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 Misunderstanding Cole? 2 Joffe + Karsh 3 let's not have another war 4 balance on Douglas Feith 5 RFC for this article 6 Cole's translation: Occupation of Jerusalem or Israel 7 Added Guidelines for Editing 8 Contoversies: Expertise 9 Contoversies: Campus Watch 10 Cole's Views On the war in Iraq Turkomen 10.1 Armon stop reverting 10.2 Iraq War 10.2.1 Writing in a neutral way 10.3 Three Revert Rule 10.4 Iraq + Translators 11 Rewrote "Israel lobby" section 11.1 A new compromise proposal 11.2 "Partisan" 11.3 translation disputes 11.3.1 Proposal to remove OBL speech translation "dispute" 11.4 Need to Add a Views Section: Cole on the New-Anti-Semitism 11.5 Abusive edits by Armon 11.5.1 removing [sic] 11.5.2 removing "repetitive soapboxing" 11.6 Let's avoid an edit war 11.7 Hitchens section 11.8 Early insertion of Qods

Misunderstanding Cole?

Isarig recently added this to Cole's controversy page:

"he has also voiced the opinion that it would have been better had Israel not been created, and that the 'Jews fleeing Hitler' should have been settled in Britain, "rather than saddling a small, poor peasant country with 500,000 immigrants"

The full quote from Cole in context is:

"While one certainly cheers the British for giving refuge in Palestine to Jews fleeing Hitler, it would have been nobler yet to admit them to the British Isles rather than saddling a small, poor peasant country with 500,000 immigrants hungry to make the place their own."

Are you, Isarig, aware that Cole is referring to Britian policy at the time that prevented permanent Jewish immigration to Britian as they were fleeing the Nazis, they were only officially offered temporary status with the intention that they find permanent refuse elsewhere. To me, Cole seems to be saying that Britian's restrictive immigration policies forced many Jews to have to travel to Palestine that would have otherwise not wanted to -- rather than saying that Israel shouldn't exist. Also, you are getting into a sticky historical area where I understand a number of relatively racist non-Jewish individuals and groups pushed for the creation of Israel for various self-interested reasons -- thus criticism of these individuals or groups may be valid even if these groups or individuals did play a role in the creation of Israel.

Here is one reference supporting the British immigration restrictions I found to this on the web:

"Fourthly, the refugees were landed on a temporary basis, on the understanding that they would in the future leave Britain. Whilst in reality some 40,000 remained in Britain, this had not been the government's intention. Refuge was to be for a limited time, in the hope that most would seek other countries in which to settle permanently." [1]

So in general, I think that you are editorializing a bit when you say claim that he is voicing the opinion that "it would have been better than Israel not been created." The truth is a lot more complex. --Ben Houston 23:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of the British policy you mention, but I believe it is you who is editorializing Cole's comment. Cole's comment does not say what you claim, it is your interpretation of it, and one that I believe is wrong. British policy from 1939 was to prevent Jewish immigration to Palestine (see White Paper of 1939) so to claim that British policy regarding Jews fleeing Hitler was forcing them to go to Palestine is simply wrong. While I don;t think Cole is an expert on Israel's history, by any stretch of the imagiantion, I don't believe he;d be making such an easily proved wrong claim. Isarig 23:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right there were immigration restrictions in place in both areas by 1939 and thanks for pointing me to the White Paper of 1939 -- I was unaware of it or the history it contained.)

Although I see two lines of converging arguments that support my contention that Cole is criticizing British immigration policy:

1. According to the White Paper of 1939, Jewish immigration to Palestine was fairly open until 1939. According to the book by London's book "Whitehall and the Jews", immigration policy to Britain proper was consistently restrictive towards Jews during the period of 1933 to 1948. Thus there was a period in which Jewish immigration to Palestine was more permissive than into Britain.
2. The White Paper of 1939 also says that by 1939, "450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate". Cole in this statement refers to a similarly sized population when he writes about "500,000 immigrants". Thus it appears that Cole is making reference to immigration up to 1939 -- a period that coincided with the differential British immigration policies.

Together this supports my contention that he is critizing British policy that did not give Jewish refugees a choice of immigrating to Britian rather than criticizing the creation of Israel itself. He is not along in making these types of criticisms of British policy. For example "Whitehall and the Jews" says the following:

"Britain did not view Jewish refugees in a humanitarian light, but through the eyes of self-interest. More could have been done in trying to assist Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany and also to permit the shattered remnants of European Jewry to enter post-Holocaust Britain."

"Britain did not do enough to save Jews from the Holocaust, more refugees could have been admitted, but governments remained keen to exclude them because of their very Jewishness. London amasses a substantial body of evidence to back-up these arguments."

I think your main issue is with this phrase: "rather than saddling a small, poor peasant country with 500,000 immigrants hungry to make the place their own." The meaning of "saddle", at least in this context, is "to load or burden; encumber". The phrase "small, poor peasant country" is a reference to the indigent Arab population. The phrase "to make the place their own" implies that the incoming immigrants are going to have a transformative effect on the existing character of the region. I think Cole, in this phrase, is accurately describing how the large influx of Jewish immigrants to Palestine were viewed from the perspective of the indigenous Arab population. I do not believe it is anti-Israeli to describe this perspective accurately.

Cole isn't criticizing Israel in this statement but rather Britain's immigration policies. At worse he is sympathetic to perspective Palestinian Arabs. --Ben Houston 01:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A number of points: Limitations on Jewish immigration were in place even before 1939. In 1939 they became a total prohibition, but as early as 1921 the Britsh placed restrictions and temporary band on immigartion. I would not place too much faith in the self-serving statements made by an interested party (the Mandate authorities) who had a legal obligation to allow free immigartion , to the effect that they did so. I agree that Cole is criticizing Britain rather than Israel (which did not exist at the time), but his criticism is clearly of British policy that enabled the creation of Israel. He is not criticizing Britain for not having a more humanitarian immigartion policy into Britain, he is criticizing Britain for allowing 500,000 Jews into Palestine- thus enabling a Jewish state. His prefreed solution was to see those Jews settled in the UK proper, which to me seems contradictory to his position that Israel is a legitimate product of Jewish Nationalism. Isarig 03:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the key point that I disagree with is this point of yours "for allowing 500,000 Jews into Palestine- thus enabling a Jewish state." Cole doesn't make that last connection, you inferred it. A compromise would be to include Cole's quote without adding your interpretation of it -- I would not complain about that. --Ben Houston 15:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The article now reflects that compromise. I believe my inference is the correct one, and Cole does make this claim, at least implictly, when he follows it with the claim that letting the immigrants in would be detrimental to the host country because they want to make it their own, but no matter. I'm fine with quoting a reputable Cole critic saying this rather than having my words in it Isarig 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a shame that this paragraph is blown out of proportion in this manner. I think there will be different interpretations of it, but the real problem is that even making this into a notable description of Cole's opinions about Israel is taking it way out of context. Cole has made clear his position on Israel's right to exist; pulling this quote out of context in order to claim Cole takes another position seems to me to be unreasonable POV pushing.

