Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Rewrite of "Dual Loyalties"

Alright. I'll try to come up with a proposed text tonight that paraphrases both Karsh and Cole and gives them roughly equal space, if anyone wants to beat me to it, go ahead. - Merzbow 02:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy to have you have a go. <<-armon->> 02:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. A fresh attempt is needed here. Please have at it.--CSTAR 02:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I gave it a shot. Feel free to revert or improve as you want. - Merzbow 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Minor edits aside, I'm happy with it. --CSTAR 06:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I made what I believe are minor edits, which I think don't change the gyst of what you wrote. . Please revise them. Thanks for your effort.--CSTAR 06:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Hopefully we can move on now. <<-armon->> 10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Any objection to the minor repairs I suggested above? csloat 10:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What were these "minor" repairs?--CSTAR 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
OK I think I've found your sentence. You say it's a start? What's wrong with it? I have one specific comment which I will address to ELizmr below. Other than that, what's the end state you have in mind?--CSTAR 16:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This is what I suggested above: "I'd prefer to see the spat about how much ME history Cole knows dropped and the actual quotes used rather than the paraphrasing." I don't think the criticism of Cole's work as "derivative" has anything to do with "dual loyalties." It should be removed along with Cole's response. I also think more of the quote from Cole responding to the protocols charge is appropriate in the article -- not only did he say these were propaganda techniques, but he stated why, and observed that nobody familiar with his writings could possibly come to such a conclusion. There is no reason for this information to be taken out of the article. Simply quoting the two sentences directly would be the best solution, IMHO. csloat 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
<sigh> apparently not. OK, how do propose "repairing" it and how would that be an improvement. <<-armon->> 11:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have been refraining from editing on the page after accepting the mediation, but basically I feel this version is ok. My few comments would be that the section heading does not summarize the contents, that the reader might need a little more background on what exactly the dual loyalties comments were all about (maybe a link to the blog or something of that nature). Elizmr 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree "that the reader might need a little more background, although putting links in the appropriate places is a step in that direction.--CSTAR 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
One thing I don't like is the presence in the middle of the paragraph of Karsh's criticism of Cole's expertise (as opposed to his alleged anti-semitism). I am not suggesting to take it out but to rearrange it. What do you think?--CSTAR 16:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Two issues:
  1. This sentence "He also responds to Cole's statements criticizing Israel and the influence of pro-Israel lobbies, comparing them to accusations that have been made in other anti-semitic writings." has an issue in that it ends in "other anti-Semitic writings" which seems to implies that Cole's statements are part of the set of anti-Semitic writings or it is unclear what the term "other" is differentiating. I propose a clean up of that referent so that it is not ambiguous.
  2. Right now the terms in the paragraph in question that are linked are conspiracy theory, new antisemitism and Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It may be nice to balance this with dual loyalties and pro-Israel lobby, which, like the three currently linked terms just mentioned, are terms the reader may not be familiar with.
Other than that, the current solution is decent. --70.51.230.48 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried to deal with them.--CSTAR 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Look good. - Merzbow 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonah Goldberg Wager

I'm removing this snippet shortly. The wager is piece of news that happens to be circulating on the blogs at the moment, and it's a wager that Cole never accepted. He also never spoke about the bet, beyond an initial acknowledgment. It seems to me that it smacks more of "gotcha" politics than informative contribution to an already cluttered article. Abbenm 04:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some reputable sources, but it really should be in Jonah Goldberg's article not Juan Cole (as he was just a bit player.)
--70.51.233.103 17:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewbaiting

