Talk:Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 npov tag 2 We need to clarify what this page is about 3 sentence on "Feith corroboration" 4 Baha'i 5 Yale appointment: Current heading in article POV 6 Housekeeping 7 Faculty position at Yale University 8 Transitive verbs and such 9 More on Translation Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezad 10 New Proposal on Yale 11 Feith, yet again 12 Dispute on what constitutes antisemitism 13 Yale controversy: rumor or knowledge? 14 The (Character) Assasins 15 Dershowitz and the Lobby 16 The Nation: "Burning Cole" 17 Academic Expertise 18 Newspaper Editorial 19 Blogs 20 More Academic Expertise 21 Why the Landis quote was double sourced 22 proposed new policy 23 Put another blog on the fire 24 Mel Gibson 25 The meaning of conspiracy theory 26 most dangerous regime in the middle east 27 NPOV policy applied to Yale controversy 28 pared down Yale section 29 suggestions for compromise on the Democracy Now quote 30 "Controversies" section order 31 Unless you have a reason for reverting the move to "Criticisms of," please abstain from reverts. 32 Title change 33 edits by Will314159 34 Misleading Edit logs

npov tag

I've added the npov tag until the following items are resolved in an npov manner: (1) Karsh's quote on Cole's views about Israel. This is an idiosyncratic interpretation of an obscure quote in a book review that can be legitimately interpreted in various ways as the above discussion shows. Karsh interprets it in a way that is most unfavorable to Cole, which is his prerogative, but it should not be the first sentence in a section purportedly about Cole's views of Israel. Let's start with some quotes specifically about Cole's views on Israel now, rather than an ambiguous statement about what Britain did fifty years ago. Elevating this quote to a fundamental part of Cole's beliefs on the basis of a quote from his biggest critic turns this section into a smear. If I find a quote from someone saying that the white settlers in the US should never have given smallpox blankets to the Indians, would you say that the quote proves that the person's fundamental belief is that the USA should never have existed? That is the kind of interpretation we are privileging here and it is wrong.

(2) The section on Hitchens v. Cole as outlined above unfairly elevates Hitchens' interpretation of Cole's statement over Cole's own interpretation of that statement. Cole reexplains himself several times at length. We had this debate on the Cole talk page and Armon stopped pursuing the point there; I assumed he had accepted the points that I made as valid, but apparently not. I don't relish having the same debate over again, but the version of that section currently up makes that impossible to avoid. I rewrote that section in sandbox 3 a while back and I propose that we start with that instead of the current section.

Otherwise we should call this page "Criticism of Cole" and be honest about it rather than pretending this even attempts to accurately portray his views. For some reason editors here seem to want to bend over backwards to turn this guy into an antisemite, yet they cannot find a single quote from him saying anything bad about Jews in general. I find this approach to the topic insulting and offensive.--csloat 20:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) Karsh's quote is a straightforward interpretation of a Cole statement made in an essay Cole published in a scholarly journal and placed on his web site, alongside his Salon.com articles. There is nothing obscure about it. The sentence in question is not the first one, There is one sentence which describes Cole's views by quoting Cole on the legitimacy of Israel. It is follwoed by another sentence which also describes Cole's views, by quoting Cole on the desirability of settling Jews in the UK vs. in Palestine. Only then does the Karsh quote appear, as a criticism of this second COle view. It is incorrect that the Karsh quote is "the first sentence in a section purportedly about Cole's views" - the section begins with two Cole views, sourced to articles by Cole. Isarig 21:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Karsh's mindset, bias, motive, & interest are revealed by his authorship of an article entitled "What Occupation?" Enough Said. Take Care!--Will314159 22:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic about including that Karsh quote. However, I would suggest restructuring the paragraph to avoid use of "while" as the first word in its opening sentence. Also it might help to rename the section Legitimacy of Israel (or something similar) to make it clear what the controversy is about. --CSTAR 23:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

PS Inclusion of the Karsh quote (if done properly) in no way legitimizes anything KArsh says.--CSTAR 23:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am going to try to explain again, because people are still misinterpreting me. I am not advocating removing the Karsh quote. I am advocating moving it below so it is not used as a statement of Cole's central thesis, as it is not one. I don't want to debate the interp of the Cole quote Karsh refers to; but it is ambiguous, there are several possible interpretations, and Karsh uses the one least favorable to Cole for obvious reasons. That is all fine but it should not be at the beginning. The sentence "While Cole views the state of Israel as "a project of Jewish nationalism that is as legitimate as any other national project"[11], he has also voiced the opinion in a book review that the "Jews fleeing Hitler" should have been settled in Britain, "rather than saddling a small, poor peasant country with 500,000 immigrants"" is unnecessarily argumentative, and it foregrounds a quote made notable only by Karsh, not Cole. Again, it is in the middle of a book review on another topic. Let's start with Cole's quotes on Israel. Also, the point I made earlier was that we should pay attention to grammar in an encyclopedia. Karsh does not seem to have time for such things, at least as judged by the sentence fragment. But that is a minor point here; the major point is that this Karsh quote takes a non-notable sentence from Cole, gives it an idiosyncratic interpretation, and then elevates that quote to the status of Cole's central view. I can't understand why it would be even controversial to suggest that it be changed.--csloat 23:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again: The Karsh quote is not 'the "Jews fleeing Hitler" should have been settled in Britain, "rather than saddling a small, poor peasant country with 500,000 immigrants"' - this is a quote from Cole. If you (or CSTAR) don't like the sentence structure which begins with 'while' - fine- rewrite it without it, but it is Cole's view, not Karsh's. This is a section on Cole's views, and it should present both parts of the Cole view, in the same paragraph. I don't think it is appropriate to rename the section "Legitimacy of Israel", since the section deal with 3 seperate Cole views on Israel - (1) it's legitimacy, (2) armed support of it by the US, and (3) it's policies in the West Bank and relationships with Arab countries. nd finally, if you don't like Karsh's grammar, feel free to include [sic] where you think a grammatical error occurs in the orginal text, but this is never grounds for exclusion of a sourced quote from a reputable scholar. Isarig 00:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not just a "quote from Cole"; that is a quote from Cole cherry picked by Karsh for the purposes of creating a straw man argument. It is Karsh's emphasis, not Cole's, and it was chosen so that Karsh can make a stronger argument against Cole. And, once again, I am not saying delete the quote, I am just saying let's not let Karsh set the agenda for understanding what Cole thinks about something when we can quote Cole directly.--csloat 01:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

COuld you write this proposed graf below? Thanks. --CSTAR 23:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

From Juan Cole/sandbox/3:

Christopher Hitchens takes issue with Cole's translation of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's notorious statement (which was a quote from Ayatollah Khomeini) that has been widely reported in the English-language press as a threat to "wipe Israel off the map." Cole translated the same passage as "the occupation regime must end". Hitchens argued that "the regime occupying Jerusalem" is a reference to Israel, and that the passage clearly meant "annihilate," and called Cole a "Muslim apologist."[1] Dr. Cole states that this was not his intent,[2] stating "Ahmadinejad...has condemned mass killing of any sort and was not threatening military action (he is in any case not in command of the Iranian military). He compares his hope for an end to any Zionist regime in geographical Palestine to Khomeini's prediction that the Soviet Union would one day vanish. It wasn't a hope to kill Soviet citizens, but a desire for regime change. Or that the regine of Sharon would vanish from Gaza in the course of time."[3]

--csloat 01:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if Karsh were the only Cole critic (detractor) that suggested his view vis-a-vis the legitimacy of Israel was ambiguous. Even if the quote from the book review was not in one of Cole's more importnat writings he did actually write that statement, in a public statement which he had ample time to edit. Moreover the way I quoted it was complete and includes context which wasn't there before. --CSTAR 05:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be correct, but then let's see the quotes rather than assuming them. Like I said above, I don't have a problem keeping the quote in, but I do have a problem with using it to set the agenda for Cole's views on Israel. Also, it is ambiguous, as I have been saying; the conversation above between bhouston and Isarig shows at least two possible interpretations of it (and bhouston's is more persuasive, IMHO). The fact that Cole does not make this claim in other writings more directly related to the issue suggests that this particular interpretation of the quote is dubious.--csloat 07:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We need to clarify what this page is about

I think we need to clarify exactly what this page is about.

Should this article:

1. Present Cole's Views, some of which may not be controversial and/or criticized, as well as some other views which have been?
2. Present only Cole's "controversial" Views with attached objections/criticisms?
3. Present "Controversies" Cole has been involved in? I take this to mean that controversies originating from Cole should be included here as well -i.e. the Baha'i and OBL speech issues should be here.
4. Be essentially a misnamed "Criticisms of Juan Cole" article?
5. Be composed of a) Less controversial views without discussion--larger section b) More controversial views with discussion--larger section c) Controversies related to Cole's career (expertise, intellectual standards, anything else)--brief section d) Controversies Cole has been involved in (legal disputes, translation disputes, Bahai religion--here or in controversial views depending on how it looks when done)--this section should be as brief as possible
6. Be composed of Cole's notable but non-academic views, and notable controversies regarding those views (non-academic basically means not published in an academic journal or book)
7. ?
8. ?

This isn't an exhaustive or mutually exclusive list. If anyone has other options please add them to the list so we (or at least I) can figure out what should and shouldn't be here. --Armon 14:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC) I've updated the list with Elizmr's & TheronJ's take. Armon 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• My opinion would be that the article should encompass the following:
  1. Less controversial views without discussion--larger section
  2. More controversial views with discussion--larger section
  3. Controversies related to Cole's career (expertise, intellectual standards, anything else)--brief section
  4. Controversies Cole has been involved in (legal disputes, translation disputes, Bahai religion--here or in controversial views depending on how it looks when done)--think this section should be as brief as possible

Elizmr 15:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I understood the original discussion to mean that Cole's notable but non-academic views, and notable controversies regarding those views, would be summarized here. (By non-academic, I basically mean not published in an academic journal or book).TheronJ 16:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's my understanding too. I don't understand Armon's distinction between 5 and 6 above, but my understanding is that this is for Cole's non-academic views as well as some of the debate they have generated. Some things, e.g. the OBL translation, should go (I will make that change after this post, since it has already been agreed upon). It should also be clear that all of this "controversy" focuses on less than 5% of what he actually writes on his blog or in articles in newsmagazines. More of this page should be devoted to his views on Iraq and Iran, since those are far more prominent in his writing.--csloat 20:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"This isn't an exhaustive or mutually exclusive list." 5 and 6 are Elizmr's & TheronJ's opinions added for discussion. You're jumping the gun deleting OBL translation, I've restored it. --Armon 02:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't do that again. We had a discussion, we took a vote. The only vote in favor of keeping it was yours. You still have not made an argument in defense of that section. You're going to need to do so before adding it again.--csloat 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A) it's disputable that all the votes are in, and b) I have made an argument in defense, and finally c)WP is not a democracy and I don't think a compelling reason to remove it has been made. --Armon 03:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A) if a sudden rush of votes come in we can restore the paragraph (b) I don't see an argument by you on this issue that has not been clearly and decisively dealt with; and (c) then why are we arguing about this at all? Just put whatever the hell you want on this page and we'll call it Armonopedia from now on.--csloat 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See my edit summary: "instead of launching another edit war, let someone more neutral make the call" --Armon 04:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Will#! Sorry man, but I didn't mean you. :) --Armon 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Armon, we took a vote, you were the only one to say anything in favor of the paragraph, and your arguments were refuted, and you chose not to respond to the refutation. We already had "someone more neutral" intervene -- taking you and I out of the pool, we have CSTAR, Theronj, and Elizmr all agreeing the paragraph should go. There is a page for the OBL video where Cole's opinion would fit nicely. But it just isn't a Cole "controversy" at all. Can you agree to respect the consensus process?--csloat 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

sentence on "Feith corroboration"

The sentence "Cole's view of Feith has been corroborated by Condi Rice and John Wilkerson" was supplied without a reference, but that isn't the only problem. The loaded term "corroborated" suggests that Condi and John have provided supporting evidence for Feith's untrustworthiness. Even if Condi and John share *exactly* Cole's view, that is not the same as corroborating it. But the sentence does not even make clear what view they share. Does Condi feel that Feith cannot be trusted to give priority to American interests, or does she merely think that Feith is a zealous Likud supporter? Precis 22:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

it's not worth discussing this, since Cole is using Feith as an example, but his view is that pro-Israeli Jews can't be trusted. Shifting the discussion into feith's personal worthiness is a Red Herring. Regardless, since when do we include list of people who agree with someone's opinions ? Are we going to add a listt (a long one to be sure) of people who share Cole's view o the iraq war in that section? Isarig 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that including Feith causes more problems than it solves, but if the Feith section is included, I suggest citing to Douglas Feith#Professional criticism to reference the Rice/Wilkerson statement.TheronJ 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume for the moment that others' opinions of Feith are even relevant to this article. Then a reference to Douglas Feith#Professional criticism would be fine to indicate that R/W have "expressed agreement with some of Cole's views on Feith". But such reference does not support theclaim that R/W's opinions corroborate (i.e., provide supporting evidence for) Cole's views. Engel has expressed the opinion that M&W are antisemitic, but that doesn't mean he has corroborated the view that M&W are antisemitic. Precis 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "expressed agreement with some of Cole's views" is more precise than "corroborated." TheronJ 14:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys. Do we have to re-invent the wheel over and over again. We all know what is going on here. Any critic of Israel's repression of the Palestinians or anybody that urges Israel works for Peace or obeyeing U.N. resolutions is branded an Anti-Semite an "AS." Correction as a "NAS." New Anti-Semite. The Israeli Lobby works all over the place especially at WP where I understand I am way, way, outnumbered. As far as Cole and Feith the thread has been opened many times before. Here it is by the numbers, yet again.

1. Feith participated in the writing of the "Defense of the Realm" document for Netanyahu. A blueprint for the NeoCon demolition of the Oslo process and invasion of Iraq. So did Maryam Wurmser, cofounder of the translation service that is the subject of another controversy section in this article. 2. Feith as No. 3 at the Pentagon made many decisions more in Likuds Israels' interest than in America's. 3. Cole called Feith on this. 4. Because of this Cole, is labeled a "NAS" as a reactive mechanism by the Israeli lobby, some of which are esteemed academics. 5. In defense it is offered the CORROBORATIVE statements, properly footnoted, at Douglas Feith, sorry I haven't learned how to do footnotes or I would transfer them here. 6. Relevance is when a the existence of a fact at issue is made less likely or not. If everybody around corrobrates Cole's view of Feith as unreliable than either the whole world is "NAS" by definition or Cole is not a "NAS." It appears "NAS" is a definition of conveniance applied politically. 7. Here is the Condi statement again from the Doug article "Former National Security Advisor Condeleezza Rice According to the long-running Washington newsletter, The Nelson Report, edited by Christopher Nelson, Feith was standing in for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at a 2003 interagency 'Principals' Meeting' debating the Middle East, and ended his remarks on behalf of the Pentagon. Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, "Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we'll invite the ambassador." [21] [22] 8. Here is the John Wilkerson statement which has been watered down "Former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State, Larry Wilkerson In 2005, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to then Secretary of State Colin Powell, publicly stated he could "testify to" Franks' comment, and added "Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man." [29] Regarding Feith and his colleague, David Wurmser, Colonel Wilkerson has stated "A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own."[30]

The whole kernel issue that needs to be addressed in this whole discussion is JC's reaction to the doctrine of "NAS." We have his letter to then Harvard Professor Summer's labeling of a an academic boycott as NAS. When I get a little time and have a chance to read about footnoing i plan to write that section, even though it may get continually deleted, b/c awh shucks forget, assume good faith. Take Care! --Will 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Baha'i

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

I"d like to get into more detail into the Faha'i controversy. After reading the Gnosis article, I know a little more about the basis of the Talisman emails. The controversy had three aspects/ First the emails were about the lack of women in the high council. The Baha'i faith prides itself on gender equality yet there are no women on the high council or equivalent. Second, the leadership was set in its ways and there was no room for new blood, the Talisman discussed term limits and other ways to get more participation and democratization. Third, there was a requirement for some kind of censorship and/or prior approval of academic papers by Baha'i members. This is what the investigation was about and why Cole quit after being subjected to late night phone calls. So says the Gnosis article. I'm just throwing it out for discussion. The flip side is the organization wanted to maintain orthodoxy and guard against schism Take Care! --Will 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Absent any discussion, I added more detail to the Talisman proposed reform changes. Take Care! --Will 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Will -- I just noticed your contribution here. What you've added seems fine to me. One could, of course, go into more detail; it just depends on what Wikipedians here think is appropriate. Just FYI, the "high council" you speak of is called the Universal House of Justice, and the policy of Baha'i review also has an article here at Wikipedia. I don't know if it makes a difference, but Juan has been rather reticent about discussing his Baha'i background since becoming more widely famous, but there's ample material on the web about the Baha'i controversies for anyone who is curious. 69.232.171.126 02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yale appointment: Current heading in article POV

Cole supporters might say that influential board members and faculty kept Cole from getting the appointment for political reasons, critics might say it was that his area of scholarship was not appropriate to a modern middle east appointment or cite his combative personality on the Web log as a reason. Since Yale hasn't published a statement we don't know the real reason for sure. The title as it stands suggests that it is the latter stuff. I think if we want to include this, we should probably change the title to something more neutral, like having "Yale appointment" as a subject heading under "controversies". The reader could make conclusions for his/herself. Sarah Crane, what do you think about this? Elizmr 01:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the relevant Departments signed off on his appointment. This also address the comment made above about Bahai scholarship. (The Bab made his appearance in the 19th century.) FYI, here is what JC has to say about the Yale appointment (from Informed Comment). "Friday, June 09, 2006

Yale Affair

I am not going to talk about the Yale affair per se.

But I did want to clear up some misimpressions I've seen here and there.

First, it should be remembered that senior professors are sort of like baseball players, and other teams look at them from time to time, as recruitment prospects. It goes on constantly, formally or informally. Such looking is never taken very seriously by anyone unless it eventuates in an actual offer.

Second, it is important in interpreting these things to know who initiated the looking. I am not actively seeking other employment, and did not apply to Yale; they came to me and asked if they could look at me for an appointment. I am very happy at the University of Michigan, which has among the largest and oldest Middle East Studies programs in the United States. It is like Disney World for a Middle East specialist. To its credit, the University invested tens of millions of dollars in creating positions and building library and other resources in this field at at time when it was considered marginal by many other universities. Michigan also has a History Department that is among the very best and largest in the country, characterized by diversity of area specialization and innovative, interdisciplinary scholarship. It is a nurturing and congenial intellectual environment. Many fine departments in the US have a North Atlantic focus or bias, but Michigan for decades has had a global emphasis.

The press has some out of date impressions about our major research universities, imagining that the old hierarchy of Ivy League versus the rest is still meaningful. It is not. Research universities, whether state (Berkeley, the University of Michigan) or private, are much more similar than they are different. Were I ever to go to another place, it would likely be as a pioneer in a less well-developed Middle East Studies program, for the purpose of building up something that we already have at Michigan. That is, it would be a personal sacrifice for some purpose, and not a decision easily made.

I was extremely fortunate to have been hired at the University of Michigan right out of graduate school. I moved from UCLA to the pinnacle of my profession at a young age. I am doing what I enjoy doing, which is studying and teaching the Middle East and South Asia, and communicating about it to various publics. I have not, and short of foul play cannot be stopped from doing what I am doing, and what I enjoy. I welcome critiques of my work. There are obviously some critics, however, who go rather beyond simple critique to wishing to silence or smear me. In the former, at least, they cannot succeed by mere yellow journalism. So I have what I want, but they cannot have what they want. I win, every day.

Many thanks to all the kind messages and votes of confidence from readers. I've decided that this is a subject better closed, so am not taking comments.

posted by Juan @ 6/09/2006 06:03:00 AM " http://www.juancole.com/2006/06/yale-affair-i-am-not-going-to-talk.html Take Care! --Will 02:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"God and Money at Yale: Inside History of the Israel Lobby." Bill Mon's take of the taking down of JC's certain Yale nomination. http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/June/13%20o/God%20and%20Money%20at%20Yale%20Inside%20History%20of%20the%20Israel%20Lobby%20By%20Bill%20Mon.htm Take Care! --Will 21:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice link, Will. The author describes Cole as a, "mild mannered middle east expert" and his critic as, "a deranged, vindictive rodent who ought to be fed to a boa constrictor." How's that for balanced commentary? I honestly don't know what motivates you to post ridiculous stuff like this as if it is informative. You like Cole, you really really like Cole; you hate Israel, you really really hate Israel, we get it, OK??? Elizmr 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr. I don't think you get it at all. Most of the people on this page are out to "get" Cole. I probably am the only non-Jew editing this article. I have to respect those of the faith that have the wisdom to appreciate that political NAS cheapens real AS when it comes along. I have no problem at all w/ an Israel that"ll accept the Taba or Geneva accords and accept Peace and full trade w/ its neighbors per the Beirut resolution signed by 22 Arab nations. I do have a problem w/ open ended war for the sake of continued settlements and America getting sucked into open ended war by the Israeli lobby. All this NAS stuff is another strategem to keep the Golan Heights and West Bank settlements by other means. You implicitly asked for my opinion. As far as Cole, he is a little too strident, he'd make more points if he'd pull back a bit. Take Care! --Will 23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr Redux, This conversation would have been better placed on a user page or outside WP, but you chose the forum. I see now and reject your middle premise. You like Cole therefore you hate Israel, double double. I reject both the middle term and your vision of the necessity of a repressive, expansionist Israel. Triple, I reject America's involvement in financing and participating in it. visit www.gush-shalom.org Take Care! --Will 10:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"I probably am the only non-Jew editing this article. " Have you forgotten, the Israel Lobby is also composed of Christian Zionists. Precis 10:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. Precis. The guess-estimate is drawn from the pre-occupation with NAS and Israel by the respective editors on a JC cole page. I would think the Xtian Zionists would not be so preccopied with NAS. Keep trash talk off WP. email me. Take Care! --Will 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Over-ruling one Dept. is unheard of, the odss of over-ruling two Dept.'s is astronomical w/o the concerted media and donor campaign. "Zachary Lockman, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, called the campaign against Cole “an assault on academic freedom and the academic enterprise.” Lockman is president-elect of the Middle East Studies Association. He stressed that he was speaking for himself, not the group, and that he didn’t have firsthand knowledge of the Yale search. Lockman said that Cole is “one of the preeminent historians of the modern Middle East and he’s been attacked on political grounds — because he’s critical of the Bush administration and Israel.” Given Cole’s reputation and the departmental backing for his appointment, Lockman said of the decision to reject Cole: “Universities seem to be willing to kowtow to pressure from outside interest groups.” http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/05/cole Take Care! --Will 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Took out the comment by deputy provost. pure fluff, adds nothing to the article. Two departments were overturned. It was a Unique occurrence! More relevant would be expanding the article to include contra campaign by Rubin & Mowbray and Mowbray's letter to Jewish Yale donors. Or leave the article like it is. Jus for laughs, if Cole know so little about the Modern Middle East, how come he's quoted about it and interviewed all the time as an Iraqi and Shiite expert? I guess you are criticized for not being a stuffy professor and having an uptodate blog w/ latest knowledge and then hanged for not being a stuffy old professor. Take Care! --Will 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is fine to present the view that the appointment was derailed by the Lobby if we also present the countervailing view that overruling a decision by sharply divided faculty is not unusual. (The department vote was far from unanimous.) I put in the provost's quote for balance. I don't object to removing it, but then the "highly unusual" quote should also be removed. So which is preferable, including both points of view, or removing them both? Precis 20:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would vote for both quotes - one of the "controversies" regarding Cole is whether he was barred from Yale because (1) the Lobby shafted him, (2) he's not that good a Professor or (3) none of the above, people don't get hired by Yale all the time. Both items are verifiable and relevant.TheronJ 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If memory serves, didn't the student paper pen a rather scathing editorial regarding the appointment. (I thought I saw it here, but don't now.) Or was that the student Republican paper? (The Jewish Week article suggests so.) However, the Yale Daily News article says flat out that the appointment was controversial to the faculty, so this wasn't a faculty-administration divide. As it reads now, it doesn't touch on that. It only touches on the "unusual" over-ruling of the departments. It also doesn't touch this from the Jewish Week article:

"First, according to the source, most of Cole’s scholarship pertains to the Baha’i faith and is limited to the 18th and 19th centuries, a liability for a professor charged with teaching about the contemporary Middle East.