On another note, I plan to remove this non-notable blog quote: "Andrew Sullivan has suggested that, "Cole's rhetorical sleight of hand...[is] an attempt to deny the existence of a real genocidal evil in the world that Cole himself knows exists" [31] " It is enough that the Cole-Hitchens debate is represented; I don't see the utility of this passage other than to reproduce a smear.--csloat 04:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing out of context here. You are welcome to your POV that this is a non-notable description of Cole's opinions about Israel, but Cole's critics disagree. Contrary to what you claim, presenting Cole as an unambigous supporter of Israel's existance,as the paragraph had done prior to my edits, is POV pushing and an attempt to whitewash inconvenient aspects of Cole's ambiguity toward Israel's legitimacy. Isarig 04:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. You're completely wrong, but it's ok, we can both be happy with a page that presents something closer to the truth. I haven't advocated whitewashing anything. You think this non-notable -- and at best ambiguous -- comment in an obscure book review represents the fundamental core of Cole's thought just because it was quoted by one of his critics, fine. We can quote the critic and the quote at the bottom of this section. Let's start with his more notable comments regarding Israel, like the ones that he puts forth on his blog or his published news commentary articles. You may be correct in your interpretation of this paragraph -- I think your interpretation is completely incorrect, but there is no need for us to debate that now -- but there is still no reason it needs to be raised up to the center of his thinking like this. To do so is POV-pushing and mendacious.--csloat 04:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm - I just disagree with you. This is not some "obscure book review", this is something Cole features on his "essays" page. It is a book review published by a scholarly journal, and as such, much more reliable and reputable than a blog entry. Reagrdless, his opinions are his opinions, whether made in a scholarly paper, a blog entry, or a book review. I am not the only one who thinks this is representative, it was called out by Cole critics such as Karsh and Joffe. Your POV is that Cole is unambigious in his support of Israel's existance, but Cole critics disagree, and their view, based as it is on Cole's own words, deserves to be mentioned here. Isarig 04:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting; when you want to bash Cole's academic reputation, you say he is only notable for his blog; when you want to include a quote from an obscure book review, you claim that a book review (not an academic article) is more notable than his blog. Whatever, it doesn't matter; you didn't answer the points above, which is that this quote from a book review pulled out of context should not be the first thing mentioned. He has written actual articles about Israel that could be quoted instead. I did not remove the quote; I moved it to a more appropriate place. I never said Cole was unambiguous; all I said was that this quote should be moved lower in the section. I have not removed Karsh's words; please look over changes before starting a revert war.--csloat 07:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Isarig has more than adequately addressed both yours and Ben's objections. Calling the book review "obscure" yet again, suggests that you know very well it's a fair presentation of what Cole wrote, and that you're simply fishing for some other way to have it removed. Armon 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No he has not. He has made specious arguments at best and he did not address the ones I made. The book review is obscure compared to his articles in Salon.com for example. Surely you can understand that? Your claim that my use of "obscure" suggests I think it is not obscure is ludicrous. Also, the quote is ambiguous enough that we have a legitimate debate over its interpretation; we should not simply enshrine one interpretation in Wikipedia as if it were the only one. Finally I never removed the quote. Please re-read that sentence, and look carefully at my edit. Then I ask you to revert your changes to show good faith here. From that point we can discuss the change.--csloat 15:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A book review that Cole chooses to feature on his essays page, alongside his Salon.com articles, is not obscure. The quote is not as ambigous as you would like to pretend, but that is irrelvant - my interpretation of the quote is no longer there - there is just Cole's words, and a criticism of that quote by a reputable scholar. If you do not seek to have the quote removed, then your only remaining argument is that it should be placed at the bottom of the section - which I think is bad. The section deals with 3 Cole views on Israel: it's legitimacy, US armed support of it, and its policy in the West Bank and GAza. To me, the natural flow is : Cole's view on point (1) - including both the view that israel is legitimate as well as the view that it would have been better if Jewish refugees went elsewhere, then Cole's view on point 2, then cole's view on point 3. Your suggestion breaks this flow, presents just one part of Cole's complex view on Israel's legitimacy, and then mentions the other part of that view if a different section, after 2 new points have been intorduced and discussed. That's just poor flow. Isarig 16:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is obscure compared to his salon.com articles; the latter have more visibility and circulation. Again, surely you can understand this point? The interpretation is ambiguous, as the above debate suggests. As for putting it at the end of the section, that is not "my only remaining argument" - that was my only argument since before you began this edit war! As for the order, I think we should start with most notable/recognized views and then after that include the minor disputation of a passage in a book review that does not seem to be consistent with his statements elsewhere. The problem here is not poor flow; the problem is a minor point being elevated to the status of a fundamental belief based on the complaint of Cole's biggest adversary. I don't mind keeping the quote in, but we don;t also have to keep in Karsh's estimation of the centrality of this to Cole's beliefs.--csloat 19:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Joffe + Karsh

I think the Joffe quote can go entirely, but I have just shortened it. I think we need Cole's response to antisemitism charges included here if we keep that inflammatory comment in. The Karsh quote I moved to the bottom of the section; it should be eliminated entirely as non-notable, but I really don't care to fight about it. I think everyone can live with this. Here's the thing, though; I realize Isarig thinks Karsh is some kind of prominent scholar and therefore his opinion is essential here; why can't we quote a passage from him where he writes in complete sentences? The sentence fragment is poor grammar, quite apart from being incorrect (and, I think, mendacious).--csloat 04:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you think so. I am sure you'd like to see any quote crtical of Cole "go entirely". But this page was created as a place to present Cole's views as well as the criticisms of them, and sourced quotes from WP:RS sources that are relevant to the views being discussed should be presented. My opinion of Karsh is irrelevant here. If you'd like to familiarize yourself with his credentials, check out Efraim Karsh. If you think the Karsh quotes are incomplete, I'm more than happy to provide the full passages from the article. Of course then you'll complain that the critic's quotes are too long, as you've done in the past. Isarig 04:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you are incorrect about my wishes. I never said I wanted all critical quotes to go. The Karsh quote is not incomplete; it is just terrible grammar, uncharacteristic of a reputable intellectual. In turn, it makes Wikipedia look bad.--csloat 07:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

let's not have another war

I don't want a revert war over this page, but I think the changes that Isarig is insisting upon lead to an inferior page in several ways that I have already explained both in talk and in the edit summaries:

(1) The Karsh critique of Cole should be at the bottom of that section rather than the top. There should be more information in that section in general, but the beginning of it should not be an interpretation of a paragraph from a book review. As the above discussion shows, that paragraph is ambiguous at best. Isarig's version makes it seem as if his interp is obviously true, and as if it represents the core of Cole's thoughts on the matter; neither assumption is correct. I do not want to continue debating the interpretation of the passage and I am not removing it; I just want it contextualized more clearly like it is in my version.

