Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Statement of the current issue

• Armon has referenced the disputed passage which now exists in the article [1]
• Sloat insists that the criticism outlined by Armon above should not be in the article becuase it is "scurrilous". Other editors do not feel that the criticism is "scurrilous". g
• All editors agree that the quote is made in an acceptable source.
• Sloat feels the author is not notable; other editors feel the author is notable.

Sloat feels the author is not notable on this specific topic (i.e., the secret thoughts of Juan Cole), not in general.csloat 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The specific topic is Cole's blog, not his "secret thoughts". Elizmr 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I say "secret thoughts" because Cole's blog actually contradicts what Karsh is saying, and Karsh admits that. Karsh says "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" -- acknowledging that Cole rejects them explicitly -- "but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings" -- that is, implicitly, Cole accepts the basic premise of the Protocols; in other words, his writings betray his "secret thoughts." I suppose "secret thoughts" is a poor word choice but you get my drift -- Karsh is criticizing what Cole thinks based on alleged extrapolation from something he has written (Karsh never actually indicates what the problematic sentence is) rather than criticizing something Cole actually said. Hope this clears it up. csloat 18:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What Karsh is doing is called analysis, which is what someone in a RS is allowed to do -unlike us. Armon 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've asked you before to stop condescending with your links to words you know I know the meaning of. This is not analysis; it is an assertion about what Karsh thinks Cole thinks. And we are not prohibited from analyzing; we are enjoined from publishing our original analysis as an encyclopedia article.csloat 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Then please accept my apologies. I mistook your performing an analysis of Karsh, to mean that you thought it was relevant, or had a bearing on the article. Armon 03:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's quite relevant and has bearing on the article, as noted. I'll accept your apologies for the condescending tone of nearly every post you've addressed to me, however.csloat 22:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sloat says the quote cannot be presented neutrally. Elizmr says it can be presented neutrally as a bare quote without any surrounding editorial commentary (see this comment above [2])
• All agree that Cole's replies on the specific points raised should be included after the remark by the critic. Armon has supplied a proposed Cole reply.
• Sloat does not feel Armon's proposed reply is adequate. Armon asks Sloat to supply the text he would like to add to articulate Cole's reply. Sloat says he will not do this until the article is unlocked and the sentence is added. Elizmr 14:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sloat thinks actual quotes from Cole are better than the paraphrasing of an openly anti-Cole editor.csloat 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment -Two points/clarification. I don't think anyone else is arguing that Karsh is non-notable, and the passage in question is already there -as well as Cole's response from a RS. Armon 15:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC) I also propose we discuss the "response sentence(s)" now and avoid the edit-wars which got the article locked in the 1st place. Armon 15:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. Karsh may be notable but not on the topic of psychoanalyzing Cole.csloat 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I object to Sloat's characterization of Karsh's criticism as "psychoanalysis". It is OR. Elizmr 16:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly OR Armon 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Simply reading the quote, which is about what Karsh thinks Cole really thinks. We know this flies in the face of what Cole actually says. No OR involved. Perhaps the word "psychoanalysis" is not to your liking, but I think you know what I mean.csloat 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Though I wouldn´t say the quote is scurrilous, the inclusion of the term "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is certainly a cause for concern; under from the most restricted interpretation of the sentence, Kramer asserts that Cole rejects the Protocols. However, that is not the only possible interpretation: under another reasonable interpretation, Kramer could be saying for instance that Cole's rejection of the Protocols is really phony. In that case, I believe that for balance, it would be necessary to include one of Cole's quotes which specifically addresses that interpretation.--CSTAR 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think what Karsh is saying is that unclear -- he rejects Cole's rejection of the Protocols and is claiming that Cole's reasoning process is the same as the Protocols. It is a scurrilous (IMHO) propaganda technique -- he doesn't outright call Cole a Nazi, but instead he allows the reader to draw that conclusion by stating that Cole's basic argument is the same basic argument that was promulgated by the Nazis. It's an irresponsible claim, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to give it legitimacy, IMHO. csloat 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it´s possible that was what Karsh was trying to do. Proving that interpretation, seems to me to require an analysis of motive, and is very difficult to do in the context of Wikipedia. I think the best that one can say is that the statement is ambiguous in that regard. As editors we have to be very careful when we include quotes that have multiple interpretations, some of which may be regarded as "scurrilous attacks". I think the reason is clear. For example, suppose in an article about Ohlmert, one included a quote by somebody that said "Ohlmert may profess to do X in regard to Paletsinians, but in fact Y". The inclusion of that quote, by itself, would be in my view be tendentious and violate NPOV.--CSTAR

I don't think your example would be problematic at all if added to an article as a quote from a recognized expert and followed by something relevant Ohlmert might have said in reply. Anything can and does have multiple interpretations. That is the nature of reality and how humans percieve it. This is not a reason not to include something in Wikipedia. Elizmr 11:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is a slippery slope. The point of an encyclopedia is to explain, not to include mystifying quotes. --CSTAR 18:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