Second, the source continued, Cole appears to lack in collegiality, as his penchant for combative blog entries and personal spats with detractors might make him an unnerving fixture on Yale.

Finally, Cole’s politics may have played a role, though a less important one than the other two factors, said the source."

I don't know that it could, or should say all that - it's well sourced. But the current reading makes it look like it was a neocon witch-hunt (which is was), but blows off the trepidation that his potential colleagues had to working with such a lightning-rod. MARussellPESE 20:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you do your original scholarship in, that's where you cut your teeth and show you know how to do the research and do the papers. What matters is what happens laters, where you acquire a mastery of the field to the point where you can teach effectively and supervise other people doing research. that's why Karsh's statement elsehwere that JC's knowledge is derivative and therefore inferior is bullcrap. The skinny on the appointment at Yale is that the losing History professors lobbied the smaller last resort committee (and coupled with the heat about the Taliban Yale student) prevailed. Rubin's and Mowbray's publicity work is relevant in putting additional heat on Yale (already under scrutiny with the Taliban student) and provides context for Cole's later remark about the "attack on academic inegegrity" which is otherwise senseless. The provost stuff is self-serving fluff. Some appointments make it, some don't. Whopee Doo. Nothing unsusual going on. Bullcrap. Most appointments do make it through. Most airplanes do not crash. There is no evidence that JC is nothing but a collegial gentleman in the classroom or at a college setting althogh he suffers no fools with his pen. Take Care! --Will 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As to JC's personality. There is no evidence that JC is nothing but a collegial gentleman in the classroom or at a college setting althogh he suffers no fools with his pen. After watching his online 90 minute streaming lecture on Political Shiaa in Iraq given at the Mershon center, I have to agree that he is a mild mannered professor. Judge for yourself. http://www.mershon.ohio-state.edu/Events/05-06events/colej/jcole.htm Take Care! --Will 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, I appreciate your hard work on the page, but in this case, the fact that you think the provost and the source are wrong isn't a reason to remove their comments, if they're verifiable, which they are. (Let me know if you want a set of links to the Wiki policies). My compromise suggestion would be to let it all in. TheronJ 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Going to put in some relevant balancing comments from insidehighered article by Scott Jaschik Blackblalled at Yale Take Care! --Will^(talk) 15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Housekeeping

I archived most of the talk page. I felt the topics on here which still seemed to be active or have been recently added. I wasn't sure about the Feith stuff since I've not been involved in editing that section, so I left it. Elizmr 14:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Faculty position at Yale University

There are several problems with the current version.

• A paragraph has been lifted verbatim from The Jewish Week. That is plagiarism. Either make it a quotation and cite the source directly, or paraphrase.
• All previously existing countervailing viewpoints have been excised in order to promote one singular point of view.
• Paragraphs from The Jewish Week which counter the innuendo have been omitted, e.g.,

"And while most faculty members contacted for this piece agree that it is highly improbable that outside pressure played a part in the tenure committee’s decision, the letters and the subsequent calls suggest a campaign to discredit Cole." Precis 01:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Will, please refer to WP:NPOV and consider editing according to Wikipedia guidelines. Elizmr 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Isarig has removed the Bill Mon ref a few times. I agree with him. It is not only a blog source, but it is a completely unbalanced article. Here are a few quotes, "Joel Mowbray is a deranged, vindictive rodent who ought to be fed to a boa constrictor......what’s really bizarre about this business is the massive propaganda firepower being trained on one mild-mannered Middle East specialist...it’s just the educational bureaucrats at Yale, who would probably do whatever it takes to please any well-heeled group of donors – ::even if it involved putting on bright red lipstick and getting down on their knees...." This is not something we should be citing in Wikipedia. Elizmr 02:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Bill Mon piece is not being cited in WP. It is an external reference. It is properly labeleled as "Earthy." Mowbray & Rubin interjected themselves into the Yale process causing a controversy. This is the section for JC views and controversy. Causaly, it may have been a tangential intervening cause but it became a source of controversy. It is not being used to support any facts in the article. It is merely an external reference. It uses colorful earthy language and it communicates the viewpoint very well and in a devastating fashion. The "rodent" may be seen as unfairly prejudicial so is the "The elders of Zion" stuff Karsh tries to link JC. But what good did it do to complain about that? The sensitivities are all in one direction on this forum, obviously!

The Bill Mon piece my have originated in a blog, but it was adopted and published by Al-Jazeera as an op-ed on its editorial page. It is certainly a published and valild point of view albeit admittely earthy and conroversial. When Rubin & Mowbray meddle in the academic process and take cheap shots, it seems they deserve what they get. Take Care! Will314159 09:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The provost comment is pure fluff. I have addressed that previously. A whole paragraph of purely innoccous bio information was removed by Elizimr b/c she said it was "fluff". She and her friends should not be heard to complain now. Take Care! --Will 07:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Of note, regarding the above, the paragraph I removed was about JC's love for science fiction, and I thought is was kind of fluff and not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry, but when Will objected I suggested he put it back. What Will took out is quite different--a couple of cites from notable, verifiable, authorative sources which constituted the only opposing POV in a paragraph on a controversial point he didn't happen to agree with. Also, I think Will is getting al jazeera mixed up with al jazeera.com [4]. I'm not sure the latter is a notable source. Elizmr 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not the same as the Qatari TV network but it is a reasonable source; see [5]--csloat 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Relevance is tending to make the existence of a fact of issue more likely than not. Now if the provost was to give some statistics, than his statement would be probative and not mere fluff. For example, in the last ten years out of 500 appointments, 5 have been disapproved at this level." Then the reader could judge the "unusualness." Take CAre! 08:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Will314159 08:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The "highly unusual" quotes must thus be removed as well. We don't want WP to be accused of observing a double standard. Precis 09:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Precis. Bullcrap. All sources agree it was an unusual move. Get your head out of the sand. Take Care! --Will 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, as I said above, I appreciate your hard work on the article, but the wiki way is to include all the quotes for and against your POV. Let me know if you want the policy links. Including one quote from an article and not others is NPOV. Thanks, TheronJ 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The "highly unusual" were not mine to begin with. My edit was to 1) put it in the Rubin and Mowbray publicity campagign and take out the self serving fluff 2) provost statement. The Provost saying it is not unusual does not make is so " " "If two departments agreed to hire him … it's hard to swallow that some outside committee would decide against it," Allouche said." OK you can have it. The reader is smart enough to figure out two departments being overturned is "unusual." When I have the time to figure out footnotes, I"ll try my hand at putting in Allouche's statement in directly. One attributed quote to balance another attributed quote. Take Care! --Will 17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Transitive verbs and such

I am not going to revert Isarig's most recent changes to the Ahmadinejad section, but I do want to know why it is necessary to treat everything Cole says -- even explanations of basic facts that can be looked up in a grammar book -- as if it is just a "claim," or that it is more NPOV to pretend his argument is less legitimate than the so-called "expert's," even though he offers credible reasons for his argument (and the expert does not), he offers both verb forms in Persian, and the expert does not, and he offers examples of the verb form being used in a sentence (while the NYT expert does not). Cole also puts his reputation behind his translation and challenges the expertise of the expert; I read the NYT piece, and the expert says nothing about Cole's qualifications. I think the presumption is heavily on Cole's side here, and if he is wrong, this should be very easy to prove (and likely pretty embarrassing for Cole). Let's be clear - either the verb is transitive or it is not; this is an accuracy issue, not a POV issue. I also think Cole's comment in the NYT explaining the implications of all this should be included -- "I am entirely aware that Ahmadinejad is hostile to Israel. The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no."--csloat 05:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

the answer to your question is "because this is an encyclopedia, and what matters is verifiability, not truth". If it is true that Cole is right, and the answer can be looked up in a grammar book - look it up in a grammar boook, and cite it. You are welcome to your POV that a partisan, nonnative speaker of Farsi who is defending his previous contorversial translation must be presumed to be right, while a native speaker of Farsi, who as far as I can tell is non-partisan, and who translates the phrase in the same manner as all official Iranian sources is wrong, but you need to realize that that is all it is - your (somewhat implausible) POV. Isarig 14:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Isarig please do not put words into my mouth; it is uncivil. My position has nothing to do with non-nativity or partisan-ness. Please re-read my statement above -- the presumption is with Cole based on the actual claims made by both parties. Cole has on his side (1) credible analysis, (2) evidence of both the transitive and intransitive verb forms, (3) examples of the verb used in a sentence, and (4) his reputation, which he has put at public risk in support of this claim. Your experts have (1) their assertion, as interpreted by the NYT, and (2) well, that's it -- just #1. Your suggestion that I do original research here is disingenuous; if I did cite a grammar book here I'm sure you would delete it. But the issue of plausibility is heavily on Cole's side in this dispute. On a side note, it is not that unusual that a non-native speaker who studied the language as a scholar would understand the intricacies of grammar better than a native speaker who has never studied the language in that manner. But, of course, you may go ahead and defy plausibility by believing your experts, who have been publicly indicted by a scholar on this matter, rather than Cole, who has not.--csloat 18:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not putting words in your mouth. You POV is that Cole is correct, and I think it is undisputable that he is not a native speaker of farsi and is a partisan in this issue. You asked why we couldn't justaccept at face value Cole's claims, and I think I've answered that. As to your (irrelevant) analysis of who is more likely correct, allow me to refine the points you are making. Cole has (1) analysis. Whether this analysis is credible or not goes to the heart of the controversy, and just assuming his interpretation is correct or credible is the logical fallacy of assuming your premise. (2) he does not have "evidence" of the transitive vs. intransitive forms - he has a claim that the verb is intransitive, and his opponents have the opposite claim (3) The examples are really just an extension of (2) and finnaly (4) his reputation . Th eNYT experts have (1) analysis (2) a claim that the verb is transitive and (4) their reputation. In addition they are (5) native speaker of farsi, (6) translators by profession (at least one of them ) and (7) a transaltion which is the same as ALL OFFICIAL IRANIAN translations. That leads me to believe that it is far more plausible that they are right and Cole is wrong. Again, if Cole is right, I'd be happy to include a quote from Cole (or one of his supporters) saying "look, in Farsi Grammar for speaker of english, page 126 , it clearly says the verb is intransitive". But since WP is not about truth, all we have at this point is Cole's assertions and his critics' counter assertions. Isarig 04:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, and it is the text of the assertions that I am looking at; based purely on that, Cole's position is far more credible. Nice distortion of the issue though. Let me get this straight though -- you think Cole knows he is wrong but is lying about it? Or you think he has the transitive and intransitive mixed up, and is incapable of checking himself before publishing this claim? Again, in the end, the verb is either transitive or not. It's not a "partisan" issue.--csloat 10:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The text is in Farsi, which you do not speak. We have two translations of the text, one from a native speaker of Farsi who is a profesional translator. The other is from a non-native speaker of Farsi, who is a controversial figure and a partisan in the debate. To say that based purely on the text of the assertions that Cole's position is more credible is ridicoulous, and nothing more than a blatant expose of your POV. I am not in Cole's head and I don't know what he thinks. It's possible he thinks he is right, but is wrong, and doesn't know it, since his command of Farsi is not all he claims it is. I also find it quite plausible that he's lying, or at least obfuscating - having seen the similar shenanigans he's been up to on his blog. And while the "issue" is not partisan - Cole is. He is defending an earleir statement of his, and so his interpretations must be viewed with skepticism, which a non-partisan's opinion does not warrant.Isarig 15:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly Isarig; this is not about what is in Cole's head. My argument was based on the things Cole actually said and the things the other guys said. It is ridiculous to claim he is lying, but it does show your POV. I don't claim not to have a POV here, everyone does, but I am basing my argument not on my POV but on what is actually written. It's like a one sided debate -- the other translators made a claim, Cole refuted the claim, and then elaborated with several pieces of information to back him up, and the other side never responded. The presumption is obviously with Cole, at least until the other translators issue a response. And again we're dealing with a black-or-white issue here that could easily be looked up; even if you are right that Cole is a liar -- a claim you make without a shred of evidence, vague assertions about "shenanigans" notwithstanding -- why would he lie publicly about something that could so easily be checked? And, again, it's not at all unusual that a native speaker would be less comprehensive in his knowledge of the intricacies of grammar than a non-native speaker who has studied the language as an adult. I feel I speak English (my native tongue) quite well, but I would be hard pressed to win a debate about grammar with a non-native speaker who has studied the language for the last decade or more; the fact is, a native speaker doesn't have to pay that much attention to such things.--csloat 23:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not being silly, and refer you yet again to WP:CIVIL. When you ask me if I think Cole is lying, this requires knowing what's happening in Cole's head. why do you find it ridiculous to speculate that he might be lying? Is he some super-human who can't, by definiton, lie? Once agin, you are inserting your POV, describing Cole's claims as refutations. It is nothing of the kind. Cole is claiming the verb is intransitive, and the Farsi translator is claiming it is not. To suggest, based on this alone, that Cole has "refuted the claim", or that the other side never responded is (a) incorrect (b) POV and (c)bad faith. Yes, we are dealing with a black-or-white issue, and I've aready explained to you how such a B&W issue is resolved on WP: find a WP:RS that says "Cole is correct because Farsi grammar book X says the verb is intransitive". Until and unless you do that, all we can do here is state that Cole says something, and a Farsi translatir says something else. The claims I've made regarding shenanigans are not assertions- his blog manipulation to cover his errors are documented in the article. I don't know why he'd lie about something lke this- perhaps he really believes he is right, but is wrong, because he doesn't know Farsi well enough - this is something I've already suggested. Or perhaps he's counting on the "big lie" technique. Isarig 23:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there something uncivil about calling a silly argument silly? No offense and I'm sorry if you took it, but your techniques are exasperating. My point is simply that Cole has made other claims besides the assertion that a verb is intransitive; those other claims have not been answered. You call that bad faith on my part and you accuse me of incivility? I'm not even asking to change what is on the page here; I don't understand why you are so upset. You think Cole is a liar and you accuse him of "blog manipulations" yet I see no evidence for any of that. It doesn't matter Isarig, I don't think you will listen to anything I have to say about this so can we please agree to disagree and drop this?

RE Or perhaps he's counting on the "big lie" technique. That's a cheap shot.--CSTAR 23:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please stop accusing each other of injecting POV? In particular, csloat, why do you insist on using phrases such as "don't be silly" and imbed your arguments in these long paragraphs? Let me suggest my motto "Lo bueno, si breve, dos veces bueno". You have made one good point The fact that a person is a native speaker does not mean that person has better command of a language than a non-native speaker. In fact, given the choice between a non-native speaker who is an academic authority on a language and a competent native speaker who is not, the choice is almost always that the academic authority is more reliable. Therefore, the argument should rely on whether Cole and the other individual are academic authorities on the language. I don't want to inject myself into this seemingly endless debate other than to point out that this is assertion that requires proof.--CSTAR 23:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe Isarig is deflecting away from the actual point here, which is the text of what each speaker said. I don't understand why everyone is upset about this - I started my point by saying I was not asking for any change in the article. This is an academic discussion essentially, it has no bearing on the text of the article. I just find it a little insulting to be told (by Isarig) that my points are pure POV or that I am arguing in bad faith - I am simply looking at the text of the discussion published in the newspaper and on the blog! CSTAR you are incorrect that I have one good point. The other good point that I have is that Cole offered several points of discussion and none of them have been refuted. I don't wish to go through them again since they are above and you have asked me to be brief, but if you are going to tell me what I have said please be accurate about it.--csloat 01:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I'm sorry if I missed your other point. It's just that I've been trying to follow this discussion for several days and it might actually be better if everybody used bullet points (the horror!) rather than discursive paragraphs. I didn't mean to single you out — I'm just as irritated with Isarig's style as I am with yours. However, I think Isarig does have a point: until we actually check what the facts are, it's one person's claim against another person's claim. This doesn't mean Cole is a liar or incompetent; it's just that in the in the course of collecting the references WP needed to support statements in WP, this particular piece is not available. Now granted, I agree presumption is heavily on Cole's side here, and if he is wrong, this should be very easy to prove (as you say if he were wrong this would be very embarrassing). But this kind of reasoning though useful for some purposes, is not sufficient to justify this presumption for WP. Imagine that we were talking about the validity of some mathematical formula. Until a widely accepted justification is published, I don't care who says it's true, we can't claim it's true.

But maybe this point is moot anyway, since we're not actually talking about changing the article.--CSTAR 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is one person's claim against another's; I was simply defending my observation that the presumption is currently with Cole in this debate. If the other translators choose to respond to Cole then perhaps that would be different, but as the debate currently stands, Cole is winning it. I agree with your last claim too; the point is entirely moot. I'm simply defending my opinion here and I have not at all insisted that my opinion be put into the Wikipedia article.--csloat 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

More on Translation Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezad

"posted by Juan @ 6/15/2006 12:30:00 AM 0 comments Steele on Ahmadinejad: Of Arenas of Time and Intransitive Verbs http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html Jonathan Steele of the Guardian does a good piece about the controversy over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's quotation from Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" -- which some Iranian activists and the Western press translated as "Israel must be wiped off the face of the map."

The only thing I would add is that mahv shodan is in fact an intransitive verb construction. Shodan is to become. An mard khoshhal shodeh is "that man became happy." It is not a transitive verb. That is why mahv shodan is better translated "vanish," also an intransitive verb. The transitive is mahv kardan, to "wipe out" or "eliminate."

The New York Times was told by supposed Persian language experts in Iran, and appears to believe, that mahv shodan is a transitive verb construct. It makes me a little worried about the state of grammar in Iran, and in the Persian speaking staff of the NYT, and also about its newsgathering prowess. If they cannot find out that shodan is intransitive, something well known in Persian grammar for thousands of years, you wonder what other assertions they are swallowing. I told them this, by the way, before the article came out. I guess we academic Persianists are not trusted to know an intransitive verb when we see one. No wonder we're mostly not trusted to know more important things. posted by Juan @ 6/15/2006 12:24:00 AM 0 comments" Take Care! --Will 18:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From Sullivan's article in the Guardian "This, in my view, is the crucial point and I'm glad the NYT accepts that the word "map" was not used by Ahmadinejad. (By the way, the Wikipedia entry on the controversy gets the NYT wrong, claiming falsely that Ethan Bronner "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map".) At least he is reading WP. Good Work Commodore. If it wasn't for your efforts. He would have said the WP also gets the whole quote wrong. Take Care! --Will 18:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article says Bronner concluded that; it says Bronner cited the so-called "experts" who concluded that. I'll go ahead and include some of Steele's analysis in the section, however.--csloat 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bronner concluded with the following statement: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[6]

Based on that quote, it's probably accurate to say that Bronner concluded that Ahmadinejad's statement is most accurately interpreted as wiped off the map. (Of course, I'm more interest in the "so-called 'experts'", including Cole, than I am in two newspaper columnists). Overall, I suspect that this issue is a tempest in a teapot and will be deleted in a few months unless there's some verifiable criticism of Cole over this question. Cole's speculation, republished on some of the lefty blogs, that the phrase was translated as "wiped off the map" as part of war propoganda is a little goofy, given that (1) Iran and Al-Jazeera translated it as "wiped off the map" and (2) MEMRI didn't. The rest of the debate is fairly esoteric, and doesn't really inform the question of whether Ahmadinejad wants Israel to be overthrown by force or by the machinations of history. TheronJ 19:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I missed that last line somehow when reviewing Steele's claim; but it is strange, given that the Bronner article itself is pretty clear that "wiped off the map" is incorrect:

The second translation issue concerns the word "map." Khomeini's words were abstract: "Sahneh roozgar." Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as "map," and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not "Sahneh roozgar" but "Safheh roozgar," meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word "map" again. Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: "It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word 'map' was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words 'sahneh roozgar' are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as 'book of countries,' and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard 'Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad' — Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches."