(2) I removed unnecessary POV-pushing language from the passage on Joffe's critique. Isarig would like Wikipedia to say that "Cole complains" while Joffe "points out." I changed to Cole "claims" and Joffe "criticized this comment, claiming." My wording is more specific, accurate, and less POV-pushing.

(3) I removed double quotes within double quotes and replaced them with single quotes. Isarig prefers to have double quotes within double quotes but has made no argument justifying this punctuation choice.

(4) I shortened the Joffe quote "Suggestions that American Jewish officials desired 'someone else's boys' to fight is anti-Semitic and a common refrain in Cole's commentary" to "Suggestions that American Jewish officials desired 'someone else's boys' to fight is anti-Semitic" as the second part does not seem to be at issue in this section. If there is a reason to keep it I won't object.

(5) I have changed this sentence "Christopher Hitchens has faulted Cole's translation for implying that Ahmadinejad believes that only Israel's "occupation" of Jerusalem only needs to end, while most other translations say that he is suggesting the whole of Israel should be destroyed." to this sentence "[Christopher Hitchens]] has suggested Cole's translation implies that Ahmadinejad believes that Israel's "occupation" of Jerusalem only needs to end, while other translations suggest that he is suggesting the whole of Israel should be destroyed." This is more accurate, as "most other translations" implies that Hitchens is correct about Cole's argument, which he does not seem to be, and suggests that most translations support hitchens, which is also not clear. Cole's and MEMRI's vs. NYT and AP is what we seem to have here.

"al-Quds" which was in the Farsi means Jerusalem. similar to Hebrew kosdesh holy. don't need army of translators. common sense. Take CAre!

Please let's not start a revert war. Deal with these points and make changes one by one so we can discuss the explanations. Thanks.--csloat 07:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

1)The charge that Isarig was editorializing the quote is specious. However, if you, Ben, or anyone else, feel that the book review misrepresents "the core of Cole's thoughts on the matter", then the proper course of action is to show other statements by Cole which you feel more accurately reflect his views.
2) and 3) no objection, I'll restore those edits if you don't
4) Truncating this quote changes it from the particular (Cole) to the general.
5)Actually, it should read "while most other translators say". Cole's is the minority (unique?) view on that one. Armon 10:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) Calling a charge "specious" does not respond to it. Also, I did not remove the book review quote so please don't accuse me of that and don't revert without reading. (4) You have not explained why this point is necessary. (5) Cole's translation is the same as MEMRI's on that, so we have 2-2, actually.--csloat 14:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) Calling something editorializng does not make it so (4) this point is necessary because it shows Cole's actual stance on Israel's creation is more ambiguous, complex and nuanced than the claim that he sees it as the result of a legitimate national movement (5) MEMRI's translation is not the same as Cole's - it just translates the idiom as "remove form pages of history" (like Cole) vs. "wipe of the map" (like others), but unlike Cole, it says this refers to Israel, not to the occupation of Jerusalem. But even if we count MEMRI on Cole's side, there are more than 2 translations that support the non-Cole interpretations, including AP, NYT, INRA and Al-Jazeera. I'll be happy to provide more of these if you insist on making this a numerical contest. Isarig 16:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) True - but editorializing is editorializing, and we've covered this ground already. (4) We're talking about a different quote now and your comment is nonresponsive; (5) MEMRI's translation is the same on both counts -- "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."[2] Remember, it is hitchens, not cole, who interprets Cole's translation as meaning Jerusalem rather than Israel. In fact, as Will opints out, it is common sense -- "Qods" means Jerusalem; so on this point all the translations are likely in agreement.

I will back off on #4 above if you think the line is important, but #5 is a big problem. I object to Hitchens' interpretation being elevated to the status of what Cole actually said. I think we should move to the Juan Cole/sandbox/3 version of this section; please read that and see if we can agree. The thing is, Cole never made the claim that his interpretation was only about Jerusalem; that is Hitchens' interpretation. And based on everything Cole wrote after the Hitchens article, several pieces of which I quoted when we had this discussion before, Hitchens' interpretation is incorrect. If we want to include that Hitchens has this interp, fine, but we cannot make it seem as if it is the actual meaning of Cole's words since Cole's own words militate against that reading.--csloat 19:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

False Statement: not a biography. This page is a child process of the the biography page of JC. Take Care!--Will314159 20:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

balance on Douglas Feith

i don't have time b/c of business right now but next week i'm going to work on these two things 1. putting Col. Wilkerson's (Powell's chief of staff) quote back in about douglas Feith. it's in the Feith WP article and well sourced and foot noted. he says the exact same thing JC said about Feith working for the Likud. I had it in the article, talked about in the discussion page and in a drive by editing it was taken out w/o talk. the purpose of it is it blows the conspiracy theory to smithereens. feith is a person w/ dual loyalties, period, it can be credibly maintained independent of any worldwide new anti-semitism conspiracy. 2. there needs to be a statement somewhere that Karsh is himself a person having controversial views, inter alia, having published a paper regarding the occupied territories, to wit: What Occupation? In this case res ipse loquitur, no more need be said. It is in the Karsh WP article well sourced and documented. Fair is Fair and surely everybody believes in balance. let the reader draw his own conclusions. otherwise again the article looks like a "hit" piece. Later Take Care!Will314159 10:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC) moved 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Will314159, you'll be wasting your time on both points. 1. Wilkerson's opinion on Feith is irrelevant and proves nothing except that someone else has a similar opinion as Cole. If you like, add in LaRouche's and David Duke's similar opinions as well, it'll just be more to delete. 2. I'll tell you the exact same thing I was told when attempting to point out the fact that Cole is controversial in other articles -this isn't the place for it, take it to Karsh's page. Armon 10:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

per Armon logic ??Col. Wilkerson, Sec'y State's Chief of Staff during Iraq War & Occupation=David Duke& LarRouche?? later next week. Take Care!Will314159 12:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

