Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Juan Cole Biography- Details of Expertise

Back to Editing. Need to get a recent pix. Get details of his life, why he has Spanish name, Is he mixed Hispanic heritage? where born? children?. Missing from the article is that he is an expert on shia islam. One of the few in the U.S. In a recent news story from Baghdad it was reported that the Iraqi police had shot up a mosque, police responded not mosque but Cole reported it as a unique Shiite institution known as a "Husianiyah"- an intermediate facility where the 3rd? imam is mourned. In today's blog he mentioned that co-operation is possible b/n the Shiites of Iran and the Sunnites of the Gulf b/c Khomeinism has a Pan-Islamic "streak." Such little tidbits can't be found anywhere else or at least not readily available. Too bad the discussion here mostly focuses on trying to tar him as anti-semite. IMHO, this came about b/c Cole was out there in front before Walt & Mearsheimer compiled the academic underpinning and foundation to respectably criticize the American Israeli lobby's excesses. Take Care!--Will314159 18:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you raise some important points here; it is pretty shameful that we have so much information about his views on Israel but nothing about his views on Shia Islam, which is where his actual academic expertise lies.--csloat 20:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Sloat, As you know, many editors here, especially Armon and myself, have been requesting these additions for quite some time. I find it bizarre that you are calling the omission shameful. The page would be better all around if you were to add some of this atuff rather than fighting to remove sourced, relevant, expert commentary made by well respected academics from the article. Elizmr 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Elizmr, you claim to have been "requesting these additions for quite some time," but you have never bothered to try to include the claim yourself. I am not asking you to do the research, but simply acknowledging that Cole is an expert in certain areas has been a problem for you (and even more so Armon, methinks). You have resisted the claim on these talk pages that there is more to Prof. Cole than his views on "Likudniks." I have not read Cole's books on the Shiites either, but the fact that this is his area of expertise is readily available information, easily included (and when there is a version of the page that we all agree to edit on, perhaps I will be the one to include that section). I have avoided editing on the sandbox (though I did edit sandbox 3 in response to the suggestion below about "writing for the enemy") since my 3RR violation because I do not want to get sucked into another edit war. But the bottom line is that this page has been held hostage to the debate over Karsh; until that is settled, spending time on the other issues feels like putting a bandaid on a shotgun wound. We have to reach some consensus on which version of the page is even editable at this time.--csloat 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure you're writing with a cool head and assuming good faith? Remember that like begets like. --William Pietri 01:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Doing my best. I have assumed good faith with Elizmr before and had that assumption tested to the point where I tried to withdraw completely from arguing with him based on behavior I found egregious. I wound up accepting his explanation for the behavior and getting drawn into further debates where my position was frequently distorted by him beyond recognition. His continuing insistence that I am "fighting to remove sourced, relevant, expert commentary made by well respected academics from the article" appears both mendacious and insulting. I have never tried to do any such thing and it is both unfair and factually incorrect to characterize my position on Karsh in this manner. I objected to one out of about ten Karsh quotes on the article, and I never removed it entirely but only shortened it. In my most recent edit to sandbox 3 I even quoted the objectionable material in my edit! But I'll keep trying to assume good faith here; I just don't know how long I can do it when the assumption seems so obviously one-sided.--csloat 02:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[Edit conflict with Commander Sloat] Elizmr, you may find it more productive to just say that you'd also welcome the effort. Even though you probably didn't mean your comments as accusations, it's easy for people to take them that way. And when people perceive something as an attack, it makes them more likely to fight and less likely to contribute. --William Pietri 01:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to take your word that he didn't mean those comments as accusations and try not to take them that way, but I feel that now that there has been fair warning that such comments are understood that way, the problematic comments should cease.--csloat 02:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on getting a pix and some family info. There's some stuff on the net that he is a member of the Bahai faith. some stuff about shunning? we don't need to go there, but nevertheless interesting. Take Care! --Will314159 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The bahai stuff was in the article, but it wasn't well refed. Elizmr 02:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I've pursued that. His view is that the official Baha'i "church" is very repressive. Take Care!--Will314159 10:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've found the mother lode for personal information at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/jcpers.htm. the derivation of the surname is not English but German as in "Kohl." He was a military brat, traveled around the world, married to Pakistini Shahin Malik in Lahore, has one son. He is a Science Fiction fan, including Isaac Asimov. He has a huge sci fi database on his home page. nice pix on the home page. Take Care!--Will314159 12:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole was a member of the Baha'i Faith for a number of years, but his aggressive verbal attacks on the administration resulted in his removal from the community (I know the Baha'is he was involved with). Both Cole and the Baha'i community want nothing to do with each other now and they both would like to act as if he was never a Baha'i. I don't think there are many verifiable references, so it could just as well be left out. Cuñado - Talk 22:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole was never "removed" from the Baha'i community; he resigned as the result of an investigation on the part of the Baha'i administration into his email messages. He tells his story at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/persdec.htm From this document, it is clear he still considers himself a Baha'i, even though not formally enrolled. As for Juan pretending he was never a Baha'i -- he was active on Baha'i email forums for years after his 1996 resignation -- up until he became a famous blogger, in fact. Not to mention he has continued to publish academic articles and book chapters on the Baha'i Faith, the most recent being in 2005. He set up H-Bahai, which contains a wealth of primary materials for the study of the Baha'i Faith. This background should be included; it was his adherence to the Baha'i Faith that led him into Middle Eastern Studies, and he was an enrolled member of the religion for 25 years. 27 May 2006