PS, I didn't intend to be flippant. To clarify what I meant by mystifiying, see my response to Armon below.--CSTAR 18:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know CSTAR, even if we assume csloat's interpretation is correct, the fact that a target of criticism (or someone else) views it as "scurrilous" can't and shouldn't be the standard by which criticism is included. Doing so would effectively mean that partisans of all stripes could pretty much scrub any criticisms they don't like, regardless of whether it's notable and from an RS. Reading WP:BLP, I see the necessity for RSs repeatedly, that seems to be the standard, not what the object of criticism objects to. In any case, I'm unclear on what you're saying regarding the currently protected version. Armon 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Armon, I don't think that the claim that any editor can scrub undesirable criticism logically follows from what I said. The objection here is specifically the inclusion in the quote of the term "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and Karsh's association of Cole with techniques used in that document. In this instance, it is my opinion that CSLoat's analysis It is a scurrilous (IMHO) propaganda technique -- he doesn't outright call Cole a Nazi, but instead he allows the reader to draw that conclusion by stating that Cole's basic argument is the same basic argument that was promulgated by the Nazis. is basically correct, save that I would have used another characterization instead of "scurrilous". I think that's one of the dangers of including quotes. I accept the claim that Karsh is a notable figure, but the same can be said of many other individuals, even in cases where they have well known agendas. I think that editors have a responsability (a) to understand the material (such as quotes) that they include (b) make a good faith effort to ensure that the quote captures some point clearly.

If Karsh's intent is to say that Cole's reasoning process is similar to Nazi propaganda, then that should be unmistakeably clear. As it stands now, the quote seems to me to be an underhanded smear.--CSTAR 18:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, but let's clarify somewhat. csloat's and your position on the quote/criticism is pretty much exactly the same as Cole's. If we give primacy to the interpretation of the person who's being criticized that it's a "smear", or focus on the "agendas" of a person's critics (or, for that matter, those "far rightwing activists" who advocate including it) we can easily end up with the unwanted and inadvertent effect of whitewash and bias, because we, in effect, are giving who's being critiqued, a veto over what's presented. I think that editors have the responsibility to resist this, however unsympathetic they are to a given criticism.

In any case, I don't see the Karsh quote as unclear or ambiguous at all, Karsh is stating that whether Cole is an antisemite or not, his conspiratorial writings about the machinations of a cabal of "Likudnik" neocons is reminiscent of the Protocols and remain problematic. That is his view -it may be harsh, and he may be oversensitive, but that's what it is. If you keep in mind that a Protocols-type "cabal" doesn't mean that every Jew is in on it, you can easily see why Cole's critics could come to that conclusion. Armon 04:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. My concern is the balance shifted the other way with either an extended quote, or a sort of messed-up summary of one of his blog posts, like the following paragraph re: Cole's expertise, which brings Bernard Lewis into it for some reason. The notion that criticism can't be presented without an instant rebuttal, or "equal time" is a dubious way of insuring NPOV. Armon 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Balance" is not the goal; the goal is accuracy. A quote from Cole is far preferable to a summary written by an editor who clearly and openly thinks Karsh is right that Cole is a secret antisemite. csloat 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The writer, Lee Hunter, (see diff) has been quite clear that he doesn't endorse that view. If you mean me, you are also incorrect. I feel strongly that the criticism should be presented, I understand how they may have come to that conclusion, I am agnostic about how "true" it is. Only the first point is relevant to WP, or our discussion here. Armon 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The diff shows Hunter modifying a statement that you wrote, Armon; yes, I meant you. If you are agnostic about how true this statement is, why have you defended it so vehemently? It's not relevant though - I'm willing to accept your statement that you don't agree with Karsh. Nevertheless I think Cole's words are superior to yours (and/or Lee's) for this purpose. Again, however, as you know, I support leaving this stuff out entirely as I don't feel this dispute is notable to begin with.csloat 23:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've defended it because it's notable -as I've said. Please review the (endless) discussions without jumping to conclusions regarding what you think I think. Armon 00:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And I've stipulated that you think whatever you say you think; as noted in the post above, that's not at issue.csloat 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: the critic in question is Karsh, not Kramer. The protocols are mentioned in his quote, and are relevant to the point he is making. The article is not saying that the quote is true (that would be concerning), but is just reproducing the quote. I will find Cole's direct reply. I believe that Will reproduced it somewhere. Elizmr 16:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it´s Karsh my mistake.--CSTAR