moreover, Armon appears to be promising/threatening an edit war instead of discussion and balancing of interests and arrival at consensus. What is a revert anyway? Is is the same as a delete? what are the mechanics? A hypothetical- he deletes the Wilkerson quote, I put it back in, he deletes it again, I delete the Karsh quote, It happens three times in one day. Is that the one day three revert rule? Is it kind of like a stalemate in chess? I do think there is a better way. Take Care!--Will314159 18:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Have added to the Feith section that Cole's opinion is corroborated by Wilkerson and to a lesser extent Condoleeza Rice. Any help with footnotes is deeply appreciated. Don't know how to do that yet. What is the issue here? Is Cole antisemitic? the subissue? Is he in some way overreacting to a jew Feith being in a policy making position in US government? what is relevance? the definition of relevance is that it makes the existance of a fact at issue more likely or not. the opinions of wilkerson and rice are relevant b/c they are not islamic scholars or "Arabists" and don't have a dog in the fight. Here are the relevant comments, which i would love to put in but I realive would cause a firestorm here from the Israeli hardline proponents.(Edit: Explanation of term no disrespect meant. what i mean by it is that they are not Uri Avnery. they favor a hardline for Israel anti-comprehensive peace, retention of Golan heights, not sharing jerusalem, retaining large areas of West Bank, and anyone that criticizes this policy like Cole is automatically "anti-semitic.")

Wikerson- 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.http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/01/12/colonel_wilkersons_way.php http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17800345-601,00.html?from=rss

Condi 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." http://216.119.74.139/print.asp?idnews=27207 http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=4629

Take CAre!Will314159 14:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

predictably, the two line addition that Cole's position, w/o quotes, was corroborated by Wilkerson and Rice, was instantaneously, deleted by Armon, predictably w/o discussion. Of course it"ll go back and probably w/quotes. I'm asking for a referee. This is not a one sided show, here folks! There has to be balance. Take Care!--Will314159 17:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Have restored Armon's deletion, to wit: "Cole's view of Feith is also corroborated by U.S. Former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State, Col. Larry Wilkerson and to a lesser extent by then U.S. National Securities Advisor Condoleeza Rice." If it's deleted anymore, then I think the full quotes should go it. I haven't figured out yet how to footnote. The refrences are above. Any assistance would be deeply appreciated. Take Care! --Will 10:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It was isarig that deleted this time, again w/o comment here. his history comment was that it was not relevant. Again, relevant means making the existance of a fact at issue more likely or not. the fact at issue is "saying doug feith has dual loyalty anti-semitic." If other people hi up in government w/o dog in fight are also saying it, then it makes the fact less likely to be true. It is highly relevant. Please do not delete any more Armon/Isarig and engage in any more drive-by-editing. it does not become you as editors. It's about time for the full quotes to go in. Take Care! --Will 16:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take a cut at rewriting the whole section for readability and balance. As a general matter, let me say that (1) it's an encyclopedia, so let's try to summarize the debate in as clear a manner as we can consistent with WP:V, and (2) whether or not Doug Feith actually does have dual loyalties is most appropriately discussed on his page, where interested editors can take up the question. I propose to link to that page -- let me know what everybody thinks. TheronJ 16:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed my changes at the bottom of the page, here. Please let me know if anyone has problems with them. TheronJ 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC for this article

This is ludicrous and an embarrassment to wikipedia. I have made very clear my position above on the "Israel" section, and the arguments have not been addressed. Armon and Isarig argue as if I was advocating the removal of the Karsh quote, but look at my edit and you will see that is not what I did. I argued coherently above for the changes I made and these arguments were not responded to. Instead both Isarig and Armon reverted with very rude edit summaries. All we have done is move the incivility and edit warrior mentality to a different page. Isarig started an edit war over this whereas I have justified every change and asked that other editors make changes one by one and explain them clearly rather than drive by mass reverts. I now ask that they revert back to show good faith and discuss the reasons they would advocate a particular change one by one so that we can flesh out the arguments here. Otherwise this article should go to RfC.--csloat 15:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is neither ludicrous nor an embarrassment to wikipedia - it is simply other editors having a different, and less favorable view of Cole than you do. Your arguments were addressed, one by one, by Armon. If you don't like the edit summaries, I suggest you take a close look at your own. The contorversy has indeed moved from the Cole biography page to this one. One this page, which is not a biography, we are not ediitng under WP:BLP, and criticim of Cole's controverial views should be given the weight it deserves. Isarig 15:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It has absolutely nothing to do with how favorable anyone's view of Cole is. It has to do with revert-warring instead of engaging in dialogue about changes. My arguments were disputed only after you guys reverted, and they were addressed in a condescending and dismissive manner, without ever engaging the substance of them. I gave you both an opportunity to show a modicum of good faith here but you chose not to.-csloat 19:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what RFC means but if the R stands for this referee then this page needs it. Isarig whose behavior I consider trollish and vandalish has taken the biographical guidelines from this page. All I can do is put them back up. He took them down without discussion even though I had started a discussion on them in this talk page. His behavior is irresponsible and there should be a consequence! Take Care! --Will314159 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. As to the factual arguments: The whole point of creating this page, and moving its contents out of the Juan Cole biographical page is so that his views and criticism therof can be described in full, without being encumbered by the WP:BLP guidelines which limit the amount of criticism. Compare the Noam Chomsky page with the Criticism of Noam Chomsky page. Isarig 16:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation and ask for a referee. ask that you leave it up pending a ruling. And I thank you for participating in a discussion. Take Care!--Will314159 17:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole's translation: Occupation of Jerusalem or Israel