the user that made the above-written comment apparently forgot to sign, the history show him/her as 03:41, 28 May 2006 69.232.171.3. Take Care!--Will314159 07:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
the removed from the "community" was misspoken. apparently it would be more correct to say removed from the cananocial organized "church" structure. Take Care!--Will314159 07:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
cole resource on baha"i from his home page many docs Edit some JC http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bhdoc.htm take care!--Will314159 02:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Based on his admission at his home page i've added JC to notable Bahaist on the Bahai site. As a Bahists, it has a bearing on his motive, bias, interest on his credibility as to Iran and to Israel. As to Iran he has no interest in giving a regime that represses members of his faith a break. So his comments about the "occupier regime vanishing" should be taken at face value. Likewise, the Bab is buried in Haifa and the faith has attachments to Israel and is a non-militant peaceful religion so the charge of anti-Semitism rings hollow. Just another factor among many others to consider. Take Care!--Will314159 08:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Uh-oh after reading the talk page on notable Bahais, i deleted JC, some would consider him a "covenant breaker." a better place would be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bahá'í_individuals but that should be at his choice. Take Care!--Will314159 09:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe some would consider Cole a "covenant-breaker", but under the laws of the Baha'i Faith, a person isn't a covenant-breaker unless declared to by the current head of the Faith (now, the Universal House of Justice). One thing I forgot to add is that Cole just recently posted on his blog about the revived persecution of Baha'is in Iran.http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/iran-revived-persecution-of-bahais-54.html Clearly, he still has a sustained interest in that religion. My main point is that being a Baha'i is clearly an important part of the man's history, and a strong influence on his academic work, so it should be included in an encyclopedia article. 69.232.171.3 14:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Juan Cole was never declared a Covenant-breaker, but resigned from the Bahá'í Faith after some disagreements with the Bahá'í administration. Some background is needed here. The Bahá'í Faith through the books and wills of its founder has a relatively clear line of succession from Bahá'u'lláh, to `Abdu'l-Bahá, Shoghi Effendi, and then an elected system administration of local, national and international levels whose supreme institution is the Universal House of Justice. This line of succession is termed the "lesser covenant" and following this line of succession allows for the Bahá'í Faith to not divide into sects (note, there are relatively small divisions that account for less that 0.1% of all Bahá'ís. This covenant is an inseperable part of being a Bahá'í (too detailed to explain here). Juan Cole, along with some other Bahá'ís in the early nineteys started discussing some changes to the Bahá'í aministration system that were already defined in the Bahá'í holy books, and thus to most Bahá'ís and the Universal House of Justice impossible to change. So after some many discussions to Juan Cole, and the possibility of his disenrollement, he decided to resign first. I'm not sure if he still considers himself a Bahá'í or not (as the anonymous editor pointed out), but he is not considered a Bahá'í currently as he does not accept the role of the elected Bahá'í administration. Now in regards to the Bahá'í World Centre being in Israel, and Juan Cole being accused of anti-semitism. This is similar to Iran stating Bahá'ís to be Zionists and persecuting them heavily, but there is no basis for either of these thoughts. These have no connection. The location of the Bahá'í World Centre has its roots to Bahá'u'lláh's successive banishment (From Iran to Baghdad to Istanbul to Edirne to Acre) and imprisonment in Acre, which is near Haifa, by the Ottoman Empire during the Ottoman Empire's rule over Palestine. Hope this helps the understanding -- Jeff3000 14:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful here, to maintain neutrality. Juan Cole was, and is, an extremely controversial figure in Baha'i cyberspace -- just as he later became a controversial figure on Middle East issues. He has both his admirers and detractors among Baha'is. If the story about how he left the Baha'i Faith is told in the article, it should be carefully documented -- which may lead rather far afield from what is appropriate in an encyclopedia article. There are a lot of stories floating around on the Internet about what happened to him, not all of which are accurate. There was many an Internet flame war between