarian politics and even avoid pronouncements on political systems and policies. [2] & [3] He's done anything but, so making a connection to the Baha'i community is a dis-service to the subject. While he's never said that the represents even unofficial Baha'i thought on these various subjects, this isn't the place to distance his conduct from Baha'i teachings, so I don't think that his prior or "private" religious affiliation is germane. Can't this get dropped? What purpose does this private episode of his life serve in his biographical article. MARussellPESE 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems like more than a private episode since he has published a book on the religion and has blogged on the episode. Should we bisect this and put some on Cole and some on Controversies concerning Cole?

for Cole page:

Cole became a member of the Bahá'í Faith in 1972 as an undergraduate at Northwestern, and the Bahá'í religion later became one focus of his early academic career. Cole officially separated himself from the religion in 1996 after disputes with Bahá'í leadership concerning the Bahá'í system of administration.

for Cole Controversies page:

In the 1990's, Cole became a regular participant on "Talisman", an academic email list devoted to intellectual discussion of Bahá'í topics. Bahá'í administrative institutions later raised concerns that Cole was advocating some structural changes to the Bahá'í system of administration - a system seen by that community as sacred and divinely revealed - which were in conflict with Bahá'í scripture. After exchanges involving himself, various contributors to Talisman, and representatives of the Bahá'í administration, Cole resigned his official membership in the organization. He later announced that he had recovered his private faith, but this way of following Bahá'í is unrecognized by central Bahá'í institutions.

Elizmr 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... That totally flows better, I think, especially since the latter is a detail of a controversy. And it's ok, MARussellPESE... I am known for being wordy - just ask my wife. --Christian Edward Gruber 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would really object if Cole's Baha'i background was dropped entirely -- it is very relevant to his life as a scholar. I am, however, willing to be flexible in terms of how much is included, and fully support the idea of keeping the language as neutral as possible. As for what Elizmer has for the main page, it is mostly fine, except that there is no evidence that the "administration" was the issue. You could just end that sentence at "leadership". As for the Controversies page: The Baha'i administration sent a Counsellor (the highest appointed official) to Juan's house to question him. This was an investigation, not an "exchange". 69.232.171.3 21:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 69.232... that Cole's Baha'i background is encyclopedically relevant, however MARussellPESE's concerns need to be addressed. 69.232---we had taken the word "investigation" out to address Will's concern that the term had negative connotations. We will have to figure out a way to make this true to facts, sensitive to all involved, and NPOV. I personally won't make any changes until everyone has weighed in.

I just wanted to note that the three of you are really model Wikipedians and quite a pleasure to edit with. Thanks for being so collegial and balanced on this potentially emotional and divisive topic. Elizmr 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be dropped entirely. As to "administration", almost all of the talisman stuff that preceeded the publishing of the book had to do with adminsitrative critique (except for the theoretical stuff on conditional infallibility and stuff). "A modest proposal" posits substantial changes to the baha'i administrative system. Such discussion was the genesis of the issue, though it may not have been the final straw. I am really struggling for a short summary sentence that neither misrepresents either party, nor leaves the overall topic of the disagreement unstated, which may cause an unjustified sense of mystery here.

As to the term "exchange" I am not so sure it wasn't an exchange when the counsellor asked his questions. Cole is no shrinking violet. However the whole issue wasn't about the Counsellor's visit. That was a local maximum in a long curve of interaction involving e-mail, phone calls and other media by several people, including cole and others. The Counsellors are busy people and are not sent out at the first notion that something is amis. Regardless, as Elizmr says, I was attempting to phrase it in a way that would be both simple, representative at a very high level of abstraction, and non-POV. "investigation" is POV as it implies a lot of spooky things. One thing it implies is that he did not have any input. I think no one can dispute that he had a whole lot of air-time during the affair, presenting his views in several fora, as did many of his supporters. That the administration of the Baha'is disagreed with his tone, methods, or conclusions might irritate him and others, but that's simply a fact to report here. Juan and the Baha'i leadership have their rights to their opinions. If anything, the Baha'i administration has had less public say than some Talismanians, since they tend not to comment in public fora on internal affairs. I'm starting to drone on now.

Can we archive much of this discussion, by the way. This thread, and indeed this whole talk page is really getting huge. --Christian Edward Gruber 21:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I left most of this thread as it is still incomplete, is this ok? Elizmr 22:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow that was a lot of work. Thanks Elizmr for formatting the page for easier accessibility. -- Jeff3000 22:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just curious about this sentence: "the Bahá'í religion later became one focus of his early academic career." Later or early? I think we should only choose one.--csloat 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

fair enough, I took one out. Elizmr 23:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it ought to be "one focus of his academic study" period. He started out very early doing articles and translations for the Baha'i Faith, and he has continued to this day. His most recent article on a Baha'i topic was 2005 -- that's not exactly his "early" career. It might help to look at his publications page: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/cv.htm, and scroll down to "Book chapters and Articles". He's had four book chapters published on Baha'i topics within the last couple of years, with the most recent being "Globalization and Religion in the Thought of 'Abdu'l-Baha'" I would estimate that about a third of the articles on that list have to do with Baha'i topics, but it might not be immediately apparent if you aren't familiar with that religion. 69.232.171.3 23:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just checking one last time tonight, and I think things are shaping up very well. I still would be happier if the claim that structural changes to the Administrative Order were the main issue was sourced, because that is not what the House's written statements say. Ironically, both Juan's statements and the House's are pretty much in agreement that it was the way he was writing about Baha'i history and teachings that was the issue in dispute.69.232.171.3 04:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia. Go with what's sourced. My own sources are later disussions recollecting what happened. Unless I were to do some original research here, I suspect I could not substantiate my perception, and I am beginning to doubt my own recollections of third/second-hand conversations, as they were about five-eight years ago. From Juan's and the House's letters, let's see if we can come up with some wording that's less mysterious than the original.

Incidentally, the "agena" the House refers to, I believe, may refer to the need for certain structural reforms, though it could refer to the attempt to define the infallibility of the House and the Guardian into narrower bounds. While no baha'i should have a problem with scoped infallibility, as the Guardian also defined his own infallibility as limited in scope, some Baha'is have used this scoped infallibility to pick-and-choose their obedience to the laws and elected institutions. THAT, I think, is also likely part of the agenda referred to. However, I cannot substantiate it - it's the feeling I get from the content and tone of the discussions I was a part of. The third possibility is the desire of some Baha'i academics to be excused from publishing review or given a by on expressing certain heterodox conclusions on the grounds that they are academics, and that academics is or should be immune to one's religious system of belief.

The above notwithstanding, I cannot source it, so let's go with a more ambiguous, but hopefully less mysterious, wording. Cheers, anon and all. -- Christian Edward Gruber 12:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian, some haziness in recollection is understandable -- these issues were hashed out over a period of years, by many people, on many forums. And, of course, we are talking about something that happened ten years ago now. What I saw a lot was a tendency to project backwards i.e. attribute to Juan statements that were made after his resignation (when he was, admittedly, very angry) to beforehand and say "Well, no wonder he got into trouble!" The issues you mention were certainly part of what was going on at the time, but it's hard to tie them in solidly and with a source. The letters talk about academic scholarship, and some of the conclusions drawn from it. but I take it you aren't comfortable with simply giving that as the reason for the dispute. So, I guess we'll have to go vaguer. We could simply say that the Baha'i administration had concerns about the way he was presenting Baha'i teachings on public forums. Something like that?69.232.171.3 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source from K Paul Johnson, who writes with the perspective of those that were investigated/interrogated (however you want to word it) that mentions the changes in the administration that were talked about on Talisman -- Jeff3000 13:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go! It's especially good that the article refers to a letter that appeared in *The American Baha'i*. So, let's put that link in a footnote -- and I'll shut up! :-)69.232.171.3 14:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

All, the current version of his Baha'i story is very good. Much better balanced against the body of his work. Frankly, reviewing his C.V. says to me at least, that Baha'i Studies have made up a fraction of his body of work; and, while he may still be publishing, his research interests have certainly taken him elsewhere.

69.232.171.3, with respect to sourcing the "Talisman" episode in the "Controversies" article, there are several pertinent Wikipedia policies that apply. If you're a new editor you may get blind-sided. You'll want to review the Wikipedia Verifiability polices. "Sources of dubious reliability" and "Self-published sources" may be particularly relevant. Cole should have much of this sourced on his UMich pages. Those would, I think, pass "Self-published" muster. But others have maintained private on-line repositories, and those would not. I wouldn't want you to see an "edit war" when others are editing to policies.

We'd also need to keep Wikipedia's "Undue Weight" policies in mind there. As tumultuous as the whole "Talisman" thing was, it involved only a few people in a relatively small religious group, which generated about three (maybe) whole papers. His conflicts with the Neo-Cons over U.S. foreign policy has been far more spectacular and wide reaching. Perhaps what including this does is draw a parallel between the effects of his outspoken approach on his relationship with his former religious community. MARussellPESE 15:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not enormously anxious to get a section started on the Controversies page. My initial concern, and what drew me into the discussion here, was that I felt that Juan's Baha'i background did deserve some mention in this article. Now that we have that, I'm disinclined to do a lot of pushing for more. If such a section gets started, I'll probably have more to say, but I wasn't planning on doing the initial write-up. An argument could be made that the whole episode is a lot more relavent to Baha'is than it would be to a wider audience. A piece on the Controversies page is going to take a whole lot more negotiating back and forth with this history. I guess what I'm saying is that if you guys want to get into it, then I'll be there. But, if you don't, I'm not going to protest. 69.232.171.3 17:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on moving the "Religious beliefs" section below "Controversies" per WP:NPOV#Undue weight? These "Controversies" are a much broader subject. MARussellPESE 15:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is so relevant to how he has defined himself that it belongs above, but remember, I think we're all agreed that much of this section is going to come out and go to the "controversies" article. In that article, it should follow the US policy stuff. Would that balance things out do you think? Elizmr 16:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in for this - I think the proposed one/two sentence version with the rest to go in controversies would be nice, clear, non-judgemental without creating innaccurate implications. Thanks to all for being so... well... wiki-esque. --Christian Edward Gruber 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry for my absence from Wikiworld. I edited out the controversy stuff and am editing based on all your comments on my drafts page and then will put it on the controversies page when I'm done. I'll put in the link so you-all can edit and comment. Should be later tonight. Elizmr 23:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I put a section in here [4]

please see and comment. I edited together what the three of you said, but don't have knowledge of the issues myself so might not have done the best job. I didn't add refs yet--there were a few provided above. Could someone add the ones which seem the best? Thanks. Elizmr 01:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since you don't have a "side" in the whole Baha'i thing, you're probably the best person to write it! :-) It all looks o.k. to me. I tried to add a link to H-Bahai, but couldn't get it to come up right. The URL is http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/ Now, that I think about it, there should probably also be a link to Juan's statement that he's a Baha'i outside the administration, just so that is sourced. Also, just FYI, a recent article quotes an insider as saying that one reason Juan didn't get the Yale job was that "most of Cole’s scholarship pertains to the Baha’i faith and is limited to the 18th and 19th centuries". So, it appears that his commitment to Baha'i scholarship cost him, career-wise. Of course, his combativeness on his weblog was also given as a reason.69.232.171.3 03:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cole's real name

There have now been many edits going back and forth on Cole's real name. It is uncontested that Cole's own webpage at the University of Michigan lists his real name as "John (Juan) Ricardo Cole," which may indicate that "Juan" is a nickname of some sort. In any event, it seems that there are several people who think that this page should not even *mention* Cole's real name, as per his own webpage. There can be no rational reason for this. What on earth could be wrong with mentioning the real name of the person who is the subject of a biographical entry? It makes one wonder at the sanity of the people making the edits here; it's as if they think the name "John" means that there is some big, dark, conspiratorial secret that must be hidden at all costs. 65.68.174.34

Cole and scifi

I quite agree with you about "humanizing" Juan, or any other figure on Wikipedia. I mean, there's a limit; we don't have to include what t.v. shows he watches or what his favorite pizza topping is, but I think the stuff about Juan liking science fiction is fine -- particularly since he has a web page about that. He actually once had a fantasy story published under a pseudonym, so maybe it can be seen as a "professional" interest. 69.232.171.3

anonym. what is the scifi story? i'd like to read it. i'm a scfi fan myself. start a section on the controversies page. i don't see an edit war. the people there are interested in the new-anti-semitism mainly. Just make if fair and balanced and give both sides. just keep posting using your ip like your are now. or use the vertical bar alias to give yourself a temp name. Take Care! --Will 09:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd have trouble finding it, Will. It was published in 1996 in the small, Canadian mag called *Bardic Runes*, which folded up a long time ago. More fantasy than science fiction, really. Juan's story was based on Persian legend -- Faridun and the Simurgh. I have a copy somewhere. However, the editor, Michael McKenny, might still have copies. I can't give out his email address here, but if you put him into a search, you'll find his web page.