So perhaps Bronner misspoke in his conclusion; he seems to be summing up the last couple paragraphs which indicate that Iran is hostile to Israel (a point that nobody disputes). I don't think Cole's claim is that goofy, BTW -- he doesn't seem to be charging the translators themselves with being warmongers (in fact, he simply claims they are rushed, and inexact); it is the pundits who keep repeating the claim as a justification for attacking Iran who he seems to have a problem with in this way.--csloat 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, there are two issues. (We're way into OR here, but it's the talk page).

1. On the narrow translation issue:
   1. Ahmedinijad said "Khomeni was right when he said [x]." According to Bronner's sources, "wiped off the map" is a fair ideomatic way of what Khomeni said, but Ahmedinijad got the quote wrong. If I say "Freedom is important - John Paul Jones was right when he said 'give me liberty or give me breath,'", it's not immediately apparent whether I meant to say the real quote or not.
   2. Ultimately, the difference between "be wiped off the map" and "be wiped off the pages of history/time" is not one that's likely to be comforting to the Israelis. Cole's point seems to be that it should be "vanish", not "be wiped off", and if he's right, "Israel must vanish from the map" is as good as "Israel must vanish from history."
2. On the broader issue of whether Ahmedinijad was threatening Israel with violence:
   1. If you read the whole speech, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Ahmedinijad supports violence, but not by Iran, at least not today. Israel is a stain on the middle east, and no middle eastern county should rest until all of Palestine is ruled by a government elected by the local arabs, but any decendants of immigrant jews shouldn't get to vote.
   2. So my bottom line is that the Hitchens' of the world were overreacting, but the distinction between "map" and "pages of time" isn't relevant to the overreaction - if you want to make an informed guess what Ahmedinijad meant, it's more helpful to look at the whole speech and the political context, rather than focusing whether the big A wants Israel stricken from merely the map or actually all of time.TheronJ 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In sum, "Israel must be wiped off the map", "Israel must vanish from the pages of history", and "The regime occupying Jerusalem must disappear from time" all mean essentially the same thing: "The Jewish State must be replaced by Islamic Palestine." This has been Iran's position for years. People are interested to know, however, which of the following is a more accurate rendition: (1) "must vanish" or (2) "must be made to vanish", because (2) sounds more threatening. Precis 20:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Theronj and Precis have it all wrong, just part of the mindset. 1) Read Mahmoud Ahmadi's whole speech in the MEMRI translation. He is not talking about violence. He mentions the Soviet Union in particular, that you have to go to the libraries to find scraps of it and even there the scraps are wanting. that gives context to the whole remarks. 2) Don't underestimate the war mongering potential of the NYT. That's where Judith Miller drummed up the support for the Weapons of Mass Deception and the war on Iraq. Peres followed up with AhmedNejadi's speech with a counterthreat to wipe Iran off the map. Like Cole says, philolgy though dry can be important. At least to the living and whole not yet made dead and wounded by the warmongers. That's the only reason I take time to set the record straight on Cole on these pages. Take Care! --Will 21:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

very good work Commodore. I sincerely hope your work on the translation remarks does not get vandalized. Take Care! --Will 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"I think Theronj and Precis have it all wrong, just part of the mindset." I'm wondering which of my three statements were wrong. I'll label them A,B,C for easy reference.

• (A) In sum, "Israel must be wiped off the map", "Israel must vanish from the pages of history", and "The regime occupying Jerusalem must disappear from time" all mean essentially the same thing: "The Jewish State must be replaced by Islamic Palestine."
• (B) This has been Iran's position for years.
• (C) People are interested to know, however, which of the following is a more accurate rendition: (1) "must vanish" or (2) "must be made to vanish", because (2) sounds more threatening. Precis 09:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

New Proposal on Yale

I'd like to suggest a compromise on the Yale section. I've rewritten the section to include bullet points for the various opinions, and would suggest that people add more bullet points if I've missed any. (In particular, (1) I haven't included any citations stating that the decision to overrule was based on Cole's academic work and/or his blogging; and (2) I haven't included Cole's statement on the subject, which I recall he posted on his website.) Let me know your thoughts, particularly if you're concerned that I put in too much or not enough. TheronJ 15:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The "highly unusual" were not mine to begin with. My edit was to 1) put it in the Rubin and Mowbray publicity campagign and take out the self serving fluff 2) provost statement. The Provost saying it is not unusual does not make is so " " "If two departments agreed to hire him … it's hard to swallow that some outside committee would decide against it," Allouche said." OK you can have it. The reader is smart enough to figure out two departments being overturned is "unusual." When I have the time to figure out footnotes, I"ll try my hand at putting in Allouche's statement in directly. One attributed quote to balance another attributed quote. Take Care! --Will 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The following was on JC's blog. Full quote and blog date above. "There are obviously some critics, however, who go rather beyond simple critique to wishing to silence or smear me. In the former, at least, they cannot succeed by mere yellow journalism." Take Care! --Will 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Feith, yet again

As was discussed extensively on this page before, Will keeps addign the allegation that Rice and Wilkerson share Cole's opinion of Feith. I have removed this (and will keep removing it) for the follwoing reasons: (1) The issue is not Feith. It is Cole's belief that pro-Israel jewish members of the administration have dual loyalties. Feith is used just as an example (2) Even if th eissue was Feith, this articel is not the place to list all those who allegedly agree with Cole. It is for presenting his views, and presenting criticisms of those views. There are doubtless million sof people who share Cole's views on th eIraq ar - are we going to list them all in that section? (3) Given (1) & (2), this is a moot point, but claim is also false. Wilkerson said Feith is stupid, but did not accuse him of dual loyalty, and neither did Rice. Will - please address these issues here before re-inserting that statement, which has been removed by other editors as well. Isarig 04:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one. I can sort of see the point - if Cole had said that "many Jewish supporters of Israel, such as Jonathan Pollard, have dual loyalties," I don't think it would be out of line to point out that Pollard was in fact convicted of espionage. (Similarly, it's not unreasonable for the Joseph McCarthy page to point out that communists had, in fact, infiltrated the US Government). This is a closer case, but if it were up to me, I would compromise with something like: "Although there is no evidence that they agree with Cole's view that all American Jews who support Likud are likely to have dual loyalty, at least two Bush administration officials, Condoleeza Rice and John Wilkerson, have also criticized Feith for excessive advocacy of Israel's interests."

1. 1. Will, can you explain as succinctly as possible why you think Rice and Wilkerson's criticisms of Feith are relevant here?
   2. Isarig, is there any compromise language that you would accept on this issue?

Thanks, TheronJ 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Pointing out that Pollard was in fact a spy, as a follow-on to that hypothetical statement, would be editorializing, and would have no place in an encyclopedia. I don't think the statement that Will insists on including belongs here at all. Anyone can go to the Feith article and read about him, and decide if Cole is correct, or read the Rice article and see if this is a view she shares. just like we don't list the many people who, like COle, think mistakes were made in Iraq, we have no business listing people who agree with Cole on other issues. Isarig 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I reject your implicit premise about Cole's reasoning. It is not deductive but inductive. Let me illustrate the difference. Deductive. All Jews in government have dual loyalties. Feith is a Jew, therefore Feith has dual loyalties. In deductive you reason from an absolute to particulars. Inductive. In inductive reasoning, you start with instances, then you make a general statement. Feith is a Jew that co-authored a paper for Netanyhu along with Maryam Wurmser (MEMRI cofouonder), Richard Perle other American Jewish Likudniks. this paper urged an overthrow of the Oslo accords and the invasion of Iraq. Scooter Libby is an American Jew hi in government that stovepiped cooked up or suspect intelligence straight into the WH. Wolfwitz, No. 2, at the Pentagon, urged the invasion on Iraq in liew of Afghanistan. Many more examples. Proceeding from the general then one makes a statement "there are highly placed American Jews" affaliated with the Israeli hardline "keep the settlements" Liud party that have dual loyalties. When Feith, who was No. 3 at the Pentagon and disbanded the Iraq Army etc, is offered as a test case, the counterexample is that Cole is proceeding from induction. Indeed Feith did have dual loyalties and Cole can olnly have a derivative opinion of it. There are first hand participants that speak to his dual loyalties. Thus they blow the case wide apart that Cole is guilty of NAS (New-Anti-Semitism). That is the relevance. Rice and Wilkerson see Feith's dual loyalty. Are they NAS's? Not all American Jews are Likudnik NeoKons. Edward Witten, the string theorist, and arguably the smartest man in America is a peace activist. If he had a role in the U.S. government, No one would ever say he had divided loyalties. The relevance is that "Feith" is used as a specific example to show that JC is a NAS. My "corroborative" counterexample shows that JC is not necessarily NAS by his Likudnik in government opinion. Because it so devastating to those that have an Israeli lobby NOV, they are constantly deleting the comment. Take Care! --Will 23:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Take Care! --Will 23:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Feith is not used as an example to show JC is a NAS. Feith is used by Cole as an example of his view that pro-Isreali Jews in the GBWH have dual loyalties. This view is the one which is controversial, not his particular opinion of Feith or any other individual. And as I wrote above, even if Feith were the topic, we do not, in an encylopedic article, list all the people who allegedly agree with a cewtain viewpoint. Isarig 14:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Isarig: " Wilkerson said Feith is stupid, but did not accuse him of dual loyalty, and neither did Rice. Will - please address these issues . O.K. one more time After subbing for Rumsfeld at a briefing (Feith was No. 3 in the Pentagon) "Former National Security Advisor Condeleezza RiceThen-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, "Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we'll invite the ambassador."

Yes, where is Rice saying he has dual loyalties? Isarig 14:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

When Rice says that Feith is so identified w/ the Israeli position that he gives the Israeli position instead of the American Pentagon position, what would you call it Isarig? Do you need all the dots connected? Take Care! --Will 01:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

On WP, "connecting the dots" is called original research, and is not allowed. Isarig 02:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wilkerson: "Regarding Feith and his colleague, David Wurmser, Colonel Wilkerson has stated "A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own. When asked to characterize Feith's role in US government, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson replied "Was he nefarious? Absolutely." Colonel Wilkerson "believes that Feith placed Likud's interests above America's during his service at the Pentagon."

It is very hard to find any highly placed Jewish American official that did not favor Israel against the interests of the U.S. From Elliot Abrams to Dennis Ross. If you define American interests as Peace, stability, the fullfillment of human rights enshrined by the bedrock American principles

"All men are created equal by their Creator, and entitled to the blessings of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Read Palestinians to be inclulded in the phrase All Men. 18th Century notions of Pursluit of Happiness include ownership of property.

Isarig. the 3R rule reflects a policy to avoid endless edit wars. It is not a license to revert three in one day, then punishment on the fourth. (It is the fourth edit supposedly that gets you in trouble). Even one edit a day if done w/ your intent is suffiecient from my reading." I have removed this (and will keep removing it) ...." Take Care! --Will 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute on what constitutes antisemitism

"It is very hard to find any highly placed Jewish American official that did not favor Israel against the interests of the U.S. From Elliot Abrams to Dennis Ross. If you define American interests as Peace, stability, the fullfillment of human rights enshrined by the bedrock American principles." This statement singles out Jews for disloyalty, and as such strikes me as a perfect example of antisemitism. Can sincere belief in the truth of this statement be used as a defense? Consider the following opinion of X: "It's hard to find any black baseball player who is faithful to his wife." Whether X truly believes this or not, his statement is racist because it singles out black athletes for vilification. Precis 09:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am reminded of Samuel Johnson's definition of a patriot. So it seems with AS and NAS. It is used as a political ploy to keep the inhuman occupation going and suck America and Israel into unending wars and human misery. There again deduction is confused with induction. Induction precedes by a case by case basis. Deniis Ross at disastrous Camp David told Barak, "One more concession, I am walking out of the meeting." The reader would be well familiar with Elliot Abrams. I wish there was a counterexample. There are many American Jews that do work for Peace. I am not familiar with any in the Bush WH.

Prominent American Jews that have recently worked for Mid-East Peace are Edward Witten, the string theorist, and Jason Alexander, George from Seinfeld, who has traveled to Israel and met with Palestinians. The true friends of Israel are the ones that work for Peace and not the ones that work to prolong the Occupation. Read www.gush-shalom.org. Here's a statement from an Haaretz article well worth considering in this whole AS, NAS debate http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/726493.html "When will we understand that only the 1967 lines are the borders to defend the "Jewish and democratic state" from bestiality? And who, aside from us, really cares if we become bestial? Or maybe we don't care anymore?" Yossi Sarid. Who do you prefer, Yossi Sarid, a man of Peace, or Karsh who has written a tract "What Occupation?" It's a matter of POV. After a trillion dollars of direct and indirect costs of the Iraq War, 2500 dead, and nearly 20,000 wounded, it's time to face reality for Americans as well as Israelis. Take Care! --Will 11:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A statement that singles out Jews for disloyalty stands on its face as antisemitic, regardless of politics. Many non-Jews in the Bush administration have views similar to those of Ross or Abrams. If lots of ballplayers cheat on their wives, it is racist to single out black ballplayers for cheating. The person singling them out may point to some faithful black Sunday School teachers and say "See, I have nothing against blacks." But that doesn't make his statement singling out black ballplayers any less racist. There is nothing wrong with opposing the Iraq War, occupation, or Likud. But there is something wrong with singling out American Jews for disloyalty. Perhaps an apology is in order. Precis 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Precis. No reasonable person can disagree with the strawman you set up. But that's not what I said. Repeating the difference between deductive and inductive statements would not do any good, b/c apparently you did not get it or you ignored it the first and second time. A third time is not going to be the "charm." I love a soap box as well as anybody else and I could go through all the points again b\ it would be against WP policy. Take it up on my user page or yours. No use having it out here on the JC page. Take Care! --Will 01:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"It is very hard to find any highly placed Jewish American official that did not favor Israel against the interests of the U.S." Referring to this statement, I leveled the charge of antisemitism, based on the singling out (for disloyalty) of American Jews (among dozens of other pro-Israel officials in the Bush Administration). After initial evasion of the issue with talk of Yossi Sarid and the Iraq War, the next line of defense was denial: "But that's not what I said." Too bad the third time won't be the charm. Yes, this is an improper forum to continue such a discussion, and this is my last word on it here, but I feel it is proper to at least briefly condemn antisemitic remarks in the same forum in which they are made. Precis 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yale controversy: rumor or knowledge?

I removed the following sentence: In response to Mowbray's letter, the Jewish Week reported, based on reports from "several faculty members" of Yale, that "at least four major Jewish donors [...] contacted officials at the university urging that Cole’s appointment be denied." I find this to be a dishonest rendition of what The Jewish Week actually said, which is: Several faculty members said they had heard that at least four major Jewish donors, whose identity the faculty members did not know, have contacted officials at the university urging that Cole’s appointment be denied. The dishonesty is twofold:

• the word heard is omitted, thus giving the impression that The Jewish Week is reporting on professors' knowledge rather than on unverifiable rumor that they heard
• ellipses [...] are used to replace " whose identity the faculty members did not know", thus further obscuring the fact that the faculty members were reporting on unverifiable rumor

Despite my admonition, the ellipses version was placed back into the article. I offered to replace the ellipses version with the following full quote: Several faculty members said they had heard that at least four major Jewish donors, whose identity the faculty members did not know, have contacted officials at the university urging that Cole’s appointment be denied. (I was reluctant to offer this, because I think quoting reports based on rumors coming from sources unknown even to The Jewish Week makes WP look ridiculous. Did the rumor come from a department secretary? Imagine the Britannica writing something like "Several professors said they'd heard through the grapevine that four individuals whose names they did not know ..." However, I offered to put in the full quote in the spirit of compromise. The editor who at first accepted this compromise then promptly reverted, replacing the full quote by the ellipses version. What is the justification? Precis 12:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. The Nation quotes the sentence in question as follows: "Several faculty members said they had heard that at least four major Jewish donors...have contacted officials at the university urging that Cole's appointment be denied." [7]. The obfuscation is not quite as pronounced here, since the word "heard" is included. But the ellipses are still shameful. Precis 12:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Precis. Methinks you protest too much. The main point is not AS or NAS but Semitism run amok. Rubin and Mowbray stuck their thumb and left feet into an academic process they would have better left alone. Yes, they exercised their free speech. But they gave the effect of the American Israeli lobby hounding the mild mannered professor in retaliation for speaking truth to moneyed steam roller power. The irony of it is their clumsy clownish campaign may not have had that much effect. Take Care! --Will 17:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people see the nefarious "American Israeli lobby" behind everything. Don't look now, Will, the agents of the Cabal are underneath your bed, better adjust that tin foil hat. Isarig 17:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Isarig. It's not joking matter to me. As a Vietnam grunt. 2501 Iraq dead, 20,000 wounded. I don't blame it all on the Israeli American lobby. But as Uri Avnery analyzed it's a little of the tail wagging the dog, and the dog wagging the tail back. The dog being Cheney's Oil interests. The two together producing the ill-begotten Iraq war to "secure the realm" and the oil interests. And Iran next. You can joke about the tinfoil all you want, but for the people that have to drink through straws the rest of their lives, it's no joking matter. Take Care! --Will 17:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Melodrama to you. Death and agony to others. Uri Avnery Who's the dog? Who's the tail? 22-4-06 http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1145734278/

Uri is also a combat veteran that prefers the way of peace. Are you going to also call his an anti-semite? Take Care! --Will 17:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And the melodrama continues. Avneri is welcome to his POV, as you are to yours. being a combat veteran does not make one's arguments more (or less) persuasive. Isarig 18:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

spare me the melodrama. You are making antisemitic statements on this talk page, accusing loyal American citizens of dual loyalty based on innuendos, accusing other citizens of being part of a nefarious Cabal for no reason other than they disagree with you. Maybe when you start editing Cheney's page with the same zeal you are showing here I will take you seriously. Isarig 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't edit Cheney, Feith, Wolfwitz. I'm only here to edit and defend JC. A true American Patriot, a profile in courage. A mild mannered Prof that speaks truth to Power against great adversity. To defend him from Character degradation. And I watered down my language.Take Care! --Will 19:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Precis's proposed compromise sounds fair - Will, can you clarify whether you are insisting on the elipses, and why? TheronJ 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

TheronJ. I have no dog in this elipses thing. I just made the comment that it was a lot of nitpicking. The main point is that clowns Rubin and Mowbray jumped into an academic matter. It's obvious to any reader from the account. What you have is fine. You are quite a diplomat. Appreciate your efforts. Take Care! --Will 17:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Will, I saw your response and jumped to the conclusion that you were the editor Precis was arguing with, which I shouldn't have done. TheronJ 18:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

BHouston, did you mean to make this edit?[8] If Precis puts in the quote without elipses, do you have any objections? Thanks, TheronJ 18:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean to. Sorry. I figured Precis was continuing to play the revert game with me. That was a decent compromise solution. --Ben Houston 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Precis was continuing to play the revert game"? I had reverted exactly once: (cur) (last) 01:41, 17 June 2006 Precis (→Faculty position at Yale University - Either put in the entire JW quote or leave it out, but WP shouldn't be reporting rumor as fact and hiding this with ellipses.) before inserting the compromise. I was very surprised that the ellipses version kept wending its way back into the article with no justification offered for removing the word "heard". Further, reversions that promote a disputed point of view should not be labeled as minor edits. That being said, I apologize for assuming the mistake was due to malice. I agree with Will that TheronJ is developing quite a reputation as a diplomat. Precis 21:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"The main point is that clowns Rubin and Mowbray jumped into an academic matter." Suppose that the target happened to be a neocon instead of Cole. Would R and M still be called clowns? Is the name-calling really due to R and M's methods? Or is it rather due to indignation over their POV? Precis 10:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Precis. "R and M's methods"=Klowns. To be more precise your "Rumor" terminology should have been "hearsay." Hearsay can be very credible depending on the chain of sources. Its failing in a adversarial setting is you can't x-examine the primary witness. No doubt, you were really nit-picking on that one. Take Care! --Will 15:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's something to help us take our minds off the small stuff. Take Care! --Will 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Take Care! --Will^(talk) 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Going back to the big picture. When I had paraphrased the JW article. I had left out "Jewish" donor. It was put back in later. I was in error to have left it out. I see that now. Because it is part of a larger pattern. The same thing was done to Walt at Harvard when the working paper on the Israeli lobby was posted on the Harvard website. It's just a fact of academic life, freedom of academic expression has a chilling financial price- backwash neokon pressure on Jewish academic financial donors. It's hilarious that I understand the Harvard logo came off the Mearsheimer-Walt paper but I see Dershowitz's reply has the Harvard logo on it. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• "R and M's methods=Klowns" So if Uri Avneri wrote a letter of protest to donors who are members of Gush Shalom, then I could call Avneri a clown? I know, asked and answered.
• To be more precise your "Rumor" terminology should have been "hearsay" Outside a court of law, the two words can be used interchangeably (see www.dictionary.com)
• Hearsay can be very credible depending on the chain of sources. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
• No doubt, you were really nit-picking on that one. I charged an editor with two counts of concealing the fact that a statement was hearsay. Call it nit-picking if you will, but if something is just a rumor, I'd like that out in the open, so it is not confused with knowledge. Precis 21:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Precis. "Charge," "Accuse," Lighten up. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 23:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm charging you with selective disclosure. What about my other cute court references: asked and answered , concealment, and two counts, hmm? Precis 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The (Character) Assasins

From antiwar.com I can't figure out the author, it shows him smoking a cigarette. Randolph Bourne? It echoes a lot of the

Justin Raimondo Will314159 18:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

issues raised here and the debate , though in more extreme stronger language and with a strong POV. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9170 In part

"June 19, 2006 The Assassins From character assassination to physical assassination, the Lobby and its agents ruthlessly pursue their agenda

When John J. Mearsheimer, .......... the outcry from all the usual suspects was stupendous. After all, the professors had unapologetically said what everyone knows to be true: that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is geared to Israeli and not American interests. It is a case of altruism sui generis.

If anyone says that – out loud, that is – the price they pay is exorbitant,......... that anyone who criticizes Israel, or, more significantly, notices the Lobby's decisive influence over U.S. policymakers, risks their career, whether it be in politics, the media, or academia.

In regard to this last, Mearsheimer and Walt report that the Lobby has recently begun a campaign to "take back the campuses," and I would point out that the latest victim is Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan. Professor Cole is a Middle East expert, a distinguished scholar, and an articulate critic of our interventionist foreign policy. His popular blog, Informed Comment, richly deserves its name, and he has lately become someone the more in-depth media outlets turn to when they want knowledgeable commentary about current events in the region. The news that he was up for an appointment at Yale University, to head up a new department of Middle Eastern studies, was just what the Lobby needed to hear to swing into action.