those who defended Juan, and those who thought the Baha'i administration's actions against him, and others, were justified. Yet, all one can really document are general statements about "internal opposition" in letters from the Universal House of Justice, and Cole's own accounts of why he resigned. I think anything put into the article should just stick to bare facts, and steer away from claims of wrongdoing (whether by Cole or the Baha'i administration). That is, he became a Baha'i in 1972, has authored many books and articles on the Baha'i Faith, resigned in 1996 as a result of an investigation by the Baha'i administration, and later declared that he recovered his private faith, which is something that is not recognized by the Baha'i administration. 69.232.171.3 15:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
His interest in Iranian religion is further evident in his work on Baha'i studies, which eventuated in his 1998 book, Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith in the Nineteenth Century Middle East (Columbia University Press). from Mershon Center blurb. Apparently Baha'i is an influence of North Indian religion into Iran and Iraq see below Take Care Will314159 01:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Edit the direction should be reversed 09:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have found another mother lode. An hour and a half video realaudio streaming lecture given by Professor Cole on Shiaa Islam in Iraq from the ground up, very humorous and insightful. After listening to it you will be an expert on Shiite Iraq. http://www.mershon.ohio-state.edu/Events/05-06events/colej/jcole.htm . It needs to be entered into an external links resource. the blurb from the lecture does a better job regarding his expertise than we have done so far: " "Shiite Politics and the Future of Iraq" Monday, October 31, 2005 12:00 p.m. Mershon Center Room 120 Watch this lecture: Juan R. I. Cole is Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the History Department of the University of Michigan. He has written extensively about modern Islamic movements in Egypt, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. His current research focuses on two contemporary phenomena: 1) Shiite Islam in Iraq and Iran and 2) the "jihadi" or "sacred war" strain of Muslim radicalism, including al-Qaeda and the Taliban among other groups. Cole commands Arabic, Persian and Urdu and reads some Turkish, knows both Middle Eastern and South Asian Islam, and lived in a number of places in the Muslim world for extended periods of time. His most recent book is Sacred Space and Holy War (IB Tauris 2002). This volume collects some of his work on the history of the Shiite branch of Islam in modern Iraq, Iran and the Gulf. He treated Shi`ism in his co-edited book, Shi`ism and Social Protest (Yale, 1986), of his first monograph, Roots of North Indian Shi`ism in Iran and Iraq (California, 1989). His interest in Iranian religion is further evident in his work on Baha'i studies, which eventuated in his 1998 book, Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith in the Nineteenth Century Middle East (Columbia University Press). He has also written a good deal about modern Egypt, including a book, Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East: Social and Cultural Origins of Egypt's `Urabi Movement (Princeton, 1993). His concern with comparative history and Islamics is evident in his edited Comparing Muslim Societies (Michigan, 1992)" Take Care!Will314159 01:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That was an interesting link that W. gave. Can we use this email as a ref? It gives some interesting info on how he got interested in the Middle East (via Bahai). Could we say in the article that JC became interested in MIddle Eastern studies after becomming fascinated by the Bahai faith at age 19, that his first important academic field of study was Bahai religion, that he was a practicing Bahai until 1996, when he resigned as an official member of the religion? Elizmr 13:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadi. JC was married in Lahore, Pakistan, the home of the Ahamdi sect. .I wonder if his wife is a member. The Ahmadi's believe in a a combination bab/bahia'ullah person, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Very interesting person, had a prayer duel with the founder of American Pentecostal Holiness Church John Alexander Dowie to Dowie's apparent detriment. (It is in the Pakistina constitution, I believe that the Ahmadi's are not Muslims!) That must be the reference in one of the JC's book blurbs to the influence of Persian Shiite thought to North Indian Shiia. Of course traditional Persian twelver shia is that the 12th imam, the Mahdi, went into occultation. Mahmoud Ahmed Nezad is of the persuasion is that the Mahdi, together with Jesus Christ, will shortly, reappear. Apocylapse now? Take Care! --Will 20:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