69.232.171.3

This stuff would make a nice little addition in the "Areas of interest, extra academic" section when Will gets the sources together. Elizmr 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Housecleaning and touch ups

Ben put Bahá'í religion into a new section. I realized that we really discussed career in the top section, so the "career" section below was a bit of a misnomer and changed this. I moved things around slightly to better fit in the new categories. Elizmr 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I've cut out most of the religion section to relocate to the controversies page. Since only one sentence or so was left, I moved it to the top section. Does this read ok for you? Elizmr 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Refrences

It's important that articles be referenced. I believe the section titled "Views and controversies" has no references whatsoever, yet makes a number of factual claims. I tagged the section as unrefernced, but it was reverted. I believe footnotes are required for:

1. have attracted considerable controversy.
2. He has been critical of ... the decision to disband the Iraqi Army
3. questions the administration's motives.
4. questions the loyalties of some of Israel's supporters in America, whom he refers to as the "Israel lobby" and "Likudniks."
5. He has been challenged on many points by critics such as Efraim Karsh, Christopher Hitchens, and Martin Kramer.

I find numerous poor wordings and passive voices in the same section - "have attracted considerable controversy" - from who? "He has responded in turn with a variety of rebuttals." - meaningless. Needs work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I did the revert, as that section is a brief overview of some of the controversies, and it has a main article that goes into the details and (I believe) references it. We're loath to extend the article, as that whole section was contracted and abstracted into a separate article, but I suppose footnotes would be appropriate without extending the article. --Christian Edward Gruber 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the text is admirable from a balance standpoint, but what stands out is the no-footnotes. One or two would do fine, I think. I don't want to take bold action to fix an article that is teetering on stability, so I went for tag rather than fix, and I would hope that everyone could work together to footnote. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits as presented work for me, good job! Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I re-did the references using the <ref> tags. It's too bad you can't have global reference namespaces, so I could just re-use the references by ID on the other page. Oh well, cut-and-paste always works. Incidentally, the <ref> tag is awesome. No wonder Jeff3000 has been addicted to re-casting all the references lately. :-p --Christian Edward Gruber 16:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your edits have made the Views and Controversies page redundant. I'm trying to think of why it shouldn't be AfDd? Having worked on it myself, I don't want to do that, but I'm not sure how much duplicate information we need, especially when this really isn't that notable?--csloat 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but no, these edits have not made the much more detailed Views and Controversies page redundant. Isarig 21:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Assume good intent Israig. :) Anyway, there is a lot more detail on the controversies page. One other way to handle this is to re-do the references on the main page to point to sub-sections of the controversies page which go into more detail, and which are properly referenced externally themselves. I think that was the intent of the main template use, but that didn't seem to be sufficient for Hipocrite (and possibly others) --Christian Edward Gruber 21:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have gotten used to Isarig's personal attacks by now; he has never assumed good intent with me. I think it would be really useful for him to read the Wikipedia policies concerning civility and biographies of living persons for that matter. But in any case, he has not made any point in his above comment, as usual. As I said, I don't really want to AfD the article -- even though it has severe NPOV problems to the point of embarrassment, I have tried to help correct these problems, but certain users, Isarig included, are determined not to let that happen. In any case, I am not here to fight with him. I just don't see why every silly argument that Cole has gotten himself into requires a lengthy exegesis. Why not simply state on this page that Cole has strong views on certain topics and has had disputes with various figures and point to the other page? I understand why people want references, but those are supplied on the other page. This is a biography, folks, check out WP:BLP for more information.--csloat 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the refs look good now and are helpful. I agree with Isarig that the controversies page is not redundant and needs to remain. Of course, we could add more content to the main page, but then we would be in trouble again; I think this is the only way to go unfortunately. I agree with Hipo that the writing in the section could be improved. Elizmr 23:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yale appointment

I agree with leaving this off the page. He was up for an appoitment at Yale and didn't get it. I don't think this belongs on his bio page at all and the conjecture about why he didn't get it absolutely doesn't belong. Maybe on controversies?? Sarah, would you be ok with that? Elizmr 01:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it's rather important in his bio that he was nominated to teach at Yale, and approved by 2 of the 3 bodies necessary. It would have been a major step in his career. If I were nominated to teach at Yale, I would want that in my bio. :)

The text I added was "In 2006 Cole was nominated to teach at Yale University and was approved by Yale's sociology and history departments. However, in what was described as an unusual move, the senior appointments committee overruled the nomination and Cole was not approved to teach there.^[1] He continues to teach at the University of Michigan."

It's only 3 sentences, and is not taking up much space. It's important and factual, so I think it belongs in the article. If you think it could be better worded, that's fine, but someone keeps taking it out completely. The deletor apparently doesn't like the phrase "described as an unusual move", but the article, which is sourced, says "Several Yale faculty members described the decision to overrule the votes of the individual departments as 'highly unusual.'" So it's an accurate, sourced statement. And anyway, a quibble over one word is no reason to delete a sourced statement. Sarah crane 20:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I had moved this over to this page Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole since the cite was a discussion about why he might not have gotten the position. It might be considered to reflect badly on Cole to have it here on the main bio page, and there is a high degree of sensitivity about that on this page. I don't really object, I just expect others might. Elizmr 21:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it fit well on the main page. It seems like an important event in his life, and it doesn't strike me as negative or positive so much as a very clear demonstration of how controversial a figure he is, which is something people on all sies can agree with. I also agree that reversion because of a concern over one word was excessive. Babies, bathwater, etc. --William Pietri 00:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple things here. First, if this is going to be on the Views page, it should not be here too. If it is here, we don't need it on the views page. Let's pick one. There is too much repetition between the two pages as it is. Second, if the decision was described as "highly unusual," it is a NPOV fact to say that it was described that way. I'm not sure why the point is contentious. It may be non-notable that it was described that way, but that issue has not been raised here. What I see instead are editors making assertions about whether they think such a decision is "highly unusual" or not. Our opinions about how unusual such a decision is are irrelevant. If it was described that way, then it is a fact that it was described that way. But if that fact is not really notable - and I don't really think it is - then it probably doesn't belong here. Third, according to Cole himself, this really is not that important an event in his life. It is likely that the decision was made for political reasons, but so what? This happens all the time in academia (even though the particular process here may be "highly unusual"). As Cole pointed out, he did not seek a job at Yale and he is quite content where he is. I disagree with the above comment that it is a clear demonstration of how controversial he is -- it really doesn't demonstrate anything in particular. We don't know why the decision was made; any judgements we make about that question are purely speculative, whether or not that speculation is confirmed by "several Yale faculty members." Personally it doesn't matter to me either way whether this line is included, but I don't think anyone has made a persuasive argument justifying its inclusion at this point.--csloat 08:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"if the decision was described as "highly unusual," it is a NPOV fact to say that it was described that way." I can't agree. If C were described as antisemitic, it would not be a "NPOV fact" to say that C was described that way. The problem is in the selectivity of who is quoted. Those like Cole who think the negative decision was influenced by the Lobby may be happy to insinuate that something highly unusual was afoot. Why should Wikipedia them not give equal space to faculty who think the senior appointments committee decision was due, e.g., to lack of faculty unanimity? Evidently the history department vote was 13 yes, 7 no, and 3 abstain. Hardly a clear mandate. Should that vote be reported for balance? To avoid such issues, it's simpler and fairer to leave out the "highly unusual" quote . I agree with your conclusion. Precis 09:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Cole has been described as "antisemitic," and there are several quotes to that effect on the Views page. Shall we remove them?--csloat 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The text that Sarah Crane quotes above seems balanced to me in this regard. It is not saying why this happened, only that it is an unusual course of events. I agree with you that there are many possible reasons why the unusual events happened, and that those would have different implications for potential appearance of article skew. But as far as I can tell, this only illustrates that he is a controversial figure, which I think is undisputed. -William Pietri 12:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to stick to the facts on this page. He was considered for a faculty position, approved by two bodies and not by a third. Period. The stuff about whether it was "unusual" or not, what motivated the second body to vote against him, whether he's happy at Michigan, etc can go on the controversy page because that's what it is. Cole says on his own blog that faculty are approached to move all the time and then for whatever reason don't. Hiring a tenured faculty member means hiring them for life and it is a long process which can break down in many places. I personally think it is not appropriate for this main page becuase he didn't actually end up there and belongs on controversies. If the consensus of folks here think that it belongs on the main page, fine, but we need to stick to the facts. Why add this inuendo and not others??? Elizmr 13:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"But as far as I can tell, this only illustrates that he is a controversial figure, which I think is undisputed." Wrong. It illustrates that the appointment process was controversial, and that IS disputed. See for example [5]. Precis 14:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that whether or not the manner of denial was unusual is also disputed. The quote doesn't quite clear that up for me, as the administrator seems to be saying that denial at some stage is not unusual, rather Cole's specific situation. But either way, I think Elizmr's split is reasonable and leaves the main article in good shape. --William Pietri 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. But the fact that several members of Yale's faculty described the process as "highly unusual". And that's an undisputed, sourced fact. Wikipedia should not say that the appointment process was highly unusual, since that's contested. But it should say that the move was described as such (so long as the statement is sourced, which it is). Sarah crane 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we are saying that something is "highly unusual" it belongs on the controversies page and not this page. Does anyone disagree with taking the discussion there and just leaving the fact that he was up for an appointmnent and didn't get it (if you must) here? Elizmr 15:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This page now states the facts that the appointment was considered and not made. I moved the discussion to the controversies page. Please expand and continue it there. Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole. The history of this page is that editing has been very contentious and a decision was made to have a controversies page and put discussion, opinions, etc there. We need to abide by this, in my opinion, if we are going to keep the stuff people objected to off this page. Otherwise, it is a slippery slope--what discussion points do we allow and which don't we allow? Sarah and others, please see the talk page archives before insisting on elaboration on controversies on this main page, OK? Elizmr 15:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm. This is an interesting problem in how to keep this NPOV. I think your changes are probably good ones -- but I think it should mention in passing that the decision was controversial, without mentioning either point of view on this page. And of course it would link to the controversies page. Does that sound okay? (Also, I'm going to put a source back in, just so that the fact is sourced. I think that will be a non-controversial edit.) Sarah crane 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I made a change (but didn't revert to my previous version). All I did was re-add the source for the whole she-bang, and put in "However, in a [[Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole|controversial]] move," so that people can see that there's a controversy involved and click to see and back-and-forth if they are interested. All good? Sarah crane 17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff3000's recent change is fine by me, by the way. (I think it's clear that there is a controversy, but I don't want to imply that the decision was suspect.) So wow! We've managed to make this all NPOV! Good job all. Sarah crane 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the way a reader can click through to the controversies page now...that's excellent! Elizmr 21:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

antisemitism

"In fact, Cole has been described as "antisemitic," and there are several quotes to that effect on the Views page. Shall we remove them?" --csloat 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Cole was not described as antisemitic; rather, some of his views were. Do you think there is no difference? Although your question perhaps was rhetorical, I'll answer on general terms: paragraphs that present only one side of a controversial issue should be either removed or revised. Precis 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