Cole's sin: he, like Mearsheimer and Walt, had noted the inordinate influence of what The Nation magazine termed "American Likudniks" on the course of our foreign policy, and it wasn't long before the appointment was buried in a blizzard of outraged op-eds in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Sun, while the neocon contingent of the blogosphere was frothing at the mouth. In what was quite clearly an organized effort, Joel Mowbray, a smalltime neocon columnist who specializes in smearing enemies of the Lobby with the tar brush of "anti-Semitism" – his enemies list includes Gen. Anthony Zinni and the U.S. Justice Department, which had the temerity to prosecute admitted Israeli spy Larry Franklin – sent a letter to a good number of Yale donors, alerting them to Cole's pending appointment and urging action. Jewish Week reports that "several faculty members said they had heard that at least four major Jewish donors … have contacted officials at the university urging that Cole's appointment be denied."

In the end, Cole's appointment was nixed – and a central contention of Mearsheimer and Walt's analysis was confirmed. As they wrote:

"Groups within the Lobby put pressure on particular academics and universities. Columbia has been a frequent target, no doubt because of the presence of the late Edward Said on its faculty. 'One can be sure that any public statement in support of the Palestinian people by the pre-eminent literary critic Edward Said will elicit hundreds of emails, letters and journalistic accounts that call on us to denounce Said and to either sanction or fire him,' ........ Princeton also faced a few years later when it considered wooing Khalidi away from Columbia."

Yale's turn came soon enough. Whose turn will it be tomorrow?

In the Lobby's arsenal, character assassination is a major weapon of choice, and this was wielded against Cole time and again. Michael Rubin, a former employee of the Coalition Provisional Authority whose views are so extreme that he now accuses the Bush administration of selling out its original program of "regime change," wrote:

"While Cole condemns anti-Semitism, he accuses prominent Jewish-American officials of having dual loyalties, a frequent anti-Semitic refrain. That he accuses Jewish Americans of using 'the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment' is unfortunate."

This "Gurkha regiment" phrase, lifted out of context, occurred in the course of Cole's analysis of the Larry Franklin espionage case, in which Franklin, a Pentagon analyst who specialized in Iran, admitted passing sensitive classified intelligence to Israeli officials via Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two top officials of the pro-Israel lobbying group scheduled to go on trial soon. Here is the original context:

"Here is my take on the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal in the Pentagon.

"It is an echo of the one-two punch secretly planned by the pro-Likud faction in the Department of Defense. First, Iraq would be taken out by the United States, and then Iran. David Wurmser, a key member of the group, also wanted Syria included. These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel's ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else's boys did the dying)."

Franklin is not Jewish, and the Jewishness of these "pro-Likud intellectuals" has nothing to do with Cole's opposition to their activities, which seem – in Franklin's case, and also Rosen's and Weissman's – to include espionage on behalf of Israel. It is typical, however, of the Lobby to smear anyone who criticizes them as an "anti-Semite" – an accusation that, if it sticks, effectively immunizes the neoconservatives who put Israel first from all criticism.

......................................

Cornered, the Lobby screeches "bigotry!" – but this is merely a reflex, uttered without sincerity or any indication that even the accusers take it seriously. It is merely meant to blacken the name of anyone who stands up to the threats and intimidation routinely employed by a cabal of ruthless political operatives, who have no more of a moral compass than a flamethrower.

The utter ruthlessness of the Amen Corner's tactics resembles nothing so much as the tactics and methods of a covert action carried out by agents of a foreign power, and, indeed, some of these people – such as Larry Franklin, for example, along with his accomplices – are foreign agents, who would stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Character assassination is, for them, a routine matter – and, in certain cases, physical assassination is not out of the question. The news that Lebanon has uncovered an Israeli spy ring that routinely engaged in a number of assassinations ought not surprise anyone. ............................. Oh, but nix that – everybody knows that the Mossad would never, ever engage in assassinations, and to even imply such a thing is to confess that one's favorite reading material is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. " Take Care! --Will^(talk) 08:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dershowitz and the Lobby

It's hilarious that I understand the Harvard logo came off the Mearsheimer-Walt paper but I see Dershowitz's reply has the Harvard logo on it. Take Care! --Will... You see that D's reply has the logo? This is what is known in the trade as false testimony. Neither article has the logo. Oh, but there is a logo on the html page containing Dershowitz's abstract. It's got to be the work of that hilariously hypocritical Jewish Lobby, right? Well, not quite, the Mearsheimer-Walt abstract is accompanied by the same logo. No worries, I'm sure you'll find another way to be victimized by the Lobby real soon. Precis 07:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Precis. Testimony from "Latin testes" oh forget the legal lesson. Thank you for your trivia research. I"m glad Dersh was man enough to follow up on removing the logo as Walt removed his. As far as laughing matters and fun and games: In the vein of Karsh's article "What occupation?," Go tell that to the Gazans in their steel cage with a demolished airport and seaport, or the Palestinians on the West Bank in perpetual lockdown in their cantons of Bantustans or the Iraqis, or American dead and wounded, go tell them it's all make believe and make your charges, accusations, and quasi-legal crap here in America and peace and comfort. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 08:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, The awful things you mention above are truly awful. I don't disagree. I'm sure no editor here disagrees. Your view is very one-sided, however. You need to read some of the other chapters in the history book. A number of groups are absent from your list above. You haven't added the murdered Israelis at their Passover Seder in a hotel, sleeping in their olympic dorms, eating their pizza and riding their busses. You haven't mentioned the US soldiers on the USS Cole who were killed, or the foreign service workers in the embassies. I also notice you didn't add either the synagogues or the greenhouses to the list of destroyed things in Gaza. The Palestinians vandalized and then destroyed the Jews holy places when the Jews left (defending this by saying they were not holy places, just buildings), and also looted and destroyed the greenhouses bought for them by the international community (mainly American Jews). I also notice you only see that one side of all this has any responsibility--ie the US-ISraeli military complex. Israel, whether or not you think it has a right to exist, and whatever its borders, 1967, 1949, 1948, etc---is surrounded by hostile nations who have demonstrated their hostility. Egypt finally did recognize Israel, but its culture is permiated with antisemitism. They show the protocols of zion on primetime TV! And they are the "friendly" nation. The palestinians have elected a government for the PA, which denies the very accord which established the authority they were elected to head. Israel is not blameless and the uS is not blameless, but Israel very assuredly has a need and right to protect itself and if it doesn't protect itself it will be destroyed. You also talk about the peace and comfort of America.

Try telling that to the jewish, black, homosexual, etc victims of hate here. This is Wikipedia--we are all supposed to be taking a three dimensional view. I'm sorry to go on at length here on the talk page, but I'm just trying to get you to see some other sides of these issues you care so deeply about. Elizmr 10:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr. I don't disagree with some of what you've said. The secular Arab states have been largely dealt a death blow and the most extreme kind of Salfist Islam is replacing it. Part of is can be traced to the 1967 land grab and the acquiesance of the U.S. in it and in vetoing U.N. resolultions to grapple with it. The mostrosity of the occupation in Gaza is not outwweighed by the incidents you mentioned, about 5000 settlers in seaside villas using up 20% of the land among a million impoverished Gazans, the settlers guarded by tens of thousands of Israeli troops at a cost of billions. Ironically, now some of the Israeli Gaza settlers, experts at hydroponic agriculture, are running agriculture in enterprises in Morocco, where Arab-Jewish relations are excellent. so, some things are not beyond hope. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, well well before radical Islam was born the Arabs wanted the Jews out of Eretz Israel. If you know anything about Judaism and history you know that the Jews have been praying to go back to Jerusalem three times a day for over two thousand years, way before Islam was even born. Jews have a historic connection to the land. The Arab governments did everything in their power to prevent Jews from legally settling in their historic homeland during the British mandate, and the British went along with them because they needed their Oil. When the UN partitioned Palestine and Israel declared independence, the surrounding Arab states did not create a Palestinian state, they attacked Israel and expected to destroy it. This was not radical Islam. These were garden variety Arab states. This had nothing to do with 1967. Where is the Palestinian anger at Jordan and Egypt, who "occupied" their land from 49-67??? There is a lot of talk about Israel disobeying UN resolutions, but quite honestly the Arab states have ignored a hell of a lot of them too. Jews were not even allowed to visit the Western Wall, the tombs of their ancestors in Hebron, and other holy places from 49 and 67. There as typically been desecration of Holy places, holy books, etc of Jews when Arab governments have taken over before and after 1967. This is all against UN resolutions. Are those resolutions less important than the others? Jews have always guaranteed Islamic worshipers access to their holy places in the territories and have not desecrated them. As far as the starving gazans go, you really should acknowledge the responsibility of the PA leadership for the suffering their people rather than just blaming Israel and the US (I'm not saying Israel is blameless). The PA has received huge amounts of foreign aid. Much of this aid has been robbed by the leadership; much of it has been directed towards instruments of agression which have not contributed to peace or the good of the palestinian people in any way shape or form. Arafat died a very very very rich man. No infastructure has been built up, the education is mostly anti Israel propaganda of the worst kind (Palestine from the river to the sea, Jews are evil descendants of animals, etc). Untold resources have been wasted. Hamas has spent huge amounts on weaponry while their people have starved. How many rockets have been fired into Israel from gaza since Israel got out of gaza? could the money spent on rockets have fed people? You bet. If Israel got out of the West Bank now, in keeping with UN resolutions, almost the country would be in rocket range of the west bank and gaza with a government in power that is sworn to Israel's destruction. If you were in charge of Israel, would you just get out and stand back to be murdered? And in terms of the US, they have not always been on the side of Israel, quite the contrary quite often and mostly when it suited them to be on that side due to cold war politics. Again, I'm sorry for putting this on the talk page of an article but the knee jerk stuff I'm reading here needs to be responded to. Elizmr 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr. You are absolutely right. The Juan Cole page is not a proxy page to fight out the Arab-Israeli dispute. There are may strands such as the meaning of words. Do the descendants of the Jews that originated Xtianity and converted lose their rights as human beings? Do the Xtians of Bethlehem become untermenschen subject to confiscation of their lands and property? Do the descendants of the Jews that converted to Islam lose their humanity and property rights? Have you ever heard of Zaid ibn Su`nah the Jewish companion of the Prophet Muhammad?. That's why in this day and age, I focus on individuals and individual human rights. The proper starting points are these two principles which encapsulate all of human rights in a nutshell.

Declaration of Independence We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

US Constitution Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Israel does not have a written Constitution and for good reason! By definition, it is partial to one group of people.

The whole Mid-East conundrum now pretextually is about security, but the real nut is about the land grab of the West Bank. The large settlement blocs have been conceded in the Taba or Geneva accords. It just needs leadership to carry out one of those plans followed up by the Beirut plan with full peace and trade. Everybody will be so busy making money, they will forget about the old bullcrap just like the French and Germans did. Who remembers now that in the single battle of Verdun a million of each died in a single stupid battle? Take Care! --Will^(talk) 22:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, I did not have any desire to bring israel/palestine into this but felt a need to respond to your statements on this subject. Elizmr 04:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your trivia research....This is how you thank us for research that reveals your error--by minimizing it as trivia?...I"m glad Dersh was man enough to follow up on removing the logo as Walt removed his. It appears that now we've left the domain of rationality. Are we on Punk'd? Precis 13:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Precis. You did very good in clearing up the Harvard seal matter. My apology for blowing off your effort. What is this "us" stuff? "This is how you thank us." Take Care! --Will^(talk) 15:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Us" refers to the Lobby--recall that you're the only non-Jewish editor here. :) Precis 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One of few. You are very perspicous though. This is hardly an article about Juan Cole. It is an article about the Lobby going after JC on WP b/c he is so effective as a balancing force in society. Accusing, Charging him of being AS, NAS, & academically incompetent- throwing everything including the kitchen sink at him- but he knows it comes w/ the territory of standing up to Leviathan. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Nation: "Burning Cole"

New major article on the Juan Cole - Yale - Neoconservative controversy. Lots of good quotes and analysis here: [9]. --Ben Houston 16:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Very Good Article. I knew he was a military "brat." I didn't know he had cousins working in the Pentagon during 9.11. He's absolutely right about the jihadist connection and the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. A recent news item reported that al-Qaeda perfected the holy grail of terrorist weaponry, set it in motion but al-Zawahiri pulled it back, so they are capable of some discretion and rational behavior. Cyanide Weapon I need to add a Google Alert "Yale Juan Cole." The articles I"ve pulled have been serendiptious. I've had a "Walt Mearsheimer" alert and it's roped in some Juan Cole-Yale articles. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Academic Expertise

Added some rebuttal material by James Joyner. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunmately, that material comes from a blog, which is not WP:RSIsarig 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Isarig: the policy you cite is a guideline. The mischief the guideline is directed against is unverified FACT not OPINION. In the instant case, the author is known and the subject matter is opinion. Kindly please read WP:RS again and then keep your cotton-picking hand off the James Joyner quote. I know it does not agree with your POV, but that is no reason to keep counterbalancing verified opinion prejudicial to your POV that is helpful to JC of HIS biographical page. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 21:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Isarig Please note that the policy clearly draws a distinction between reporting about facts or opinions, In particular, about opinions it says

Reporting about opinions: use of direct quotes

When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence (see Harvard referencing) or using a footnote or embedded link if the source is online.

However, policy on use of blogs as souces for opinions may be another matter. The policy you cite is

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

Though in my opinion, use of well-known blogs (well-known based on some access rating) for opinion should be acceptable, I have requested clarification on this matter, on the talk page of the policy page Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. --CSTAR 21:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. The page is a guideline not a policy as per the page's own header. --CSTAR 22:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You will recall, I'm sure, that a few weeks ago, before this article was forked from the main Cole article, there was heated debate over the use of material from the blog of Jeff Weintraub, an Ivy League professor. The concensus of that debate, edorsed by all the pro-Cole admins was that "the source is unacceptable" and that "Blogs don't normally meet the requirement of reliability. There are specific circumstances, based on the author of the blog being a subject-matter expert, under which a blog posting can be considered a reliable source." But I guess when we want to include some cheerleading for Cole, we can relax those standards just a bit. Isarig 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently Isarig is not acquanted w/ the famous Dr. Joyner. A google search on "James Joyner" produced 323,000 hits including

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyner "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James Joyner (born November 16, 1965) is best known as the founder and editor-in-chief of the weblogOutside The Beltway and a frequent contributor to TCS Daily (formerly Tech Central Station).

He is a management analyst at Lanmark Technology, Inc., a Washington, D.C. area defense contractor and works at the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) in Falls Church, Virginia. From January 2004 to March 2005, he was also Managing Editor of Strategic Insights, the professional journal of the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the [Naval Postgraduate School]. Previously, he was acquisitions editor for international affairs at Brassey's, Inc. (now, Potomac Books) a Dulles, Virginia book publisher and a political science professor at [Troy State University], [Bainbridge College], and the [University of Tennessee at Chattanooga].

He has published academic articles in International Studies Quarterly and Strategic Insights; five book reviews; fourteen encyclopedia articles; over two dozen conference papers; and numerous columns for Tech Central Station. A more-or-less complete listing can be found here.

James served in the U.S. Army from 1988-1992 and is a combat veteran of Operation Desert Storm. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, and numerous service medals and ribbons. He is a graduate of the Airborne and Air Assault schools.

He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Alabama (1995) and B.A. (1987) and M.A. (1988) degrees in Political Science from Jacksonville State University. [edit]

External links Strategic Insights / Outside The Beltway If we can't use Dr. James Joyner then whom can we use?????????" Take Care! --Will^(talk) 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Isarig No, I don't recall the incident you mentioned, though this sentence about blogs may have may have indeed been uttered by someone at some point (since it is the guideline statment). I certainly don't recall it nor do I think I emitted any opinion regarding Jeff Weintraub, his blog or any blog for that matter, nor do I recall having "voted" or expressed an opinion for anything like this. Are you suggesting I did this? Let's be clear. --CSTAR 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to refresh your memory, then, with |this. No, you weren't one of the editors who participated in that particular exchange. You were an active participant on that Talk page, at that same time, but on other sections and I'm willing to WP:AGF and accept that you somehow did not see that heated exchange, or simply forgot about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy we've relaxed our standards a bit, and will be providing much criticism of Cole from various blog sources over the next few days. Isarig 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually that doesn't refresh my memory because it was never part of my memory. There was a lot of exchange on that talk page. Most of my activity on May 10-12 (when that seemed to have happened) was dealing with your accusing me of bad faith in blocking you for reverting as per WP:3RR.--CSTAR 22:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Isarig is running free, character assasinating JC all over the article. That's O.K. any fair reader can see through what's going on. The character and intellect of the mild mannered courageous professor will shine through the slime being heaped on him. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 00:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on here, I am unfortunately busy with non-Wikipedia stuff these days, but blogs are not really appropriate sources for WP and it is fair game to remove them -- see specifically here WP:RS#Reliability_of_online_sources. I do now know what you guys are talkinga bout when you say that wikipedia has relaxed its standards -- it hasn't -- you guys are just making up your own article-specific rules based on local consensus of waring parties. --Ben Houston 03:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

'Reply to Ben Houston I am certainly not making making up any new rules. I just asked whether it is reasonable to excludes blogs as sources of opinion. Since so much of what goes on in political opinion in the United STates at least, happens through blogs, the blanket exclusion seems unreasonable. I just asked a question here and on the WP:RS talk page (and expressed an opinion.) Isarig seems to have assumed that somehow I provided imprimatur to citing blogs, as if I had some power to approve anything.--CSTAR 15:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't make up rules here. Blogs are pretty shitty sources since they are not peer reviewed or even under the responsibility of an editor. If we lower the standards then we get into ewhat can be in essence rhetorical wars between blogging blowhards -- bloggers can dedicate excessive time to such a subject where as a peer-reviewed journal or an edited commercial publication must consider the value to their readers. Just because bloggers have time and strongly felt agenda does not mean we have to honor their opinions in Wikipedia. I honestly can not see the value in including these blog sources. --Ben Houston 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, both "Middle East Quarterly" and "FrontPageMag" are very partisan sources and should be treated with caution as described here [[10]]. Andrew Sullivan's blog does not belong as a source. Neither do the blog postings of Martin Kramer. Juan Cole's blog can be treated somewhat differently since he is the topic of the article -- see WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. --Ben Houston 03:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben. I think James Joyner passes the smell test. He's a reputable notable academic and known in the "real" world. He's even handed on Cole. Isarig's sources are as partisan as he is. I"m waiting on CStar. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 05:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, Martin Kramer is much more likely to qualify as an acceptable blog source than Joyner - Kramer is a published Middle East expert, writing about material relevant to his field. Joyner's expertise seems a lot broader, and most of his publications are on online sources like TCS. TheronJ 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Both individuals are writing on self-published blogs. Wikipedia guidelines state that "Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published." These are self-published blogs. Martin Kramer is also very self-interested in his blog statments. I see no major loss by removing both James Joyner and Kramer. While Kramer is published middle east expert but here he is criticizing a fellow professor on his blog -- Kramer is very pro-Israel and Cole isn't -- the motivation here for Kramer's writings is base, it is not at all to do with expertise, and thus I do not find his blog posting to be reliable or notable. Currently we do not use Cole's blog postings as sources on any other articles -- thus why are Kramer's acceptable here? Kramer's blog is also not used as a source in the main article The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy -- could it be that it wasn't found notable or reliable in that context either? Also, reading through Kramer's talk page, it appears that he has not been a model Wikipedian either -- that doesn't seem all that professional -- see: Talk:Martin_Kramer#Is_Martin_Kramer_link_spamming_Wikipedia.3F. --Ben Houston 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm only saying that if Joyner is an acceptable source, then IMHO Kramer must be, because Kramer is closer to the blog exception you quote. (Also, Kramer seems to have been cleared of inappropriate conduct in that discussion). In the longer run, I'm wondering if this page shouldn't incorporate the Kramer and Pipes stuff. (And Cole's buddy, Joshua what's his name). In an article on "controversies" about Cole, we're leaving out some of the clearest stuff if we leave out other ME scholar's on-line postings and just rely on letters to the editor or whatever. TheronJ 18:58, 21 June 2006

(UTC)

Ben. Are you talking about Joshua Landis of www.syriacomment.com fame. He's already in the article already somewhere. Probably quoted in a newspaper article. I say let it all in. Cole's head will pop up through the slime. After all, he says over and over again, he's being slimed for his views. But identify the Karsh's and Pipes for their affiliation. The proof is in the pudding. If he wasn't so effective, he wouldn't be so hotly and diligently pursued on this page. But all the non-partisan Mid-East experts, that don't have an iron in the Israeli camp, say he's one of the best! Cole is not a Salafist or a Shiate, He's a non-mainstream Baha'i for goodness sakes. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 21:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's just great. We will "identify the Karsh's and Pipes for their affaliation" (which is what? Are they, too, part of "Likud"? the "Cabal"? operated by Israeli Intelligence?), but Cole's cheerleaders, like Landis, will be described as "non-partisan Mid-East experts". Do you even know who Landis is? Aside from being Cole's buddy, Assistant professor Landis has been described as the best apologist for Assad, claiming in many of his blog posts that Syria was framed for Harriri's murder, finding rationalizations for every extreme action by the Assad gov't and repeating conspiracy theories that blame it all on Israel. Isarig 22:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I am talking about reputable sources. When Kramer, Landis, Pipes, Karsh and others are published in reputable media then we can cite them. This is the way Wikipedia works. When they self-publish partisan positions, especially attacks on others, these are not material for the encyclopedia. All quotes that I included, such as the one from Landis, were from reputable sources -- a Nation article republished on Yahoo News -- not self-published blog entries. --Ben Houston 02:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, and very willing to live by that rule. This exchange started with Will inserting Cole cheerleading from a blog, which I twice removed. At that point, Will started threating me with 3RR violations, and CSTAR voiced his opinion that blogs are ok as sources for "opinions" vs. facts. I am very willing to live by that rule, too, and have added my own blog sources, which are not quite so full of fawning praise for Cole (that, of course, started the chorus of "they're partisan sources"). So either all blog sources go, as per WP guidelines, or they all stay, but it is unreasonable to add praise for Cole from his buddies' blogs, but censor blogs critical of him. Isarig 15:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Isarig. If you were to read Joyner instead of be so Kneejerk, you would see that Joyner is fairly critical of JC on many points. Oops, I've given the Lobby ammunition. He is supportive on mainly the academic research crap. However, your lobby sources are critical uniformly on all points b/c of their motive, interest, and bias b/c JC is a chamption of human rights for all including Palestinians and an impediment to their project of a Greater Israel. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 16:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that blogs are either acceptable by WP standards, or they're not. What you're proposing is that blogs that you like - those that are either uniformly supportive of Cole, or at least not uniformly critical of him - be allowed, while blogs that you don't like - those that are uniformly critical of him - be disallowed. That's a POV-pushing double standard. Isarig 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