JC Correspondance. After listening to the Mershon Center lecture i emailed JC, told him how much i learned from it and asked him about further online resources. I also asked him how he got interested in the Mid-East. As reported previously. He was a military brat, i.e. his father was in the military and apparently the family didn't stay at home and got stationed overseas. Here is his response. Probably can't use it unless he pubishes it officialy in a blog or website- for our info anyway > Will, I got interested in the Middle East by living in Eritrea (then > Ethiopia) 1967-1968 as a US Army dependent. It is a largely Muslim region. > Massawa, where we used to go for R & R has a lot of Arabic speakers. Take Care! --Will 15:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I put a snip about Bahai in with the ref to JC Web site. Elizmr 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Rounded it out a bit. Investigation for what? perderasty? sounds so sinister- need to pin it down. it was regarding his insubordinate emails to church authority. leaving the faith- he left the organized "church." anyway here's my edit

Cole became a Baha'i in 1972, and has authored many books and articles on the Baha'i Faith. He left the organized Baha'i faith in 1996 after an investigation by the Baha'i administration concerning his emails, and later declared that he recovered his private faith. Take Care! --Will 21:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

it is on his web page so I don't have to just rely on his private email. i added the following It was in largely Muslim Eritrea that he first gained an interest in Islam and the Middle East. Take Care! --Will 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I was using what someone above suggested would be the most NPOV and roundly agreed upon phrasing. I didn't make it up. See what I had orig suggested above--no investigation mentioned at all. Elizmr 21:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
i'm sorry i'm missing it i don't see it, where is at, it just seems fair that if you use the word investigation you say it's what for- i don' see your prior comment about investigation. I went ahead and added the rest of his biography stuff. his wife, son, the countries he's lived. Take Care! --Will 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, i see that you are talking about comments by 69.232.171.3 1. I still think you can't leave "investigation" hanging. Anytime somebody resigns as a result of an investigation, guilt is presumed, embezzlement, sexual mixconduct, there's a pregnant implication hanging. it needs to be deflated. it was about some insubordinate email in an authortorian organization. Take Care! --Will 22:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was that anon editor. I'm not sure we shouldn't take the bit about the investigation out all together. We could say he left official Bahai and just give the link. We really don't know what the thing was all about and it seems like it was a bit of a dispute. Also, the info you added might better go in various sections--the stuff about the content of his work in career, for example. I might omit the stuff about his hobbies because it seems like fluff. Elizmr 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggested "investigation" as being a neutral term. If you listen to Juan's side, he was "threatened with shunning because of his email messages" and they were trying to tell him how to write history. If you listen to the Baha'i administration Cole and his cohorts were "seeking to recast the entire Faith into a socio-political ideology alien to Bahá'u'lláh's intent" and they were merely "warned about the direction their activities were taking." This is a religious dispute, so neutral territory is tough to find. If you know a more neutral way of describing it than "investigation", then I'm open. 69.232.171.3 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with anonymous. his ip is there. the problem anonym, is like i stated before invetigate has connotations (investigated for what,adultery, embezzlement, child molestation) if you use it, then you have to deflate it. the choice is use it and deflate that is "investigated becasuse of emails" or leave it out. leaving it out works for me too. i don't want to get in another revert war. Taking out the biographical stuff because it is fluff is incomprehansible. It humanizes him and gives info about him. It seems like so many editors here want to indict him, dehumanize him, and attack him. Refuse to let anything good come in about him. Have to think about it. See if WP has a "fluff" policy memo. Take Care! --Will 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a proposal. How about we say just that he was a Bahai and now he's not on the main page, and give a little more background on the controversies page? About the fact that JC is a science fiction fan, or whatever, go ahead and put it back if you want. I didn't think it was encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion, especially since the entry links to his Web page were all this stuff can be easily found. And shame on you for interpreting that as an attack on Cole. Elizmr 00:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Will, I certainly agree about not getting into revert wars. And, I see your point about the word "investigation". Certainly, the fact that it was for his emails should be included. (If we were less neutral, we could say it was for heresy. :-)) My main concern was that something so important both personally and professionally should not be left out, so I'm really not too unhappy with things as they stand now. 69.232.171.3

Request for perceived "pro-Cole" editors

Hi. One thing that comes up over and over is that people who want to be sure the section on Cole's controveries is sufficiently detailed are having trouble assuming good faith. Part of this is surely the bickering and sniping that editors on both sides have sometimes mistakenly indulged in. But another part is surely that it's hard for them to know where the people they see as pro-Cole editors agree with them, because 98% of the conversation here is about the disagreements.

So let me make a request. I'd like people who might be seen as pro-Cole to grab a little sandbox space and put together a section on Cole's views and controversies. I'm sure it will be painful, as you're used to arguing the other side. But please grit your teeth and write not just your view, but a consensus view that addresses all points of view in an NPOV way. Don't wait for external criticism to help you balance the piece. Figure out what they will object to beforehand, address those concerns, and be ready to explain how you tried to be fair. If it helps, imagine that you're writing the piece 100 years from now; Cole and his critics are long dead, and since the aliens came, the whole Middle East thing seems small, like the Whig/Tory distinction seems to modern Americans.