HERE IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM COLE"S REPLY found at [3] Karsh's article was a "smear...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." Shall we use this direct quote? Elizmr 16:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We haven't determined that the Karsh quote is to be used at all; see the dispute above. However, if it is to be used, yes, I think this direct quote would be appropriate (though it need not be this long).csloat 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Focus on the reliability of the sources. The front page of "Front Page Magazine" has things like "The hate-Israel campaign heats up in Stanford.", "How the devotion to leftist politics led to the most unethical conduct of a district attorney to date.", and "“Freshmen moderates” won’t alter the Democratic leadership’s plan: surrender, full speed ahead." Middle East Quarterly looks better, but it is published by an organization with a specific agenda, that "seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East". Whatever that means, it is not neutral and it is not an academic journal. This is an encyclopedia article, it needs neutral, reliable, secondary sources, and it is not important that topics without those sources be included. —Centrx→talk • 19:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Karsh quote is neither from Frontpage, nor from MEQ, but from The New Republic, which is clearly a WP:RS. Isarig 20:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, and additionally, the topic under discussion in Karsh's article is Coles extra-academic blog which is not neutral in itself. Asking for an academic journal source to comment on this extraacademic blog seems inappropriate. Elizmr 20:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Karsh piece looks to be much more reliable. Also, there are reliable sources that comment on the blog. Note that the article is not incomplete if it is not contain every criticism of him and his blog. If there aren't good sources on something, if a neutral third-party has not seen fit to comment on a matter, then it does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"if a neutral third-party has not seen fit to comment on a matter, then it does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article." -- I agree. Karsh is not a "neutral third party" (the article in question is clearly an opinion piece titled "Cole's Bad Blog"). When a neutral third party comments on the alleged proto-Nazism (or whatever it is) of Cole, then the encyclopedia article might reasonably include such information. I don't think we're there yet.-csloat 21:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any requiement that only "neutral third-party" commentary be included in WP articles. The requirement is only to have verifiable information from reliable sources, and to write them in a NPOV way. Isarig 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Any reliable source is necessarily a neutral third-party. —Centrx→talk • 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not stated anywhere in WP:RS. Obviously, a neutral source wouls be preferable, but there are relaiable sources which are not neutral. regardless of this issue, TNR, as a source, is neutral, even when it quotes a non-neutral party. Isarig 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong Centrx, but I think he means, "...for the purposes of WP". Armon 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

TNR is not the source - Karsh is. TNR is where Karsh published. Yes, TNR is verifiable, but the article in question is a smear piece (not my opinion; it's in the title of Karsh's piece) and Karsh obviously has a "horse in the race." When making the claim that a controversy is notable, we should have a neutral third party who comments on the controversy as a notable thing. Otherwise we are just printing two sides of a thumb wrestling match. Fun stuff for blogs and the like, but not for an encyclopedia, IMHO. csloat 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

TNR most certainly is the source. For the purpose of WP:RS, we evalute the publication, not the person. Note for example that in Centrx's previous analysis of sources, he evaluated MEQ - not the contributors to MEQ (who are academics and notable in their field. Simlarily, when evaluating Frontpage, he evalauted the website, it's headlines, etc.. - not the contributors (who include journalists, bestselling authors and notbale academics). And to top it off, when you were defending Salon.com as a source here you wrote "what matters is that it is widely considered a credible and accurate source of journalism" - no reference to any individual contributor or article. So it's clear you know that is the critera on WP. We have TNR, a WP:RS jsut liek Salon.com, quoting a notable academic in the field of ME studies. No matter how much you personally dislike the critic or his criticism - this meets every WP requirement for inclusion in the article. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Isarig 01:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Karsh is the source; his slander is published in TNR. If you are stalking my comments on the salon.com article, you should have read the rest of them rather than cherry picking. I started an entire section there indicating I thought that we should be evaluating the author of the quote, not the publication, once the pub rises above a certain threshold, which both TNR and salon clearly meet. The point here is Karsh is part of the conflict, he is not a neutral third party observer to the conflict. The issue is not whether TNR is a WP:RS. The latter question is a red herring. Please stop personally attacking me by telling me to stop "disruptive" behavior - I have as much right to participate in this discussion as you do. csloat 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You can keep repeating that, but it is simply not true. I point you again to the analysis of Frontpage, and MEQ, and to your own staunch defense of Salon.com as a WP:RS, in spite of the admitted bias of its editors and journalists. Karsh is indeed a part of the dispute, but his opinion has been carried by a WP:RS - so there's no reason to exclude it. If we adopt your ridiculous line of reasoning, we'd have to exclude any kind of criticism, because by definition,, a critic has taken sides. (as an aside, for someone claiming to be a teacher of free speech issues, you should know the differnce between slander and libel, and that opinions are generally immune from charges of libel. You would also note that Cole never claimed the TNR article was libelous, and for good reason. ) Isarig 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments about this. If you're going to stalk my edits and quote them elsewhere, at least try to get the context right. If you'd like to attend my free speech course in order to address your misunderstanding of these issues, I'll be teaching it again next Fall (this semester is almost over, sorry). csloat 22:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am hardly likely to want to be educated about free speech by someone who does not knwo the difference between slander and libel, or that opinions are immune from claims of libel. Isarig