To your first question; it's not that there is no difference, but the difference is minor. Someone who is antisemitic is someone who holds views that are antisemitic. The question was not really rhetorical -- I agree with you that the stuff about Yale doesn't belong here (I mean, really, shall we fill every biography page with information about jobs that the subject didn't get? Perhaps we should include information about books Cole did not publish too?) And I agree that the antisemitic stuff should be removed or radically revised as well. But that isn't going to happen any time soon, unfortunately, which is why that page is still kind of embarrassing (to be fair, though, it has gotten better in recent weeks).--csloat 21:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"To your first question; it's not that there is no difference, but the difference is minor. Someone who is antisemitic is someone who holds views that are antisemitic." This is true, but the converse is not. I've given the following example before, but perhaps it bears repeating. Tony Judt's proposal that the Jewish State should be dismantled is viewed by many as antisemitic. Yet few would call Judt himself antisemitic, since he genuinely believes that his proposal is best for all concerned. As for the Cole page in question, I agree that it needs substantial revision. Further, I think some of Cole's pro-Israel stances could be mentioned, e.g. his opposition to the boycott of Israeli academics recently approved by the British National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. Precis 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But the proposal is simply not antisemitic. That's the crux of the issue. It may be viewed that way, but it is viewed that way only by way of another (il)logical step (i.e. "the argument that Israel must be dismantled is anti-Jewish"). Some may agree with that logic; others may not. I personally do not -- I think one can oppose a Jewish (or Christian or Muslim or Hindu) state without opposing Jews. If Judt's proposal was to exterminate the Jews, both his proposal and he himself would rightly be viewed as antisemitic. In the case of Cole, we have the same dynamic -- people who quote Cole's comments against Israeli policy as evidence of alleged antisemitism. But Cole has made no comments against Jews per se or advocated taking action against Jews for being Jewish, so there is really no direct antisemitism here. The rest of your post, I totally agree with; the page needs work, and his pro-Israel stances -- particularly his longstanding support of Israeli academics that you mention -- should be hilighted there. That support is far more notable than the personal attacks of Karsh et al.--csloat 23:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cole has made numerous statements that are antisemitic, and those are pointed out in the "controversies" article. Among them are the suggestions that Jews in Bush's gov't have dual loyalties, and that Jews wish to see their wars fought for them by other people.Isarig 03:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cole has never made a single statement that can be objectively identified as "antisemitic." Complaining about certain Jews in Bush's government because of their fanatical devotion to a particular political party in Israel is a far cry from saying that all Jews have dual loyalty. Anyone incapable of understanding that distinction should look up the word antisemitism, or, better yet, spend some time speaking with victims of real antisemitism. If you have a quote from Cole saying that all Jews wish to see their wars fought by someone else I would be happy to change my opinion.--csloat 05:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a basic and fundemantal misunderstanding as to what antisemitism is. When one looks at a group of people (in this case- the pro-Israel Bush admin officials), and singles out a specific subset of them based on ethnicity (in this case - the Jews), and then accuses that subset of having "dual loyalties", or desiring that "someone else's boys do the fighting and dying" - that is a clear cut, objectively identified antisemitic statement. In your mind, to qualify as an antisemite one needs to be a swastika-painting, synagogue-defacing hoodlum, or to declare that *all Jews* are so and so - but that is simply not the case. Cole has made numerous statements that are antisemitic, and those are pointed out in the "controversies" article.Isarig 16:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"I think one can oppose a Jewish (or Christian or Muslim or Hindu) state without opposing Jews." Certainly; in fact, Judt is such an example. But those who think Judt's proposal would result in great harm to Jews may well view his proposal as antisemitic. It is not fair to call their viewpoint illogical, although you could say it is illogical to call Judt (and similarly Cole) antisemitic. Precis 23:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not call their opinion illogical though I said it required an additional logical leap that I consider illogical. The point is that for a statement to be "antisemitic" it must literally be "against Semites." Leaving aside the question of who are the "semites," there is nothing in the statement that is itself antisemitic. The logical leap you express here (the proposal may result in great harm to Jews) is a separate point from the one being expressed. Had judt said he wants to harm Jews, that would be considered antisemitic. For example, I believe Bush's invasion of Iraq will result in great harm to Jews. Would it be logical for me to say that therefore the Iraq war is antisemitic? I can make the logical connections necessary, but the statement itself, "we should invade Iraq," is not antisemitic. Neither is the statement "Israel should not exist." (If that is too many logical leaps for you, how about this: the invasion of Iraq is also not "anti-Muslim," even though it has obviously resulted in great harm to Muslims. The expressed belief in "regime change" in Iraq is not anti-Muslim. Judt's belief in "regime change" in Israel is not antisemitic).--csloat 05:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people may argue that no logical leap need be made to consider Cole's statements anti-semitic. Btw, I really dislike it when people bring up the fact that "anti-semite" does not specifically refer to being against Jews, look it up in any dictionary, Jews didn't invent the word, a German person invented the word to make hating Jews seem more legitimate. Anyways, there are thousands of words in the English Language that are technically misnomers, I do not see why people bring this one up so often. A compound word does not necessarily equal the sum of its parts.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue of the logical leap is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of definition. "Jews should be killed" is an antisemitic statement, without any additional logical steps. "Israel should not exist" requires an additional logical step in order to be declared antisemitic. That's all I'm saying here. As for the other point, I said I was leaving that aside because I agree with you on that.--csloat 08:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A statement may be deemed antisemitic ("in effect, if not in intent") if it unfairly singles out Jews. Support for the Iraq War is not antisemitic, even if the war causes great harm to Jews, because it doesn't single out Jews for harm. Similarly, support for regime change for all mideast countries is not antisemitic. But a statement such as "Saudis can have their state, Pakistanis can have their state, the French can have their state, but the Jews, no, their state has no right to exist" strikes me as antisemitic. Those who find Judt's proposal antisemitic are within their rights, because his proposal singles out Israel for regime change (and one suspects Jews would be treated poorly in an Islamic Palestine). The following is a false comparison: "The expressed belief in "regime change" in Iraq is not anti-Muslim. Judt's belief in "regime change" in Israel is not antisemitic." If the expressed belief were that Iraq must become a Christian state, that would indeed be anti-Muslim. Precis 13:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement you hypothetically offer as an example seems to me to single out religion, not Judaism, as inappropriate for statehood. If Judt says "the Muslims may have their state but the Jews may not have theirs" then I would likely agree with you. I don't know what Judt says other than what is offered here, so I won't speak to that, but in the case at hand, Cole has said nothing of the sort. For me personally, I would agree with the view that religion is an inappropriate basis for the state apparatus, but I would not go so far as advocating regime change in any regime other than my own. But even if I did, such a claim would not be antisemitic.--csloat 14:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

At great risk of becoming embroiled in a discussion that doesn't relate much to me, I would like to mention that a confusing issue here is that, unlike many cultures and many religions, Jew is a label that is applied to both adherents of a religion and members of an identifiable (if diverse) ethno-linguistic cultural group. Therefore, discussions of anti-semitism are necessarily more complicated than anti-muslim, or anti-packistani discussions. There is a distinction (though many choose not to make it) historically between the muslim and the arab, as there are christian arabs, etc. While there is such a theoretical difference among jews, a variety of factors has made it harder for them/others to split the two. For instance, I know an Muslim of jewish descent. He "can't wash off the jewishness" to put it as he once said to me, and some of his Muslim co-religionists have looked upon him with great suspicion once they discovered his ethnic heritage.

So before we get too far down the split hairs and definitions, and likewise, before we become too free with the anti-semitism label, we should carefully examine what view is being proposed and attempt to describe it clearly, recognizing that historically an attack on either kind of jewishness has been used as a "thin edge of the wedge" to provide justification for an attack on the other, and be somewhat sensitive to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristianEdwardGruber (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for signing my work, Jeff3000. Sorry, I forgot. Anyway, I was about to add a small note that besides religiosity and ethnicity, the fact that Israel is a national homeland for both of the above types, you add the question of nationality. THese three factors complicate the whole question. From there I was going to try to disambiguate things a little, but then I realized that I really don't want to stay in this discussion, and I don't think people are listening to each other at this point anyway, so I'll just exit gracefully, stage net. Besides, wiki is not a chat room, apparently. :) --Christian Edward Gruber 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Selected Bibliography

His full works need to be listed b/c he is under attack on the Views and Controversy page for haveing sparse works. Or is that part of the plan. To cut down his works here to bolster the claim that he has few works? Take Care! --Will^(talk) 17:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, please stop being so paranoid and accusing editors of bad intent. If you look at the edit history I'm sure you'll discover that no one has taken out any publications of Cole's to make the list shorter. Elizmr 23:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

John/Juan

The page which the anon has referenced doesn't necessarily say what s/he claims it says. There are other possible explanations (Juan and John are the same name, so it could just be presented like that to match the names of his ancestors). Without further explanation, the assertion cannot be considered to be adequately sourced. Guettarda 07:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The page referenced says exactly what the WP article says, and is well sourced. There may be further explanations - you need to go and find them, not revert a sourced fact. Isarig 14:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It includes both names, but it doesn't explain what's going on there. Taking that page and using it to argue things one way or another is speculative and violates WP:NOR. Guettarda 14:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No one is arguing anything. Please read the article. It says "Cole's genealogical webpage lists his name as "John (Juan) Ricardo Cole.". This is factually true, and does not argue anything. It does not 'explain' anything, nor does it pretend to explain anything. It is a neutral fact, sourced to Cole's website. Stop removing it. Isarig 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now this "fact" seems completely out of place. If you insist on including it, how about as a footnote in the introductory paragraph?--71.34.39.163 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it out of place to list the article's namesake's name as it is given on his own personal genealogical wepge, in the biographical section? Isarig 04:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

THe way it is phrased now, it sounds like of awkward. I'll try to rephrase it to make it less so. Everyone please see what you think. Elizmr 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK all, at Guettarda's suggestion I wrote an email to Cole and asked him what the real deal is about the Juan John thing. I will post the reply when and if I get it. Elizmr 15:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the reply from JC:

"Hi and thanks!

What is on the birth certificate is John Ricardo Cole. But I was called Juan from birth by my parents and their friends, both Anglo and Latino, in Albuquerque, and never have liked being called Juan. It was just the atmosphere there at the time, I am told, given that my father's name is John, that people would call his son Juanito. It has never seemed worthwhile to me to have it formally changed, when it was fairly easy just to convince everyone to call me Juan.

cheers Juan

http://www.juancole.com"

Given that he was born in a very mexican part of NM, this of course makes a lot of sense. From context, I'm assuming that when he says, "I've never liked being called Juan" he meant "I've never liked being called John" That's it from here. This is a non-issueElizmr 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for tracking that down. Guettarda 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting email JC. It was a good idea. Elizmr 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

summarization of criticism removed

Hi, I'm not sure why having a one sentence summary of the content of criticism re JC is so unacceptable. Others have added responses to criticm there, which in my opinion is fine, and has not been reverted. It is bizarre that on wikipedia other pages go on and on with criticism after criticism, but on this one substantive content cannot even be summarized briefly and non-controversially. What's up? Elizmr 14:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

by the way, I added what I think is the less controversial aspect of this tiny little summary back. I've also written to Cole to get his take on this particular issue and will let everyone know what he says. He was very affable in email and I'm sure he will have something interesting and reasonable to say if he responds. Elizmr 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben--I think your change is good on this. Thanks for working with it and not reverting. Elizmr 16:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there already is a page full of this material. Either summarize that page here with the relevant citations and AfD it, or put a very brief note about that page here with a link to it -- one paragraph should be plenty. But the way things are going, this section will soon be as long as that page.--csloat 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I agree, but for the most part it is summary and it is pretty short. I think the part about the Israeli scientists and the war in Lebanon is too specific to be in this section which should really contain just summary but don't want to take it out because it is all true and someone else put it in. I can try to shorten, but don't want to remove salient points. I find the other page lengthy and not all that readable and concice.

By the way, I heard back from Cole. Since he had been very affable on the name question, I emailed back and asked him a few points that have been controversial here and on the other page 1) the criticism about him making Israel commentary without academic Israel/Judiasm background and 2) does he think militant islamic groups object to Israel's existence as a whole or Israel beyond the 67 borders. He didn't answer these questions. He accused me of, "stalking [him] on ideological grounds," and said this was, "frankly creepy". Elizmr 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Sounds about right. It's not your fault of course but that's what happens when we focus obsessively on ridiculous ideological criticisms that focus on twisting his words from minor points and turning them into major criticisms as if these points were the focus of his work. I would be a little weirded out too if some random Wikipedia editor emailed me picking apart a sentence I wrote 15 years ago in an obscure book review because they claimed it sounded vaguely antisemitic.--csloat 01:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was kind of amused as well, although to be fair the points I questioned him on (see directly above) were relevant to his last week's blog entries and the current afairs he opines on several times daily--not twisted ideological criticisms of obscure 15 year old book review, and I didn't acuse him of anything. I was kind of hoping he'd suprise his critics here (myself included) by taking a more professional tone. But yeah, what he said is about what one would expect based on his blog. Elizmr 02:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't read your email or his, but if you emailed him about last week's blog entries I agree the response does seem odd - then again, if you have a comment about his blog entries, you can actually post to his blog if you want him to respond publicly to anything (though of course without any guarantee that he would acknowledge your post). But if you asked him about #1 above, that is a bizarre charge that comes from one of his critics (Karsh I believe), and unless I am confused (entirely possible), it comes from the twisted ideological criticism I was talking about in my comment above. For #2, I'm not sure why you would ask Cole that, rather than a representative of one of the militant Islamic groups you're talking about. It sounds like you're trying to make him defend those groups, which is of course not what he's about. So, yeah, I would likely have the same reaction to such an email, though I don't know whether my response would meet your personal threshold for "professionalism" (though I can't say I would care much if it did or didn't).--csloat 03:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So, well, this conversation is verging on the riduculous, but last week he said on his blog that Hezbollah (and other groups) were pissed off because Israel was occupying "Jerusalem", but their leader makes it perfectly clear he objects to any Israel existing at all. So why Juan says, "jerusalem" is a fair question. And as for his background in Jewish/Israeli studies, it is a fair question as well. He makes Israel a focus of commentary and there is nothing on his CV to suggest he has any expertise in Jewish history, culture, travel to Israel,etc. So, yeah, they were fair questions, especially for an ACADEMIC at a public university who makes himself a public figure by blogging daily on these subjects. And, yeah, email is a fine way to get in touch with him, he puts his email address right on his blog for anyone to use. Elizmr 14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So, let's get this straight. He gets an email out of the blue from someone obviously biased against him demanding that he explain his word choice based on the critic's imagined interpretation of that word, and asking him to defend his expertise to comment on things that he obviously knows quite a lot about, and you are taken aback because you didn't judge his response "professional" enough? Like I said, I would likely have a similar reaction to such an email. My email address is publicly posted several places too; it is not an invitation to harass me or to demand that I justify my expertise on things I happen to have opinions about. Conservative pundit Stephen F. Hayes' email is publicly available; Shall I email him and demand to know how he has the expertise to comment on Iraq when he has no credentials whatsoever? I could, of course, but it would be absurd to get my underwear in a bunch if his response is less than courteous.--csloat 18:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, this conversation is ridiculous but for some reason I feel a need to say again that I wrote to him at another editor's suggestion to ask him about the name thing, explaining there was controversy on his Wikipedia page, and he replied affably. Since he did so, I asked him about a couple of other controversies that have been brewing here. The intent was similarly get the record straight and turn issues into non-issues. I wasn't harassing him out of the blue or demanding anything. Elizmr 18:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