Would anybody be willing? --William Pietri 18:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not really "pro-Cole," but the "anti-Cole" crowd here would say that I am, so I've taken a crack at it.--csloat 20:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd ask editors who fear that there is a pro-Cole camp give the people you're worried about more time to demonstrate that they are primarily pro-Wikipedia and are indeed acting in good faith. --William Pietri 21:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No prob. Also, I'll produce my own version for examination. Armon 01:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider myself pro-Cole; However I'm definitely "anti current Cole article", mainly because of the way the extensive quotes are structured, not because it cited Karsh or anyone else in particular. The principle I was suggesting (with specific examples from other WP articles), was the following: that each quote should be used to support a point that can be briefly paraphrased or expressed as an idea In many cases the paraphrase can be dispensed with and the quote suffices. For example
Cole has said the "moon is made of green cheese". Karsh however notes that "despite his lip-service to the green cheese theory of lunar gravitation, Cole has at least one one occasion referred to the green-cheeser conspiracy in the island of Diego Garcia", suggesting that "the island's inhabitants are nuts" and "that he regards the green cheese theory as suspect".
Moreover, quotes should not be used to embed the rhetorical structure of the person cited into the article. For example
Karsh write that "despite his lip-service to the green cheese theory of lunar gravitation, Cole has at least one one occasion referred to the green-cheeser conspiracy in the island of Diego Garcia, which should be read as suggesting the island's inhabitants are nuts and more significantly, that he regards the green cheese theory as suspect and the product of crackpots. Do we really want such intolerant ideologues in the department of psycho-kinetical information?"--CSTAR 02:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think your notion that the article should generally describe rather than copy external viewpoints is a good one, and I agree that snippets can be a good way to do that. In light of that, could you edit Juan_Cole/sandbox/3, and perhaps extend it? As I mentioned earlier, it's an attempt to show those who are worried that there is a pro-Cole bias from some editors that they really can assume good faith. --William Pietri 02:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to think about how to structure this and where: The sandbox/3 version seems to have lost some of the points made in the official version.--CSTAR 02:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
That would be great. Sandbox/3 is just what Commander Sloat had time to write in a single pass. I started it blank as a) I didn't want to accidentally pull in something inappropriate, and b) it's a better demonstration of the consensus if it comes from people who might be seen as pro-Cole. --William Pietri 03:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll just do it offline. I use xemacs which is better than editing in these crappy browsers. But gimme a day or so.--CSTAR 03:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Only a flaming Cole supporter would use emacs! Use vi only for editing this page; otherwise you are giving in to the international green cheese conspiracy.--csloat 04:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely a good start. Are there other perceived pro-Cole editors who could contribute? Or to comment on how they think people who don't like Cole could reasonably object to the current version? Thanks, --William Pietri 01:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Go with sandbox/1?

This seemed important enough to put in its own section, so I have moved it.--William Pietri 16:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

sandbox/1 Take Care! --Will314159 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is sensible enough to probe the disagreements (and perhaps unfounded mistrust) between the two "sides" of this editing conflict. But I note that a dwindling number of people are opposed to the sandbox/1 proposal for the bio page. In particular, both Will314159 and Armon now say that they support sandbox/1. My suggestion remains to make sandbox/1 the bio page and move the whole discussion of the editing conflict to the separate "controversies" page. Greg Kuperberg 15:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. I support it.--CSTAR 16:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
please put a link here for sandbox/1 in this subsection.. make sure i'm hitting the current version. i'd like to look at it. i haven't had a chance to do any editing lately. if it doesn't have it. I'd like to put it in a pix. some bio details, that he's married to xxx, has a son, military brat where he's lived, flesh out personal details. see the bio sect for more details. stuff i found on his home page. If you all think appropriate. At this pointt, i don't really care right now. Take Care!--Will314159 19:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

on second thought, that can go in any time, let's get something up. Take Care!--Will314159 19:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales put something on my user page clarifying his remarks and it is clear that he did not ask me to recuse myself. I do not like sandbox 1 because there is nothing of the content of the criticism of Cole. I think there needs to be a little more content there so the reader can get an understanding of what the critics main points are. Is there some reason this is so unacceptable? Other biographical pages have this stuff. Why not Coles? Elizmr 20:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If faced with sandbox/1, all that a reader would have to do is click on the link: Main article: Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole. Maybe the paragraph could devote a sentence to this before the reader clicks there, but it shouldn't need any more than that. I would be happy to write something in order to please every last participating editor, but the page is currently locked, so I can't do that. In any case, if you could propose an extra sentence or half sentence that would make you happy, that would be fine with me. Greg Kuperberg 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

i made my entry in this forum complaining that the wrong version was protected and asking for a stub or a non-controversial protected entry WHILE a consensual article is written. many days have gone by and while we are closer to a consensual article the wrong version is still out there protected in cyberspace. we can't give that version's proponents veto power from putting a stub out there. Otherwise no progress will be made. It's just simple game theory. Having said that. I'm taking a vacation from this forum until next Wednesday. Surprise me. Take Care!--Will314159 21:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole: A Liberal?

(I added the above section header to separate out the change of subject in the discussion. -Ben)