You're wrong, and if you took my class, you would get a correct impression of issues or you would flunk the tests. You're baiting me; I shouldn't bite, but I will. The distinction between "slander" and "libel" was neutralized a long time ago; while you're right that I probably should have written "libel" instead of slander to be technically accurate, you're basing your high-and-mighty posturing on a distinction that dates back to before the invention of the radio. The distinction has no currency in contemporary common law. But you probably know well that I was not trying to use the term in a technical legal sense; your pouncing on this is just a way to veer off of the debate and to posture. As for opinions being immune to libel, I don't know where you learned that. At least in the United States, you're dead wrong; that much has been clear since the Court's ruling in Milkovich.csloat 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between libel and slander is very real, and has very real practical implications. If you do not know them, you should not be teaching a course on free speech. I made an off-hand remark, which you you could have handled by admitting your were wrong, and correcting yourself to say "libel". Instead, you choose to dig yourself ever deeper. That is your prerogative, but you are worse off for it. You are also wrong, or at least grossly oversimplifying th significance of Milkovich, and contrary to your claim, opinion remains protected speech. See for example this. You should not be teaching free speech if you do not understand this. Isarig 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're just blatantly trolling now. I know the distinction and I provided two reasons why it wasn't relevant, and I even acknowledged that "libel" is more technically correct. If you take the class you would read experts - other than me - explaining the issue in terms you can understand. I am not "grossly oversimplifying" Milkovich. I cited the case in response to your incorrect claim that "opinions are immune from claims of libel." They are not, and I cited the only Supreme Court precedent on the issue, a case you have never read and probably never heard of until I cited it. I never said opinion was not protected speech, as you well know, and my expertise to teach this class - which I have been teaching for about a decade - has nothing whatsoever to do with this page. csloat 02:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you do know th edistinction, which makes one wonder why you used the wrong trem initially (not just in this article, BTW), and why, when I pointed this out to you, you claimed that "The distinction between "slander" and "libel" was neutralized a long time ago". perhaps you jsut simply don't know when to concede you are wrong, even on minor, trivial, off-topic points, and preffer to dig yourself ever deeper into embarassing holes, rather than admit a mistake. That would explain a lot about your disruptive editing on this page. You did not provide and reason why the distinction was irrelevant, let alone "two reasons". Your one comment, reagrding the pre-radio days might have been relevant had the Karsh quote been made on radio or TV, but it was not. Give it up, you are embarassing yourself and your students. Isarig 03:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You should have dropped this long ago. It's a bit surreal to be personally insulted about what goes on in my classes by someone who has never set foot in one of them. These attacks are beyond the pale and should be reported. It's even more surreal that you continue the attacks after I have shown decisively that you were totally wrong about one of your two "points"; you cling to the other point now as if that was the only one we were discussing and use it to say I am "embarrassing myself" and my students! You claim not to have understood my two reasons why the distinction is not relevant to my statements here, so let me review them: #1 - the distinction has no currency in contemporary common law. You say this is only relevant if Karsh is speaking on the radio; that makes no sense. The distinction itself was made obsolete by technology. A little history - the term "libel" literally means "little book," and it was used in English to refer to any kind of speech that was objectionable -- e.g. "blasphemous libel," "seditious libel," etc. The use of it in common law to mean the written form of defamation is relatively new, and the distinction between written and spoken defamation is no longer current because spoken defamation can these days be just as destructive to reputations as written. Here's what Tedford and Herbeck have to say about the issue: "The invention of radio and television, as well as the technology of filmand tape recording, has neutralized the rationale of the common law for the libel-slander distinction." (Freedom of Speech in the United States) I hope that clears up #1. Now on to #2 - and this one is more important than #1, so listen (read) carefully: I wrote "I was not trying to use the term in a technical legal sense." I have never suggested that Karsh should be sued, nor have I suggested legal action has anything to do with this dispute - that has been all you. I was using the term in a layperson's sense, where the distinction has even less currency. You have pounced on the technical distinction in order to insult me and to take some sort of argumentative high ground, and then told me I shouldn't be teaching. What do you do for a living, Isarig? How would you feel if I did five minutes of research on google and came back with some sort of thing I thought you said wrong and used it to claim you should be fired from your job, or that you are embarrassing yourself and the people you care about? It is ludicrous that I should even have to explain this. Finally, let me remind you (#3!) that I have in fact acknowledged from the beginning of this silly debate that "you're right that I probably should have written "libel" instead of slander to be technically accurate." So I have indeed even met the one condition you claim would have saved me from embarrassment! All of that aside, there is one more point here that I must emphasize -- my expertise as far as teaching my own classes has nothing to do with this page at all. So let's be done with it. csloat 21:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why Karsh is clearly labeled a critic in the criticism section. The controversy has been noted by other parties in other RSs -as you are well aware. Armon 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)\