*U propose a nice rule Isarig, b/ that's not what I proposed. I hadn't reverted any

of your blog spree. I think any reader can see thru all that self-serving lobby stuff and it actually hurts your cause. I have not problem w/ opinion even if it comes from a blog it it's counterbalanced by other opinion. what matters is verifiablility. Is it a noted blog? Do we know who the author is? Is he well known in the blogosphere? Opinions are like buttholes, Everybody has one. Facts are different, Everybody is entitles to his own opinion b/ not his own facts. Facts have different evidentiary standards. Now using expert opinion to establish facts is a different can of worms. We"ll cross that bridge when we get to it. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 17:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I expressed concern here since the blog exclusion guideline is not completely ironed out in my opinion. Specifically, I can give several WP examples where blogs have been copiously cited as sources of opinion (and blog related "facts.") But bringing up this concern here on this page where so many other battles are being fought by proxy was a bad idea. My bad.--CSTAR 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Landis is married to an Alawite, a member of the minority sect ruling Syria. Alawites are halfway between Xtians and Muslims- not doing the five prayers but celebrating Xmas and Easter. When they controlled Lebanon, they got the senior Shiite cleric to declare them a Shiite sect. He gives the Alawites a fair shake. He is sympathetic to Assad and not hostile. It is a valuable POV when everybody else is patently hostile. He also gives the Syrian Muslim brotherhood and the exile groups a hearing. I did not particlarly have him in mind. But Joyner does not have a dog in the fight. But for sure Karsh, a former Colonel in the IDF, Pipes & Co. are very partisan and should be so identifed. In fact their rhetoric self-identifes them- labeling anybody and everybody not agreeing with a greater Israel as AS or NAS. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to your POV that being "sympathetic to Assad" is a "valuable POV", but let's not pretend he's non-partisan. Karsh, like most other Israelis, served in the IDF (he's a Major, BTW, not a Colonel). What does that tell you about his partisanship? Weren't you the one promoting to us Uri Avneri, yet another ex-IDF Israeli? Are we going to start identifiying every Israeli on WP by their former rank in the IDF? Are we going to stop there, or should we give the rank of every former serviceman (or woman), of every country? Pipes is already identified in the article as associated with Campus Watch, why don't you add the identification of Landis as presenting the pro-Baathist Assad POV? Isarig 02:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Isarig. The most telling thing about Karsh is that he wrote an article titled "What Occupation?" That tells me everything I need to know about Karsh. He is an "occupation denier!" On the other hand Syria is a closed mystery regime and Landis is married to a daughter of a retired Admiral and gives the inside scoop of what's going on in the internal power clique. I didn't say I agreed with him, but he has a valuable POV and a feel for the regime.

You obviosuly did not understand the message in Karsh's article. i suggest you reread it. He did not deny any occupation, he argued that when Palestinians talk about "occupation" they do not make the distinction between lands occupied in the six-day war vs. land "occupied" by the creation of Israel. As I said, You are welcome to your POV that being "sympathetic to Assad" is a "valuable POV", but let's not pretend he's non-partisan. Now, are you going to address my question regarding the relevance of Karsh's IDF service? Isarig 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ben. There are Blogs, then there are Blogs. They are not all created equal. For instance there is jauncole.com !!!!!! james joyner's blog has a mention in WP. you have to face it, people increasingly get their opinion online. I, personally, don't even subscribe to a print newspaper except for local news. you should read Maureen Dowd's column on the Daily Kos annual convention for the blurring b/n msm and online media. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Alawites are a bit more complicated than that. WP has a hell of a good article on them learnt a lot by reading it. They have become a lot more outwardly Muslim conforming. Their inward religion is very sophisticated- has to do w/ star transmigration of souls. The Alawites and Druze religions are both very, very interesting! The Alawites also have a Bab lilke the Baha'i. I have added the video streaming link of the Mershon Center Ohio State Juan Cole lecture of Shiite Politics in Iraq to External links section. Take Care! --Will^(talk)01:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)~

ben wrote: "I am talking about reputable sources. When Kramer, Landis, Pipes, Karsh and others are published in reputable media then we can cite them. This is the way Wikipedia works. When they self-publish partisan positions, especially attacks on others, these are not material for the encyclopedia." just to clarify, Karsh published the stuff quoted in this article in the new republic online. This is not self-publishing. Karsh's article is a well thought out analysis--not an "attack". It is more than fine as a source. I think we all have to be careful here of dismissing stuff as "bad source" because we don't agree with it. That's not what wikipedia is about. Elizmr 03:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper Editorial

Professor Juan Cole: the latest victim of "the lobby from the South End, The Student Voice of Wayne State University by Faheem Khan | Contributing Writer Jun/21/2006. This is not a blog b/ a newspaper so there should not any problem using it. Ironic, an unkown student in a college paper has greater access to some than James Joyner! Take Care! --Will^(talk) 15:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The second-hand or unsupported opinions of Faheem Khan, even though published in a newspaper, have no place in Wikipedia. Precis 22:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Blogs

After sleeping on it, here are my thoughts. This is an article about criticism of Cole. IMHO, we should accept on-line criticisms and defenses from any published middle east scholar. This would include Cole critics like Karsh and Kramer and Cole defenders like Landis. (I propose that we table the more difficult question of whether Pipes qualifies as a middle east scholar until we set a baseline rule). Here are my reasons:

1. The relevant section of WP:V states "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so. Karsh, Kramer and Landis are all published middle-east scholars.
2. In this case, the publication distinction is a little silly. If the Nation publishes an article that says "Joshua Landis says that Cole is the new Bernard Lewis,"[11] I don't see how that's one whit more reliable than a posting on Lewis'sLandis's blog stating "In my opinion, Cole is the new Bernard Lewis."

Thanks, TheronJ 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with this proposal. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think Pipes is quoted in the article at all. That being said, I don't think it is even debatable if he qualifies as a middle east scholar. Read his WP page - he is described as a "scholar of Middle Eastern history. The author or co-author of 18 books, which have been translated into 19 languages" - If the author of 18 scholarly books on the ME does not qualify as a ME scholar, who does? Isarig 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Theron. Did you mean to say " don't see how that's one whit more reliable than a posting on "Landis's" blog stating "In my opinion, Cole is the new Bernard Lewis." Edit. That was the whole point and distinction between Opinion and fact Take Care! --Will^(talk) 16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope JC is not the next Bernard Lewis! Many Jews, while emphasizing the Shoah, slight what happened to the Armenians. The lobby in the U.S., desiring to keep good ties w/ Turkey has been strong in shooting down an Armenian remembrance day. from his WP "In a November 1993 Le Monde interview, Lewis said that the Ottoman Turks’ killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 was not "genocide", but the "brutal byproduct of war".[10] Lewis meant that it was not part of a plan to exterminate the entire Armenian race - not that it was justified or that it did not happen. Parisian court interpreted his remarks as a denial of the Armenian Genocide and fined him one franc. [11" Take Care! --Will^(talk) 16:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

TheronJ wrote that this is an article about criticisms of Juan Cole. That's his original interpretation of what this article is about, it is actually about the "views and controversies concerning" Juan Cole. Thus it is not supposed to include all criticism no matter how light or basely motivated. If there was no disagreement on notability the self-published information then it could be included but there is a disagreement and thus remember the last sentence in the above passage you quoted. --Ben Houston 19:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I was overstating it, but I think if a blog post by a qualified author is relevant to a notable "controversy," let's put it in. TheronJ 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my original comment, that you are making up your own rules here. These rules are not applied to other articles. Also, Isarig is contradictory -- on the Fox News Channel article he doesn't feel that Tim Turner's criticism published in the BBC is noteworthy because Turner is associated with CNN's competitor: [12], [13]. But here on Juan Cole's article all criticism, even from blogs, is fair game. I strongly question whether Isarig picks and choses which rules are applicable based on whether or not the sources of information support this viewpoint. --Ben Houston 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) I'm not making my own rules - I quote the relevant rule above. (2) This section is my proposal. Isarig hasn't expressed a preference between admitting all blogs from ME scholars or excluding all blogs, as long as the standard is consistent. TheronJ 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the meaning of "contradiction". I am happy to either include all blog sources, or exclude them all. What I am not prepared to accept is the inclusion of some blog sources (those supportive of Cole), but the exclusion of less favorable ones. None of this has any relationship whatsoever to my position that one competitor's badmouthing another is not, in and of itself, noteworthy in an encyclopedia article. That criticis, BTW, was made and quoted in a WP:RS source. Isarig 20:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You position that you are "happy to either include all blog sources, or exclude them all" is irrelvant. Your position that you are "not prepared to accept is the inclusion of some blog sources (those supportive of Cole), but the exclusion of less favorable ones" is also irrelvant. Blog sources, as self-published sources, if they are disputed do not belong in Wikipedia. While I appreciate your attempts at being creative, the results are not appropraite for Wikipedia.

You are referred, once agian, to what I wrote earlier: I understand WP policy on blogs, and very willing to live by that rule. This exchange started with Will inserting Cole cheerleading from a blog, which I twice removed. At that point, Will started threating me with 3RR violations, and CSTAR voiced his opinion that blogs are ok as sources for "opinions" vs. facts. I am very willing to live by that rule, too, and have added my own blog sources, which are not quite so full of fawning praise for Cole (that, of course, started the chorus of "they're partisan sources"). So either all blog sources go, as per WP guidelines, or they all stay, but it is unreasonable to add praise for Cole from his buddies' blogs, but censor blogs critical of him. So, if we are going to edit according to accepted WP guidleines on excluding blogs, I am all for it - feel free to remove all my recent blog-sourced edits AND the quote from Joyner, which started this. Isarig 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You say "That criticis, BTW, was made and quoted in a WP:RS source" -- I take it you are referring to Turner's criticism of Fox News which you removed? What about contradictions do I not understand again? --Ben Houston 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between saying "blogs are appropriate (or unappropriate) sources for WP" and saying "criticism X, published on a non-blog source, should not be included in article Y, for reason Z". If you do not understand that, and it appears that you don't, since you've repeated this claim even though I've pointed out the difference to you, then you just don't understand the meaning of the word "contradiction". Isarig 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The contradiction I was talking about is saying that criticism from a competitor to Fox News is inappropriate but criticism from ideological influence competitors to Juan Cole is appropriate. Remember that most of this criticism of Cole appeared once he became a pundit. It was his emergence as an competitor in the space of public ideas that brought about this criticism. Thus I do see a very clear parallel between the liberal Cole and conservative Kramer/Karsh/Malbrow with the liberal Turner/CNN with the conservative Murdoch/Fox News Channel -- it is all about the war of ideas and the tendency of groups to attack the credibility of competing messengers. --Ben Houston 21:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the situation between commercial competitors is identical to the one which exists between ideological opponents. It is your POV that Turner's criticism of Fox is based on ideological differences vs. commercial ones, but I don't share that POV. But even if I were to accept that stretched parallel, there is still no contradiction between my statements. I have not ruled out any and all criticisms of Fox by CNN affilates. I am fine with including fact based criticism of Fox, even if their source is CNN. I am opposed to simple bad mouthing by a commercial competitor, which is what the Turner comment I removed was.

From my perspective a lot of the criticism of Cole is simply bad mouthing, this is especially true of the blog-based comments. --Ben Houston 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That might very well be true, and such criticism has no place in the article, whether it comes from blogs or more reputable sources. 'Criticisms' along the lines of "Cole is the SUCKS" should be removed, even if they appear in the NYT. (And ditto for simple cheerleading along the lines of "Cole is top notch") Isarig 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try my hand at removing the blog sources. But I do not know all the references as well as you and WillPI do. --Ben Houston 21:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)--Ben Houston 21:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If we have concensus that blog sources are out - I'll be happy to edit them out myself. Isarig 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben Houston and Isarig do not make a consensus! I'm still waiting on CSTAR! Take Care! --Will^(talk) 23:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This has got to be the darndest thing I have ever seen. Theronj has weighed in in favor of free speech for including notable blog opinion. CSTAR has read the WP guideline in its plain meaning as permitting blog opinion and then Isarig and Ben Houston on their own as two people form a consensus of two and start deleting all blog materials! Take Care! --Will^(talk) 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've requested a clarification on the talk page of WP:RS. That's about all I can do. As I said before I would argue: if an opinion can be supported by a blog then it's reasonable to include it. It's best to do it by paraphrasing the opinion and puting the direct quote in footnotes. Several opinions which say the same thing should be collected into the same paraphrase. I'm not sure how to avoid frivilous opinion (e.g. Blog BLAH writer thinks Juan Cole eats live cockroaches.) --CSTAR 23:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had posted this here before but my Opera browser has been cutting out in the middle of posts. It was posted in CSTAR;s thread on the talk page of WP:RS. feel free to join in.

"WP:RS differentiates between facts and opinions regarding blogs. The mischief the guideline strives to avoid in unverified facts. In mainstream media, there are mechanisms for checking and verifying facts. Reporters tradition, reputation, editors, newspaper reputation. Opinion is different. Everybody has an opinion, they are like buttholes. If the blog is notable, the blogger is notable, the opinion is in his relevant field, then the opinion should be admissable. In quotes and verbatim- straight out of the horse's mouth would be my prefernce. The case in point that set off the discussion comes from the controversial Juan Cole article views and controversies page. He has earned the interest of the Israeli lobby for his interest in the plight of the Palestinians, Iraq, and Iran and has been criticized heavily, inter alia for his blog "Informed Consent," for allegedly having poor scholarship, and for being too polemic. The best quote in his defense comes from James Joyner who is a sometime critic of JC but comes to his defense as far as the blog, academic expertise and publishing. i believe it is crucial to the article. There is no other way to make the point that needs to be made of the function that Juan Cole's blog has served in society- a role that educates the public in an expert way more beneficial than pedantic nit-picking. Here it is in context. " Take Care! --Will^(talk) 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The simplest way to avoid it is by adhering to WP guidelines, which say no blogs.Isarig 00:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Isarig. How about quoting the "No blogs" guideline chaper and verse. I would wager it is directed at the verifiability of fact and not at expert opinion.

It has already been quoted to you multiple times:

"Using online and self-published sources

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses.

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.

However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking." Isarig 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Precis (sic). Now Comes Mr. self-admitted (I hope he was joking) Mr. Lobby and deletes the whole Joyner quote b/c he says "polemnical" is not in his dictionary. Precis (sic) is not in my dictionary. I'd never heard of a more specious pretextural reason for removing a quote prejudical to one's POV. Maybe I should remove Karsh's whole Protocl of the Elders of Zion quote b/c of an obscure punctuation rule or better, one that I can make up. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 10:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I very much wanted to allow just your blogs and keep Weintraub out, but the powerful Jewish Lobby insisted that I stop favoring your point of view. I'm powerless to resist against their stranglehold. Precis 10:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Precis (sic). Your behavior and your anonyimity on your user page leads me to believe u r a teen on a lark, n'est ce pas? Take Care! --Will^(talk) 13:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Alouette, gentille alouette... Precis 14:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Arrêtez vous deux (ou trois)! Plus de conneries. Si vouz continuez comme ça, il va falloir appeler qqn (j'sais pas qui, cependant)--CSTAR 14:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

When dealing with teenage vandalism behavior, sometimes you have to call in loco parentes Take Care! --Will^(talk) 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You are violating WP:CIVIL here, and have made a bad faith 3RR report regarding Precis , acknowledging in the report that it is not a 3RR violation. Your behavior is disruptive. Please stop it, or you will be reported. Isarig 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Now, Let's recount the blog episode. I put in a balancing reference by Joyner from his oustide the beltline "blog," Isarig deletes several times, then he joins the fun by putting in several blog references, then Isarig and Ben form a consensus of two and delete all blog references, then I put Joyner back in, then Isarig put his blog refs back in, then Precis (sic b/c not in my dictionary) shows up and deletes Joyner b/c ""polemnical" is not a word," then I put Joyner back in and respond "Precis Write a letter to Joyner tellilng him polemnical is not a word, I think he has more education than you do. Or put a sic to it. u r reverting per Lobby POV," then he takes it out again leaving a history line of " because he has more education, therefore "polemnical" is a word? and no, I'm reverting for a npov, alloting equal numbers of blogs on both sides," then I report him for violating the spirit of 3RR b/c that rule is not a license to do 3 reverts in 24 hours but designed to prevent sterile edit wars and his reverts were egregiously in bad faith. Let's see what happens. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 16:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not describing this accurately. First of all, it was not just me and Ben who formed a consensus, CSTAR also posted that allowing blogs here was a bad idea, and Precis appears to agree with us. It seems that you are the only one who objects. Second, after Ben removed all blog sources, including ones I had previously added, I did not re-add them. As to your " Let's see what happens" comment - what happens is that you've been reported for violating 3RR with your recent reinsertion of the blog comment. Isarig 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is beginning to sound like a closing argument in a TV lawyer show. --CSTAR 17:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Isarig and other comments. That's not quite what I said; what I said was that I was sorry from bringing the issue up. However, I must say, in disagreement with almost everybody here, that I so no reason to be upset by listing opinions for or against Cole; after all, this is a controversies section, nor do I see any reason for ordering them one way or the other (e.g. pro precedes con.) I don't see that negative appraisals (necessarily) belittle Cole; it's just somebody's opinion. Having said that, the section on academic expertise and professionalism really seems to say:

Some writers question the breadth or originality Cole's academic expertise <ref>list them, with some quotes and with qualifications if any</ref>, while others have said that he is well qualified <ref>list these also, with some quotes and with qualifications if any</ref>.

Does anybody really disagree with this? --CSTAR 19:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

CStar, it seems like we have two issues. On the first, whether blogs from Middle Eastern scholars are acceptable as sources on this page, I would tend to vote yes, but Isarig and BHouston seem to have a consensus (at least between the two of them) on "no," and I'm willing to go along, at least until we come to a specific example.

On the second issue of sub-section structure, I strongly agree with you, and had edited the Yale section to something like that, although it looks like someone reverted. IMHO, each "controversy" should be organized as follows. (1) People disagree about whether Cole X or Y. (2) Some people say X. (cite). (3) Some people say Y (cites). (4) Some people say neither X nor Y, but A. (cite)

More Academic Expertise

Been Having a wheel war with Isarig on two items.

• 1)the proper epithet for Joyner. He's rightly corrected me a couple of times and I've come up with a correct and impeccable epithet. It's to the point of his background and area of expertise to the opinion stated as to Cole's academic qualifications and publishing ability. the epithet is, to wit: "Former Managing Editor of Strategic Insights, the professional journal of the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School,"

Since I am the introducer of the quote, it is dissapointing that he keeps on interfering with it since the epithet is accurate, fair, verified, relevant to the suject matter of the quote, and researched. Of course it is prejudicial to his POV which is to slime JC whenever possible and thus he keeps deleting it.

It is true that Joyner is "Former Managing Editor of Strategic Insights, the professional journal of the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School,". However, that was years ago, the quote you introduced is not related in any way to his work as editor of SI, and most importantly, as you yourself have written when you first introduced Joyner to this article, "James Joyner ...is best known as the founder and editor-in-chief of the weblog Outside The Beltway". If that's what he's best known for, and since that's the forum in which your cited quote appears, it is hwo he shoudl be described. Isarig 19:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• 2)this is not an article about Israel or Karsh or about anti-semitism or NAS. It is a sub-article entitled VIEWS & controversies of Juan Cole from a main biography article of JUAN COLE. It is not an article about KARSH. The views of JC should come first, the proponents, if any and then the criticisms. Otherwise, it has the look and feel of an indictment sheet written by the Greater Israel lobby against JC b/c he has the gumption to champion the human rights of the Palestinians. I keep rearranging the paragraphs so the pro is first and karsh second. And Isarig keeps on reverting. If he feels that stron about it, Why doesn't he go to Karsh's page, and start a Cole criticism section, and then he can lead off with it. And then I can defend Cole there after the criticism. That would be fair b/c it would be Karsh's page and not Cole's. Who's subject matter page is this anyway? Karsh's or Cole's? Take Care! --Will^(talk) 19:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is indeed "Views & controversies of Juan Cole", but the specific subsection is not in the "Views" section, but in the "controversies" section. In that section, the contorversy comes first. That's teh way this, and every other "controversy" articel is written. It was this way for weeks before you started reverting. Isarig 19:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the Landis quote was double sourced

The Joyner quote had mysteriously disappeared and didn't show up in the history= w/o trace. A lot of the section shows in the edit part b/ disappears out of edit??? Maybe I'm crosseyed. ??? This is why the Landis quote was double sourced. First it was in the Weiss article. Second Landis referred to in in his blog. Braggin on being in the Weiss article. This is where I saw it. That's why I sourced it! Take Care! --Will^(talk) 23:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

proposed new policy

We have already lowered the bar on this article (if that's possible) by quoting unsubstantiated rumor. I would find it satisfying if we now go all the way and start quoting opinions of bloggers. Only unsupported opinions will be allowed, of course, since WP considers blogs unreliable sources for facts. The benefits of this new policy will be immediately visible: "Joyner thinks it is highly unusual. Kramer thinks it is not so unusual. Weintraub thinks..." Precis 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Isn't that what the article now says? --CSTAR 21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about making a bad thing worse. I think the term is proliferation. Precis 21:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How do propose to do anything different? It's just a bunch of opinions? Or or you proposing to certify some of those opinions as more valuable than others? --CSTAR 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Pare as much unsupported opinion from the article as possible. Many rambling, opinionated quotes could be summarized as follows: "X and Y have expressed support for this point of view; see [ ] and [ ]." Precis 22:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "X and Y have expressed support for this point of view; see [ ] and [ ]."