Ben wrote about about "right wing movements" and characterized Cole as "liberal". I have a problem seeing Cole as a progressive left wing person. He seems to be very sympathetic to cultures and movements that are actually repressive towards women, homosexuals, rights of the individual, etc. Israel, ironically, is none of these things. Sure, he's against the war in Iraq, but overall I would have a hard time thinking of him as having liberal sympathies. This doesn't make much sense. Elizmr 20:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole has actually been quite critical of such repression in those cultures. The point is not that important - you don't have to consider him "liberal" if you don't want to -- but your analysis is completely incorrect. What evidence do you have of Cole being "sympathetic" to "cultures and movements" that repress women and homosexuals, etc.? I don't think you'll find any evidence to suggest that Cole is sympathetic to such repression, whether or not he sometimes says positive things (or not-uniformly-negative things) about the members of certain cultures whose political institutions engage in such repression.--csloat 21:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen Cole endorse repressiveness towards women, homosexuals or try to diminish the rights of individuals. On the contrary Cole often refers to Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (under Saddam) and Iran as having repressive governments to one degree or another. I think that you are also mistakenly interpreting his real sympathies for the people in these countries (remember that liberals classically have a "bleeding heart") with support for their repressive governments. I have also not seen him criticize these attributes of Israel. Cole's anti-Occupation stance is considered to be a liberal position -- because they view it at a Palestinian human rights issue. Cole runs the Global Americana Project which aims to translate American democratic liberature into Arabic in order to spread those values [1] -- that seems fairly progressive in spirit since it is attempting to cause positive social change. Cole is also a progressive in his examination of root causes, because this is a way to affect positive social change -- whether they are right about the root causes or not. Cole's regular comments as to negative effects of US involvement in the Middle East is also a liberal stance -- a true conversative would acknowledge that negative effects are to be expected since the US (from a conservative stand point) would only be involved in the Middle East out of its own self-interest. Also most of the individuals that Cole criticizes (i.e. Neoconservatives, Likudniks, Republicans) are conservatives. Even though people in general are complex entities, I think that Cole can be characterized somewhat accurately as a progressive or liberal. --Ben Houston 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Ben is correct. I searched Cole's blog and makes statements consistent with a liberal position in these particular areas--women's rights, gay rights, etc. I would argue against any position on Israel/Palestine being classified as liberal or conservative, right wing or left, but that is way beyond the scope of this page. Elizmr 13:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See Juan Cole's blog informed consent posted by Juan @ 5/22/06 DaVinci Code as Parable of American Modernity for fascinating insights of role of women in Sunni/Shiaa Islam and prospects for change. It's such a pity there's a "wrong" protected JC article out there in WP turning readers off from such a bridge b/n cultures. Take Care!--Will314159 22:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you guys are keeping it civil, but I'm very concerned that off-topic discussion like this could trigger more heated arguments. Is that a reasonable thing to worry about? --William Pietri 22:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The chit-chat in some talk page is never going to stop. But hopefully it can move to the talk page of a separate page on controversies, where it would be somewhat more germane. We have a good basic consensus that the new page should be sandbox/1, with only a request from Elizmr to have something slightly different. Other than that I'm really not sure what you or another editor is waiting for. Greg Kuperberg 23:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Some pages on controversial subjects, like Talk:Evolution, explicitly send people elsewhere to discuss the topic rather than the article, perhaps that's a good idea here. Personally, I'm staying out of editing the article itself; I've just dropped by to put out enough of the flames that this article gets unlocked and editing proceeds as normal. I do agree that it seems like there is a consensus on Sandbox/1, so perhaps a couple of the regular participants should ask an admin to unlock the pages. --William Pietri 23:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, maybe we should discuss the topic elsewhere. As for the apparent consensus on sandbox/1, I really don't know how to ask an admin to change the damn page finally. It's like we're all sitting at the dinner table looking at each other, waiting for someone to start eating. Greg Kuperberg 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems the discussion went off topic in this section. I unprotected Juan Cole/sandbox/1. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks. But what I meant by "the damn page" was not sandbox/1, but the actual Juan Cole page, the one that was locked weeks ago. Almost everyone here agrees that sandbox/1 should or could replace it, but we plebes cannot do it. Greg Kuperberg 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Contacting Admins

I thought William was an administrator but if he's not and if Humus is not willing to take the action why not put a request on SlimV's talk page to pull down what's there for the Juan Article and put up Sandbox1 take CAre!--Will314159 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

i've copied some of this discussion and put it on SlimVls talk page and I"ll also do it on some other admins that have showed an interest on this page. Take Care!--Will314159 01:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also copied and pasted discussion on jaco♫plane talk page. Take Care! --Will314159 01:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever done it. Thanx. Take Care!--Will314159 02:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Humus is not willing to take the action"? - I was busy. BTW, this page needs archiving again. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Done (Archive 3), feel free to refer to old topics. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So what's the deal?