That's why Karsh is not a RS on the notability of this "controversy." If the controversy has been noted by other parties on other RS's, that is who we should be quoting or citing. This is what I asked for above, which led to the accusation that I was shifting goal posts -- if there is a neutral third party commenting on this controversy as something notable, let's hear it! Earlier you insisted that no such third party existed; if you have found one, cite it so we can discuss. Thanks!csloat 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I expressed skepticism that one which everyone will agree is "neutral" exists. That's not WP's standard (or any other standard, for that matter) for inclusion, and you are simply setting impossible goals and time wasting. Show me a commentator which both GWB and OBL agree is "neutral" and I'll change my assessment. Armon 02:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bush and OBL are not the issue here. Also, I am not asking that both Karsh and Cole agree someone is neutral; I am only suggesting that the controversy is not notable if there is no neutral third party who has bothered to take it seriously. Not neutral in the sense that everyone agrees that they are neutral but neutral in the sense that they are not obviously taking sides (as Karsh is). I can show you plenty of third party sources discussing the conflict between bush and bin Laden, as you know, so clearly it is a notable conflict. This one is not. csloat 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Armon. There is no reasonable argument for getting rid of Karsh here--he's certainly part of the dialog on this issue, has an equal academic standing to Cole in a relevant field, and he's writing in a source acceptable on Wikipedia. Elizmr 23:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If a neutral third party has commented on the notability of this controversy we should start with that. If they quote Karsh we can move on from there. csloat 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Competely disagree for reasons stated ad nausem above Elizmr 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well; your opinion is noted. csloat 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So is yours, but neither of us is the "editor in chief" of Wikipedia. You are requesting that we go outside of normal wikipedia policy for this particular case. I argue that you are making an attempt to censor the encyclopedia by arguing that Karsh's statement can't appear along with Cole's response on an area within Karsh's recognized area of expertise. Elizmr 00:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not; I'm suggesting that normal wikipedia policy is to avoid scurrilous slander. I'm suggesting that Karsh is not a reliable source on the notability of this alleged controversy. I'm suggesting (and at least one admin appears to agree) that a neutral third party commenting on the controversy as notable would establish more basis for including such a thing in an encyclopedia. Your claim that I am making an attempt to censor wikipedia is bizarre nonsense. I have not contacted any government institution asking for Wikipedia to be taken offline. I have no power to censor wikipedia from anything other than my own computer (and as you can see, I haven't done that). Karsh's "recognized area of expertise" is neither the inner thoughts of Cole nor the notability of controversies regarding Cole. On the former he is clueless (and that's basically what his quote deals with); on the latter he is a party to the conflict invested in portraying it a certain way. csloat 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Censor" is a bit imprecise, rather, whitewash. Armon 02:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you at least try to discuss the issues and refrain from personal attacks? Thanks. csloat 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Elizmr 11:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We disagree that this is scurrilous slander. Despite your opinion that he is "clueless", Karsh is a middle east politics expert and has an academic appt in the field. Cole's blog deals that that area. Karsh is commenting on Cole's blog. Elizmr 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-read my comment. Karsh is clueless about the inner thoughts of Cole. If you think his expertise gives him some mind-reading capabilities, please indicate the source of your information. Karsh is not just commenting on his blog; he is making a statement about what the blog allegedly reveals about Cole's secret thoughts. csloat 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Karsh quote does not require or imply any mind reading capabilities. He is stating his opinion that Cole's writing repeats the same anti-semtic canards presnt in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Isarig 22:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the only action which would be acceptable to all parties is inclusion of the quote, with Cole's assesment. However, it has to be very carefully written so that it is clear that WP does not endorse either the quote under any interpretation or their negations. For the record, I would like to point out that this illustrates a failure of Wikipedia as pointed out by another editor on another matter entirely: stressing process over content. --CSTAR 18:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR, it is only your opinion that this is a mystifying quote. I wrote above how the quote could be presented neutrally without poisioning the well. Elizmr 18:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not only his opinion; it is mine as well, and it is backed up with reference to the quote itself. I still have seen no evidence at all - in fact, not a single argument - suggesting this quote is actually notable. csloat 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see some evidence, please read the comments on this talk page above and please stop wasting everyone's time. Elizmr 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The only time I can waste is my own. I have read the comments. You guys try to make a lot of points in response to the claims made by myself and others, but you have not once offered a single reason why this argument would improve the article in any way. The most you have said is this nonsense should be included because it is not forbidden by Wikipedia rules. Hardly a ringing endorsement.-csloat 22:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read the talk page again. Elizmr 22:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm quite sure I haven't missed anything. csloat 22:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to offer my take on this overly-long debate. I complete agree with csloat that the Karsh quote is scurrilous. The implication that a widely-respected Middle East historian somehow subscribes to the Protocols of Zion is the cheapest of cheap shots. It truly is a creepy little attack that doesn't merit any space in the article. On the other hand, I'm not sure that it's worth fighting to keep it out as long as it is immediately followed by Cole's response. In fact, the summary of his response works fine "Cole says the allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy". I think this statement neatly sums up the situation. Perhaps it is instructive to the reader that some people feel so threatened by Cole's criticism that they resort to this kind of attack. When the quote is placed in context, I think Karsh's reputation suffers more than Cole's. --Lee Hunter 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion that this is a cheap shot is just that - your opinion. You find it incomprehensible that a Middle East historian somehow subscribes to the Protocols of Zion , but others do not. If it is possible that a widely-respected, Noble-prize winning physicist can also believe in the genetic inferiority of certain races; if it is possible that a tenured professor of electrical engineering at a respected university can also be a prominent Holocaust denier, I don't see why it is impossible that a professor of Mid-East history will also be a believer in the Protocols of the Elders or Zion, and even less implausible that he will echo similar sentiment in his own political writing even if he does not believe in the Prootocol's authenticity. Isarig