However, it's not clear to me that we will agree on what unsupported opinion (or belief) is. For example, if Joan Schmone publishes in an established refereed journal "Juan Cole is thus shown to be wrong on this translation", then we can assume the referees have examined the evidence. This is a supported belief. If Professor Toute-Puissante from Yale says in her blog or in a non-academic non-refereed publication "Juan Cole is thus shown to be wrong on this translation", that is unsupported opinion. That fact that she's Toute-Puissante doesn't qualify her to speak ex-cathedra from anywhere (in my unsupported opinion.)--CSTAR 22:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In this example, I would cite Professor TP's primary sources as evidence rather than quoting from her own blog. But there is more to this than just reliability of source. To name one of many examples, the Lockman quote on the Yale controversy gives only unsupported opinion. Since no reasons are provided for his beliefs, this is a case where condensation would be in order: "Lockman agrees with Cole's view; see [ ]." Incidentally, I find it most unfortunate that Professor TP, who recently married Professor Lobby, decided to hyphenate her name. Precis 22:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That name change is not recent, I'm afraid (c.f. Le Petit Robert, 1992 p 2282), and has no bearing to her alleged marriage to professor Lobby. --CSTAR 23:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Your proposal I would cite Professor TP's primary sources as evidence rather than quoting from her own blog.

Well then you wouldn't be citing TP at all. TP in this instance is irrelevant.--CSTAR 23:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

--CSTAR 23:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing is that Ms. TP did not want to discard her maiden name, so she now goes by the hyphenated combination Ms. Toute-puissante-Lobby. As for not citing blogs, that's exactly the point. Precis 00:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the point only to cite refereed academic journals or books? Not a bad guideline, but that does exclude a lot of stuff in the article. Or are you including the Washington Times as a refereed journal? Is this what you meant?

En ce qui concerne la pauvre Mme Toute-puissante, son marriage avec Mr Lobby, hélas, a été formellement interdit par l'accord grammatical, lobby étant masculin. Elle auraît besoin d'un changement de nom (tout-puissant) ou plutôt un changement de genre, ce qui, malheureusement ne seraît pas d'accord avec les alliés républicains de Mr Lobby.--CSTAR 04:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to the Washington Times question. I think of the game this way. Mme TP is tempted to quote from CounterPunch, but then she thinks, "If I do that, M. L might start quoting from FrontPage Magazine." And so the WP structure itself motivates avoidance of fringe partisan sources. (I hope I didn't just espouse Mearsheimerian neorealism, else my days in the Lobby are numbered.) Many blogs are worth quoting, but do we want to open the door for a host of quotes from opposing blogs? That would lead to...p r o l i f e r a t i o n...(to be read in the same tone as Meg's Ryan's "Lactose Intolerance" in "French Kiss"), which is bad enough here already without opening the floodgates. I agree that rare exceptions for a blog can be made, e.g.,when it is the only source available. Fearing the slippery slope, I spoke out against the inclusion of Melanie Phillips's blog at The Israel Lobby in April. But her quote is so witty that I wasn't sufficiently motivated to remove it myself. (Yes, I'm that hypocritical.) Speaking of wit, thanks for the great story. Was the participle "interdit" used in a transitive or intransitive sense? No matter, the point is moot: Mme TPL went through with the operation, her husband changed parties, and they are now living happily in a liberal enclave on Castro Street. Precis 12:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Washington Times Is that yes or a no?

PS I guess I missed that your answer was yes. Who then are the referees that review )in some professional capacity) articles for publication?

The editorial board of the WT? Mr Moon?--CSTAR 15:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The liberal enclave. Why Castro street? Are we getting Mr Lobby's "primo cubano" involved here? I'd have a better opinion of the new couple if they moved to a somewhat more fashionable part of town.

Participles. Well I may have not been too careful. Adjective, participle.

Merde, comme le type dans La Grande Évasion qui parle l'allemand presque parfaitement et dont il ne faut qu'une petite faute por que, au dernier moment, il soit attrapé. --CSTAR 15:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Re Rev Moon, Cole would call that guilt by association. Whether deserved or not I can't say, since I don't read that paper religiously.
• Here's a link to a photo of the main "drag" in The Castro. I would guess the street was named pre-1959, but I don't know. Hopefully the name didn't come from the transitive "castrar".
• "por que"? Englaender! I mean Espagnol!
• Undoubtedly readers (if any) are thinking "Enough with this bêtise, let's get back to the edit wars." Precis 21:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Put another blog on the fire

B removes all blogs, and W disagrees. What should W do?

• (a) Discuss the removal on the talk page and once more seek consensus on the use of blogs
• (b) Revert the removal, putting all blogs back in
• (c) Put back only blogs W agrees with, leaving out the rest

In my opinion, (a) is best, (b) is second best, and (c) is a very distant third. Now here is a question for those who favor the use of blogs. May I have permission to use quotes about Cole from all of these bloggers? [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]? (Some may not be notable, but I can get around that issue by using Slate [19] as a tertiary source.) Precis 12:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time for this but blogs are not appropriate. All of you are just making up your own rules, I think you should all go start blogs somewhere, Wikipedia is not your blog. --Ben Houston 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The extent of what is appropriate isn't clear. For example, in WorldNetDaily.com [20], Ilana Mercer referred to Cole's Salon article "Sharon as Jailer" as a "dog's breakfast of an essay". Is it appropriate to use her quote? I'll bet there is no consensus on that. Precis 01:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. Are refereed blogs also inappropriate? See for example [21]. Precis 11:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Comment is Free" is a difficult case. Since it has a paid staff of four helping with editing and is hosted by a reputable newspaper and written by company selected individuals, I would argue that it is called a "blog" mostly for marketing purposes and to note that it allows for comments. But it is a difficult case. I would suggest creating a Wikipedia article describing Comment is Free and centralizing the discussion on whether it is a decent source on its talk page. --Ben Houston 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I challenge you to address an even more difficult case. Is it ok to use blog passages which were reprinted in a reliable source? An example would be to use the blog quotes reprinted in Slate [22]. Precis 10:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that there are two things. Can one quote from blogs quoted in a reputable source like a New York Times article or something in the Wall Street Journal where a blog comment is central to a story? I would argue it is a clear yes. The Slate column you point to is a bit different in that it is just a summary of prominent blog comments around a particular topic -- it can be muddier -- my feeling (but it isn't policy) is that reputable and relevant individuals such as Daniel Drezner (who is an academic in the relevant field in this case) can have his blog quoted in a Wikipedia article if that quote was in Slate but that the blogger known as "Eternal Vigilance" in the Slate article still don't belong in Wikipedia (although if EV posted something on his blog that is truly the center of story and the story is larger than the just the blogosphere then he should probably be in WP since it is notable.) --Ben Houston 18:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that blogs quoting in published articles in the NYT or WSJ or similar high quality media are fair game whether they are central or not. It is in less formal media such as the online-only daily Slate column summarizing blogs -- it is at the other end of spectrum of reputable media, and is itself not that different from a blog posting. But one still has to exercise judgement as to appropriateness -- thus I feel that Daniel Drezner, who is notable and relevant, is acceptable, but that "Eternal Vigilance" is non-notable and of dubious reliability and thus not appropriate -- and then there is even worse gray area in between. --Ben Houston 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• If I understand your opinion correctly, it is fair game for WP to include a relevant quote from blogger "Eternal Vigilance", even if the source is say a weekly column devoted to summarizing blogs, provided that weekly column appears in high quality media (such as the NYT).
• It seems to me that a priori, online media could be as reputable as printed media. So what is it about Slate that makes it less reputable than, say, The New Republic? Precis 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not know of a weekly blogger review in the NYTs or the WSJ. I was thinking of a proper news article in NYT and WSJ that dealt with a topic of general interest. Blogger review columns anywhere are pretty low in standards, at least in my opinion -- they are like gossip columns -- there for entertainment and juicy rumors and spreading buzz. I guess in my opinion, not all articles in a reliable media source are equivalent. News articles are best, in the middle are magazine essays and opinion editorials and in the lower end are gossip columns and "blogosphere" reviews. Slate and Salon.com are primarily opinion-driven publications -- as is the New Republic, the National Review and many others -- where as the NYTs, LATimes, WashPost and the WSJ pour millions a year into their separate news reporting divisions (i.e. separated from the people who do the Op-Ed and editorials) and have news bureaus all over the world. Thus to me there is a fairly large difference between the quality of the news reporting from one of the major newspapers and these politically positioned magazines. --Ben Houston 20:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You make an important point that for judging reliability of a quote, one should consider not only the medium source but also the nature of the article within it. I agree with your opinions in this section, with two caveats:

• Some major newspapers are quite partisan
• I feel that quotes from non-notable blogs are generally inappropriate for reproduction in WP, even if the source is a NYT news article. Precis 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

Cole has taken a firm stand against the kind of anti-semitic conspiracy theory that some of his critics accuse him of. This opening sentence needs to be reworded. If Cole's critics had specifically said "Cole believes that Jews conspire to start wars", then the wording would be fine. But critics' comments on the dual-loyalty issue are of a somewhat different nature. Thus the current phrasing smacks a bit of editorialising. Precis 10:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Isarig's version was better, because we are not necessarily talking conspiracy here. Precis 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure we are. Gibson's comment was that "the Jews" are behind the war in Iraq (and all other wars). Juan Cole specifically addresses the conspiracy theory aspect of the issue. I agree with you that my original sentence needed editing, but I do think the conspiracy angle is important here, since that is precisely what Cole's critics charge him with, and it is precisely the grounds on which he takes issue with Mr. Gibson.--csloat 07:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If the conspiracy angle were precisely the grounds on which Cole takes issue with Mr. Gibson, I would certainly agree with you. But I read Cole's article, and while I saw Cole take issue with blaming Jews and stereotyping Jews, I saw no reference to Jewish conspiracy. Can you copy/paste a sentence where such reference is made? Perhaps our disagreement is due to different definitions of "conspiracy". To me, that word means "secret plot". Did Cole ever refer to secrecy, plots, covert planning, or the like? It seems to me you are reading more into this than is actually there. However, it's a small point, so if you still think I'm wrong, I won't press the issue. Precis 11:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson's remarks have not even been officially published, so using what Cole may have said about them to defend his record on use of conspiracy theories is really a stretch. If Cole wants to speak to this directly I'm sure he will, but let's not put words in his mouth. Elizmr 13:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

They've been published in numerous newspaper reports. Yesterday I heard a 20 minute discussion of them on NPR. Pretty much everything a famous actor says is published, so it's no surprise. Cole did speak to it directly, so I'm not sure of Elizmr's point. As for Precis' point, I suggest he look up the term "conspiracy," which does not necessarily mean "secret." A statement that "Jews are behind all the wars in the world" is a conspiracy theory (crude and idiotic though it may be, but we are talking about Mel Gibson here). --csloat 20:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid "Jews are behind all wars" is not necessarily a conspiracy theory. For example, let's say that Gibson thought that every single war had been started by a Jewish leader. Then by saying "Jews are behind all wars", he would not be suggesting that the Jewish leaders had conspired together. You would do well to stick with quotes and refrain from providing an interpretation that serves your purposes. Precis 20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you joking? The quote is "'F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.'" Not "Jews" but "The Jews." To claim this is not a conspiracy theory is bending over backwards to make a pretty small point, as you acknowledge yourself. Again, it's a pretty crude and poorly stated conspiracy theory but it reflects a well-known conspiracy theory nonetheless. It's odd that you would split hairs on this quote, yet you seem to not be bothered by the claim that Cole advocates a "Protocols of Zion" style conspiracy theory when he complains about Likudniks with dual loyalties. Anyway, it is a small point, I think we're both agreed on that.--csloat 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. The word "the" doesn't suddenly turn this into a conspiracy. "The Jews are responsible for all the crime in this country" needn't mean that Jews are conspiring together to commit crimes. As for the use of "conspiracy theory" elsewhere on this page, that is taken from a source, so I cannot do anything about it. However, YOUR use of the term violates WP:OR, and I'm calling you on it, small point or no. Precis 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. (Just to correct your wording about the claim, I make no claim about whether or not their remarks dealt with conspiracy. It is not clear one way or the other. My claim is that you are providing your own personal analysis.) Precis 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The word "the" doesn't "suddenly" turn it into a conspiracy theory; it already was one. Your assertion that it "needn't mean that Jews are conspiring together to commit crimes" is a statement without evidence that bears no relation to reality. That's exactly what the statement means (if we can agree that starting wars = committing crimes). This is not my personal analysis and it's not original research -- this is from Cole's own web page. And let's not forget, we're talking about a guy who made a movie suggesting that Jews conspired to kill Christ. Your assertion that Gibson really meant that individual Jews who were not working together and had no knowledge of each other were individually responsible for every war in the world is what I find bizarre. Gibson is an obvious example of someone who engages in antisemitic activity. Cole is obviously an example of someone who does not. And the specific charges that are leveled against Cole are very similar to the charges Cole levels against Gibson. That much is obvious and I really don't care to continue splitting hairs on the word "conspiracy." Your interpretation is bizarre but let's just leave it at that.--csloat 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel said that the jews were responsible for all wars. What definition of "conspiracy" are you using that makes it obvious to you that Mel is talking about a conspiracy? Is being responsible the same as conspiring? We must be using different definitions. Precis 22:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. This is from www.dictionary.com:

• conspiracy theory

n. A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act. Precis 22:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

con·spir·a·cy Audio pronunciation of "conspiracy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spîr-s) n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

  1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
  2. A group of conspirators.
  3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
  4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

from here. This is the last I have to say about this tired and irrelevant argument.--csloat 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid I will never see your point. It is possible for a group to be responsible for an action without conspiring, even with your definition above. Nobody knows for sure how Gibson thinks the Jews are responsible (except, apparently, you and he). This argument is definitely tired, but it is not irrelevant, as it relates directly to disputed material that you inserted. Precis 22:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A group acting together as a group to commit a wrongful act is by definition conspiring, so you are incorrect about it being possible for the group to be responsible for it otherwise. I don't know anything about what Gibson thinks, and I'm certainly not pretending to know based on some crap he told a cop when he was wasted; we are just talking about what these words mean. Email Cole yourself if you want to ask him whether he thinks this is a conspiracy argument. This argument is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned -- if you don't like what I inserted, propose something better, but quit nitpicking the definition of the word "conspiracy" when you are clearly incorrect about it. I feel like you're playing a game of "gotcha." If it makes you feel better to believe I am wrong about this, it is fine with me.--csloat 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you suggest I propose something better, I propose the Isarig version that you reverted. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, rather I'm saying that the wording leaves room for several interpretations, and I don't think you should be choosing the interpretation that suits you best. Being responsible for is not always the same as working together as a group, despite what you say. I'm sorry you are taking this so personally. I'll join you in ending the Cole discussion here. But see my opinion on the use of loaded terms below. Precis 00:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of conspiracy theory

• The Israel Lobby is largely responsible for the Iraq War.

Some critics of this statement have called this a conspiracy theory. Mearsheimer and Walt, on the other hand, are offended by such language. As a matter of course, WP should avoid using loaded terms when the interpretation is disputed. Precis 00:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your solution is a great compromise. Thanks. Precis 06:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

most dangerous regime in the middle east

If we are going to keep the lengthy Democracy Now quote (and I don't think we should), should we print Cole's actual quote, viz., "The most dangerous regime to United States interests in the Middle East is that of Ariel Sharon, not because he fights terrorists, but because he is stealing the land of another people and is brutalizing them in the process--and those are people with whom the rest of the Middle East and the Muslim world sympathizes." [23] Precis 20:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just one little problem: as you note correctly (meaning your computer's copy and paste functions work properly), Cole said "most dangerous regime to United States interests in the Middle East". I suspect that this qualifying phrase, which does alter the meaning of the statement, gets omitted in accusations against him. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel that Cole's actual quote is irrelevant, or should someone add it in? Precis 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)p.s. Fund printed a (half-hearted) retraction at [24]. Shouldn't that be mentioned too? Can you shorten the edit? There is too much emphasis on attacking Fund in a section that is supposed to explain the Yale controversy. Precis 22:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Cole has made thousands of statements. Why does this particular one (which amounts to saying "Big deal!") strike you as important enough for an encyclopedia?
• Above your statement is Cole's "final thought" on the affair, which evidently isn't so final after all.
• Something is wrong with your reference formatting. Precis 07:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a point here on the Cole quote - Fund did not in any way - "half-hearted" or not - "retract" what he said. All he did was print a "clarification" that looks like another criticism of Cole - the article itself still has the false quote in, along with vehement denunciation of Cole, and then at the bottom adds a "clarification" making fun of Cole for calling the false statement libelous and then prints without comment Cole's actual statement. Fund writes as if there were no difference between the two statements. And, even his correction leaves out the rest of the sentence, so it is still extremely out of context. I am not speaking to how much of this is relevant to the Yale section here - I think that whole section can go - but I wanted to add my own "clarification" to this discussion.-csloat 10:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Fund called it a "clarification" indicates that he is not standing by his original quote. That's a retraction of sorts (but a very indirect, unapologetic, mocking retraction, indicating that Fund doesn't see much difference between the two statements.) Fund indirectly acknowledges that his quote was imprecise; what else would he be "clarifying"? Precis 10:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy applied to Yale controversy

If sourced speculation is to be removed, it should be removed on both sides. Precis 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but there is a big hurdle of perception to jump over here. From some folk's POV, the jewish neocon lobby really did use their enormous wealth and influence to prevent JC from getting a job at Yale--not speculation, while comments of Yale faculty members quoted in Yale publications on the issue--clearly speculation. Elizmr 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is such nonsense. Cole wasn't even looking for a job at Yale. The whole thing is blown out of proportion. All that need be said (if anything!) is that Yale recruited him and then decided not to hire him. The faculty meetings about this were closed, so everything said about it is speculation. Right-wing, left-wing, any-wing conspiracy theories really don't have a place on this issue, methinks.--csloat 00:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you "thinks" you only delete stuff (calling it "speculation" that makes Cole look bad. Elizmr 00:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is fine to pare down this section, but it will be hard to reach a consensus, since as soon as some editor adds his favorite quote, another editor adds her quotes for balance. If you are going to remove what you call speculation, then it is not fair to keep the Lockman quote, for example. (By the way, isn't it possible that the quoted faculty were at the closed meeting or at least talked extensively to colleagues who were?) Precis 01:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) I removed the most recently added speculation only because it was added by a well-known Wikipedia troll (accompanied by a ridiculously tendentious edit summary, as is typical). I have been advocating the removal of this entire section - including the silly Lockman quote - for months now; see above. I would be fine with removing that quote and more from this section. I removed the most recent crap because I don't see the point of making this section longer. One sentence about it plus Cole's quote at the end are all that is necessary. (2) Yes it is possible that some of the speculation comes from faculty who were there. It is still speculation if they are speculating about what other faculty members voted on, or interpreting what they believe other faculty members said.--csloat 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sloat 1) If you were editing out the changes due to trolling, why didn't you say this in your edit summary? I just don't buy it as an explanation now. 2)I also think that this is a non-issue that shouldn't be in the article at all, but some people differ (like Ben Houston) and this is a group project. You and I can't just have the article exactly the way we want it (altho I have to say that you do a pretty good job of achieving this). Elizmr 02:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sloat wasnt correcting a troll here, thats just his or her way of saying " I dont like TDC's edits". Like usual, he will fight like hell to have one POV represented, and call all others irelevant and fight like hell to have all those removed (including stalking me from page to page to do it). Typical, I suppose, but he gets away with it far too often. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

TDC lay off it. You are a well-known troll here. You have been caught lying numerous times, distorting facts to suit your liking as it suits you, and wikilawyering even to the point of starting baseless RfCs against people you don't like. I sense a little projection here.--csloat 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

csloat lay off it. You are a well-known troll here. You have been caught lying numerous times, distorting facts to suit your liking as it suits you, and wikilawyering even to the point of stalking people you don't like. I sense a little projection here.-- Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) My edit summary was correct. I didn't say the edit was a troll; I said that the editor was. Seeing his username on my watchlist made me look at the change, and I reverted it. Lazy, I suppose; I could have rewritten the section completely, but as I have been saying for months, I don't think the section is notable at all, so why waste the time? I deleted the additional quotes because I don't think the section needs to be even longer, and because they were non-notable speculation that is already indicated as irrelevant in the section. (2) If we agree that this shouldn't be in the article at all, why are you picking on me? Why not make the suggestion to delete it, which I would support, or to pare it down significantly, which I would also support. No need to attack me.--csloat 04:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Two things, (1) You have not been arguing that this is not notable for months, at least no where that I can see in the talk pages or the archives, (2) A prominent and controversial academic is considered for and denied in a closed door meeting a position at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, goes on to claim that it was the neo-con-zio-nazi lobby that was behind it all, and you see no controversy? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) Make it "weeks," sorry. It's right above this section if you have trouble finding it. (2) Cole did not claim it was any conspiracy behind it; in fact, if you read what he said, it's a "tempest in a teapot." There is only "controversy" here because some right-wing columnists have nothing better to talk about.--csloat 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, here are the quotes. The summary actually gets it pretty well, except for the part where Cole says he didn't ask for the job, they came after him:

Cole described the events as a “tempest in a teapot” claiming the “scandal” was propagated by a handful of “neo-con” journalists. - -

“

Well, first of all, I never applied for a job at Yale. Some people at Yale asked if they could look at me for a senior appointment. I said, "Look all you want." So that's up to them. Senior professors are like baseball players. You’re being looked at by other teams all the time. If it doesn't result in an offer, then nobody takes it seriously. Some neo-con journalists have tried to make this a big scandal. Who knows what their hiring process is like, what things they were looking for? I think it's a tempest in a teapot.