Cole has explictly said that (my emphasis) "Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time." both from Cole's Blog. So Hitchens' criticism is that Cole's is saying the reference is only to the occupation of Jerusalem - and is based on Cole's own words, not an interpreation of them or on their implication. Isarig 15:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Al-Quds is the the terrm Mahmoud Ahmed Nezad used. It is used to describe Jerusalem. Arabic holy city. similar to Hebrew qodesh {ko'-desh}. Holy - semitic root- apart. Don't need an army of translators. The meaning is there on the face of it. He didn't use the word "Palestine." Take Care.--Will314159 19:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As in all the editorial debates. the key to understanding them is mindset. those who desire war w/ Iran Hutchens, et al, paint M.A.N. as another Hitler. Likewise those authors that want to keep the settlements in Judea, Gaza, Samaria will paint JC as an anti-semite in order to discredit or silence an effective critic.. It's all a matter of mindset, bias, interest motive. As editors all we can do here is strive for BALANCE. This the view of X, however not X says this. As long as we fairly give both sides we have done our duty. I know the presentation cannot be one sided b/c the external audience is not one sided. In fact it is three sided. the proponents, the opponents, and the neutral community. The problem I have is when both sides are not fairly presented and balanced due to the imbalance of the numerical strength of the editors. That's where one hopes the quality and not the quantity of the argument prevails. Take Care!--Will314159 19:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Edit sp added interest 19:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitchens' reading is incorrect. Cole's translation is literal, as Will points oiut above. Hitchens' assumption that Cole is making an important distinction between "the occupier of the Qods" and "Israel" is an incorrect assumption. Cole's own words suggest that what was important to him was the distinction between "wiped off the map" -- which seems a military threat -- and "erased from the pages of history" -- which seems a more existential threat, on the order of (to paraphrase Cole) Ford's insistence that the Soviet Union would fade into the ash heap of history. Armon claims Hitchens' interp is from Cole's own words but that is specious, since all the translators have likely translated "regime occupying Jerusalem" the same way (please correct me if you have other evidence). Hitchens makes the assumption that the reference to Jerusalem is a significant point for Cole, whereas Cole never makes that point at all. Hitchens' confusion probably stems from not knowing Persian in the first place, which is fine, but it also means that picking a fight with a prominent Persian-speaking intellectual is a bad idea. Don't get me wrong, I like Hitchens, but he is not a scholar and he has never done serious research. His punditry really doesn't deserve to be treated as absolute truth here.--csloat 19:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. I hate Hitchens. But csloat what's the problem here? Note first there is a translation dispute; Note something of the backstory of this dispute (e.g. claims of improper publication of a private conversation), note how Cole translated it, note how Hitchens translated it (even it's as bad as "My granmother wears army boots"), end of story. --CSTAR 20:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me; that is what I did in sandbox 3, which I am advocating replace this one. The problem with this one is that Hitchens makes the claim that Cole is saying something he really isn't. Cole never says the problem with the Hitchens translation is the word "Jerusalem." This is a straw man argument. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be quoted, but it does mean that we should not elevate Hitchens' misinterpretation to being the only interp. Again, this would be solved if we replaced this section with the example in sandbox 3, which otherwise preserves all that is significant in that "debate."--csloat 23:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I like Hitchens because I have a strange fondness for boorish drunks ;) ... it doesn't mean that I agree with him on anything.--csloat 23:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What is Hitchens syaing that COle is saying, which he really isn't? I've quoted Cole above, twice explictly saying the Khomeini quote referes to ending the occupation of Jerusalem. Isarig 00:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitchens is saying that Cole is invested in the difference between "occupier of Jerusalem" and "Israel." Cole is not. He, like everyone else, translates "Qods" as "Jerusalem." Hitchens pretends Cole is doing this to make some kind of distinction between Israel the nation and the current government of Israel. Cole makes no such distinction. What is diff about Cole's translation is the "wipe off the map" part, which implies deliberate military action, as opposed to the "vanish from the pages of history," which is more consistent with what Cole says in passages I quoted on the other talk page. I can look them up again if you need.--csloat 01:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that Cole is not invested in this difference? He certainly explictly says, twice, that the quote refers to the "occupation of Jeruslaem", whereas the other transaltors say the quote refers to Israel. Cole, like everyone else, translates Qods as Jerusalem - that part is not in contention. But Cole says that what must end is the "Occupation of Jerusalem" - and he is unique in that interpretation. All the other translations say that what must end is Israel, the regime that is occupying Qods. And BTW, I do not actually see alleged difference in intent (military action vs. no miliatry action) between "wiped of the map" and "removed from the pages of time". Such a difference is wishful thinking on the part of Cole. Isarig 03:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

He translates the passage literally, so yes it does say occupation of Jerusalem, but he does not dispute that that refers to Israel. He is not unique in translating Qods as Jerusalem, as you are well aware. The difference is not wishful thinking; it is pretty obvious from the passage, and even Hitchens agrees, as we see in the passage from Hitchens that Cole quotes! In any case it doesn't matter; the point is that the difference is important for Cole, whereas the Jerusalem/Israel "difference" is not a difference at all. All the translations translate Qods as Jerusalem because that is what it means.--csloat 04:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

, no it does not say "occupation of Jerusalem", it says "The regime occupying Jerusalem". Cole is not translating literally, he is interpreting. He may not dispute that it refers to Israel, but it certainly seems that way, since I've given you two quotes of his where both the actual words he uses and the context he uses them in refer explicitly and exclusively to the "Occupation of Jerusalem", not Israel. So he either thinks it really refers just to the occupation of Jerusalem, in which case he is a unique minority view and rightly criticized for that view by Hitchens, or, he knows it refers to Israel but uses language that is misleading - in which case he is also rightly criticized. As to the alleged difference between "wiped off the map" and "erased from the page of time" - simply asserting yet again that the alleged difference is "obvious from the passage" is not a convinicng argument. I've already told you that, at least to me, it is not obvious, so if it is obvious to you -please show how and why. Your claim that Hitchens agrees with the alleged differnce is simply false. Hitchens says that the "wipe off the map" translation may have been "too free a translation", but he goes on to say that regardless of what English idiom is the proper translation, what the Farsi phrase means is "an extremely strong and unambivalent one, of which a close equivalent rendering would be "annihilate."" Isarig 15:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me, intentionally or not. My point is not whether cole says "occupation of jerusalem" or "regime occupying jerusalem"; my point is that he does not dispute that either phrase refers to Israel! He does not refer to something other than Israel and you have not shown any quotes where he does. I have shown you numerous quotes where he explains his comment, and this Israel v. Jerusalem thing never comes up! Why do you insist on making an argument about something there is no evidence for? As I said, this is a straw man argument created by Hitchens. As for the difference between wiping off the map and being erased from history, the point is not that it should be obvious to you but that it is obvious that Cole believes there is a difference. We are not supposed to mediate this debate, just report it accurately. Again, Cole says this is the case over and over, and I have provided you the quotes over and over. My claim that Hitchens agrees has nothing to do with the translation; Cole quotes Hitchens elsewhere saying that the president of Iran would never attack Israel militarily. So Hitchens does not really believe that Ahmadinejad was making a threat and was just using the straw man to pick on Cole. Again, I have established this over and over and over again. Why are we still arguing about it?--csloat 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand you, but I disagree with what you say. Specifically, I disagree that "[Cole] does not refer to something other than Israel and you have not shown any quotes where he does. " Here are the 2 quotes again, where he explicitly refers to "the occupation of Jerusalem", and not to Israel: "Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time." In the second of these refernces, he is drawing a deliberate distinction between the occupation over Jerusalem and Israel. Please stop claiming there is no evidence for my claim. As to the difference between "wipe off the map" and "erase from time" - of course Cole thinks there is a differnce - but he is alone in thinking there is a difference, and Hitchens does not agree that the Farsi idiom does not imply a threat - he thinks that regardless of which English equivalent idiom is used, the meaning is "annihilate". Whether or not Ahmadinejad has the actual power to carry out his threat is immaterial to the question of his making a threat. Hitchens thinks he has no power, but also thinks he was threatening. Isarig 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Where in those quotes does he distinguish between "the occupation of Jerusalem" and "the government of Israel"? He doesn't. That's my point. There is no evidence for your claim. As to the difference between the map and the time, the only issue is that Cole explains the difference; we do not need to debate whether he is right or wrong.--csloat 08:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Right here: "Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map"...He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem... . I have no problem including Cole's explantion of the difference he sees between the map and the time, so long as we include Hitchens' criticism of this distinction and his view that bith mean "annihilate". Isarig 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, right. See, now you're just repeating your argument. As I said, he does not say that there is a difference between "Israel" and "the occupation regime over Jerusalem." He over and over emphasizes the difference between wiping off the map and erased from time. And I never argued against including Hitchens' bankrupt argument here either.--csloat 18:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Inserted the full Farsi subject quote instead of the snippet. It is not that long. ""een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e Qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." no one should object to completeness. Moreover, it contains the crucial "Qods." It would be interesting what a Goggle translator does with it. No independent research! just interest. Take Care!--Will314159 00:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