I eliminated the jew-baiting that was put in the article. There is no need to describe the US govt officials that Cole criticizes as "Jewish" since (1) he never describes them that way or criticizes their "Jewishness" and (2) he criticizes non-Jewish officials for the same reasons. Adding the word is both WP:NOR and absurdly tendentious; a clear violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:LIBEL. Certainly not appropriate here. Since the editor who added it seemed to think specificity was appropriate, I changed it to "officials with close ties to the Likud party" - that is more accurate and it is more in line with what Cole actually says. Additionally, since I have seen no argument with the minor repairs suggested above, I will be adding them soon (unless people want to discuss). I think we are moving towards something workable here. The other thing that needs to be added is Cole's explicit statements directly relevant to the matter (e.g. his comments about the whole Jewish conspiracy theory thing, which he explicitly and forthrightly rejects.) Thanks to all those who have helped move this page forward. csloat 12:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question was malformed since birth. We should just be recounting as closely as possible what the critics' accusations are, and what Cole's responses are, instead of trying to present an original-researchy view of what we think Cole said. I've reworded to that effect. - Merzbow 19:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You re-added the "Jewish" and made it look like a quote from Cole. Is it? If it is not, that should be clarified; if it is, it should be cited. If it is from frontpagemagazine, it should be removed. Also, Cole should be directly quoted in response as well. This passage has gone from bad to worse. csloat 19:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote it yet again to made it crystal-clear that those are the words of the critic, not Cole. And I don't recall an agreement not to use FPM (although the accusation in question here is from MEQ). - Merzbow 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
We now have three people piling on Cole, which is a distortion of events and undue weight in clear violation of BLP. There is an ideological battle in Middle Eastern studies in which Cole, Campus Watch, and others are part of. It would be better to treat this issue as an article in and of itself. There are lots of arguments for and against and a lot of individuals involved. It would be real service to a lot of articles on the topic to centralize this ongoing battle in a way that makes it understandable to others and also give it a timeline of development. These simplistic potshots at Cole are not an appropriate or even intelligent answer to the problem at hand. In fact, the current solution makes me feel lobotomized, we owe our readers more that we are currently offering. --64.230.124.26 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A small paragraph of criticism in a large article is not undue weight by any stretch of policy, especially considering that the same variety of criticism is being made at Cole by many different critics (i.e. accusations of echoing anti-semitic arguments and of apologizing for Islamic extremism). - Merzbow 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And Mr. Anon, if you're going to keep participating in this discussion, could you please get an account or at least post from the same IP? We have no idea if we're talking to one anon or six anons; this matters when it comes to issues of determining consensus. - Merzbow 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The "small paragraph" gives undue weight because it takes fringe criticism of Cole that is extremely tendentious and pretends it is a legitimate debate over whether Cole is antisemitic, when the charge is ludicrous on its face. At the very least we should quote Cole directly both in his defense and specifically on the topic of Jews and antisemitism. How do you people even explain his tirade against the Christ movie, if you really think the man believes in antisemitic conspiracy theories? The mind boggles. csloat 23:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we please get the discussion away from talking about whether WE think Cole is anti-semitic or is sympathetic to anti-semitic arguments? It is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether the criticisms that we choose to report in this article are notable based on who is making them, where they are published, and who else is also making them. Karsh's position and the venue that published it make his criticism notable, backed up the by the fact that other publications that are notable in the field of commentary on modern Middle-Eastern affairs make it as well (MEQ and FPM). Hitchens in the Slate article echoes the "apologist for radical Islam" criticism of Cole also. - Merzbow 