external link removed

Hey 131.183.73.59,

Sorry, had to cut that link you added. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for reference on what links are acceptable. Also, I'm not sure why that article detailing the fight between Hitchens and Cole should be listed seperately in the External Links. Including a synopsis of the blow-by-blow between Cole and his various critics is something we want to avoid (Even though I agree with the blog you added that Cole eviserated Hitchens substantively). --FNV 03:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary

Could somone explain what is wrong with the summary mentioning what area the political controversies have been in? JoshuaZ 00:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The objectionable part of the sentence is "public controversies for his support of Arab and Muslim causes, and his criticism of U.S. and Israeli government policies." Let's see, which "Arab and Muslim causes" provoke controversy, and in what way does Cole support those causes? Most Arab-Americans support the second amendment in polls; is that an "Arab cause" and does Cole's support of that cause provoke controversy? Or, to stick to what Cole has actually said, would his criticism of Hezbollah's "war crimes" be a "Muslim cause" that has garnered dispute? Or his support of Israeli academics? The statement that his "support of Arab and Muslim causes" led to controversy is too vague and contentious to be useful here; why not something like his advocacy surrounding Middle East issues, or something to that effect? Same with his criticism of US/Israeli policies, though that is slightly better; there are some policies he criticizes and others he does not. I think we're better off keeping the intro as NPOV as possible and being more specific when we have room to, down below, as we do.--csloat 00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Slight disagreement, the causes that he has been controversial for have been the ones which would be easily identified as Arab or Muslim causes and similarly for the US/Israeli matter. Furthermore, it is NPOV to say what sort of causes they were. However, I do think your suggestion of mentioning middle eastern issues as a more generic way of doing it might make sense. Do you have a specific wording in mind? JoshuaZ 23:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't, but I do think "Arab and Muslim causes" is unnecessarily tendentious, particularly when Cole is also opposed to some things described as such "causes." "Middle Eastern issues" would be much better - feel free to tinker.--csloat 00:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Distortion of Karsh's article

We currently have this line in the article:

The veracity of Cole's analysis of matters related to Israel have been questioned by critics, such as Efraim Karsh Juan Cole's Bad blog, by Efraim Karsh in the The New Republic, who say he lacks sufficient academic background in Israeli history, culture, politics, as well as the Jewish religion.

Unfortunately this is a fabrication. The article that is presented as a reference doesn't actually mention Cole's academic qualifications in Israeli history etc and where Karsh uses the word "veracity" he is not specifically talking about Cole, but rather the nearly unanimous view of middle east scholars ("There has been no real discussion of the veracity of this blame-the-West hypothesis since it was spelled out in the mid-'30s, and the handful of scholars who dared to broach the subject were viciously attacked and marginalized.") In other words, he is attacking Cole, NOT because he has quirky non-standard ideas about Israel, but because Cole shares the accepted viewpoint of mainstream scholars re. the Middle East as a whole. I think a rewrite of this paragraph is in order. --Lee Hunter 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I made the change before reading this note. Karsh is not really attacking just Cole, but all of Middle East Studies scholarship here! Please, rewrite away.--csloat 00:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Money quote:

But, unfortunately, Cole suffers from many other common Arabist misconceptions that deeply prejudice and compromise his writing. Having done hardly any independent research on the twentieth-century Middle East, Cole's analysis of this era is essentially derivative, echoing the conventional wisdom among Arabists and Orientalists regarding Islamic and Arab history, the creation of the modern Middle East in the wake of World War I, and its relations with the outside world. Worse, Cole's discussion of U.S. foreign policy frequently veers toward conspiratorial anti-Semitism. This is hardly the "informed" commentary Cole claims it to be. (emphasis mine)

Given that Israel didn't exist until the 20th century, that there isn't anything on Cole's CV regarding Israel, and given that one of the core thrusts of Karsh's piece is Cole's "conspiratorial criticisms" of Israel on his blog, calling that sentence "a fabrication" is a bit hysterical -it's not. That being said, the fact that Karsh considers Cole to be derivative should be added. Armon 13:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, every academic refers to the work of other academics (along with their own original research). This is perfectly normal, so Karsh's point is pretty weak. Secondly, Karsh's article actually discusses the 19th century Middle East (an area where Cole is an acknowledged expert). Thirdly, your money quote still doesn't have any relationship to what we state in our article: that a) Karsh specifically questions the "veracity" of Cole's analysis of matters related to Israel and b)that he says that Cole doesn't have sufficient background in Israeli history, culture etc etc. Show me where this appears in Karsh's article. As a side note, it's a little odd that we say he's challenging the veracity of Cole's analysis. If you're challenging "veracity" (i.e. truthfulness) you're usually questioning the facts, not the analysis that flows from the facts. Analysis is, after all, opinion.)--Lee Hunter 14:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Veracity" 2. Conformity to fact or truth; accuracy or precision. You're hung up on semantics -propose a better word(ing), or as Elizmr suggests below, use a quote. Armon 14:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Why don't we just quote Karsh directly in the article? I think that would settle everyones concerns here.

Also, I looked through Cole's blog and writings to see if Cole ever responded to what Karsh had said. I could not dig anything up to suggest that Cole knows anything about Jewish history, Judiasm, Israel that he hasn't gleaned from prejudeced sources. It is very apologistic to suggest that Cole knows anything about this stuff without a shred of evidence to support it. Elizmr 14:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that Cole has any specific knowledge about anything (beyond what's in his CV). I'm just pointing out that what we say in the article is not supported by the reference that we cite. --Lee Hunter 15:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, let's add a paragraph such as this: "Based on Elizmr's no-doubt exhaustive skimming of Cole's blog, we can conclude that Cole is ignorant of Judaism." It's amazing the lengths you guys will go to try and smear a scholar just because you disagree with his conclusions. Besides the fact there are numerous places in his written work that would show that you're wrong, that's just not the issue here! The issue is a claim that Karsh says Cole is ignorant of Judaism (or Israel) -- that claim is unsupported by the evidence. Elizmr's original research is not useful here. Either the Karsh article makes this claim or it does not. The so-called "money quote" makes a very different claim, one that is already made on the Views and controversies page, and need not be repeated here.--csloat 19:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lee, your concern may be valid. That is why I suggested that we just quote Karsh in the article rather than paraphrasing him. Sloat, I'm sure you enjoyed your tirade above. I disagree with your statement that this should be relegated to the mish mash of the "views and controversies" article. The point Karsh makes is central and essential to the critique of Cole's blog and Karsh is certainly on an academic level to make the statements he does with basis. The point belongs on this page. Elizmr 20:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL... there's no tirade, Elizmr, just a simple refutation of an incorrect point. If there is a quote from Karsh making the point you want to make, by all means, let's see it! You've been asked for it, and all you have replied with is your own original "research" which apparently involved you scanning Cole's blog for the word "Jew." The only quote we have from Karsh is on an entirely different point, one that is already made on the page created specifically for that purpose. As I recall, that particular quote was at the center of the discussion about making a separate page in the first place months ago. Now you call it being "relegated to the mish mash" -- on the contrary, that page is well organized; your comment is a bit insulting to all the editors who have worked on it for months, including yourself. As for Karsh's qualifications, look, he is clearly a good second author (I'm thinking of his work with Freedman) and he's probably done some solid original work himself, but those qualifications are pretty irrelevant to his comments about Cole, which border on the ad hominem. But that discussion is neither here nor there - I have no objection to quoting Karsh here, but I don't see the point of having the same quote twice. I particularly object to attributing to Karsh a claim he never made, which is the problem at hand.--csloat 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem? Karsh is speaking to the limitations of Cole's scholarship based on the work he's published in peer reviewed journals, and to the general argument structure he uses on the blog. He does not at all attack Cole personally. If you want to have an example of the Ad hominem, you might find your own Wikipedia postings instructive in this regard. Elizmr 21:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Karsh is speaking without evidence to his perception of the limitations of Cole's scholarship based on who-knows-what, since he doesn't cite it. His comments about conspiracies and the like are ad hominem to me, and his overall point is that Cole's analysis is consistent with the dominant trends in Middle East scholarship -- he takes that relatively innocuous point and makes of it an attack, that's why I think it's an ad hominem. As I said, however, that's neither here nor there - I accept that it is reasonable to quote Karsh here. That said, he is already quoted in full on the views page and I see no point in having the same quote twice - especially since there is no evidence that this particular quote or this article by Karsh is representative of any large contingent in the field, or that it is even that important at all in the grand scheme of things. I even put in part of the quote anyway! I am bending over backwards here; this is a relatively non-notable comment that we now have quoted twice; I don't see the point of duplicating even more of it. By the way, speaking of ad hominems, your comment about my wikipedia postings is made without pointing to a single comment I have made. I don't see it, but if I have made an ad hominem, I'm happy to withdraw the comment. Thanks for your input.--csloat 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I know how you feel about the conspiracy thing, you've made that abundantly clear, but many people, not just Karsh, have said this about Cole and for some reason you don't want it on Cole's page. I feel it is unreasonable of you to insist that this sentence doesn't appear on the page. As far as what you did put in, I object to it because it conveys no meaning. Why not just let Karsh speak? Why is it so important to blot this out? Elizmr 23:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is blotted out. The entire quote is on the Views page, as well as a more thorough discussion of the "conspiracy" charge. If we duplicate the entire quote here, I will insist on duplicating the more thorough discussion of that charge. It also is simply inconsistent with the rules of WP:BLP. That page was created in the first place specifically so you could air that conspiracy charge. I don't see why you want to see it duplicated here too. The quote I put in conveys meaning; it specifically explaiuns the heart of Karsh's complaint about Cole, which is that his work is derivative rather than original, because Karsh does not believe Cole has expertise in the modern middle east.--csloat 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The little section can summarize the larger article, so the conspiracy thing is appropriate for a brief mention on this page. Elizmr 00:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

A "brief mention" need not be the entire quote, and in fact, if the conspiracy thing is "mentioned," so should Cole's responses be "mentioned." Frankly I worry that we're opening a new can of worms here, but I'm open to suggestions. Any changes must be consistent with WP:BLP, however; as we all should know by now, this page really isn't the appropriate place for criticism in the first place.--csloat 00:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to leave Elizmr's change as is for now, though I think this is still unnecessarily repetitive for a totally non-notable quote from a non-academic piece. Just for the record, however, I don't believe I stated anywhere that I found the material "personally" offensive. I found it in violation of WP:BLP. Cheers.--csloat 00:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully you will let the karsh bit that is there stay so the comment makes sense. OR we can go back to a more meaningful paraphrasing and ignore Lee's original point. Elizmr 00:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the original paraphrasing was not that it was more "meaningful" but that it was a total fabrication of what Karsh actually said. I tried out a more meaningful paraphrasing and you nixed it in favor of unnecessary duplication of a totally non-notable quote. I don't see a single quote from Cole that is repeated twice here; it boggles the mind that you would think a quote from a non-academic article criticizing cole without evidence is important enough to use twice. Whatever.--csloat 00:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"non notable" is your opinion only. Thank you for letting it stand. Elizmr 00:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you present any reliable sources that indicate the comment is notable? It may be my opinion, but my evidence for that opinion is that Karsh's quote is from a non-academic source and it is not cited by anyone notable outside of wikipedia. Karsh, as I said, may be a good scholar in his own right - I am only familiar with the Freedman gulf war book he helped out with - but his comments about Cole seem ad hominem and I do not see any evidence that they are taken seriously within the context of Middle East Studies as a discipline. So, while it may be my opinion, the burden of proof is actually on you and anyone else asserting that this quote is notable. Particularly that it is so notable that it must be repeated twice, like a chant!--csloat 01:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, Wikipedia is not restricted to academic sources only. A modern middle east scholar with a high level faculty appointment writing in the New Republic about Cole's non-academic blog is certainly fair game for this wikipedia entry. The karsh opinion is presented neutrally. There is nothing wrong with it. Elizmr 01:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

None of which addresses my point above. Where is the evidence that this particular quote is notable in this context? More notable than anything Cole has to say himself? So notable, in fact, that it must be chanted over and over again? I didn't say it wasn't "fair game," I just question its notability in a biography of Cole. Anyway, there's no need to keep belaboring this point - I think we've each said what we have to say, and I'm not going to keep removing the quote.--csloat 01:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Elizmr 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Same shit, different day Armon 14:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Likudniks

I agree with Will's change regarding which Israel supporters are "Likudniks" (though I might say "neoconservative" instead of "right wing"). I think the phrase "Israel supporters" is itself unclear, since Cole is himself a supporter of Israel in many ways. So perhaps there is a better way to rewrite this entire sentence?--csloat 00:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "NeoKon" instead of neoconservative, because there is nothing "conservative" about that crowd. They conserve nothing, in fact they are revoloutionaries intent on breaking up and destroying the social fabric of any society they are involved in. As JC would say Cheers. Will314159 12:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Views and controversies -blog driven?