Huh? We're talking about a historian and about historical information not electricity or physics. I would not be at all surprised if a physicist or electrical engineer displayed complete ignorance of history. I would not be surprised if Cole had some dumb ideas about quantum mechanics. However, if Cole in any subscribed to the Protocols of Zion it would be stunning news in the ME history field and would end his career. It seems that only Karsh has tried to float this idea in public (and not in a peer-reviewed journal) and since Karsh clearly has a huge ax to grind, it doesn't seem to be an idea that bears repeating. --Lee Hunter 15:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt that Karsh believes that Cole subscribes to the Protocols. That is what makes the quote objectionable, as Cole points out in his response. I think Isarig is going out on a limb here making an assertion that Karsh is unlikely to try to argue for. Stated otherwise, if Karsh has stated in writing in so many words "Cole subscribes to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion", then let´s have the quote and put ´´that´´ in the article. That would be very informative.--CSTAR 15:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That said, I happy with your conclusion - let's include the Karsh quote, and Cole's response, and let the reader's make up their mind as to whose reputation suffers more. Isarig 02:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The exchange above suggests to me that we have NPOV. Armon

Include both quotes- let the reader decide if the "protocols" quote is specious. Put this in context by linking to new antisemitism and anti-zionism. Edited properly, it will be NPOV. Wachholder0 06:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet it won't be notable. Again, not a single third party commentator has seen fit to mention this phony dispute other than a handful of wikipedia editors. This suggests it is not encyclopedic, and that there is nothing that would be gained from giving this dispute prominence by placing it in wikipedia.csloat 21:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's false. Numerous 3rd parties have commented on this dispute, including Brad DeLong, The Middle East Quarterly and Stephen Schwartz (Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism), as well as numerous blogs which are as prominent as Cole's on blog. Isarig 01:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - third parties in reliable sources, not bloggers. I'm not even sure any of the commentators you've mentioned have commented on this particular (i.e. Karsh v. Cole on the Protocols) dispute.csloat 05:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

MEQ is a reliable source. Schwartz's comment appears in TNR, a reliable source. If we're you're going to claim Brad Delong is not a reliabel source becuase his comment appeared on his blog, you'll find yourself arguing for a very curious double standard: in one case (Karsh in TNR) advoxcating that we look at the person rather than the outlet, and in the other (DeLong on his blog) that we look at the outlet, rather than the person. Isarig 05:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

MEQ (1) is not a reliable source, as shown above, it has a clear agenda, and (2) has not commented on the Karsh v. Cole "dispute." Find a reliable source commenting on this dispute in a neutral manner as a notable issue -- that's what we're looking for here, and you have not to my knowledge produced it. If you have, please forgive my ignorance and quote it again. csloat 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

MEQ is a reliable source. You asserting the contrary does not carry much weight with me. If Salon is a reliable source in spite of the self professed bias of its editors, MEQ, an academic journal with academic contributors is one. As I noted, Schwartz's comment appeared on TNR, yet another WP:RS. Give it up, you will not get to censor this article. Isarig

I don't really care what carries weight with you. As for MEQ, it is not its "bias" that concerns me; it is its agenda, something it does not have in common with Salon. When we're looking for a third party commenting on a debate we don't want that third party to actually have a horse in the race. Again, you have not shown either of these sources actually commenting on the Karsh-Cole "dispute" as a neutral third party, so we have nothing specific from them. I'm not sure where censorship of this article comes in; I have not contacted any government agency nor ISP to ask that this article be removed from the internet, nor have I filed an AfD.-csloat 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, we are not going to agree on this. Please let's agree to disagree. I respect your opinion, CSTAR, Sloat, Hunter, please respect mine. And to throw my 2 cents in, like it or not, it is a well known fact that (very unfortunately), the protocols are very prominent in the ME media. It is not suprising that ME historians and scholars would have internalized some of these themes. Elizmr 02:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't respect your opinion at all, especially when it is stated like that. Cole was pointing out that a specific clique of senior US bureaucrats have been on the payroll of the Likud party and/or the Israeli government, have been outspoken supporters of the most aggressive policies of the Israeli government (they actually wrote the framework for those policies) and they were part of a larger group that engineered a war which has become a spectacular disaster for the United States but quite beneficial for Israel. This is all very much a part of the public record. Cole's suggestion that this tiny group has dual loyalties is an entirely reasonable conclusion to draw from those facts. Your suggestion that this shows that historians are "internalizing" the themes of the Protocols of Zion just dumbfounds me. --Lee Hunter 03:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can't respect the opinions of other editors, you should not be editing this article (or any other article, for that matter). It's as simple as that. Isarig 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not about respect in that sense Isarig. It's about what should and what should not be in an encyclopedia. It matters not one iota whether anyone respects your opinion. csloat 05:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't whitewash what he said. He siad he does nto respect her opinion. If so, he shoudl not be editing the encyclopedia. Isarig 05:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't throw up red herrings. Respect is not the issue. The issue is whether certain things should be in an encyclopedia. csloat 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is no Red Herrings. Editors who profess to not respecting another editor's opinions should not be editing the encyclopedia. Isarig 06:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't get to decide who should be editing an encyclopedia. You have a lot of nerve making such comments anyway, given the many times you have made clear how little respect you have for my opinion on various matters. Your opinion on this issue, like your opinion on my teaching, is noted and ignored. csloat 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Her position (that a perfectly straightforward and accurate recounting of the accepted facts of recent history is somehow akin to believing the Protocols of Zion) is beyond bizaare. Her request that we all "respect her opinion" is laughable. Her "opinion" is at least as much a fantasy as the Protocols of Zion. --Lee Hunter 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As much as it makes things easier for those who disagree with you, I'd suggest you don't self-discredit yourself with cheap insults. Armon 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We aren´t going to get very far discussing who should edit or not WIkipedia. To state the utterly obvious, the fact of the matter is that anyone can, unless explicitly blocked. So in partiular, unless there is a specific suggestion that somebody be blocked for a particular reason this discussion should end.