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is hitchens relevant to this discussion at all? This isn't about whether he is an "apologist for radical islam" -- a charge that is ridiculous given Cole's explicit statemetns about Ahmadenijad specifically and radical islamism in general. Also, do you agree that Cole's explicit statements about Jews and conspiracy theory are relevant and should be directly quoted here? What about his explicit statements in response to these charges from Karsh? csloat 00:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hitchens' article is relevant as an additional source for the "apologist for radical Islam" criticism. Again, it doesn't matter to me if you think the charge is ridiculous, and neither does it matter to me whether I think it's ridiculous either - all that matters is notability and verifiability, not truth. Cole's statements in response to these criticisms should be presented. If they are not phrased as responses, we can't present them as responses, since that would be original research. If you can point me toward any Cole responses to the charges in the first sentence, we can add that. (We already have the response to Karsh). - Merzbow 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Hitchens appears to be the only source for that claim. If we are going to cite it, let's have a section specifically on Cole's opinion on radical islam. I'm happy to put quotes in from Cole specifically about these things (as well as his reply to hitchens). But I don't think these things should be conflated as you are doing.
Honestly I'm not sure where to go from here; I think arbitration is our best bet since the issues discussed in mediation have been completely ignored here and you have unilaterally imposed a new version of this section that is even worse than the one that was frozen here for a long time. I'm happy to present the case clearly in arbitration and then accept whatever fate is imposed rather than continuing a long and unproductive (and often acrimonious) debate about these issues. csloat 01:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh? The apologist claim is also made by all the critics if I recall correctly - Karsh, MEQ, and FPM. Anyways, there is 0% chance this will be taken up by ArbCom since we are actively editing this section and I don't see anyone being disruptive. I am going to make sure Cole's responses to all charges are included, at appropriate length and paraphrasing if necessary (as we agreed to above). - Merzbow 02:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to make things a little better; if we can have discussion rather than reverts we might move forward. But if Isarig and others insist on censoring cole's explicit reply to these charges, then we are going to need to head to arbcom. csloat 01:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are behavioral matters here that are intimately tied in with BLP concerns. There is actually a good chance it would be picked up by arbcom if presented appropriately given the precedent of the Rachel Marsden case. Even Christopher Hitchens gets a full paragraph quoted from his personal website to responses to charges from a political opponent of his (Alexander Cockburn), see Christopher_Hitchens#Praise_for_and_criticism_of_Hitchens. --64.230.124.26 03:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
They were given equal "time" in that particular example, but the Christopher_Hitchens article is a bad example if you're going to hold it up as BLP compliant. It's at a much lower standard. <<-armon->> 11:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As I promised above, I've restored Cole's response to the non-Karsh charges. There is now an equal amount of space devoted to the criticisms and to the responses. - Merzbow 02:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Merzbow, I didn't see the version you put up. I've got one issue with the version you just posted, however, which is the phrase "In response to critics who he thinks are labeling him as an anti-semite." We shouldn't word it that way. Some critics are clearly labeling him as anti-semitic, or at least saying that his writings parrot anti-semitic arguments. I find the wording very condescending. -Thucydides411 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's clear that the critics are labeling him directly as an anti-semite, so we should still say it is Cole's opinion that they are doing so (in sections as controversial as this, it's best to attribute everything). If you have an alternative formulation to "he thinks" that doesn't phrase the statement as fact, give it a shot. - Merzbow 03:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Armon's change that just removes the prefix to the sentence looks OK, it's clear from proximity what the response is to anyways. - Merzbow 03:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Wipe off the Map" controversy