Shouldn't there be some mention that most (if not all?) of the controversies/criticism are actually driven by stuff on his blog? Armon 15:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Darn, Isn't the article about JC's Views and consequently the Controversies that arise therefrom? And that blog comes out seven days a week? As JC would say Cheers Will314159 10:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea what you mean. I'm talking about drawing a distinction between his academic work, which AFAIK is relatively uncontroversial, and his opinions on his blog, which are more so. Armon 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there was a sentence previously about that in the lead, but it fell by the wayside. Elizmr 23:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

IT IS ALLWAYS KARSH on the JC article. I remember when I came to it about a year ago. It was locked up because of the Karsh quote. A compromise was made to unprotect it. A seperate V&C would be created where Karsh could safely live. Guess what. The hit crowd is trying to put full Karsh back on the front section where the rules clearly prohbit it. This controversy is what caused the page to get locked up to start with. An incredible mind boggling display of bad faith and going back on past consensus- welching on a deal by one of the principals. As JC would say "Cheers." Will314159 10:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Will is mischaracterizing the past situation and seems to have a strange grasp of the passage of time. The Karsh sentence here is a reasonable crit of Cole made by a fellow academic to which Cole has never replied. It is not libelous. It is made in a citable source, not a blog. Sloat found one part of the quote particularly objectionable and that was removed to the other article. The "views and contrav" section of the main article should be a summary of the larger article and can certainly contain some of the same material. Elizmr 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Karsh quote was the reason that the V&C article was started; it was removed from here because of WP:BLP issues. I did edit it down but then you restored most of it - yes you did take out the one sentence that was the most ad hominem, but the rest is still there (or was until Will's latest edit). I backed off of this edit war because I don't see the point of continuing here; you are determined to violate BLP both on this page and the V&C page, and you have more free time to devote to this silliness than I do. I wouldn't mind this particular quote so much if it was only used once; it appears on wikipedia three times, however -- here, V&C, and Efraim Karsh. It is not an important quote in anyone's mind except you guys -- it is not quoted in any print source, and it is not from an academic article but rather from the New Republic. Having this quote three times on wikipedia, as I said on the V&C talk, suggests that Karsh's off-the-cuff comment about Cole is more important and prominent than any quote from George Washington, Martin Luther King, Machiavelli, Hegel, or Jesus Christ.--csloat 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the Karsh quote was one of many items critical of Cole which Cole's supporters on this page refused to allow, bogusly invoking WP:BLP issues. Isarig 21:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No; the Karsh quote was the center of that discussion, and it was not only "Cole's supporters" involved in that discussion. And WP:BLP was quite accurately and appropriately invoked. The issues are even more profound on the V&C page.--csloat 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not. There were several issues, including the Hitchens/Cole dispute over the translation of Ahmadinejad's speech, Cole's conspiracy theories and antisemitic questioning of the loyalties of Jews in the Pentagon, and many others, of which the Karsh quote was one. An important one, no doubt, buthardy the only one or the central one. As Elizmr pointed out, there is nothing libelous about the Karsh quote, and WP:BLP was bogusly invoked at the time. Isarig 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Karsh quote was at the center of that discussion - I didn't say it was the only issue. And in fact WP:BLP was correctly invoked; you might enjoy reading it.--csloat 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

you can repeat that assertion as many times as you like, but it will not become more true for it. I've highlighted several othe rissues that were equally "at the center", so singling out the Karsh quote as supposedly "the reason that the V&C article was started" is flase, and dishonest. Isarig 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

When you read WP:BLP, you might want to cruise over to WP:AGF as well, and tone down your accusations of lying. Then you should look over the discussion on this page from a few months ago to see that Karsh was in fact at the center of this discussion. I do not disagree with you that there were other problems with the page.--csloat 23:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My objection to the quote is not that it appears in several places but that it is more about Karsh's opinion of ME historians in general than it is about Cole in particular. Karsh's basic complaint seems to be that all ME historians (including Cole but not, of course, himself and his little clique) have got it wrong. Like I said before, there's two ways of reading this. That Cole is "derivative" or that Cole bases his opinions on the most widely-accepted interpretation of ME events (this is his blog we're talking about, not his academic research). In that sense, the use of the word "derivative" is an ad-hominem attack. --Lee Hunter 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a really important point that so far nobody has actually dealt with. I totally agree with Hunter on this point. But I also do think it's a problem that the quote appears three times for no good reason. Perhaps Isarig will tell us what makes Karsh's opinion of Middle Eastern studies more important than anything ever said by Oscar Wilde or Thomas Jefferson?-csloat 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I have not been the one advocating the re-insertion of this quote, I don't see why I have to defend it's inclusion here or anywhere else. But I find it curious that someone who insists on having a totaly non-consequental comment by a blogger (Cole) on yet another totaly non-notable antisemitic comment by an actor (Gibson) included in the article, is at the same time complainign about a quote by a notable ME scholar on the works of other scholars. Why the doubel standard? Isarig 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No double standard at all; I haven't had this quote inserted three times, once here, once on V&C and once on Mel Gibson. If we are going to keep the V&C page as it is, that quote belongs there because it shows how Cole feels about anti-semitic conspiracy theories (quite contrary to the picture others here are trying to paint of Cole's opinion). Also, it's pretty bogus to claim that Gibson's comments were non-notable; I heard about them for weeks on TV, the radio, the newspapers -- however, somehow I missed a single one of the no doubt copious NPR specials that accompanied Karsh's moment of pique in the New Republic.--csloat 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag. Will's tagging of the article over one cited sentence you don't happen to agree with is a clear abuse of it. Lee's point re: Karsh's opinion of Cole and other ME historians is irrelevant. I'm sure he can make a pretty good case for his position, but the fact remains that it's LeeHunter's opinion. On the one hand, you guys don't like the paraphrase of K's position, on the other, you don't like the brief quote either. Face it, you just don't like K's opinion. And that fair enough, but it's well cited, and from a notable source, so you can't scrub it and pretend it's in the interest of NPOV or BLP. Armon 22:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the part of the Karsh quote that referred to antisemitism and use of conspiracy theorizing was what was most objected to, but there was a lot of other stuff as well that wan't found acceptable all of which was removed to the other page. If the problem was the Karsh quote, no one was very clear on that at the time. This came back because Lee didn't think a paraphrasing that had been agreed to by consensus previously was accurate so we decided to just add the direct Karsh. Karsh's point is because COle hasn't done original research on the modern middle east, his opinions rest on the analyses of others. He doesn't say that he, Karsh, is the only one questioning this particular view of the ME, but he does go on to discuss it. In any case, it is not libelous or aviolation of BLP or anything else. It is the only critical thing on the whole page. Surely one mildly critical thing can be tolerated here???? And I really don't see what Oscar Wilde or Thomas Jefferson would have to say about John Cole that would be at all relevant to a wikipedia entry. Elizmr 23:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The POV tag should not be deleted until the POV issues are resolved, even if it is intransigence about one sentence. Hunter's position on the quote is not just his opinion; it is Karsh's opinion, which you are misrepresenting for some bizarre reason. We also don't need this misrepresented quote three times. Karsh may be "notable," but he is not more notable than, say, Jesus of Nazareth. I didn't say Jesus (or Wilde) has anything to say about Cole; I said that they are more notable than Cole (and Karsh), and that it is strange that this one silly quote from Karsh, which has been blatantly misinterpreted, needs to be placed here not once, not twice, but thrice.--csloat 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is what bugs you, there's a simple solution to that: Let's merge the V&C article back into this one, where it should have been all along. Isarig 23:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So you think this page should be longer than History of the World for example? Or are you suggesting that we eliminate the he-said, she-said nonsense from that page and merge in only a couple of paragraphs about Cole's most notable views? I could support such a move.--csloat 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that this article be as long as required to be useful. If that means it is longer than History of the World, so be it. What I am also suggesting is that editors who object to a certain quote make a better case for its exclusion than the fact that it also appears in other articles related to this one. Isarig 23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I took your suggestion at your word and suggested a way to approach such a move - it's not clear above whether you are agreeing with such a suggestion or whether you only made the suggestion as a form of WP:POINT. Do you support the idea of deleting the V&C page and moving here a couple of paragraphs summarizing Cole's most notable views only? I'm not saying a version without criticism but I am suggesting a version whose main purpose is not to defame the subject or provide a debate/smackdown forum for Cole supporters and opponents.--csloat 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly support of a re-merge of the V&C article back into this page, where it belongs. If you are willing to include the criticisms of Cole on the page - including for example Karsh's criticism that his reserach on Israel is derivative, and that he espouses conspiratorial and anti-semitic views about Israel's supporters in congress and in the Pentagon, I'm all for it. Isarig 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said below (speaking for myself only) I see no reason to exclude that quote. However, there are various other controversies in the V & C article which I don't see any easy way of merging into this article.--CSTAR 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the bullshit jew-baiting quote violates WP:BLP pretty clearly. If it is to be included here, so must the quote about Gibson and the other responses to it. Once again we're going to have an article that is longer than History of the World. I'm sure Cole will be flattered that he is so important.--csloat 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about the Karsh quote that's already in this article.--CSTAR 14:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting anything, but I think you might be misunderstanding Karsh's point or argument. Karsh is making a valid point about Cole. His actual scholarship is not on the modern middle east. It just simply isn't. It may be relevant to it, or may inform it, etc, but what he has actually done original research on and what he blogs about are two different things. Is he ignorant about the modern middle east? NO. Does he know more than most people about the modern middle east. OF COURSE HE DOES. Does he have a right to blog about what he blogs about? OF COURSE. But none of that refutes Karsh's point. Karsh IS a modern middle east scholar with a high level faculty appt at a university. Why do you insist he is not notable? Could you name even one valid reason other than the fact that he is not Jesus or Wilde or whoever? What Karsh is saying has a right to be said here on this page and when you remove it you are essentially engaging in censorship. Elizmr 23:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You are the one misunderstanding Karsh. Karsh is making a point - valid or not - about Middle Eastern scholarship in general, and he is singling out Cole for representing that scholarship. Your claim that cole's scholarship isn't about the "modern middle east" is of course demonstrably false, but that is most likely because what you mean to say is "twentieth century" middle east (though he has some scholarly works on there, as I pointed out when we had this silly debate months ago). The 19th century middle east is "modern." Getting back to Karsh, the comment about how much research Cole has done on the 20th century is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is that Karsh faults Cole for following the mainstream of his field. I have never said Karsh is not notable; what I said was this quote is not notable and that it does not belong on wikipedia in three different places. Please stop misrepresenting my points Elizmr, it is extremely annoying.--csloat 23:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't follow points that you don't make cogently so please don't berate me for that. I am sorry I am annoying you, but please be assured that you are irritating me as well. I don't feel I am misunderstanding Karsh, but I agree that he is using Cole as an example of a take on the middle east he doesn't agree with. However, the article of Karsh's is called "Cole's bad blog" and he does discuss Cole in it and it is fair game to cite his opinion in an article on Cole.