It appears there was consensus to replace the protected page with the stripped down sandbox page but keep it protected. That hasn't happened yet. It's also not clear what sandbox page new additions should be made to. Can anyone clarify whether we are moving forward here or not? Thanks.--csloat 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the position that JC is given too much credit. I think more attention should be given to controversies around him. BTW, I don't recall any other article where a temp version locked. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Humus: I get the feeling you don't like Cole. You say he's give too much credit. Just open up and tell us why. It's o.k. Just want to understand. It might help things along Take Care!--Will314159 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read Ben's discussion on Humus user page and that would be the proper place for that discussion, not here. Take Care!--Will314159 01:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

IT HAS BEEN DONE. sandbox/1 is up. Whoever did it. thanx a million. Now i can go on vacation. really i have a bunch of real work to do. Take Care!--Will314159 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity why do you write "Take care" after every post you write now? I really don't see the point, and you often write it when your tone indicates you are not particulary interested in the welfare of others.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshe. Assume good faith. Take Care.Will314159 10:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Will, we do not bite newcomers. After Cole's call to arms, you've been pointed out by several contributors that trolling, brawling, or soapboxing are inappropriate here, yet you keep enthusiastically inundating this page (overly busy as it is). Please familiarize yourself with our policies, especially WP is not a pub.
In a good faith spirit, I'll answer your question. My position towards Cole is polite indifference. If not for his blogging and controversies, I doubt he would ever get an article here. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Humus. your timeline re Cole's "call" and my appearance is faulty for the second time, your disingeousness (sp?) would appear non-credible, some perceive an effort to tar a policy critic, namely Cole, an anti-semite. When i appeared in this forum i made a very basic fair request. I admit i was very outraged at the Karsh quote. mea culpa. . The fair request was to take the protected article down while a neutral fair article went up. It took way, way too long to get that done. You as an adminstrator had the power to do that immediately but chose not to do so or co-operate. As much as I like Cole, frankly now I am sick of Cole, bye for a while. But at the same time, I've read many of your Soviet articles where you have done excellent work. Take Care! Will314159 10:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Broom crew

Thanks very much to Ben Houston for finally unlocking the Juan Cole page and replacing it with a consensus page. I would now like to make an RFD for sandbox/1, since it has served its purpose. I also wonder whether either sandbox or sandbox/3 (note that there is no sandbox/2) serve any remaining purpose. At the most, they are draft material for Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole. Greg Kuperberg 14:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sure that no formal RfD is needed so I just deleted them. If someone objects, they can be undeleted.--CSTAR 14:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops I also deleted sandbox; should I not have? I just restored it.--CSTAR 15:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought sandbox/3 was the most recent attempt to grapple with the controversies; did it get deleted?-csloat 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on progress in article and talk

Congrats one and all on coming together to get the article unlocked. I also like the improvement in tone and encourage you to maintain that collegial atmosphere as you move forward. And thanks to everybody for being patient with my buttinsky ways. --William Pietri 21:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

outstanding sentence

I"m not sure who wrote this sentence, "Some of his views expressed in the traditional media and on the Internet have led to continuing controversies, while other work has been accepted as uncontroversial and authoritative, " but I wanted to say I think it is outstanding. Elizmr 13:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole and anti-Zionism

bhouston: The recurring theme in this dispute is that "Zionism" actually means a range of things. Hardliners on both sides, but particularly anti-Israeli Arabs, tend not to care about the distinctions. Zionism can mean the desire for a Jewish state in the Middle East. Or it can more specifically mean Israeli jingoism. A lot of Westerners would say that merely wanting a Jewish state of Israel isn't jingoism, but that things like the occupation of the West Bank, or the invasion of Lebanon, are jingoism. But a lot of Arabs and Muslims would say that the Jews never deserved their own country in the Middle East, any more than they would deserve Massachusetts if they claimed it for themselves. These people therefore think of all forms of Israeli nationalism as jingoism. Moreover, it is a tenet of Judaism that historical Palestine really is the Jewish homeland. Not all religious Jews, much less all ethnic Jews, accept this tenet a religious commandment, but again, some Arabs don't much care about that distinction either.

To complicate matters yet further, there are anti-Jewish Westerners who have no sincere respect for Palestinians or Islam, but are perfectly happy to criticize Israel as a code for Jew-baiting. The Soviet Union made a major investment in this sweeping euphemism. This was both a foreign policy and a domestic policy: Arab countries liked the Soviet postion, while Eastern European Jews were treated badly.