I think the Ahmadenijad "wipe off the map" controversy should also be split out and noted. Cole was the chief proponent of view that it was not a threat to Israel. <<-armon->> 03:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it was quite widely covered in the blogosphere, Hitchens is a notable writer and Slate (where he critiqued Cole on this) is a notable magazine. - Merzbow 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's admirable that you people are doing such a good job of ensuring that Wikipedia reflects the opinions of the right wing press and blogosphere. BLP be damned. Chris Cunningham 09:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting. The Hitchens/Cole spat is (partly) reported here: Christopher_Hitchens#Use_of_alcohol. <<-armon->> 10:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but what is that meant to prove? That other articles contain pointed personal character attacks masked as some kind of "reporting" in the form of he-said-she-said gossip as well? That isn't an excuse, it just makes Wikipedia look even worse for failure to enforce BLP. Chris Cunningham 12:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The point is there's lots of work to do, and partisan accusations of bad faith don't help. Read WP:BLP, read the voluminous discussions we've had about this, and you'll find that the standard for inclusion is NPOV and WP:RS -not Chris Cunningham's political opinions. <<-armon->> 16:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP states

"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one."

There seems to be a presumption that the article should include as much criticism of Cole as possible. This is not a generally accepted practice in BLP articles. The Criticism of George W. Bush does not include accusative quotes from Paul Krugman; the Paul Krugman article never quotes Donald Luskin, and so forth. Right now there is one short paragraph about Cole's blog, one short paragraph about his role as a media commentator, and seven or eight paragraphs of criticism, all of which is based on either opinion/editorial pieces or strongly right-wing sources. This practice should be as unacceptable as larding the GW Bush article with quotes from In These Times or The Village Voice would be. Encyclopedia articles do not need to be an exhaustive record of every negative view that can be found. Therefore I think it would be inadvisable to add additional material; what is there should be trimmed. Wachholder0 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your presumption is wrong. There are 2 of paragraphs of criticism, Cole is given equal space and the last word. The rest describe notable controveries he's been involved in -again same format. An exhaustive record of every negative view would been unacceptable, but so would a whitewash. If Cole involves himself in these controveries and blog-wars, and he does, some of them are going to be reported. <<-armon->> 16:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This schtick is tiring to read. Bad faith does not need to be "presumed" given extensive evidence in the article and talk histories. Your statement that such attacks are acceptable because Cole "brought it on himself" is unacceptable grounds for airing personal attacks in the article. BLP explicitly condones "whitewashing" where the alternative is potentially damaging to the source. Chris Cunningham 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the article has been mired in mediation for several months on the subject of removing the existing attacks, so it doesn't currently appear to be possible to remove what is already there. It is, however, possible to ensure that this trend doesn't continue. Chris Cunningham 15:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW the "Wipe off the Map" controversy is relevant to his notability -see Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22 <<-armon->> 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The attacks in question are not "notable" simply because they involve notable people. The translation is mere trivia, and its inclusion would plainly be a partisan attempt to paint him as an Ahmadinejad apologist. Chris Cunningham 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If people feel the need to include this trivia, it should be a section on his views on Ahmadenijad, and we should quote what cole actually said about Ahmadenijad, not just the debate with hitchens. Painting him as an apologist is ridiculous since he has called Ahmadenijad a "crank" and "a very bad character, with a long history of essentially fascist activity," among other things. csloat 19:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to several previous comments I'm not sure it's fair to say there is such a presumption (that should include as much criticism of Cole as possible in the words of wachholder0) for this article. For example the Chris Hitchens article contains a lot of unpleasant stuff about Hitchens which I didn't know. I presume it's correct, for example, the spat with his brother. Is that information encyclopedic? I don't know, but it was interesting to find out.

As far as the Cole article, there is clearly too much material on the "Yale controversy"; it suffices at the most to say that appointment fell through, with supporting references in the footnotes with links further reading. As far as the antisemitic charges, the article now clearly states who is making these claims. However, I see two problems.

  1. The section really seems to pop out of nowhere. The claim Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is no justification for bad or unmotivated writing.
  2. It's not clear to me that the fact somebody with an academic position makes a charge is in itself reason for inclusion of the charge here. Having said that, failure to include the antisemitism charge would be gross negligeance on the part of WP: think of a reader comes away from this article never having heard about it! (NB It is my opinion the charge doesn't have any merit, BTW. I say that by way of public disclaimer, not because I want to debate the issue here) In this instance the existence of the section is justified. I also don't see that it currently gives undue weight to the critics, although one gets no sense of how widespread this criticism actually is. I'm not sure I know how to solve this quantification problem here.: Clearly one can't say "X percent of tenured acadamics at reputable departments believe...". But one should say, "Some writers and academics.."

BTW I think Isarig has a point that mention of the New Republic in the text is unnecessary, given that it's already in the references. I do however, strongly support the idea that it should be very easy for any interested WP reader to find out exactly the location of these critics on the political spectrum and the general orientation of the publications they write in.