As far as the 19th C being Modern Middle East, I'm not sure how the field is technically defined, but that doesn't negate Karsh's point. The situations and configurations have changed sufficiently to make Cole's particlar fields of study not particularly relevant to much of the stuff he opines about in his blog, such as Israel for example which didn't even exist in the 19th C.

I disagree with you. I feel the quote is notable and that it belongs in Wikipedia where it is. Elizmr 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I never berated you Elizmr, I just asked you to stop misrepresenting me. My point about the quote appearing three times was cogent enough for everyone else to understand. Tell me which word I wrote that you did not understand and I will help you out with it. You still haven't responded to the point; your assertion that the quote is "notable and belongs in wikipedia where it is" simply evades the issue.--csloat 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't understand that you considered the 19th C ME to be modern in the same way that the late 20th C is modern, for one, and you didn't explain that until just now. I think Karsh was probably referring to a more recent time frame in his article, ie--one which includes Israel's existence. About the "three times" issue, I just don't see why it is so outrageous that the quote is repeated in two different articles, one of which (V and C) is summarized in the other (main Cole). I think that Karsh's particlar point is important enough and far enough from libelous that it rightly belongs in the main article as well as the rambling morass of V and C. I don't share your sense that a vital Wikipedia rule on proportionality is being violated here. I don't know what you want me to say to fulfill your request not to "evade" the issue. I know it is hard for you to see this because you feel so strongly about it. That's it from here. Elizmr 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In historical scholarship, "Modern" means "after the Middle Ages." But that's not what I said you misrepresented about my comments; what you misrepresented was you kept claiming I said Karsh was not notable. I said this particular quote from Karsh is not notable enough to be quoted three times in three different articles. This is not a question of libel; it's a question of notability and of propriety as covered in WP:BLP. As for evading the issue, this is the first time you've actually addressed it. You haven't said anything intelligible about it, but at least you're finally addressing it. Have a nice day.--csloat 05:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And you think you are not berating me, interesting. Elizmr 12:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Karsh quote appearing 3 times

Just to end this particularly silly line of reasoning. I am taking it on faith that no Wilde quote appears more than twice on WP, and ditto for Jesus. But the Clinton quote "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" appears in at least 3 articles - Monica Lewinsky, Lewinsky Scandal and Impeachment of Bill Clinton, so I guess you think this makes Clinton more notable than Jesus? And that you will be working hard to correct this ? Isarig 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Karsh is not more notable than Clinton, and that Karsh's quote is not more notable than that quote from Clinton (which I heard over and over again throughout his impeachment and still hear today often enough as the punchline to various statements). It doesn't matter though - bring it up on those pages. I don't edit those pages as Clinton's impeachment is not a topic I consider myself any kind of expert on. The issue here is why this quote from Karsh must appear 3 times.--csloat 23:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly like to avoid a rerun of the May Juan Cole war. I don't particularly care for the Karsh quote, but I don't see that it could possibly affect any reader's perception of Cole. AM I missing something? Though it is true that the V & C article was started to siphon off the controversy, that doesn't mean some brief indication of the controversies in this article is not legitimate. User:LeeHunter's arguments above I think are also reasonable and I am not sure where to draw the balance. Will and Sloat may be concerned with a variant of feeping creaturism here, that is to say gradually reinstating what was thankfully removed from this article. I don't see why that has to happen. I woould also suggest that the previous sentence (i.e. Some of Cole's views on Iraq, Israel and the Middle East have attracted criticism and disagreement.[14]) be incorporated in the Karsh quote.

Could we try to avoid fighting the Middle East wars here? I'm sure the involved parties here will have as much success as all the involved parties have had there in achieving anything which resembles a resolution.

At least I hope I don't make matters worse.--CSTAR 00:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the V&C article? I wrote a post to the talk page about it; I think it is a mess and it is just going to keep getting longer. I don't have a problem with the Karsh quote here if we get rid of that page completely; otherwise I don't understand why we need this same non-notable quote in wikipedia three times.--csloat 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That article is a mess. Is the quote non-notable? Perhaps it is, but obviously some contributors think its is notable. It's a hard argument to show it's not. This is different than the issue that we dealt with in May where I thought the article had serious problems.--CSTAR 00:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I have said before I am fine with leaving the quote in. But what to do about the other article? Any suggestions? My feelings at this point is AfD, but if we do, all the junk in that article is going to be put back in this one. I respect your opinion on this stuff and I hope there is a more elegant solution.--csloat 00:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

About the other article? Ugh. BTW I notice in that article at various points Cole claims (e.g. He also claims to be the target of a smear campaign by Likud's American proxies due to his criticisms of their militarism and authoritarianism. [28]) whereas here in this article Karsh asserts. I think in fairness they should use words with similar connotation.--CSTAR 00:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Though the Views and Controversies article is very badly written, the issues discussed there merit inclusion. However, the expository approach which consists of inserting (sometimes long) quotes is one reason the article is so bad IMO. But maybe there is no way to agree on suitable paraphrasings. --CSTAR 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think a blind person, given the length of this discussion, would agree that there is a genuine Karsh dispute. Armons act of removing the NPOV dispute is pure VANNDALISM. Sticking it back up should not count as a 3RRR edit. Further, it's another misleading edit long by him, to wit:

22:15, 11 October 2006 Armon (Talk | contribs) (rm bogus tag) He should be sanctioned for this kind of, i just don't know how to characterize this behvaior, other than 2 year old type. As JC would say- Cheers. Will314159 02:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

POV banner

As long as the disagreement about the Karsh quote persists, this article remains the POV banner should stay. Whether you agree with it or not, it is a valid issue--CSTAR 14:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree Elizmr 15:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

James Joyner Karsh Anti-Dote CounterBalancing Quote would get deleted by Isarig & C0

James Joyner makes mince of Karsh's arguments but Isarig would delete it in a hearbeat because it comes from a blog and not therefore not WP RS. This is bullcrap b/c that policy refers to fact verifiability not to opinion. Here it is. Going to be sticking it to keep the article balanced. "While there’s no doubt Cole in pole[mn]ical, the idea that he has “abandoned scholarship” is rather absurd. For one thing, one could argue that interpreting current events through an expert lens for the mass public is scholarship and provides a greater service than writing obscure articles read by a handful of other experts, mostly to cite in their own obscure articles. Moreover, Cole has continued to publish at a more than reasonable rate for a tenured full professor. If one looks at his CV, one finds nine book chapters or articles written since 2005."[6]As JC would say Cheers Will314159 02:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Does any included quote say Cole abandoned scholarship? --CSTAR 02:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

LAYING Aside that CSTAR. That's a V&C issue. What's going on is the JC detractors are worried that the WP reader won't make it as far as the V&C page to read the full Karsh quote so they want to bloody up Cole with it on the front page where a snipped just won't do. So the fair minded editors then have to bring all the rehabilitating winesses from the V&C page to the front page to counteract it. Which makes the two pages dupllicate each other and redundant. Another approach is to expose Karsh's deficiencies. Respected Scholar or occupation apologist for the Dream World of the Settlers? A gentleman that wrote. What occupation? (Regarding Occupied Gaza and West Bank?) As JC would say Cheers Will314159 10:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The pages may duplicate each other, but that in itself is not a reason for deleting one of them. There is lots of duplication on WP. The argument that a given quote or source may be non-notable may be valid, but as I mentioned earlier it's a very hard argument to make. I prefer to come to an accomodation with those that argue that it is notable, particularly since it's the source making a claim not WP editors. Karsh may very well be an apologist for IDF, but seriously, I wouldn't trust an encyclopedia that made assertions of that kind (to be honest, I don't trust wikipedia that much anyway). I also note that WP does say Karsh was a major in Tsahal. Any reader can make an independent assesment whether such a source is entirely unbiased.--CSTAR 16:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Karsh & Cole: After a year of getting slimed JC has had enough

"Thursday, October 12, 2006

Wikipedia, Karsh and Cole

An encyclopedia article should be an objective accounting of a person's life and work. 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.

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.

Karsh used scurrilous propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Of course, he put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism. No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment.

Karsh charged that I am innocent of the 20th and 21st century history of the Middle East because much of my writing had been on earlier periods.

But in fact I have formally published in refereed academic venues on the Taliban, on September 11, the Ayatollahs of Iraq and democracy, on the historiography of the Muslim Brotherhood, on the Salafi leader Rashid Rida and many other twentieth century and twenty-first century subjects. My book, Sacred Space and Holy War contains chapters on the twentieth-century history of the Arab Shiites and on the modernity of the Islamic Republic of Iran and I have also published a chapter at McGill University Press on the treatment of religious minorities by the Islamic Republic, especially in the 1990s and early zeroes.

In addition to my writing on academic 20th century and contemporary topics, which has been extensive, I have published a raft of op-eds on contemporary affairs in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Salon.com, the Guardian, the San Francisco Chronicle, the St. Petersburg Times, etc., etc. I am a sought-after commentator in the media on contemporary Middle Eastern affairs, which I follow on a daily basis, having made appearances on the Lehrer News Hour, Nightline, ABC Evening News, the Today Show, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, CNN Headline News, etc., etc. The news professionals are in no doubt of my expertise on the up to the minute happenings in the region.

I am a person of wide personal experience with the late twentieth century and contemporary Middle East. I worked as a newspaperman in Beirut in the late 1970s. I lived for several years in Cairo. I lived in Amman, Jordan. I lived and traveled widely in Pakistan and India. I have continued to visit the region frequently in the past 15 years, keeping in touch with the pulse of opinion and changing local views. I don't need to do that through interpreters. I speak fluent colloquial Arabic, Urdu and Persian, and can get around in Turkish.

I have written a lot about the earlier history of the Middle East and will go on doing so. But Karsh's attempt to paint me as a dusty antiquarian is simply implausible.

You will note, moreover, that a medievalist like Bernard Lewis, who for the most part wrote about the early Muslim period or the Ottoman Empire, is lionized by people like Karsh when he writes about current affairs. Lewis's experience on the ground in the Arab world is minimal compared to my own.

posted by Juan @ 10/12/2006 06:08:00 AM "wikipedia-karsh-and-cole-encyclopedia As JC would say Cheers, NO I like this one better, It's time to celebrate Wikis for the Editors and Beers for the Horses. Will314159 18:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to Juan: It is highly offensive for you to pretend to know anything about the politics of any editor on this page. Since I am one of the editors you are talking about, I think it is reasonable for me to that your firmly stated assertion that editors who put any quote you might percieve as negative into your Wikipage are "far right wing activists" is complete and total bullshit (apologies for the language). It is completely possible to be pro-Israel and liberal or left-wing or moderate or whatever at the same time. Ironically, Israel as a country reflects the values of the liberals and left wing folks more strongly than any other country in the middle east. It also completely possible to be left-wing without engaging in apologetics about repressive regimes which do not respect things like freedom of religion and women's rights. It is also completely possible to be on the side of a nation for the Palestinians, but to respect Israel's right to protect its citizens with things like check points and buffer zones at the same time. Elizmr 22:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Again you are entitled to your opinion; However, as a I mentioned to Will, there is not much utility in espousing them here. I would also note that individuals self-perceptions of where they lie on the political spectrum or the quality of their values may not correspond to the perceptions of others. Karsh, Hitchens et al implicitly label large segments of individuals with some label or other.--CSTAR 22:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right about one thing, Elizmr, it is completely possible to be pro-Israel and liberal at the same time. It is also possible to be pro-Israel and anti-Likud, just as it is possible to be pro-American and anti-Bush. It is also possible to be on the side of Israel's right to defend itself but against such things like check points and buffer zones (to use your specific examples). I think the problem with some of the people you insist on quoting is that they believe that anyone who criticizes recent Israeli policies towards the Palestinians (or who criticizes the avowed ideologies of certain neoconservatives who identify very strongly with the Likud party) must be "anti-Israel" by extension. Something worth thinking about. In any case, if you want Cole to read your comment you might post it to his blog - the above was posted by Will, not Juan Cole, and Will was citing Cole's blog. Have a nice day!--csloat 23:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, I am aware that Will posted JC's comment, but JC is clearly reading this page and it would be futile for me to attempt to post anything on his blog so I chose to speak here instead. And CSTAR, I'm sorry for posting my personal opinions, but the Cole blog's mischaracterization of me as a "far right wing activist" because I want to give a Cole critic a right to speak on this page was infuriating enough to make me run off at the mouth. It is a shame Cole isn't a big enough person to let a little criticism on a Wikipedia page on him stand without resorting to ad-hom mud slingling against Wikipedia editors and sending his fans over here to edit for him by proxy. I will take a Wikibreak from this Cole page now, since it is destined to be about as accurate as state-controlled propaganda. So much for NPOV. Let's have OnePOV instead. Elizmr 23:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please sloat, let's avoid this proxy war. It's as hopeless as the real one.--CSTAR 23:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't offering to debate the issue; just suggesting it was "something to think about." I'll leave it at that.--csloat 23:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

@CSTAR. Karsh says Cole's knowledge is derivative. Cole has a right to rebut it by layig out the facts that his knowledge is not derivative that indeed he has lived in this country, and that country, and speaks this language, and that language and doesn't need interperters. 01:17, 13 October 2006 CSTAR (Talk | contribs) (→Background, education, appointments and awards - Shorten. This is not an outlet for Cole's CV.) You allow the man to be attacked, and then you tie his hands behind his back so he can't defend himself. I put it in his extended academic output which makes Karsh looks like a retard. One of Cole's outstanding academic expertise and educational contributions to the American public is explaining the difference betwen Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah Khomeini. Likewiese the difference between Ayatollah Fadallah (a Sistani ally) in lebanon and the MERE though politically powerful cleric (Khomeinite) Sayeed Hasan Nasrallah. Cole explained that elegantly in the Mershon Center streaming video link which i had here as an external link but has now lapsed.