”

Elizmr 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Cole's point about "not applying" is irrelevant IMO, he was nominated and to the best of my knowledge no one is arguing different. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not doing anything to the section in terms of getting rid of it or paring it down, as I already said, because others feel strongly that it should be there and argued that. Please see my original edit summary if you want to know why I am "picking on you" for a description of your POVpushing edit with no justification. Elizmr 17:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, your original edit summary was picking on me with no justification too. Stop making this personal, Elizmr. If someone feels strongly about having this section be the longest section in the article, let them argue that. I personally do not understand how this is notable at all, and it is certainly not more notable than, say, his views on the Iraq war, which takes up about half as much space.--csloat 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and pared it down, deleting quotes from Cole's supporters as well as detractors. I even left one of TDC's quotes in there so Elizmr can't personally attack me again for POV pushing.--csloat 17:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, now you're trolling, TDC. Stop it.--csloat 18:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here is my original edit summary. I noted that you took out sourced relevant stuff calling it "speculation" while leaving in the usual conspiracy theorizing as, presumably, "non-speculation". Please note that I didn't remove the stuff I characterized as "bullshit" (and forgive my language).

(my first revert on Wikipedia; sourced quotes from yale folks on this are not "speculation" what is speculation is the neocon conspir theory bullshit here previous to last edit)

and the edit summary I was reacting to of yours, "(cur) (last) 2006-08-15T17:50:21 Commodore Sloat (Talk | contribs) (rm irrelevant speculation; this stuff has been discussed in talk for a while now)

This is nothing personal, I am just protesting editing that doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines WP:NPOV. Elizmr 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

pared down Yale section

This section is in flux, but it currently reads as follows:

Faculty position at Yale University In 2006 Cole was nominated to teach at Yale University and was approved by both Yale's sociology and history departments. However, the senior appointments committee overruled the departments, and Cole was not appointed.

According to "several Yale faculty members," the decision to overrule Cole's approval was "highly unusual." [37]. However, Yale officials stated that the rejection was not unusual, and Deputy Provost Charles Long stated that "every year, least one and often more fail at one of these levels, and that happened in this case."[49] The history department vote was 13 yes, 7 no, and 3 abstain . [37] Professors interviewed by the Yale Daily News [49] said "the faculty appeared sharply divided."

Yale Historian Paula Hyman commented that the deep divisions in the appointment committee were the primary reasons that Cole was rejected: "There was also concern, aside from the process, about the nature of his blog and what it would be like to have a very divisive colleague."[15]

In an interview on Democracy Now!,[50] Cole described the events as a “tempest in a teapot” claiming the “scandal” was propagated by a handful of “neo-con” journalists.

Two comments: (1) PH's opinion should be balanced by an opposing opinion of another Yale historian, e.g, John Merriman, a Yale history professor, said of Cole's rejection: "In this case, academic integrity clearly has been trumped by politics." Burning Cole (2) I like the idea of shortening the Democracy Now passage, but the current version has been condensed in a misleading way. Look at the way Cole actually used the word "scandal", for example. In highly charged matters, verbatim quotes seem more advisable than interpretation. Precis 20:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the shortened Democracy now passage. I agree that it was shortened in a misleading way and that verbatim quotes are better. TDC is notorious for such "shortening."--csloat 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And you are notorious for your superfluous use of quotes making the article look like Wikiquote ... well that and you are notorious for your stalking. See, when a quote agrees with the slant Sloat wants to put on an article, its a "better way to reflect the facts" but when it doesn't, its "soapbox editorializing" and "irrelevant" Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

TDC, You are the one who stalked me here. This is typical of your hypocrisy, to accuse me of exactly what you do constantly. Just to remind you again, since you insist on bringing this bullshit up, you once brought up this utterly baseless charge of stalking against me in a formal way, and it was roundly defeated by the Wikipedia community. The results were completely embarrassing for you, and you disappeared from Wikipedia (thankfully) with your tail between your legs for about a month after that. So drop it.

Now, let's look at the issue here: you want to shorten the quote to eliminate the substance of what Cole says and reduce it to, well, name-calling. Your edit summary falsely states that other editors agree with your editing, when in fact, the only other editor to speak on the matter besides me was Precis, who likewise called attention to the deceptive and misleading way in which your shortened quote summarized Cole. Now let us spell out why your editing is misleading. The original quote was this:

Well, first of all, I never applied for a job at Yale. Some people at Yale asked if they could look at me for a senior appointment. I said, "Look all you want." So that's up to them. Senior professors are like baseball players. You’re being looked at by other teams all the time. If it doesn't result in an offer, then nobody takes it seriously. Some neo-con journalists have tried to make this a big scandal. Who knows what their hiring process is like, what things they were looking for? I think it's a tempest in a teapot.

Your summary was this:

Cole described the events as a “tempest in a teapot” claiming the issue was propagated by a handful of “neo-con” journalists attempting to turn a routine event into a scandal.

While having the merit of being shorter, your summary completely effaces the reasons that Cole gave for calling the issue a "tempest in a teapot." Your summary completely erases an important fact that Cole states at the very beginning: "I never applied for a job at Yale." This crucial fact is part of why both conservatives and liberals who make a big deal out of this are making a mountain out of a molehill. This was not a touchstone test of Cole's scholarly credibility. That has already been well established (he's a full professor and a recognized leader in his field!) Next, your summary erases the reasoning behind his statements. I don't particularly like his baseball analogy either, but it is how he explains why this event would normally not be taken seriously -- "If it doesn't result in an offer, then nobody takes it seriously." Next, your summary falsely states that Cole claims the issue was "propagated" by a "handful" of neocons -- what he said was "Some neo-con journalists have tried to make this a big scandal." That does not say they "propagated" anything nor does it sound nearly as conspiratorial as your sentence. Next, he points out that any conclusions drawn about the incident are purely speculative: "Who knows what their hiring process is like, what things they were looking for?" Again, since you prefer to reduce Cole's arguments to empty name-calling, you simply delete this point completely from your "summary." This is why, as Precis noted above, "verbatim quotes seem more advisable than interpretation." I don't think this quote can be shortened and remain accurate, but if it can, I would ask another editor to do it - I don't trust you to, TDC. Finally, your reasoning for shortening the quote is a textbook example of WP:POINT: you make (false) charges about my general editing style rather than justifying your edits to this particular quote. It is very clear that the only reason you came to disrupt this page is to provoke me in the first place; now that you have succeeded, you are openly declaring provocation as your rationale for changing the page! "The quote must be shortened because Sloat is notorious for using quotes" -- sorry, that doesn't fly. I realize I am the only editor in this discussion who sides with Cole on a lot of these issues (and I am not "pro-"Cole), but I'm hoping that the other editors here are level-headed enough to see that your "summary" of Cole is blatantly and disturbingly misleading.--csloat 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sloat ... stalker say what?

I went on vacation in June for 2 weeks (as I have done for the past several years) and you considered that running with my "tail between my legs"? Sorry if I have a life outside of Wikipedia, it a shame that some people apparently do not. I am glad the RfC drew some much needed attention to your antics, its only a matter of time before you mouth off to the wrong person.

My charges about your editing style are not groundless, as every article you are heavily involved in is nothing but a long string of quotes with no real meaning except to portray the most positve spin on your POV, a shame considering how much time you spend here, but not suprising.

In this instance I incorporated Precis' comments as best as I could, and I would like to hear his feadback on it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) You stalked me here, TDC. I never stalked you. Not ever.

(2) The RfC drew attention to the fact that the Wikipedia community collectively rejected your phony stalking charge. I wish you would shut up about it. I pointed you time and time again to Wikipedia policy on Wikistalking, and you refused to read it. Then you followed me around to the Gary Webb page, to the Salman Pak facility page, to the Plame affair page, to the Atta in Prague page, and more, focusing exclusively on edits that I had made, often making absurd arguments in order to "debate" me, and then finally, after being proven wrong, simply disappearing. You have now stalked me to this page. The RfC was roundly rejected and deleted because it did not conform to wikipedia policy - but only after many editors responded clearly and forcefully that they did not see any evidence of "stalking." I specifically sought input from editors with conservative viewpoints whom I had debated in the past on that RfC in order to make clear to you and anyone else reading it that it was not a POV issue. Spin it how you like it, TDC, but to a person, every conservative editor whose input I solicited wrote positive things about my Wikipedia editing on that RfC, and you know it.

(3) I don't know or care what you did on June 2nd; what I do know is that after starting a conduct RfC against me -- a very serious and incendiary one at that -- you simply abandoned it, and you refused to defend your charges when they had been rejected by the wikipedia community. For you to come around now and reassert those charges is dishonest, distasteful, and, indeed, disgraceful.

(4) Your charges about my editing style are groundless, but I don't care to debate that point -- my point is that they are irrelevant here. The only issue here is whether your rewrite of Cole's statement improves this article over the original statement. I maintain that it does not. I gave several reasons above for this -- I count six of them, on re-reading the paragraph -- and you have not responded to a single one of those points. Instead, you have attempted to deflect the issue to other points, such as your whines about my editing style. If you don't like my editing style, don't stalk me to pages that I am an active editor on.

(5) Until the six arguments above are dealt with, the quote should be restored in full, or the disputed tag must remain up. Again, I am hoping another editor will see the sense in restoring the full quote so we can all move along to other things. If someone wants to put this up to a vote I will participate in that; alternatively, if someone wants to put this entire section up to a vote, I would be likely to vote against keeping it at all.--csloat 05:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear on this, for Isarig's benefit: I believe TDC's summary of Cole is factually incorrect and POV. The above substantiates that opinion. I will restore the tag and ask that Isarig not revert a third time. He has asked me to restore the quote in order to address the problem; I have not done so because I have already done that twice and user TDC has reverted me both times. If someone restores the quote we can remove the tag. Thanks.--csloat 00:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

suggestions for compromise on the Democracy Now quote

I'm going on vacation shortly, but I'd like to leave the following suggestions for compromise: (1) Remove the final quote and the tag, until a consensus is reached on Talk. (2) The consensus may be to leave the DN quote out altogether. That would be fine with me. (3) The quote is too long relative to its importance, so I sympathize with attempts to shorten it, but I'm also sympathetic with preserving verbatim quotes whenever possible. (4) One possible compromise:

• Addressing the Yale rejection in an interview on Democracy Now!,^[1] Cole said "Some neo-con journalists have tried to make this a big scandal. Who knows what their hiring process is like, what things they were looking for? I think it's a tempest in a teapot."

Yes, this leaves off the fact that Cole didn't apply for the job, but I fail to see why that's important. What difference does it make whether the process was initiated by Cole himself or by recruiters? The bottom line is that Cole was interested in the position, or else he wouldn't have given the recruiters the green light. Precis 08:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I explained above why it is important that Cole did not apply for the job, as well as why the statement about how this happens all the time was important. We also cannot presume to know Cole's state of mind, as Precis does here. The claim that he would not have given recruiters a green light without wanting the job is incorrect. Getting an offer from another university is a great bargaining chip for a higher salary or other perqs from the job you are at. I've done this myself, and I know the practice is widespread among faculty who are competitive for other positions. Again, I have presented six arguments above for keeping the quotation; let's deal with them one by one. The alternative is to remove the whole section, but removing just the quote is not acceptable, since it is pretty much the one notable quote in the whole dispute. (In addition, it is the only part representing Cole's view, which is allegedly what this article is about).--csloat 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. On one hand, you say Cole was not interested, otoh, you say having an offer is a great bargaining chip - so it is desirable to have. We don't know what Cole would have done had he gotten an offer - but there is no denying he wanted that offer. Isarig 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Cole was not interested; I said we cannot presume to know what his interests were. We cannot say whether or not he wanted the offer. What we do know is that he never sought the job. Sorry for the confusion.--csloat 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All we know is that he (according to him) did not intiate the process. We do know he was interested, or else he would have told the Yale folks so. Isarig 19:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have missed when you provided a copy of his letter to Yale regarding this matter. All we know about what he "wanted" or "was interested in" is what he has said about it in a public source. I don't see the point of trying to make claims beyond that.--csloat 21:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What we know is that he told the Yale people who approached him that they can and should look all they want - that's not the response nor the attitude of someone who is not interested in an offer. Someone who is not interested says just that - "not interested". I do this on a weekly basis. Isarig 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I never said he was not interested. I said we don't know anything other than what he has said. You are the one claiming he "wanted" the job. It doesn't matter - you may believe whatever you wish, just don't put it in the article.--csloat 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Controversies" section order

I think that this section would do well to be in reverse chronological order as readers will likely be reading for more recent issues first.

Currently is reads:

2 Controversies

2.1 Cole and the Bahá'í Faith

2.2 Legal disputes

2.3 Expertise and professionalism

2.4 Dispute over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel

2.5 Faculty position at Yale University

I think it ought to be:

2 Controversies

2.1 Faculty position at Yale University

2.2 Dispute over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel

2.3 Expertise and professionalism

2.4 Legal disputes

2.5 Cole and the Bahá'í Faith

I don't want to unilaterally make this change without discussion. MARussellPESE 04:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about chronologic order vs. reverse chronologic order, but generally favor the chronologic since it gives a flavor of the development of the person, organization, etc. The stuff about expertise and professionalism is not really a chronologic thing--maybe it should come first in either scheme. Elizmr 14:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved it around as follows:

expertise faculty posit Ahmadinejad Legal disputes Baha'i moving from general to more specific incidents, put yale first since it follows from expertise and professionalism Elizmr 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In what way is "Bahai" more specific than Ahmadenijad, which is a dispute over a specific translation?--csloat 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Less general interest in B than Ahm which is very current and order with B last also by request of MARussellPEASE who raised this an no one objected. Is this ok with you? Elizmr 09:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that made no sense whatsoever to me, sorry.--csloat 10:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Elizmr is trying to place these topics in descending order of general interest. Interestingly, that parallels a reverse-chronological order almost perfectly. I can readily see arguments in both directions — because either direction seems to indicate that controversies around Cole expand with him as his notoriety expands.

I lean towards descending interest as currently presented for readability reasons. Nobody but a few of us Baha'is — and by far not even a lot of us — have more than passing familiarity with his conflicts within that community. On the other hand, the Yale appointment and comments viewed by some as almost apologetics regarding the Iranian regime have garnered a lot of press. These are subjects readers would be far more interested in I think. MARussellPESE 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Define "a lot of press." Practically every article that talks about these so-called "controversies" at all is already cited here. Hurricane Katrina got "a lot of press." The Plame scandal got "a lot of press." Juan Cole's alleged "controversies" did not. In fact, the only reason most of the stuff in that section is there at all is to appease Wikipedia editors who care a lot more about turning this page into a character assassination than they do about WP:BLP. I don't really have an objection to the restructuring of this section, but I don't think either of you have explained why one order is better than any other. I prefer chronological since it is more obviously NPOV than order of "importance" or "general interest," but I can also see why reverse chron. can be beneficial when there is more attention to recent events. But trying to measure whether the yale controversy or the ahmadinejad controversy is more notable is silly, when neither one is notable to anyone but a few politically motivated bloggers and wikipedia editors.--csloat 20:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, I apologize for my hastily written summary above. I agree with MARussellPESE's explanation of what I was suggesting. Please remember that this is NOT the main BLP Cole page, which I think is fairly controversy-free; this is a page specifically for controversies and discussion of them and opinions vary as to what is and is not notable or gets press. I could argue that a prominent middle east professor blogger's analysis of the Iranian president's remarks is highly notable, especially given recent events, but I accept that we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I guess the bottom line is the three of us are ok with the present order of the topics! Elizmr 22:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand this is not the main biography page; this was a fork that was created for the sole purpose of giving you and a couple other very vocal editors a forum for character assassination that would not be appropriate on the biography page. I think thanks to me and a couple of other editors doing a lot of unnecessary research, the character assaults that have been put in here have at least been balanced out a bit, but let's not pretend these controversies are inherently notable -- by and large, they are only notable because some bloggers made a big deal out of them. I agree with you that the Ahmadinejad issue is more notable than the others, but not as a "controversy." It is only a "controversy" for Hitchens. For those of us whose brains are not swimming in fermented juniper berries, this is a simple matter of translation -- a widely publicized and sensationalistic translation of a single comment blown out of proportion. We have an expert Persian scholar who points out that the translation is incorrect in a very minor part (though that minor part has some major implications for those who believe an Iranian attack on Israel will come at any moment). There is no reason that this should be a "controversy," except for the fact that it suits Cole's avowed enemies to make it one. (By the way, you're right that recent events make this slightly more notable. Cole in fact commented on Ahmadinejad's speech on saturday. Ahmadinejad's comment that Iran wants to end Zionism through elections rather than attacks pretty clearly confirm Cole's view of the issue... perhaps I'll add that information to the page eventually. Of course, as Cole notes, you don't see Western pundits jumping up and down to point out this part of the speech). But as for the other alleged "controversies" - the unsubstantiated and inaccurate comments about "expertise and professionalism (?!)" are sheer character assaults, and the stuff about the position at yale is just ridiculous (so he was looked at for a job and didn't get it - who gives a crap? some bloggers do, obviously, both right and left-wing, and both sides are making ridiculous claims based on this nonsense).--csloat 23:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, Please watch the personal attacks. Elizmr 00:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If I notice any such attacks, I'll be sure to "watch" them, thanks.--csloat 00:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to point them out to you. Writing "For those of us whose brains are not swimming in fermented juniper berries, this is a simple matter of translation" implies that those who have a different opinion than yours on this controversy have "brains that are swimming in fermented juniper berries". This is a disgusting remark, a violation of both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Isarig 03:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that remark was descriptive of Hitchens, nobody else. It was certainly not a personal attack.--csloat 05:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is perhaps what you meant, but not what you wrote. For me, it is not a simple matter of translation, ergo, by your statement, my brain is swimming in fermented juniper berries. The proper thing to do is to apologize for your thoughtless uncivil remark, and cross it out in the original posting, not to continue with your condenscending tone. Isarig 15:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is exactly what I wrote; not everything is about you Isarig. To quote myself, "It is only a "controversy" for Hitchens. For those of us whose brains are not swimming in fermented juniper berries..." I have no idea what your drinking habits are nor do I care, but Hitchens' are notorious; he openly admits to consuming enough gin a day to kill a donkey. So that was descriptive, not thoughtless (I actually put some thought into the best way to phrase it), and there was nothing uncivil about it. Please stop taking this so personally Isarig - if you think this is a personal attack, start a damn RfC against me or something. I was talking about Hitchens, not you.--csloat 21:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

csloat, please don't dismiss out-of-hand these "controversies" as without merit. Please do blow away material that isn't sourced. I'm an exopaedist, so you'll get no objection from here. But many of these issues (Yale at least - Chronicle of Higher Education.) made the printed press, as well as the blogosphere. As Cole's principle public venue is his blog, I'm not so sure that using other responsible bloggers aren't fair game as cited sources.

And, you could lighten up a bit. MARussellPESE 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I will try to lighten up - it is difficult because my defense of some of Cole's statements here has made me the target of personal ire by Isarig and Elizmr. As for this matter, I have not removed sourced material, but I think that the yale issue is blown totally out of proportion. I haven't read the CHE piece, but I doubt it engages in the kind of nonsense that is happening on the blogs surrounding this. The guy never looked for a job. Yale looked at him briefly and decided against him. The case was slightly unusual in that the faculty debate was contentious yet supportive, but higher ups said no. It's not that outrageous though, but some right- and left-wing bloggers made a big deal about what it meant. In 2 years nobody will remember this. Except, now, all Wikipedia readers.-csloat 21:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, the Yale deal was a big deal [25], and it appears that his short-listing and dumping may not be as cut-and-dried [26] as the assertion that he was selected purely on merit and got a neo-con shaft makes it out to be. My family are academics going back a couple generations in both directions, and the idea that internal campus politics played into both the selection and/or the dumping ring true. (That sort of thing cost my father a position once.) There's a saying in the ivory tower: "The reason the fights are so big, is because the stakes are so small." MARussellPESE 22:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said he was selected purely on merit and got a neocon shaft! I was explicitly criticizing that claim. I am an academic myself and I agree with the notion that internal campus politics played into both the selection and the dumping. And I am well aware of the saying you mention, it is quite true. However, none of that makes it notable. There are campus politics at Yale, stop the presses? Anyway, I'm not removing this cruft from the article for now, so there's no reason to continue this debate, but you have my position totally wrong if you think I am endorsing the left wing conspiracy theory about this. If you re-read my comments on this page you will see that there are several places where I fault both the left and the right for blowing this out of proportion. Something like this would never merit a single word in a print encyclopedia.--csloat 22:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Never said that you did. I used the third person. What I am saying is that I disagree with you that this is non-notable. Please see below. MARussellPESE 20:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, you are not the, "target of [my] personal ire," because of your, "defense of some of Cole's statements." Defense of Cole's statements is fine with me and without that Wikipedia wouldn't be Wikipedia; Wikipedia needs to show all sides. You have earned ire from me because of your unconditional knee-jerk defense of Cole, becuase of the rude and dismissive way you treat other editors, and because of the way you combat against the article showing more than one POV. (And for the record I agree with you that the Yale thing doesn't need to be in Wikipedia. I said this a long time ago and Ben Houston disagreed. He felt that the Yale thing showed that Cole is very well respected, etc, to be nominated and it should stay for that reason. Not a bad point.) I think that the most interesting aspect of the Yale affair is that it is an example of a classic Cole pattern. He is great when agreed with, but when challenged or faced with adversity, he replies with one of two options: a)this is a well-funded powerful neo-con right-wing likudnik conspiracy at work!!! or b)you are an idiot who doesn't know anything and I am the great and powerful Cole!!! Elizmr 00:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Unconditional knee-jerk defense of cole"? Get real. I don't agree with a lot of what Cole says, as I have pointed out again and again. I have defended some of his statements and opposed many attempts at character assassination. I have no problem with legitimate criticism of Cole, but the comments you have insisted upon about anti-semitism and so forth are simply not legitimate criticism, as I have shown over and over again. I have backed off on these points because arguing with you is fruitless -- you distort issues, you completely mischaracterize my own statements, and you even deleted my comments when refutation proved too difficult for you. I have never said there should only be one POV here; I have simply insisted that certain claims are dubious and others are not notable. As for Yale, look at Cole's comments. He didn't say it was a likudnik conspiracy! He said some right wing bloggers were making a mountain out of a molehill. As for "B," you're just being inflammatory to no purpose. He's never said he was "great and powerful" or that you are an idiot. Your comment about the "classic Cole pattern" is exactly the problem here -- you totally distort something Cole says in order to turn him into some kind of neo-Nazi. It's pathetic, and the fact that I called you on it has nothing to do with jerking knees.--csloat 00:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, re; antisemetic conspiracy theorizing, I do think he does it and no, you haven't shown anything to support that he doesn't. You've just said "no he doesn't" over and over again and deleted everything saying he might. re: your disagreements with Cole, name one! re: legitimate crit of Cole: give an example or two of some legit crit you support. And yeah, he didn't say the folks who he blames for the Yale "no" decision were "likkudnik", but the evil stereotypical "neocon" "right-wing" "likkudnik" "Israel lobby" etc are pretty much equivalent in Cole's universe. And a glance at his outrageous arguments with various folks in his blog will show you that I've characterized the "B" arguments correctly. Elizmr 01:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The burden is on you to show that he does do it, not on me to disprove it. Please take a class in basic logic or critical thinking if that is confusing for you. I have shown again and again that you have not met that burden, but then I went ahead and backed off on it anyway! That crap is stil in the article. You demanded that I name one of my disagreements with Cole - I think he is wrong in attributing the "doomsday document" to Mohamed Atta. I think he is wrong about the motivations of the so-called "Likudniks." There are two that come to mind off the top of my head. As for legit crit of cole, it doesn't matter if I support it or not; what matters is that it is based on things Cole actually said or did, that it is sourced and reasoned, and that it is not distorting statements in order to create a character assassination. Your claims about "neocon" and various other words being equal in Cole's mind just shows how distorted your thinking is on all this. You assert that Cole equates these things, without any evidence, and then put words in Cole's mouth! If you can't tell the difference between "Some right wing bloggers made a big deal out of nothing" and "there is a vast right-wing neocon Jewish conspiracy to deny me a job I didn't want in the first place," then you shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia.--csloat 02:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite all that you have written above, the bottom line is that you object to adding quotes and cites from notable folks writing in acceptable places and delete them repeatedly when they say something about Cole you find objectionable. I would venture that whoever does crap like this shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Elizmr 02:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you're either wrong, or lying. Which is it?--csloat 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, Commodore, the controversy over the Yale appointment made the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times, among others. I found out about this from the print media (WSJ). I don't read blogs of any type. These are indeed well right-of-center media (The Washington Times being the print version of Fox News.), but they're a bit more than right-wing bloggers making a big deal out of nothing.