As far as the Hitchens translation controversy, it should be very short. As someone might say -- boring--

--CSTAR 16:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The MEMRI source does not mention Cole, its inclusion in that section is original research that looks like it's being used to buttress Cole's translation; it should be removed. (I'm sure I can find ten other translations for ten other sources that don't mention Cole, in fairness we should include them all or include none.) Also, the sentence about Ethan Bronner needs to be sourced. - Merzbow 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think showing that other translators agree with Cole is OR; it is simply to show that Cole's translation is not completely off the map. AS WP:OR states,

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which is included in an article and appears to advance a position.

This is neither unpublished nor "novel synthesis," since other sources have discussed both Cole's translation and the MEMRI tranlation together. (e.g., [1]) .
As I pointed out, I have lifted this entirely from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel and there are some issues still. Feel free to compare the two and fix what I have inserted, or discuss possible changes to the other article. Have an awesome day. Wachholder0 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
So you won't object if I find a couple more translations from reliable sources and add them to the section then, even if they don't agree with Cole? And just because it's done one way on the other article does not mean that carries over to here; in this article the focus is on Cole. - Merzbow 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If the translation is discussed in an article about Cole's translation it seems reasonable to conclude that including it is not WP:OR. csloat 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I expounded upon the opposing translation claims reported in the NYT article, I think it's balanced now. I also mentioned Hitchen's critique of Cole on this matter, needed to inform the reader why this subject is a controversy in the first place and thus worthy of inclusion in this section. - Merzbow 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should also include the fact that Cole has called Ahmadenijad a "crank" and "a very bad character, with a long history of essentially fascist activity," among other things. At least, if we are framing this as any kind of analysis of Cole's view of Ahmadenijad. If it is just a translation dispute then we should remove Hitchens' critique. csloat 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, reviewingb your change I withdraw the above. I thought you were recontextualizing the section but it doesn't seem like you are. By the way I have added Cole's response to Bronner here, which is important. csloat 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Good find. I summarized some of the lengthy grammar details, which makes the response less convoluted and more powerful in my opinion. - Merzbow 01:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think all of this was overlong and repeated content from the main article. Hitch and Cole had a slapfight, everything else substantive should be left to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. I kept it to broad strokes so we don't have to debate who "won". Not our job. <<-armon->> 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon's change was horribly POV and it completely eliminated Cole's actual responses as well as information from reliable sources in favor of a sensationalistic representation of Cole and an inane comment about this provoking "furious debate among bloggers." Sorry, but that should be reverted. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this - I don't mind shortening it a bit, but turning Cole's response into some kind of cartoon is totally unjustified. csloat 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and stuck the "Totally-disputed" tag on that section until this is resolved. The version that Armon put up has really made this page look ridiculous. csloat 05:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Armon removed the tag I added, as well as an older NPOV tag, that belong on these sections. Those tags are not to be removed until the specific disputes over those sections are settled. Please restore them Armon. The tag on top was added in order to remind users the article was in mediation. Supposedly, it still is. The tags on the sections were placed there in good faith and should not be removed until the disputes over the content is actually settled. This is absolutely reprehensible behavior on Armon's part -- he has turned the page into a cartoon and then eliminated the tag warning users that the content here has been objected to. This makes a mockery of Wikipedia. csloat 06:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sloat, you withdrew from mediation as soon as you encouraged other editors to edit the article according to your POV. Isarig has formally withdrawn on the med page. It's over. <<-armon->> 08:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I was asked explicitly (by you, as I recall) if I was withdrawing from the mediation and I said no. Please do not put words in my mouth; it is insulting. csloat 08:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Besides, if the mediation is over now, it is the top tag that should be removed, not the ones on individual sections. Again, I urge you to restore the tags you removed, or your actions will be seen as abusive of the Wikipedia process. csloat 08:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It was perhaps OK to shrink the passage, but Armon decided to reproduce the name-calling from Cole's response instead of the actual response to the charges made. I tried to fix this up. I don't agree with the tag removal either. - Merzbow 07:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem with your fixes, but I've also restored the name-calling -which was vast majority of the post and attracted most of the comments. May I turn your attention to: Hitchens the Hacker; And, Hitchens the Orientalist And, "We don't Want Your Stinking War!. As for sloat's tags, they deface the article and become permanent fixtures -this is not what they were intended for. <<-armon->> 08:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how the name-calling by Cole is notable. The reason this particular response is notable is because of the controversy over the interpretation of the speech. The name-calling parts are not notable and are not substantive, and their reproduction is prejudicial to both Cole and Hitchens. - Merzbow 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's notable because of an absolute plethora of comment on it. Please review the cites, but if they aren't satisfactory, there are many many more. Honestly, I can't see how this is in any way inaccurate, and I think removing it is ignoring the elephant in the room. <<-armon->> 08:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Armon again added the name-calling. The line "He also accused Hitchens of stealing his private emails, being a drunk, and a warmonger" is unencyclopedic, unnecessary, and bogus. If we really want to quote Cole saying these sorts of things, let's quote him directly rather than turning him into a cartoon. Otherwise just leave it out. I think it is absurd that Armon is insisting on this, yet he balks at a passage indicating Karsh's comments are scurrilous propaganda -- certainly Armon's sentence raises far more issues in terms of BLP and in terms of simple encyclopedic propriety. As for the tags, they do not become permanent fixtures if the issues that prompted them are resolved. If we can move forward on those issues, they can be removed, but they should not be removed just because an editor doesn't like them. csloat 08:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cole's translation of the "WOTM" phrase is notable; the spat between Hitchens and Cole is much less so. Lots of news sources, commentators, etc. quoted Cole's translation; essentially no one reported on their testy exchange of articles and Hitchen's heckling. Unless someone can find a third-party, non-blog source that discusses their exchange, I will rewrite the section shortly to fix this mis-emphasis. Wachholder0 17:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason his translation is notable is because of the controversy over the translation. Hitchens is a notable writer and Slate is a notable magazine; their exchange is part and parcel of the controversy, and must at least be mentioned if there is to be a section in this article about this translation at all. But it should be reported responsibly; the name-calling from Cole's response is not notable as I've argued above. - Merzbow 19:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Watch and Merzbow seem correct. While Cole's name-calling is juvenile and reflects poorly on him, it isn't terribly notable. JoshuaZ 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Non blog sources in addition to what was there: here here and here. <<-armon->> 22:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The first two pieces mentioned are opinion pieces, but the third is indeed reportage about the incident in the Detroit Metro Times.Wachholder0 03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I took it out. I also think the line "This produced furious debate among bloggers" is pretty ridiculous and should be removed; the controversy is notable because it was mentioned in the NYT, Slate, and the Guardian, not because some bloggers got in a tizzy about it. csloat 19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] last edit by "Teens!"