First of all Will I didn't allow him to be attacked. Moreover, I am trying to shorten it to make it more readable. And there is quite a bit that is said about his rebuttal of Karsh. --CSTAR 01:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

@Elizmr. you flatter yourself that Cole reads your derogation of him here in WP. I've been emailing him for a year to defend himself against the unconscionable device of the Karsh quote juxtapositioning of his name next to the Elders of Zion and the bull about his academic expertise being derivative. The main is a U.S. national treasure and the most hands on academic expert the Western World has on the Mid East. Just b/c he is fair to both sides he has to be painted as an anti-Semite Best Wishes Will314159 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)EDIT Ask yourself honestly how much of your time have you invested in the maintenance of the Karsh quote on the Juan Cole WP page? How much of other WP Editors time has been wasted on the karsh quote w/ endless discussions about the unfairness of putting Eleders of Zion next to his name and the unfair charge of derivative work? Think about it this way. Prez Bush is proably your hero. Somebody posts a pix on his web page. It shows Bush next to a pile of Shxt. It says Even though Bush is NOT Shxt he is xxxx. Cheers.. Will314159 02:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As usual you completely neglect to include anything besides personal snides, inapproporiate insults, and general rudeness in your statement. I hope you will soon come to understand that this is not only an extremely ineffectiove way of arguing, but also tends to make people not take you very seriously. Furthermore your insults do not even make any sense, so besides the occasional laugh I doubt it will affect anyone too much.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So, Will, based on your say so alone and without independent investigation, Juan Cole decided to make strong ad hom remarks in his blog against the three or four folks who were putting a Karsh cite in his Wikipedia blog entry? I have no way of knowing if this is true, but if it were true it would be an interesting insight into his general credibility. Elizmr 16:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there is no way of knowing whether this is true. Could everyone involved here please drop these speculations about personal traits? --CSTAR 16:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I just had to reply to this remark of Wills and thought that what I wrote was preferable to the epiphet that first came to mind :=) Elizmr 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Application of WP policy and guidelines

It would be an improvement if WP policies weren't used as bludgeons. It's fine to invoke OR or RS. However, much of what is reported in these Juan Cole articles is current and happening in a very fluid environment (blogs and online publications). Therefore any sensible interpretation of the rules should take this into account. In other words, the article reports on events that overlap blogs, online publications, smallish periodicals and major publications. Any sensible account of such events should report on all these sources. If the prevailing opinion is that failing to do so violates OR and RS, then perhaps none of it should be reported.--CSTAR 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Will's latest edit. I think it is a significant quote, that should be linked, but should not be in the body of the article.--CSTAR 19:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Will, I do not object to including a short paraphrase (or excerpts) of Cole's response; However, including the whole quote is not appropriate, IMO. For now I deleted it, leaving only a link.--CSTAR 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it to use Cole's words "rightwing editors" can use an outrageous Karsh quote at length and ad nauseum and which by the way is clearly ERRONEUS and slimy and the man cannot defend himself? Why don't you edit it instead of deleting it. Cheers. Will314159 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Will, I said I have nothing against inclusion of excerpts. Editing the quote should be done carefully. --CSTAR 19:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a paraphrase with some quoting; short and to the point.--csloat 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--CSTAR 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Editors of good faith cleary dersrve some time to prune and excerpt. Take Care. Will314159 19:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This point raised by Juan Cole needs to be addressed. There are editors on this article here with an agenda. They are not members of Meretz or Gush Shalom. They are not going to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon. Fair Criticism is fine. But keeping relevant opinion out because it's preposterously a violation of WP:RS or preposterous lengthy Karsh quotes that have to be of the front page. They are constantly trying to beat up the subject of this biography from the Karsh quote Elders of Zion juxtoposition, to other underhanded stuff. The article needs to mention them. here is what JC says (True or not, he's got a beef, it's his article and it's notable):

"An encyclopedia article should be an objective accounting of a person's life and work. 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."

Take Care!Will314159 20:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cole can have his opinion. Regardless of whether any of it is true, is it really useful to discuss it here? If you want to pursue this angle, I suggest you start something like a Wikipedia review for political bias on Wikipedia. Or try dKosopedia. There is certainly precedent for this.. lots of WP editors in the sciences are getting fed up with the unhindered access by crackpots with agendas. --CSTAR 20:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

IT IS an interesting question of self referncel Kind of like Escher's sketch of the hand drawing itself. When does it become notable in a subect article when the following happens. When some of the editors are out to get the subject of a biographical article in an organized way because of a political agenda. Hypothetically, just hypothetically, suppose there was a Mideast nation that became opposed to the Oslo process and wanted to hang onto its settlements in occupied territory contrary to UN resolutions and the Fourth Geneva convention and its sympathizers in an organized way went systematically around a non-for-profit foundation electronic encyclopedia placing unfair derogatory information in biography pages of critics. When does that itself become notable itself to become part of the controversy of the Article itself and not just the discussion pages? IMHO this Karsh stuff has crossed that red line. It is just so preposterous. For me, I am "karshed out" and will take some time off. Spend some time reading some lectures by my good friend on Sring Theory, the peace activist Edward Witten. Take Care Will314159 04:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Attention Armon, Isarig, Silverburg Can't have cake and eat it too

If you want the Karsh quote, then you also have to let Cole defend himself. What's in there now is a brief excerpt crafted by CSloat. If you guys keep on deleting it and messing with it, it means you don't believe in fair play, and I'm going to start deleting the Karsh quote. For your interest, a Wikipedia with Constables [7] Best Wishes Will314159 00:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling. V & C has the whole tit for tat (which you and csloat complain about). I've suggested splitting it into 2 sub articles, "views" and "criticism" as has been done elsewhere. No response from you, csloat complains that there'd still be criticism. Isarig has suggested merging V&C back into this article, I doubt that's going to fly either, so why are you attempting to re-create V&C here? If you've got a better suggestion, suggest it, but I'm not going to engage with you otherwise. I've no patience anymore for your blatant disregard of AGF and NPA and your constant POV pushing and OR. If you make a decent edit, I'll help you, if you insert crap, I'll revert it, end of story. Armon 05:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Take them to ArbCom, Will314159. You've stated that there authors here with agendas; they'll continue to pollute this page until you take it higher up. 222.155.148.6 04:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A rooting gallery isn't necessary. If you have a complaint, make it. Otherwise, you're making threats, which may be against WP policy but more to the point is a waste of time. Please stop.--CSTAR 04:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That anon is giving you some rotten advice, Will. Armon 05:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's like the news article about the new Wikipedia by Jimbo's cofounder Sanger. We often have here articles not by consesnus but by the most frequent and organized posters [group]. The balance has shifted here recently in this page, mercifully. We"ll see how the Citizenspedia works out. Best Wishes Will314159 11:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)NEWER Edit. Let me get the name of the propsed new encylcopedia with constables right Citizendium Cheers Will314159 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you mistake WP for a blog, and article talk pages for chat rooms. Armon 19:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Armon talking out of both sides of his mouth as ususal. "::Wow. That anon is giving you some rotten advice, Will. Armon 05:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)" Best Wishes. Will314159 12:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

While we are chit-chatting Armon, you have given me a brainstorm. I'm going to contact Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer about reference this article as well as others in WP in their new book as an illustration about the how the Lobby (all it takes 10-12 editors acting in unison) controls content for the masses. thanks for the inspiration. Will314159 12:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Will, if you are suggesting that editors here are part of some kind of huge lobby/conspiracy that is an alarming display of assuming poor faith and patently ridiculous. I will again direct you to WP:AGF. Elizmr 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS the proposed Cole defense.

• Cole has posted a response to the points raised by the Karsh quote, noting "Karsh's attempt to paint me as a dusty antiquarian is simply implausible" because (1) he had lived, studied, worked in the Middle East and spoke the languages of that area needing no interpreters , (2) he continuously kept abreast of current developments and (3)cited his "extensive" research on the 20th and 21st century Middle East. Cole went on to question Karsh’s neutrality as a scholar by challenging his motive, bias and interest as a "far rightwing Israeli historian." [8]

Best Wishes Will314159 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Will

The article provides nothing useful by citing Cole's opinion of Karsh. Do we really need to inform the reader that Cole thinks "Karsh is beneath contempt" and that Cole "is not an antiquarian" (paraphrasing here). You are right, it is an article about Cole, but it isn't his CV. I can't imagine why you (or anyone else for that matter) thinks this is unfair. Could I ask you (or anybody) to revert this please? Thank you.--CSTAR 18:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if Cole were right that Karsh is a rightwing fanatic (which incidentally, would be hard to prove within the context of acceptable argumentation on WP), it doesn't really add anything to the content of his rebuttal; it in fact dilutes his argument. This is one thing I'm really puzzled about you and other editors (on all sides) for these articles. This is not a question of personal honor or defense of your beliefs. It's a question of being sensible. --CSTAR 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Will, what are you up doing? Please stop. You are gaining nothing by adding these quotes; you are not advancing whatever cause you might gave. If Karsh is a jerk, there are enough links in this article so people can figure that out for themselves.--CSTAR 20:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, it is weird to defend WP:BLP for one subject, while clearly breaking those same guidelines for another subject. We need to uniformly apply guidelines in Wikipedia. Elizmr 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Benny Morris quote is right from the Karsh wiki article. The publlic is entitled to know that Karsh is a rightwing nut job in Cole's opinion and not to be taken seriously. Of course with a little work a person could figure it out. 1) Cole speaks all those mideastern language 2) has lived and worked all those years in the mideast and south asia and 3) has written a ton of recent articles about modern events and is a recognized expert. Only an rightwinger advocate would insist on putting a rightwing comment by Karsh in this article. But the general public is not going to do the detective work to undo the smear. that's why it's in the article. to smear him because he has justly criticized Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. The man has a right to defend himself in robust terms from a robust smear. Take Care! Will314159 02:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Benny Morris is not BLP violation in Efraim Karsh so why here? No matter, it was used b/c there was other recourse at the moment. The matter of affairs before CSTAR altered it was balanced it. A detractor may be impeached by revealing his bias, interest, or motive. Cole did that by showing that Karsh was not a disinterested, unbiased, Engllish academic at King's college but a right wing Israeli. I myself would have gone further and called him a NeoKon Likudnik whose motive was the "transfer" of the indigenous population of the West Bank and Gaza. A former major in the IDF who had written an article l"What Occupation?". Cole neatly characterizez his argument as beneath contempt. Others would have said scurrilous. Then he summarizes the gist of the AIM of Karsh and the editor that inserted the Karsh quote "to paint Cole as a dusty antiquarian." The man has been slimed in this article for over a year, and when he finally defends himself, there is an attempt to cut the "cojones" of the reply. It will not stand. Best Wishes. Will314159 12:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Will what are you talking about? I didn't remove the link, I didn't remove the essence of Cole's reply. Is your objection that I removed that Cole said Kramer was "beneath contempt"? It may very well be true and this would be appropriate for a newspaper article but, honestly not for here. Assuming that COle weres slimed here, which admittedly be an injustice this is not the place to correct that injustice by adding something shouldn't be here (in my opinion)--CSTAR 16:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS the proposed Cole defense.