Your posiiton, that Cole's version of the events is a "perfectly straightforward and accurate recounting of the accepted facts of recent history" is not grounded in fact. We have been through this before, back in May. Cole invents these charges (which you repeat) out of thin air. Regardless, even if her position is entirely false, the proper response is to correct her false claims. If you do not have respect for your fellow editors, you should not be editing. Isarig 04:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The facts are hardly in dispute (except perhaps the esoteric question of whether Douglas Feith physically wrote the Clean Break document as opposed to just being part of the group that conceived it). I've tried to correct her false claims but she insists that they be part of the article because they are her opinion and her opinion somehow deserves to be respected. Well, I'm sorry, but no. If you're going to defame a living person it should be based on something stronger than an opinion. --Lee Hunter 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cole does not invent the charges out of air; his claims are well supported with evidence. Yes we have been through this back in May, and you were incorrect then as well.csloat 05:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig's point is completely valid. The problem is that you guys are tigers. The "connections" and "dual-loyalties" are not as self-evident as you think they are, except that a Zionist is pro-Israel, and a member of a right-wing party in one country may be sympathetic to a right-wing party in another. Wow -truly groundbreaking stuff! Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson's opinion of Feith, and claims that "his department was apparently penetrated by Israeli intelligence" isn't evidence that Feith had anything to do with it, or anything more sinister. Also, in Cole's notorious "Dual-Loyalties" post, he gives Feith as an example of the dangers of Zionist Jews being in government positions. It is perfectly reasonable to take a less-sympathetic view of that, than what you choose to. Armon 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to this post [4]? If so, I don't see where he says anything about the "dangers of Zionist Jews being in government positions". He does say that there is a danger in having senior US officials who are devoted to the interests of a political party of another country whether it happens to be the Baath party or Likud. --Lee Hunter 01:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the "tiger" page a joke? I read it, and it describes the anti-Cole collaborators here quite well. Glass houses and stones and such. As for Isarig's point, it may be "valid," but it is incorrect. Cole's specific complaints about specific individuals, some (but not all) of whom happen to be Jewish, is well founded, and supported by many other voices who have not been charged with antisemitism (or Protocol-reminiscientism or whatever this silly charge is). There is also no evidence at all that Cole's words are meant to be extrapolated to all Jews or all "Zionist Jews," as you seem to claim -- does Cole make the same charge against Noam Chomsky? Or even Alan Dershowitz? No - he only makes the charge against specific individuals with demonstrable connections to the Likud party - not against all Zionists and certainly not against all Jews. If you think this is not particularly "ground-breaking stuff," I totally agree - my position all along is that this whole thing is not notable and not encyclopedic. (As you said, let us savor our moment of agreement).csloat 01:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lee and csloat, please see Dreyfus Affair. Now, take your objections to the criticisms, such as propaganda, insinuations, smears etc. and invert the parties. You will get some insight into the minds of his critics. You will not agree, that's fine, but understanding their position will allow you to mount better defenses of Cole on your respective blogs. As for the charge that I am a tiger as well, I suppose my position that criticism be included in a section clearly labeled as such, is an "absolute" position, but notice how much more limited it is than working out who the ultimate "winner" is. Lee, has agreed that the passage in question has been presented in a NPOV manner. What more do you guys want from me -a conversion? Armon 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Dreyfus Affair? The DREYFUS Affair? Is that some kind of joke? I'm sorry I don't get it. Unless maybe there's some kind of European turn-of-the-century theme here (Dreyfus, Protocols of Zion). What's next, Piltdown Man? --Lee Hunter 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

When have I ever mounted a defense of Cole on my blog? If your point about the Dreyfus Affair is that Cole is like Dreyfus, wrongfully accused of something without evidence and being "convicted" on an encyclopedia, I suppose I agree, but the comparison is overly dramatic. Cole is being wrongly accused of antisemitism (or "Protocol-reminiscientism"), not treason, and the upshot of his being "convicted" in the court of wikipedia will be some nonsense in an encyclopedia entry, not imprisonment. I realize you mean for me to place Feith and co. in Dreyfus's position, not Cole, but in that case your faulty analogy begs the question of anti-semitism itself; it assumes the antisemitism question has already been answered rather than actually offering any analysis supporting the claim that there is something antisemitic about what Cole said. Your claim that your position is more "limited" is quite absurd; your position appears to be the exact opposite of mine (I won't presume to speak for others here) -- you think this particular criticism is encyclopedic whereas I do not. You have not yet offered a single reason, by the way, in all of this argument, why this criticism will improve this article or why it merits consideration in an encyclopedia. I don't care whether you "convert"; I would just like you to acknowledge that this particular criticism, while perhaps worthy of your own blog, has no place in an encyclopedia so that we can move on. csloat 07:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I pity you. Armon 14:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There have been several suggestions about what Karsh really meant in his assertion about Cole and the Protocols.