now need to explain in passage that Qods=Jerusalem. This is not in dispute. Let reader draw his own conclusion. Take Care!--Will314159 15:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

it just ocurred to me the difference b/n tranclation and interpretation. A literal translation somethimes is assinine. For instance heartburn translated into German literaly becomes firemountain or such. maybe we need to use the word "interpret" in place of translate. need to think about this a little bit. I sure wish i could find a free online farsi translator. i know the results would be hilarious. Take Care!Will314159 15:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I really find it hard to believe that there is a problem here: Note the following facts

1. There is a (another) translation dispute concerning remarks made by Ahmadinejad (date, place, other general facts, but no translation
2. These remarks were translated as follows (BLAH₁... BLAH_n) by the following (list publication and translator, with if possible qualifications of translator TRANSLATOR₁... TRANSLATOR_n)
3. Cole translated these remarks as follows (BLAH_Cole):
4. As part of this controversy, other commentators (e.g. Hitchens, Sullivan) said (BLAH_Hitchens, BLAH_Sullivan).

Note that I don't like either Hitchens (who I think is despicable) or Sullivan, but I don't see anything is gained by not including things they say which are generally regarded as related to the translation controversy. --CSTAR 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

i put 5 agreed, true, relevant words in there. they were taken out in another instance of drive by editing. "Qods" is Farsi for Jerusalem. Disappointed but not hardly surprised. Will I be putting them back in, absent some relevant, rational discussion from the offender- you bet your skippy! Take Care!--Will314159 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Guidelines for Editing

i saw a comment that this page didn't have to be edited in line w/ biographhies of a living person. Accordingly it's time to put some guidelines on this page. Also thanks for the NPOV warning on the article itself. Take Care!--Will314159 20:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

repeat of comment added above. I don't know what RFC means but if the R stands for this referee then this page needs it. Isarig whose behavior I consider trollish and vandalish has deleted the biographical guidelines from this page. All I can do is put them back up. He took them down without discussion even though I had started a discussion on them in this talk page. His behavior is irresponsible and there should be a consequence! Take Care! --Will314159 16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC). This page is child process of the main page which is a biography --Will314159 16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Contoversies: Expertise

used more neutral language to address blog alteration/correction issue. After all this is not a grand jury indictment article, or is it? Still have to come back and address Karsh's knowledge of Cole's purported non-research & its relevance of his holding opinions as to current middle east policy. Can't we read what others have written and form opinions? Take Care!--Will314159 13:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Again a revert w/o talk even though a discussion niche had been opened. As editors we should present neutral language. An alteration sounds devious, a correction is neutral.

here are the two versions 1. Cole has also been criticized for correcting his blog posts after historical information errors were pointed out without alerting readers that corrections had been made.

2. Cole has also been criticized for altering his blog posts after they were demonstrated to contain incorrect historical information, while failing to indicate changes had been made.

Again, as a WP community we have to decide whether we are here as a criminal grand jury preparing a bill of indictment or neutral editors. Let a consensus form. I will abide by the will of the community. Take Care.--Will314159 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Cole has also been criticized for correcting his blog posts after learning they contained incorrect information without alerting readers. Note the neurtral matter of fact language. As Cole said on his blog. "Just the facts, Maam." Yet again I had to restore. I din't even bother to check wheter it was Armon or Isarig that had deleted. Alter is the physical act, correct is its interpretation. Are we robots, here? Take Care! --Will 18:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Contoversies: Campus Watch

Cleaned up grammar, made it less wordy w/ better layout. Take Care!--Will314159 14:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Again a revert was done w/o discussion even though I had started a place on the discussion page to talk about it. I ask the responsible party to cease and desist until we talk about it or a consensus can be reached. this is not even an area of diaagreement. it's abouot punctuationa and grammar. Here are the two versions. Note the period inside the quote mark. even that was reverted.

Cole threatened legal action against Daniel Pipes and historian Martin Kramer, after their organization, Campus Watch, [18] published a "dossier" on Cole on their Web site. Cole asserted that the document incorrectly portrayed him as a supporter of Islamic extremism, exposed him to acts of violence, and that it therefore constituted "stalking". A screenshot of the document Cole objected to can be seen online [19].

Cole threatened legal action against Daniel Pipes and historian Martin Kramer, after their organization, Campus Watch, [18] published a "dossier" on Cole on their Web site. Cole asserted that the document (found online at)[19] incorrectly portrayed him as a supporter of Islamic extremism, exposed him to acts of violence, and thus constituted "stalking."

Let's have the community vote on which version is cleaner. Goodnes sakes, we even can't talk about punctuation, style, and grammar, just endless childless revert wars! Take Care!--Will314159 17:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that except that I've removed "their organization," because Kramer disputes that it is his organization, though he did endorse it. --Armon 02:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

we're finally getting a little collabaration on something incosequential- current version: Cole threatened legal action against Daniel Pipes and historian Martin Kramer, after Campus Watch, [18] published a "dossier" on Cole. Cole asserted that the document (screenshot reproduced here)[19] incorrectly portrayed him as a supporter of Islamic extremism, exposed him to acts of violence, and thus constituted "stalking." Maybe It:ll spread from punctuation to ... Take Care! Will16:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole's Views On the war in Iraq Turkomen