A user Teens! (talk · contribs) who has never participated on this page before reverted my last changes with the summary "Cole's response too long". Here is the relevant edit. First, he lengthened a quote by Stephen Smith that I had shortened because it seemed to ramble and add nothing to the Yale discussion. Can anyone see any reason to keep that part of the quote in? I don't see the point of non-notable speculation about the "contents of Cole's mind" that doesn't even specify what the author thinks those contents are. Teens! edit summary certainly doesn't address this change at all and it looks like he was just reverting me in order to do so.

The second change - I had included more of Cole's response to Karsh. I think the whole quote should be included rather than a bad paraphrase. Simply saying Cole dismissed karsh's comments as "propaganda techniques" only tells half the story. He called them scurrilous, and we should not hide that fact. I also included the sentence "No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment." The sentence is accurate and in no way defamatory. Can someone tell me why this was removed? "Cole's response too long" is not an explanation -- this is a page about Cole. csloat 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I note that the user in question recently removed comments from his talk page that indicated a history of trolling specifically by "altering pages with the intent to start edit wars." csloat 20:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You mean this user did what you did here, and here, and here and here, and here? Am I the only one that finds your comment just a tad hypocritical? Isarig 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What the heck are you talking about? He can remove whatever he wants fromn his talk page but I was simply pointing out that he was trolling. Calm down Isarig and stop personally attacking me. It's annoying. csloat 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have not attacked you. Seriously, you need to review WP:NPA as you have no idea what a personal attack is. Isarig 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It was at least an ad hominem attack, as you were insinuating that csloat's comment be taken less seriously due to an unrelated issue with his character (that he is "disingenuous"). Chris Cunningham 09:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It was indeed an attack on his comment, which was hypocritical, and in my opinion, should not be taken seriously. It is as much an ad hominem attacks as sloat's comment that Teens! (talk · contribs) is a troll, and thus should not be taken seriously. That, however, is not a personal attack, and contrary to your claim, says absolutely nothing about his character. Perhaps you, too, should take a look at WP:NPA, which makes that distinction quite clear. Isarig 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Which means that between choosing to (1) discuss why sloat was wrong and (2) engage in an ad hominem attack, you chose the second. Unless you were disagreeing with him and suggesting that Teens! is a credible user, which it doesn't seem you were doing, it means you were interested in furthering a subject that does call his character into question but doesn't immediately relate to the content of the article. If this goes to arbitration it will be because of the adversarial behavior like that above, which only complicates and inflames everyday content disputes. Abbenm 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Where csloat has actually made arguments, I've responded to them at length, as a cursory examination of this Talk page shows. In this instance, he was not making an argument, but engaging in an ad hominem attack on another user, in a hypocritical manner, and I responded in kind. For some reason you don't see his diruptive behavior here, and on the mediation page, as adversarial. Isarig 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call this an everyday content dispute: it's a sustained and co-ordinated effort to skew topical articles by gaming a system which requires the assumption of good faith. Arbitration can't come fast enough. Chris Cunningham 16:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
When you are done reading WP:NPA, please review WP:AGF as well. Isarig 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said, "gaming the system". The attempts to hide behind procedure (in particular the petulance of simply pointing at a policy page instead of making an effort to indicate where it is being contravened) are as transparent as they are cynical. WP:AGF states in bold: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Arbitration can't come quick enough around here. Chris Cunningham 20:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Since you insist on being spoonfed, here you go: WP:NPA clearly says "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions". Additionaly, it says "when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack." I described his actions, said nothing of his character. WP:NPA is not that long, and those sentences are not hidden in small print. I gave you good advice - familiarize yourself with the relevant policies, and be aware that your own flagrant disregard for WP:AGF is likely to feature prominently in the arbitration you are pushing for. Isarig 20:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Your change is fine, I don't know what the deal is with this Teens! person either, probably a random troll. - Merzbow 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I resent your claim that I am a troll. You might want to take notice of the fact that the editor whose false warning I removed from my Talk page was just blocked for a week for "False info, sockpuppetry, 3RR and spurious accusations". As to your question - I explained my edit in the summary - Cole's response is too long, we can't have an acusation of one sentence followed by a long paragraph of a response. It needs to be balanced. Teens! 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to AGF and apologize. But you must understand our reticence here... usually when a new account comes along and makes a major edit in the midst of a complex and on-going controversy, suspicions get raised. I do agree with your statement that accusations/responses should be roughly balanced. - Merzbow 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with that statement. Sometimes there is more evidence in the response than the accusation. In such cases, if WP imposes "balance" by censoring one side, as happened in this case, then WP is both taking a side and stacking the deck. That is extremely problematic, to say the least. csloat 12:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-blog chatter

All of this looks horrible. The persistent efforts to add gossipy reporting of arguments on weblogs to this article to the apparent neglect of more notable (in real terms, not current Web activity) information are turning this and other articles into wasteland. Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. The claim that it is acceptable to include such chatter so long as it is adequately sourced is a bad-faith argument, as WP:RS does not state that adequate sourcing is the only criterion for inclusion, and WP:NPOV does not state that swiftboating is acceptable so long as refutations are given equal standing. Chris Cunningham 09:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)