• Isarig seems to say that Cole subscribes to them; Isarig may believe that, but I doubt Karsh does.
• ELizmr had previuosly stated that Cole used methods of analysis similar to those in the Protocols. That is reasonable, except that she needs to be more specific. To give an extreme example, use of modus ponens constitutes a method of analysis, although I realize that's not what she meant. There is a line here which I don't see where it is being drawn by Karsh, and that's why I find the quote objectionable.
• Elizmr has more recently asserted that Cole could have "internalized" the Protocols? Of course it's possible, but again I don't think Karsh himself, when pressed, would go that far.

However, if Karsh (or any academic of similar status) has made the claim that "Cole subscribes (or believes or has internalized) the Protocols" then we should see it and include it.--CSTAR 15:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not said that Cole subscribes to the Protocols - I just dismissed the silly notion that because he's a professor of history, he can't possibly subscribe to them. I have no way of knowing what Cole really believes. That, as csolat has said, requires the ability to read his mind. But I don't see why we could include a hypothetical Karsh quote that says 'Cole subscribes to the protocols", but can't include an actual Karsh quote that says "the themes of the protocols resonate powerfully in Cole's writing". Isarig 15:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Boys, boys, boys. I can assure you I find your opinions, Sloat, Lee, CSTAR to be perhaps as distasteful as you find mine. Really. Put yourself in my place for a minute. I do, I really do. And Lee, I feel Cole's use of the metaphor goes beyond that particular instance you are discussing. And CSTAR, my comments about Cole were to counter your equally extreme one of Lee's that it would be "stunning news" for a ME scholar to subscribe to the protocols and yours that Karsh wrote something he doesn't believe. All of that is what we personally think and thus IRRELEVANT to the article. And, Lee, for the umttenth time, why would Karsh comment on Cole's non-academic blog in a peer-reviewed journal???? And Sloat, please don't throw stones at Isarig from a glass house. You are not a model of civility yourself (and I"m not saying I am). I respect all your opinions and am ok with letting them stand. I think that is in accordance with Wikipedia principles. Can we be done with this and agree to disagree????? Elizmr 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to disagree without a problem - I am not trying to change anyone's mind here. Let us also agree to remove the disputed and non-notable quotation from the article. csloat 20:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, we can't agree to that. We are much closer to consensus on keeping that quote, and providing Cole's response to it. Isarig 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No we're not. Though I guess I should ask, "closer than what?" csloat 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are. The suggestion of keeping the quote in, alongside Cole's response that directly addresses it has been suggested by Lee Hunter, and supported by Armon, Elizmr, CSTAR, Wachholder0 and myself. You are the only one stubbornly refusing to accept that compromise. Isarig 01:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not a "compromise"; that is the side you have been arguing for all along. A compromise involves, well, compromise -- your proposal is for a one-sided capitulation. Please don't speak for others and please stop personally attacking me; you've been warned twice on your user page. csloat 02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a compromise, the current version does not have Cole's quote in it. I am not speaking for others, I am summarizing their stated posiiotns on this page. And I'm most certianly not attacking you - just describing your actions. Isarig 03:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a compromise; it's what you have been arguing for all along. The current version was frozen that way due to page protection, not because it represented any kind of consensus, even among the anti-Cole editors. You are speaking for others when you "summarize" in a manner inconsistent with what they have argued, andyou are attacking me personally when you "describe my actions" in an insulting manner. csloat 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been arguing for the article to stay as is. Adding the Cole quote is a compromise, to which all other editors but you have agreed. Let me remind you that consensus does not mean unanimity, and we are very close to resolving this over your stubborn and disruptive objections. Isarig 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) You have not made any arguments against including Cole's response. That has been noncontroversial so your characterization of your position as a compromise is inaccurate. (2) Once more I implore you to quit personally attacking me. Such insults are a violation of WP:NPA policy and future attacks will be reported as such. csloat 04:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please cease your phony characterization of my edits as a personal attack on you. It is painfully obvious that you are stubbornly resisting a compromise which other editors have agreed to. describing your actions is not a personal attack. Threats, OTOH, such as the ones you are making now, are. The fact that I have not argued against a suggested compromise does not mean that it is not a compromise, it means I accept it. The fact that I am willing to accept a posotion that is different than what the article currently has indicates a compromise. Isarig 04:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No threats were implied; simply stating the rules. I have reported the personal attacks. You can continue to call your position a "compromise" if you like; there is not much I can do about that, other than state that you are incorrect. Have a nice day.csloat 05:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr, I didn't say Karsh wrote something he didn't believe. I said that I doubt Karsh actually believes Cole subscribes in some way to the Protocols; And if Karsh does believe this, then fine, let's have the quote in which he says this. And please note, I have not said your opinions are distasteful. I believe that formulation excessively personalizes this discussion. I have said, explicitly, that I find the association made by Karsh, of COle with the protocols in a way which is not in my opinion entirely clear, an issue of concern. I have also said why.--CSTAR 21:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)