In the sandbox days I had changed it from Turkomen to Turkomans of Iraq. But then somebody changed it back. To avoid endless revert wars let me explain the reasoning. Yes turkomen sounds better BUT there are separate WP articles on the two topics. Using turkomen leads to a disambugatio page. if somebody is clever enough to use "Turkomen" but using a hidden link have it lead to the Turkomans of Iraq article then no objection. Do it. link address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkomans_of_Iraq take Care!--Will314159 16:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is how you do it. Write: [[Turkomans of Iraq |Turkomen]] and you get Turkomen --Armon 01:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Job Armon, Thanx Take Care! Will 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon stop reverting

Armon has reverted this page twice to a version that has been determined to be inferior via the above conversation. Armon has not once participated in that conversation and is simply reverting. Armon has offered no evidence that he is even reading what he is reverting. Armon please justify each of your edits on this page as I did above for each of the edits I made. Then we can examine them one by one rather than having another revert war. Thanks.--csloat 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Determined to be inferior" by who? You and Will? WP is not a soapbox, and this has been discussed ad nauseum. You can't present a controversy in a NPOV way by muzzling one side, and allowing the other to soapbox. On the one hand, you complain that this is too long, while on the other, you inject copious self-justifications from Cole. The Iraq war section is a perfect case in point. Critics point to his apparent support of the war at the time of invasion, Cole responded that his support was nuanced and only if via legal UN sanction. OK no problem. If you want to inject more Cole, then you'll also have to present his critics' skepticism of that claim. And then we're back to a overlong blow-by blow. --Armon 02:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon please list all of the changes you would like to see and an explanation for each change. You deleted accurate sourced information from the Iraq war section and your only explanation is "soapboxing." This page is about Cole's views, not just the things that Armon thinks are controversial. There were several wording changes that are painstakingly explained above that you reverted without cause. You never explained your reversions and the cryptic comments above do not do the trick. There was a discussion about the Cole-Hitchens debate and you have not participated in it; you're just reverting without even indicating what you think is wrong with the arguments above. You are also gaming the 3RR; you have made 3 reverts on this page within an hour, yet your edit summaries are misleading. Frankly, Armon, you have gone way beyond testing the boundaries of good faith into outright mendacity. I urge you to stop it now, and I request that you revert your last revert to show at least a modicum of good faith on this page so that we can proceed further.--csloat 02:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon you should stop editing this page completely as you have abandoned all pretense to good faith. I'm not going to play this game any longer. Go ahead, plant your little flag on this page; it is a black mark on Wikipedia's credibility. It's not the first, and I'm sure it won't be the last.--csloat 08:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon or Iaarig have even reverted a punctuation fix xxxxxx." back to xxxxx". just b/c they have the power I guess. If they don't agree to suspend their drive-by-editing and participate in good faith they should stop editing. Take Care!--Will314159 12:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

where did I revert a punctuation fix? I refer your you yet again to WP:AGF Isarig 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

I'm not going to fight with Armon over the other edits right now because he is simply steamrolling them without explaining. But I fixed the Iraq section. The quotes help spell out Cole's Iraq war position more clearly. All Armon wants in there is the stuff about his alleged "contradiction." That has not been removed but I added information indicating Cole's views on why the Iraq war is going poorly. If it is removed again you shall see who is removing sourced and relevant information from this page. The rest of you can deal with Armon's bad faith edits on the other parts of this page; sorry, but I'm done.--csloat 08:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "contradiction" is my word. sounds like Cole harmonizes the apparent contradiction, Get rid of Saddam but thru legit processes. the sandbox version said "changed his mind." In that discussion I wrote "changing one's mind" is often a virtue and is called "learning" and not a vice. de Gaulle on Algeria, Sharon on Gaza Take Care!--Will314159 12:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

changing your mind is certainly accepatble, and in some cases noble. The problem with Cole is that he does not acknowledge that he changed his position, and today claims to have been against the war all along. Isarig 16:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

he says the same thing as Kerry. he would've been for a war as a last resort w/ a U.N. resolution. It's quite a different thing to condemn SH and say his regime should vanish from the pages of history than to advocate an American invasion under pretext.I listened to JC's 90 minute lecture on Shiia Politics in Iraq. He has no use for SH. He has a lot of empathy and simpatico for the Shia bas on deep understanding. Take Care! --Will 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if he says the same thing as Kerry (which I don't believe is true), that is irrelevnt. Kerry may be just as contradictory on this as him. The reason I added the date of Cole's pro-war statement, and the context (eve of the war), is that that on 3/19 it was obvious that there was not going to be a UN resolution supporting the war, and that war is going to break out despite that. Cole's later explanation rings hollow in that context. But I'm fine with including his pro-war stance and the date he made it, and his later explantion, and letting the reader decide for himself. Isarig 19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal? Cole explains the difference in position. I don't see anything wrong with this claim at all - Cole never liked Saddam Hussein, and would have supported a war with UN approval, but not the unilateral mess the Bush Administration chose to pursue. But it doesn't matter what I think as long as it is made clear that while his opponents think there is a contradiction, Cole does not think so. In any case, this doesn't explain the issue here, which is the wholescale deletion of sourced and relevant quotes on Cole's views on the Iraq war. There is more to his views on the war than the view of his critics that he said something different once. Regardless of what you think of his pre-2003 position, Cole has been remarkably consistent about his opposition to the war since then, and has made several distinct and persuasive arguments about it. Those points should not be deleted as Armon has (in violation of the 3RR, by the way).--csloat 18:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

PS if we are agreed that these items should not be summarily deleted, can someone restore them to that section? Thank you.--csloat 18:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I added the date of Cole's pro-war statement, and the context (eve of the war), is that that on 3/19 it was obvious that there was not going to be a UN resolution supporting the war, and that war is going to break out despite that. Cole's later explanation rings hollow in that context. But I'm fine with including his pro-war stance and the date he made it, and his later explantion, and letting the reader decide for himself. Isarig 19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I agree with its placement there.--CSTAR 19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Look I agree with csloat that Cole's position vis-a-vis is not contradictory when taken as a whole. Yet the point of this section is to point out that his critics (detractors) claim he is contradictory. The article should also make it clear why they think his, and I think that's what the article does and all it should do. Do you see it as taking sides against Cole? I don't see it. --CSTAR 19:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with that. I see the problem as being the wholesale deletion of three relevant quotes on his views on the Iraq war. Is the alleged contradiction the only thing allowed in this section? Or are we permitted to indicate what Cole's actual views are on the Iraq war, rather than just the view of his critics that he contradicts himself?--csloat 19:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How about beginning with one sentence with a quote on Cole's "actual views" (accompanied by a footnote/reference). Then follow it with the current paragraph. But keep in mind this is a section on controversies, which is mainly what oppoents are claiming about Cole, regardless of whether they are correct or not. Imagine you are making notes to yourself about what COle's opponents think. If you are "reality based" then you should pretty clearly try to understand what those viewpoints are. --CSTAR 19:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is entitled "Views and controversies concerning Cole." That is a terrible title but that is beside the point -- it should fairly represent Cole's views and then include the controversies. If this page is just about how Cole's opponents view him, why is it in an encyclopedia? If that is the case it should just be "Criticisms of Cole" (and then it should be AfD'd for non-notability). I thought the idea was to fairly represent Cole's views as well as the views of his critics. I had included several quotes on Cole's Iraq war views and they were deleted.--csloat 20:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, as I read this page, the Iraq war stuff is in a section under "Cole's views." Are you seriously arguing that you don't think we should put Cole's views in this section, and instead only include criticism? That seems wrong.--csloat 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: only include criticism? I don't think that's what I said, about this article. Cole's views on the Iraq war belongs in this article. But this paragraph is about the (alleged) "inconsistency" of his views vis-a-vis the war.--CSTAR 22:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes it's easy to miscommunicate here. I don't think this section should be about the alleged inconsistency of his views. That paragraph is fine. But I think the section should state his views clearly. I have restored the information that was getting deleted, and added summaries of the points and shortened the quotes so it flows better.--csloat 22:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing in a neutral way