Juan Cole, for his part, is clearly against some form of Zionism. The right keyword to search for is "Zionist", not anti-Zionism. (People are more likely to criticize X than to label themselves as anti-X.) You'll find statements like, "Zionist Revisionists, who are the most illiberal arm of Zionist nationalism, are relentless in attempting to impose their rhetorical vision on everyone who speaks about the subject, and if that fails, then to marginalize and demean them as bigots or terrorists or something." Cole insists that Israeli has the right to exist within its pre-1967 borders, and I'll just take him at his word at that. But he has nothing nice to say about "Zionism" and "Zionists", whatever he means by those terms. At other times, he bristles at any association between that criticism and anti-Semitism, even though that association is far beyond a "Likudnik" tactic. Greg Kuperberg 17:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a moderately phrased and interesting post, but I'm worried that this section could easily get too far afield. I caution all editors to remember that the purpose of this page isn't to discuss or debate the topic itself or related topics. Instead, we should discuss how to create a page about the topic. That means we should avoid discussing both personal opinions and conducting original research into the topic. --William Pietri 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
To criticize the modern embodiment of Revisionist Zionism is not the same thing as criticizing Zionism -- note that they have separate Wikipedia articles. Criticism of Zionism can easily be a cover for anti-Semitism since it is questioning the core existance of Israel. Revisionist Zionism is a fairly right-wing political element in Israel embodied in the past by Likud but now, after the recent Kadima formation, more associated with the National Union (Israel) party. One consistent position of Revisionist Zionists is that the occupation and settlement and disposition of the Palestinians is acceptable -- something that I disagree with as does Cole. It is perfectly legitimate and fairly common to criticize right-wing movements if you are a liberal -- and this is what Cole tends to do. Thus your argument in logical form is: 1. (Cole) --> ~ (Revisionist Zionism), 2. ~(Revisionist Zionism) --> ~(Zionism) 3. ~(Zionism) --> (Anti-Semitism). I disgree with statement 2 in your argument, it is mistaken and thus your conclusion that (Cole) --> (Anti-Semitism) is unfounded (at least in this context.) --Ben Houston 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Cole does identify more than one flavor of Zionism, but I have never seen him describe a kind of Zionism that he actually likes. Here is another quote, "The real question here is whether it is all right to dispute the Zionist version of history." Did he specifically mean revisionist Zionism? The sentence comes rather closer to saying that Zionism itself is revionist. In fact, the whole post that that quote came from is rather anti-Zionist.
Anyway, to put it in simpler terms, I don't think that Cole is anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish. On the other hand, he seems to swing from being duly sensitive to anti-Semitism to somewhat insensitive. And he certainly does seem anti-Zionist, by some definition of the term. (Also, I apologize to William Petri, but I was asked to respond.) Greg Kuperberg 18:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Luckily, in context of the post you quote from above, Cole provides a definition for what he means by the "Zionist version of history": "Usually the \[Zionist\] narrative blames the Palestinians for their having been kicked off their own land, and then blames them again for not going quietly." [2] It does sound like a narrative that justifies the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians (to which Cole's opposition is in keeping with his opposition to the occupation) and it is not searching for a middle ground as sought by the "post-Zionist" New Historians. It almost becomes a question of whether "the Zionist version of history" (as Cole refers to it and using his definition) is anti-Palestianian rather than whether the criticism of it is anti-Zionist. Actually, it may be good to associate Cole with the New Historians movement -- at least in spirit. Karsh is a major critic of the New Historians as he is with Cole -- thus making this association brings together a lot of contextual understanding. --Ben Houston 19:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If what Cole calls the usual Zionist narrative is that unfair, then that does mean that Zionism, as Cole defines it, is a bad thing. Not just some particular flavor of Zionism. I agree that there could be other notions of Zionism that would not make Cole an anti-Zionist. But I really feel that you are chasing after some non-existent standard definition of "Zionism" or "anti-Zionism". It seems to me that all logic in Middle East politics is fuzzy, that everyone tries to bend the meaning of everything to suit their own purposes. For example, there was a notorious UN resolution that Zionism is racism. It was later revoked, but be that as it may, was the UN attacking the existence of Israel, or merely its governing ideology? It seems to me that you could read it either way. Greg Kuperberg 23:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

excellent higher level thought provoking discussion. pleasure to read. Take Care!--Will314159 20:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The overplayed anti-semitism card. This is what is holding the JC discussion up. Some editors want to tar JC with some strong anti-semitism criticism by Karsh. They refuse to let the present wrong protected article be taken down and a protected stub be put up while a more neutral article is worked on. In a discussion elsewhere I've gained a little insight into this. It's a hypervigilangt approach where you tar anybody critcizing Israel and damn the colateral damage. Tony Jund in a recent article gives the pitfalls of that http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-05250604634.htm "As for the charge that criticism of Israel is implicitly anti- Semitic, this is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling assertion: Israel's reckless behaviour, and its insistent identification of all criticism with anti-Semitism, is now the leading source of anti-Jewish sentiment in western Europe and much of Asia.

If Israel's leaders have been able to ignore such developments it is because they have counted on the unquestioning support of the US - the one country where the claim that anti- Zionism equals anti-Semitism is still echoed by mainstream politicians and the media. This confidence in unconditional US approval may prove to be Israel's undoing. For something is changing in America. Israel and the US appear increasingly bound together in a symbiotic embrace, whereby the actions of each party exacerbate their common unpopularity abroad. But whereas Israel has no choice but to look to America, the US is a Great Power - and Great Powers have interests that eventually transcend the local obsessions of even the closest client states. It seems to me suggestive that the recent essay "The Israel Lobby" by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, published in March in the London Review of Books, provoked so much debate. It is true that, by their own account, the authors could not have published their indictment of the influence of the "Israel lobby" on US foreign policy in a major US-based journal. But the point is that 10 years ago they probably could not have published it at all. And while the ensuing debate generated more heat than light, it is of great significance." Take Care --Will314159 02:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)