My alma-mater's Nazi apologist's main biography page notes in depth that he'd shot his mouth off about Ahmadinejad in the campus paper and the broad condemnatory response. (Note for the record: Prof. Cole is not a Nazi apologist — but he is comparably polarizing.) What's a fair comparison, is that when Butz shoots his mouth off in a campus newspaper it makes Wikipedia. It appears that you're arguing that Cole's imbroglios shouldn't.

Butz does keep, generally, a low profile. Cole does anything but. He has made himself a public figure and his, frankly, acerbic, dismissive, temperment has become a story in-and-of itself.

If there are instances where Wikipedia policies on sources are being skirted, then we should all be aggressively rooting them out. They compromise the project. But, when something makes the print media, especially of the scale of the WSJ, that does get over the notability bar I think. MARussellPESE 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, we are talking at cross purposes. I don't disagree with you, though I find the comparison to Butz to be a completely distasteful attack on Cole. Cole is not comparable to Butz in any way. Butz makes wikipedia in part because there has been for several decades an organized attempt to call attention to his Nazi apologetics; despite his low profile, others have ensured that his profile is raised. But that's neither here nor there - I have agreed that the Ahmadinejad comments are interesting; it is the Yale appointment thing that I find silly. And I haven't removed it, so get off my case about it; I think we can disagree without the world ending over this. I think it's silly. Yale considers hiring him, decides not to. In five years nobody will care. In two years nobody will care! The fact that it made a brief mention in the Washington times is irrelevant -- I notice there is no page at all on another controversial figure from your alma mater -- one who was apparently fired from that institution for being far more vocal, acerbic, and annoying than Cole ever was, even while Butz was kept on faculty. Yet she was often mentioned in the Chicago Tribune and other papers. What Butz said about Ahmadinejad may or may not be notable; that it is on a wikipedia page doesn't tell us much. Certainly a communist professor actually being fired for her beliefs is far more notable than a full professor who is in no danger of losing his job getting looked at by another university who then decides not to hire him. But one happened in the 80s (as I recall) whereas the other occurred in the age of weblogs and wikipedia.--csloat 01:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your use of the imperative "get off my case" isn't called for. You've asserted that the Yale appointment is/was silly and I've countered that it wasn't. It was discussed in reputable places like the WSJ and The Chronicle of Higher Education, and got more than a brief mention in the Washington Times. Referring to that as reputable does strain credulity, but not the WSJ and Chronicle. I'm not "on your case". I'm just trying to have an even-tempered conversation and make a point or two — politely. If you don't think I have, please respond in kind.

A comparison between the notoriety of Cole and Butz is perfectly reasonable — which is all that I made. I made no cheap shot on Cole, and did not use a reducto ad Hitlerim argument. I went out of my way to state clearly what I believe: that Cole's no Nazi apologist — no matter what the Secretary of Defense may pronounce.

Oddly enough, I'll lay good odds that if you sample the average Newshour viewer who these guys are, you'll find those that know of Cole to be an integer multiple of those that know of Butz. Hence, the difference the the amount of Wiki-ink relative to the two.

However, Cole has been a fire-brand for about ten years himself, and shows no signs of slowing down. His acerbic, dismissive, tone with any critic is notorious. "Condescending" doesn't begin to capture the way he comes across. People have called him the next Bernard Lewis, and he could well be if he takes a page from that scholar's book. Lord knows the West could use more of that insight — but Cole's withering rhetoric with anybody who disagrees with him will, I suspect, keep him notorious for years to come. And it does, I'm sure, compromise the effect of whatever he has to say, no matter how insightful.

By the way, Barbara Foley was not a tenured faculty member and not fired from Northwestern for being a fire-brand. She was denied tenure for inciting a riot (Fall 1984) and refusing to apologize. I know. I was in the room when she did it. Storming the stage with about twenty people and telling the room that the speaker, Contra leader Adolfo Calero (a miserable human being), would "be lucky to get out of here alive!" [27] (That's the direct quote I remember, and it's aggravated menacing. She doesn't remember it that way though. [28] No surprise: she stops just short of that pithy sentence. But I do. It was a memorable introduction to the academy.) That would go beyond the limits of academic freedom, wouldn't you agree?

To compare her notoriety with Butz or Cole: her's extended as far as the campus paper and the two local dailies for about a quarter. By the time I was a senior it was "Barbara Who"? Agreed, she probably would have made Wikipedia with all sorts of citations. But they wouldn't be from the likes of WSJ saying one thing and Chronicle saying almost the opposite. (That's what makes these things about Cole "noteworthy controversies".) In Foley's case, everybody thought she should be fired, and was one event. (Which makes it not noteworthy and why that episode's justifiably not on Wikipedia.) MARussellPESE 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Small world. I was at that "riot" myself. It wasn't anything close to a "riot" and the use of the term in that context is a bastardization of the English language and a trivialization of actual violence. Have you ever been anywhere near an actual riot? Foley lost her job 2 years later, as I recall, and that was only one of many incidents that had been cited against her when she lost her job. (And it's been a while, but I do recall the Chicago Reader and Tribune both covering this, not just the Daily Northwestern or the Review, and she was far more high profile than Butz, who kept his Nazi nonsense to himself for the most part). You are also dead wrong that "everybody" thought she should be fired (unless you have a novel definition of "everybody"). It's a small point - Foley is not very important here, I agree; but I brought it up because her losing her job was controversial at the time and is forgotten now. If she had a blog at the time for her condescending radicalism, however, we might see the same issue here that we see with Cole. Having a section on the Yale thing is silly because he did not "lose" a job; he was not seeking a job, and there is nothing that unusual at all about Yale looking at him and then choosing not to offer a job. In two years nobody would remember or care, except for the fact that Wikipedia has now elevated this trivia to a "notable" fact. Anyway, it doesn't matter; as I said, I'm not asking for the section to be removed; simply stating my opinion on the matter; we can certainly disagree. Go Cats.--csloat 01:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? I was stage-left behind the collonade over there. Had a terrific view of the stage and seating. I remember it being so packed nobody in the seats could really move. But there was a not-inconsiderable shoving match to get on stage and with Calero's party. I also remember the "red-colored-liquid-resembling-blood". But riot is defined as:

1. A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people.

2. Law A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000. [29]

There were a bit more than two people alongside Foley, about a score, so I guess that that would count as one.

However, If you'll notice, I didn't call it a "riot", only that she'd incited one. However, if I had called it one, I would not have bastardized the language. I'd have been using it correctly; if in an incidiary way, which is why I didn't.

No, I've never been in a riot. (Have you?) But I did watch the Evanston police expertly defuse the situation that developed later that evening as the protesters followed Calero and his handlers to the off-campus apartment they were staying at. I also saw them handle gracefully, but firmly, Dennis Brutus, an Anti-Apartheid speaker activist who, as he was leading a protest, was advocating the students take over the administration complex. Tense, but not violent.

I'd forgotten about the Reader, a weekly; and that it had almost certainly covered it and been supportive. I never really read it much. But the dailies I was talking about were indeed the Tribune and Sun-Times. I wasn't talking about the Daily Northwestern, which I read, Northwestern Review, which I never read. If memory serves, both of the dailies editorial boards supported her dismissal. What I meant by "everybody" — was all the grown-ups. <grin>

You do have a legitimate observation regarding notability. What's notable about whom? How notable does someone have to be to warrant notation of their job prospects? Is it merely that they be notorious? The fact that "there is no official policy on notability" is another manifestation of wikiality and truthiness that does not, I think, bode well for the ultimate utility of Wikipedia. MARussellPESE 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the "violent disturbance of the peace" part of the definition is more important than the number of people involved. Also, if she incited a riot, that implies that one occurred -- I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're drawing there, unless you're focusing on her intent to incite? I saw no violence, unless you consider a bunch of naive chants and some "red liquid" violent. I have been as close to a riot as I care to on more than one occasion; people actually get hurt, in my mind, when a "riot" is incited. Anyway, it's semantics; I saw the whole thing as the Foley crowd exercising their right to speak (though their chant was more than a little counterproductive - "fascists have no right to speak") and I certainly never noticed a "riot." Your claim that "all the grown-ups" supported Foley's dismissal is nonsense. Plenty did not -- I don't recall what the newspapers said about it, but there was an active response to the firing, and the university as I recall was pretty emphatic that the so-called "incitement" was not the only reason for her dismissal. (Somewhere I may still have a "Back Foley/Smash Butz" button that one of her supporters handed me back in the day). Wow, it has been a while, and we are way off topic here... The point about there being no criteria for notability is an important one, but more important here is that Wikipedia should not be the primary vehicle for an issue's notability. I fear that with the Yale thing being so prominent on this page, in a couple years that may be the case.--csloat 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it'll, quite appropriately, come down then.

Last point: Inciting to riot is a crime itself. Freedom of speech categorically does not allow one to threaten violence against anybody — something neither the far left, right or religious seem to grasp. But grown-ups do. MARussellPESE 23:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if that is the case, it would be too late to take it down; that's the point. If Wikipedia is what is driving the notability of this claim, it will continue to be mentioned in blogs and whatnot, which will refer back here. That's why WP:NOR is important. As for your incitement claim, in the United States, at least, there are strong free speech safeguards against frivolous incitement claims like this one. Foley didn't start a riot. There was no riot. There was some shouting and some "red liquid" thrown at the speaker, who got annoyed (justifiably so) and split. There was no violence and none threatened. There's no way in hell a court would support an arrest made under such circumstances. Incitement law has been pretty clear on this point since Brandenburg.--csloat 01:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who takes Wikipedia seriously as a source of information deserves what they get: truthy wikiality. The only real utility this article provides, or any other here for that matter, is a suite of references and links to their sources for the reader to begin doing their real research. On this point, there are several, genuine, bona-fide sources — making it notable for Wikipedia's standards — that talk-up both side of this issue — making it NPOV — that interested readers may want to pursue.

"He'll be lucky to get out of here alive" is somehow not a threat of violence? Leaving the venue afterwards was simply getting "annoyed"? The Brandenburg case "held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action." Threatening harm is menancing, throwing things at somebody is assault boyo, shoving them around is battery, and asking everyone in the room to join in is inciting. Grown-ups know how to express themselves without resorting to these things. Leave the legal opinions to attorneys. MARussellPESE 03:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, let's leave the legal opinions to attorneys; please cite the relevant court case where Foley was convicted of inciting lawless action. I certainly didn't say her actions were "grown-up," so don't mistake my position here. But to claim that she started a "riot" is nonsense. Perhaps she shoved Calero, perhaps not -- we're not arguing about whether there was legally an "assault." (Again, there were no arrests for assault that I am aware of, but it has been 20 years, so forgive me if I'm wrong). Honestly I'm not sure why we're arguing about this anymore; what does this have to do with this page? It's all a little bizarre anyway -- we're talking about a protest of a known criminal who worked for the CIA, head of an illegal army, a murderer, thug, and drug dealer (well, perhaps "dealer" is too strong, but he was certainly well aware that many of his activities were funded by drug transactions). You're telling me this guy was scared of a woman who teaches literature?--csloat 18:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have a reason for reverting the move to "Criticisms of," please abstain from reverts.

Thanks, Italiavivi 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but what the heck is wrong with you? You've never, to my knowledge, participated on this page. Out of the blue, you moved this page without offering any justification other than some nonsense about Ann Coulter. Then, when someone moves it back, you get all imperious about it. Ann Coulter has nothing to do with this page, which, if you take a minute to actually read it, you would see has to do with Cole's "Views" (Section 1) and "Controversies" surrounding him (section 2), the latter of which may or may not include "criticism" among other controversies. Are you just trolling or what?--csloat 01:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To your knowledge, that's fine, not that it matters. I am a Wikipedian with extreme POV and format concerns toward this article. Regardless, there is no precendent or reason to force an unconventional article style such as this one, directly linking his views to those who criticize him. His main article's "Views" section was too short regardless, and all views have been moved there. This article can now focus on criticisms of Cole, as was obviously its intent from the beginning. Italiavivi 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your baseless accusations of trolling, by the way, border on personal attack. Please cease them, and address the corrections/issues being expressed. Thanks, Italiavivi 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC) .

I called you on your trolling because there were no issues being expressed! You simply changed the title of the article without explanation other than some crap about Ann Coulter. Now, your comment that there is no precedent to form such an article about this is nonsense on its face. This article is such a precedent. The decision to name it thus followed weeks of discussion and consensus building among editors who disagreed about a lot of things. It was quite an accomplishment, I will say, considering the high emotions here. This article had two sections, "Views" and "Controversies." I am not sure how deleting the "views" and turning it into a pure "Criticism" section -- when these controversies are not all "criticism" per se -- helps this article in any way. In fact, I think it turns it into a hit piece. If you wish to make this radical change, please present your reasons and get some people participating in a discussion towards consensus. Thanks.--csloat 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks, again, Sloat. You claim that this is not pure criticism, despite the fact that is very clearly is. The main "Views" section at Juan Cole is too short (two one-line paragraphs), and his views can be incorporated there. What remains of this article is criticism and academic disagreement, and that's the only NPOV it can be called. Your nonsensical format is unacceptale, and that your only counters are baseless accusations of trolling is telling. Paint it as a "radical" change with all the rhetoric you like, I am editing according to the manual of style and NPOV policies. Your vision for this article no longer has consensus, and it will not remain this way, I'm sorry. Italiavivi 17:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What personal attacks? I am just trying to protect the integrity of this page. The "Views" section is not "too short"; it linked to this page as it should have. You have imposed your view of this on everyone who spent weeks discussing how to properly arrange this page and that. You imposed this view without consultation, comment, or any attempt to reach consensus. It is insulting to all of us. I'm going to ask others to please step into this debate; if there is a consensus for your version, fine, but you have done nothing to even try to discuss the issue.--csloat 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Title change

I would like to have a discussion about the title of this page before the revert war continues any further. I feel it was entirely inappropriate for Italiaviva to make massive changes without any discussion or attempt to achieve consensus. The title and content of this page was discussed for weeks, and even the founder of wikipedia weighed in the discussion as I recall. I don't think a unilateral move by one person who claims there are POV issues here is appropriate at all. I will be fine with such a move if consensus is achieved - or at least some semblance of a reasonable discussion - but I am not comfortable with the unilateral move. Am I out of line here? Can someone explain what is POV about "Views and controversies"? Or why it is less POV to make this page exclusively about attacks against Cole? I just don't understand.--csloat 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. Unilateral moves are going to attract lightning every time. And should be reverted on-sight and brought to the Talk page. Just like csloat did here.

"Views and controversies ..." is certainly better than "Withering character assassination attempts against ..." or "Withering character assassination attempts by ...". There are people out there who'd be more than happy to see this article skew in either direction. But that doesn't do the encyclopaedia any good.

I actually think that "Views and controversies concerning ..." is pretty NPOV. People have strong feelings (Views) that sometimes come into conflict (Controversies) about Cole, his analysis, and his commentary. The title is pretty explainatory. MARussellPESE 21:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is POV to remove the man's views from his own bio page, so as to intrinsically link them to his critics on a separate page whose title and format has no precendent on Wikipedia. When his views are placed back into his bio article, as they should (his bio's "Views" section is two lines), all that's left of this article is criticisms and disagreement ("controversy" seems to be your word of choice). This title does not have consensus. Italiavivi 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both csloat & MARussellPESE. This is a NPOV title that we have agreed on after a long discussion that led to consensus. Italiavivi is trolling here and on other pages, making controversial unilateral moves and changes, and then resorting to revert wars, 3RR violations and personal attacks agianst editors who disagree with him Isarig 18:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

edits by Will314159

Will314159, these pages are part of an encyclopedia we are trying to write, not a playground for you to experiment with to indulge your egocentric fantasies. Please do not make any more edits like your recent ones, deleting, then restroing content in order to gauge other editors' reaaction to them. That is a violation of so many WP guidelines that I won't even enumerate them. You have been warned. Isarig 17:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

the grand champion reverter of all time is one editor by name of Isarig. I wish there was a counter for that category Isarig. You would win hands down of reversions of POV pushing. Best Wishes. Will314159 19:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA. It seems you can't make a single edit to this project without vioaltign at least one of its guidelines. Isarig 22:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Edit logs

04:44, 11 October 2006 Armon (Talk | contribs) ({{Cquote| are prettier and make it eaiser to read)"" massive rewrite, but from reading the log you would think he prettied up some quotes. Hope you can sleep at night. Best Wishes Will314159 04:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

04:30, 11 October 2006 Will314159 (Talk | contribs) (→On Israel - denial of human rights is fascism irrespective of voting- did Kramer say that? I missed it)

1. (cur) (last) 03:00, 11 October 2006 Armon (Talk | contribs) (rv -it's redundant Will, Kramer just said the same thing)

Again Armon is making misleading edit logs. The whole Cole rebuttal to Kramer criticism is that Likud is not fascist because it does or does not participate in democracy. The Cole criticism is that it is facist because of the way it treats and supresses the Palestinians. Fascism has evolved from Mussollini's days. See the neofascism article. He keeps on deleting my counterbalancing edit. This is an article on Juan Cole's views, isn't it? Or is it an article of how the Likud lobby want to paint Juan Cole's views? Or if Armon doesn't delete, you can bet Isarig will, or xxx, or yyyy. Definitely outnumbered here and very, very, little sense of fair play. Best Wishes Will314159 05:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Edit So Armon ask Kramer if we should adjust the double standard so that both are fascist, or neither is? His argument seems to accept an equivalence. Cheers Will314159 05:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh it wasn't a "massive rewrite" check the diffs. All I did was add in Cquotes, but yes, I did leave out a redundant quote which I'd reverted earlier -it didn't get better with repetition. This is how it reads now:

Kramer then compares this with how Cole had characterized an Israeli political party, the Likud, which has “participated in elections, served in parliamentary government, joined parliamentary alliances and national unity governments, and received cabinet posts.” Cole has claimed the "Likud's real roots lie not in the Bible but in Zionist Revisionism of the Jabotinsky sort, which is frankly a kind of fascism," and has described it as "the proto-fascist Likud Party," and its previous government "the aggressive, expansionist, proto-fascist Likud Coalition." Kramer asserts that for Cole, “one set of criteria is applied to the Muslims, tout court, and a completely separate set is applied to the Jews.”

Cole asserts that Likud party supporters who protested the withdrawal from Gaza, meet his definition of fascist in the following ways; 1) radical nationalism, 2) militarism and aggressiveness, 3) racism, 4) favoring the wealthy, punishing the poor, (He maintains "in all the territory dominated by Israel, the poorest subjects are the Palestinians, who have been made poor by Israeli policies.") and finally, 5) dictatorship. Cole maintains that "...they have long favored Israeli military rule, which is to say, dictatorship, over the Palestinian population." [27] He also claims to be the target of a smear campaign by Likud's American proxies due to his criticisms of their militarism and authorianism.

The second paragraph is one you wrote which I helped out with by copyediting and fixing the refs. Cole's views are there. Stop being a dick. Just found a sp mistake though -I'll fix that now. Armon 06:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

ARMON you are not being very truthfu;, and your quote marks are distracting. Moreover whataver names you are fantasizing people are callilng you for your behavior may be correct but your fellow editors are more grownup and they won't indulge themselves. I"m still trying to make sense of "Kramer says same thing." Try to understand this. Just because Apartheid Afrikaans voted for each other, it did not make them any the less fascist. Best Wishes. Will314159 10:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to understand if you just read the Kramer cite:

Of course, Cole's opening premise is absurd. No one who has read and understood a college world history textbook would argue that a movement's participating in elections or accepting cabinet posts is overwhelming evidence that it isn't fascist. Both the Fascists in Italy and the Nazis in Germany contested elections before seizing power. But Cole's grasp of world history is so light that he's perfectly capable of forgetting this for at least as long as it takes to write a paragraph, especially if doing so serves his polemical purpose.

Please see straw man. Armon 13:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)