• Cole has posted a response to the points raised by the Karsh quote, noting "Karsh's attempt to paint me as a dusty antiquarian is simply implausible" because (1) he had lived, studied, worked in the Middle East and spoke the languages of that area needing no interpreters , (2) he continuously kept abreast of current developments and (3)cited his "extensive" research on the 20th and 21st century Middle East. Cole went on to question Karsh’s neutrality as a scholar by challenging his motive, bias and interest as a "far rightwing Israeli historian." [9]

Best Wishes Will314159 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful if we dropped the last sentence. It goes without saying that people who are at each other's throats have differing motives, biases, interests and political leanings. Also Cole is not exactly economical with his use of the words "right wing" when talking about his critics so the fact that this is how he describes Karsh is not particularly significant. --Lee Hunter 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Lee, Cole attracts the Likudnik critcism like Honey attracts Bears, but I can live with your suggestion as a compromise. Why don't you make the edit as I am 3RR'd out until this evening. Best Wishes. Will314159 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

AS A COMPROMISE to calling Karsh a far right wing Israeli Historian, simply identifed per his bio as an Israeli scholar now working in London that formerly worked for the IDF as an analyst. Straight neutral language straight from karsh. Here is the Lobby's response

• (cur) (last) 20:50, 18 October 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs) (rv petty attempt at discrediting Karsh)
• there is just no working or compromising with some people. I just have to think about this a few minutes. Best Wishes Will314159 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Will, you are again stuggesting that editors here are part of "the Lobby". What exactly do you mean by that? Do you realize how insulting and ridiculous it is? I will again direct you to WP:AGF. I think it is time to consider a user conduct RFC against you. Elizmr 22:57, 18

October 2006 (UTC)

Wikilaywering and evasion rather than response on the merits, do you have any objection to identitifying Karsh as Karsh, an Israeli historian and former IDF analyst,-- all stuff out of Karsh? Is that deragatory? let the reader be informed and give the criticism some context. I'm tired of wheel wars. Let us have some closure. Cheers. Will314159 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that you are trying to imply that because Karsh was once in the IDF his opinion is less important, that is completely inappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not deragatory, but it is an attempt to poison the well. If you want the reader to be informed, how about describing Karsh as the founding editor of the scholarly journal Israel Affairs? Or as Head of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at King's College, University of London 9his current role). Surely that's more relevant to his ability to comment on Israeli issues than his decades old position in the Army? Isarig 01:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What does Israel have to do with the Middle East?Elizmr 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Folks, calm down. There's no reason Karsh's current position can't be included, but to censor the information that he's a former IDF analyst seems odd. I'm sure Karsh isn't ashamed of that fact, why should any of us be? It's a fact about Karsh's background that is often specifically referenced in this context; there's no reason to hide it here. As for Elizmr's bizarre question, I'm sure a map can be found to help answer, but I'm not sure how the question is relevant here.--csloat 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't often find myself on the same side of the fence as Isariq and Elizmr but I have to agree that Karsh's work for the IDF in the distant past should only be mentioned if it has some relevance to how he's quoted in this article. In this case, the Israeli military or Cole's opinions of the Israeli military are not being discussed so cherry-picking this factoid from Karsh's CV seems a little odd. --Lee Hunter 16:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, for those who don't know (and I'm sure most everyone does except for the individual who insists on adding this factoid), pretty much everyone (except Israeli Arabs who don't have to) serves in the IDF in Israel after high school. Adding this to an article to imply something sinister about Karsh (while not mentioning his equal-to-Cole's academic credentials), would be like prefacing a quote by Pope Benedict with a comment about his service in a Nazi youth movement and then vaguely calling him a "religious figure." Elizmr 17:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but not everyone serves as an analyst (and it's my recollection that Karsh worked specifically with intelligence). I don't think anyone is advocating removing Karsh's academic credentials, but the question of his IDF analyst work is raised because published sources have raised it in the context specifically of his criticism of Cole. It's not important to me either way but if I run across the source of this information I'll pass it on here. I agree that this is probably not that relevant, but if it is mentioned in published sources as relevant it is not incorrect to include it here.--csloat 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone serves in intelligence, but a very large percentage of Arabic speakers and/or people with relevant background (such as Karsh's degree in ME history) do, and the intelligence corps is one of the largest (in terms of headocunt) in the IDF. IOW, you have cause and effect reversed - it is Karsh's academic background that led to his role with the IDF, not the IDF position which is relevant to his academic credentials. From your last comment I take it you do not have any citable published sources that make the argument that his IDF background is relevant. Given that, and the apparent consensus that the IDF role is irrelevant, I suggest we remove it. Isarig 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. The IDF is certainly relevant to an article about the life of Karsh but there's no reason to drop it into this context. Karsh is speaking as a historian and he's commenting on the work of another historian. It's appropriate that we identify him as a university professor. If he were currently working for the IDF it might be ok, but when we add an irrelevant detail from his past it's obviously an attempt to send some sort of message to the reader. --Lee Hunter 12:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

...and calling Karsh a "former IDF analyst" would be like describing Cole (in the Karsh article) as a former member of the Bahai faith. Yes, it's a fact and no doubt the Bahai faith informs Cole's world view, but it would misrepresent who he is and why he is being quoted. --Lee Hunter 17:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If he's being quoted about his opinions about something related to Bahai, then indeed such a qualifier would be perfectly reasonable.--csloat 09:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

More on the Karsh quote

I'm sure this will be reverted, but could we please reproduce what Karsh actually said about Cole for the sake of accuracy in the article? It is weird to have Cole's reponse that he did extensive research without having Karsh's comment intact. Also, I added Cole's actual response--that he published--rather than what was there--that he did extensive research. The only reason to revert this would be to obscure the points of the dialog. Elizmr 17:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The "poisoning the well" remark is valid; however, the article fails to mention that Cole believes Karsh to be politically motivated; in fairness that should be said somewhere even if just as footnote. I don't like putting some of Cole's "stronger" statements, such as his saying Karsh's remarks are "beneath contempt". Though he did say that, it seems to me that out of the blog context where it was made, it makes Cole look too defensive; I concur with Will that Cole should defend himself, and has every right to do so but randomly extracting bits and pieces of his defense in this article is not a good idea. The "elevator summary" for this graf in my opion i ssomething like this "Karsh has criticized Cole's expertise: it's derivative and echoes conventional wisdom; Cole has replied this is nonsense and he can prove it by his published record. Moreover, Cole believes Karsh has a right-wing agenda".--CSTAR 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Elizmr, the word "extensive" was there too, and one could argue that it was your edit that seemed intended to obscure certain points of dialog -- best that we just don't go there and WP:AGF, however frustrating that is to do. I should add that this section is already way beyond what seems permissable according to WP:BLP; that is a separate issue however.--csloat 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please put back "extensive"; I did not take it out purpousely. There is nothing there that violates WP:BLP and we've been throught this before. Also, I think that it is fine to have more of Cole's reply. Why not put in the part where he says that someone else put Karsh up to it and the whole thing? I just wanted Karsh's statement to be in there as it was written and not clipped up into unintelligibility. The elevator summary just didn't convey Karsh's meaning in my opinion. Elizmr 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. What is your summary?--CSTAR 21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote is the article now is ok with me. Elizmr 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT in blazes does this stuff mean?

• published research but has not researched???????. Karsh's whole quote is patent non-sense and is clearly non-encyclopediac. Cole even to a kindergartner is a handson scholar that has lived in the region, has kept in touch with it, and knows what's going on. I'm going to email him some of this stuff so he can have a laugh. Cheers. Will314159 18:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between doing primary research and publishing it and reviewing others research, editing collections of manuscripts, and publishing that sort of thing. What Karsh says is that he hasn't done the former. I wouldn't expect a kindergartener to get this, but it is a reasonable distinction for any academic to make. Also, Will, Cole writes a lot about Israel and he has never been there and doesn't know Hebrew or Jewish history, so his claim of having been everywhere and speaking every language has an enormous hole in it as far as the middle east is concerned. Elizmr 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

ELIZMR you make a lot of unfounded assumptions that are conclulsory and unfounded in fact. Your POV makes up your facts. I would think any good Bah'ai that's been to Cairo, Beirut, and Amman would have taken the the time to visit the shrine of the founder in Haifa, and that is indeed the case, but your POV had already determined your facts for you. Arabic and Hebrew are cognate languages, both based on tri-consonanantal roots, the scripts are both written right to left, and much of the research is available in English anyway. His reference is the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and you can certainly pick up on that from reading English and Arabic and U.N. resolutions as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention on Human Rights. It's obvious you are going to pick your way through whatever maze or labrynith you have to decreditianiallize what Joshua Landis called the great MidEast scholar of our time for your POV reasons- namely that he is a great exponent of Human Rights (for the Palestinians, inter alia) Take Care! Will314159 19:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, Baha'is, as a general rule, do not go to Israel, unless if they are going on pilgrimage, or volunteering at the Baha'i World Centre. Baha'is, from the time of the Ottoman Empire, do not teach their religion to others in the region of Palestine (now Israel). So Cole going to Cairo, Beirut, and Amman, does not mean that Cole would have gone to Haifa. -- Jeff3000 20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

JC REPLIES. There a famous saying about when u assume, what you do to u and to me b/ I"ll spare. The reply from JC is "I have been to Israel. I have carried out extensive academic research on the twentieth-century middle East. cheers Juan" Is that going to satisy Elizmr and get her to stop pushing her Karsh quote? Wikis for the Editors, Beers for the Horses Will314159 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr is blowing out of proportion the significance of the term "independent" in the Karsh quote. My guess is that Elizmr is not him or herself an academic, since he or she does not seem to understand that there is no such thing as "dependent" research. If Cole has written academic articles on the Middle East in which he is the first or sole author, which he has, Karsh is wrong. Unless you can show that Cole's work is limited to book reviews or to "editing collections of manuscripts," which you can't, Karsh is wrong. Karsh may disagree with Cole's conclusions, but to claim that his research is antiquarian is ludicrous, and it's even sillier to see you cling to that statement (made without a shred of evidence) by Karsh as if it totally negated Cole's years of research. Face it, Elizmr, Karsh is wrong. It really is that simple.--csloat 00:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OOPS "Elizmr and get her" I see where I have been making an assumption. his/her Karsh quote.Cheers Will314159 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a social scientist, but I would assume that in any discpline a first author article can still be a review of other's research and this does not qualify as original research. I'm not sure if Cole's publications fall under this rubric or not, but it really doesn't matter what I think. Elizmr 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter what you think. As Will points out below, all you have to do is click some links to verify this fact for yourself. Your nitpick about whether an article qualifies as "original research" shows that you have absolutely no experience whatsoever with tenure committees, or that if you do have such experience, you weren't paying attention. "A review of others' research" -- unless you're talking about a book review (or a review of several books), this phrase has no meaning. Is Cole's article on the Taliban and the Hegelian private sphere unoriginal because it's a "review" of Hegel's research? Is his discussion of Rashid Rida unoriginal because it is a "review" of Rida's work? The notion is laughable.--csloat 10:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WELL Elizmr why don't you read some of those articles and report back to us. I tried to find online links to the ones I"ll try to pick out some interesting ones.

• Rashid Rida on tne the Baha'i Fairth: A Utilatiarian Theory of the Spread of Religions,[10]. Arab Studies Quarterly 5, 3 (Summer 1983): 276-291

• The United States and Shi‘ite Religious Factions in Post-Ba‘thist Iraq [11] MIDDLE EAST JOURNAL VOLUME 57, NO. 4, AUTUMN 2003

• The Taliban, Women, and the Hegelian Private Sphere [12] Social Research- An International Quarterly of the Social Sciences: Islam Private and Public Spheres, Volume 70 No. 2 (Fall 2003)

• The Iraqi Shiites: On the history of America’s would-be allies,[13] Boston Review, Fall, 2003.

Happy Reading Will314159 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I WONDER how many of the Pentagon Civilian NeoKons took the time to read this

• The United States and Shi‘ite Religious Factions in Post-Ba‘thist Iraq. They were probably reading Karsh's What Occupation?" They would've have known who Moqtada al Sadr was. They actually tried to arrest him at one time. Fought a pitched battle with the Mahdi army. No wonder the occupation is in such a shambles now. They had their eggs in the Chalabi basket. I haven't found anything comparable to it. But I heard it all straight out of his mout in that video stream from Ohio State's Mesrshon Center. Dead link now.Forgot to sign Will314159 14:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks will for trying to pick out interesting stuff for me to read. None of this looks like primary research to me except for the Bahai stuff which is first half of the 20th century and about a sect who are not really currently big players (altho given their polite way of interacting on this page, I wish they were more prominent players). I'm not trying to insult Cole here, I just don't think that this stuff refutes the point Karsh was making. Any BTW, I'm not against human rights for the Palestinians; I'm for them. I'm also for the right of Israelis to live in peace. Elizmr 20:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Organization, blog information

I have reorganized the sections and added more information about the blog, like what he actually writes there and its technorati ranking. I dont think any of it is controversial or at all political. Enjoy. Wachholder0 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

THHANKS Wathcholder. Very useful edits. A breath of fresh air. Cheers. Will314159 18:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)