Csloat you added this

He criticized the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration on this matter in his blog in May 2006

Well, yes, I agree the Bush administration is bad, hypocritical etc. But you are writing this for Wikipedia not dkosopedia. You should have written something such as

He criticized the Bush Administration for what he characterized as "hypocrisy" on this matter

Please fix it.--CSTAR 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Will do.--csloat 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Also wouldn't it be better to have the references as footnote? That is instead of

In salon.com he wrote BLAH

write

Cole wrote BLAH<ref>salon.com</ref>.

--CSTAR 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

I made an inquiry about that above. Nobody responded. I've been reading up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule engage in edit wars to your detriment. watch out for 3RR. Take Care! --Will 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please point out the diffs that show 3RR was violated.--CSTAR 22:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If he's talking about Armon (talk · contribs), it has already been reported, and he has been blocked for 8 hours.--csloat 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't gotten actually gotten out the legal pad and calculator and started counting b/ it just seemed there was a lot of reverting just for the pure h/ of it. Just b/c people had the power to do it. I try never to make a change w/o opening a discussion about it and justifying it. It's just simple respect. yea I know I came in here with guns blazing b/c the article was blocked in a "wrong version" w/o even a NPOV warning b/ I havn't called anybody a name lately. Take Care! --Will 00:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq + Translators

Armon and Isarig have removed relevant sourced material for reasons that were cryptically explained at best. The two main issues are:

(1) The Iraq war. I think these three points are each different claims that should be evidenced with Cole's reasoning in order to demonstrate his views. This page is not just for criticism; it is also for his own views (and his own views should constitute the majority of information here). I am not complaining about the criticism but I do not think his views should be summarily deleted just because some of our editors disagree with them. The three arguments here against the Iraq war are all very different from your typical anti-war arguments and should not be collapsed or short changed, especially when we have an entire paragraph on the alleged contradiction.

(2) The experts who support Cole's interpretation of the OBL "election speech." The expert opinions establish that Cole's interpretation is not just some poor translation. The issue is not the translation of the word -- in fact, my version of this section included a line where Cole expresses agreement with the MEMRI translation literally -- but the interpretation of its significance. It is relevant that counterterrorism experts, when specifically asked about the MEMRI vs. Cole interpretations, chose the Cole one for similar reasons to those expressed by Cole.

Please, folks, let's not have another revert war on these points; let's discuss them before any more unwarranted deletions occur.--csloat 06:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Translations vs. Interpretation. the poster child is ""the people in charge of Wikipedia have closed the entrance and opened a discussion on her who does not seem that she is going to arrive nowhere." --google translate " You have be immersed in the history, culture, and background of the speaker of the statement and the statement's context to make a sensible intepretation. Otherwise let the machines do the translations. that's why i would give the greater weight to Cole's version when it comes to Farsi. t Take Care! --Will 09:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Edit or Arabic for that matter. Take Care! --Will 11:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just had to undo another Isarig delete. I need an Isarig undelete robot w/ an automatic 3RR generator. Take Care! --Will 16:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote "Israel lobby" section

I rewrote the "Israel lobby" section with two main goals:

1. To lay out the dispute in a somewhat more readable manner, and
2. To offer a compromise for the Doug Feith revert war - as I understand the dispute, one side thinks that it's unfair to criticize Cole for criticizing Feith without putting the criticism in context, while the other side thinks that a detailed analysis of Feith doesn't belong in an article about Cole. My compromise is to link to the relevant subsection of the Feith page -- it's apparently verifiably true that other people have made similar statements about Feith, and any debate about Feith himself can occur on his page, where it should be.

I'd ask, in the spirit of compromise, that people either make specific revisions or respond on the talk page, rather than reverting -- I'm not wedded to the specific language, but I think my change is a step forward and would hate to see it reverted wholesale. Thanks, TheronJ 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this formulation. At issue is not Cole's view of Feith, but his view of a group of Neoconservative "Likudniks" in the Pentagon, which he alleges have dual loyalties. Feith is merley used as an example. The full quite which gets trauncated by Cole fans includes an admission by COle that the charge (made by Lake) that he believes Neocons in the Pentagon have dual loyalties is true , and then provides Feith as an example. (COle's web site is not accessible to me at th emoment, but I shall provide the quote verbatim once it is.) Turning this into an issue of Feith's personal worthiness is a red herring. Isarig 19:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I'm inclined to revert, but will refrain overnight. Can you try to put together an edit that makes clear that Feith isn't the issue? As it is, it sounds like Cole's critics accuse Cole of being anti-semitic because Cole thinks Feith has dual loyalties -- IMHO, it's at least fair to concede that some other people have the same opinion. (If you ask me, my personal POV is that Cole is probably anti-semitic and that Feith is almost certainly loyal to the US rather than Israel, but this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, so I think we should include all opinions.) Thanks, TheronJ 20:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as Cole site is back up, I'll include the complete Cole quote which shows the topic is not Feith, but the Neoconservatives. As to your other points, I disagree. I don;t think he has been acused of being anti-Semitic because he said somethign about Feith. He has been accused of being anti-Semitic because he accuses pro-Israel Jews in government of havign dual loyalties. It is also inappropriate for this article to showcase the opinion of other people, who unrelated to Cole or the subjects of criticism, about anythign. Whether or not Cole is alone, in the minority or part of the majority in holding this opinion of Feith is irrelvant. Isarig 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, TheronJ, on what basis do you believe Cole is "probably" antisemitic? I don't see any evidence of that whatsoever, and I certainly don't see his criticism of Feith as having anything to do with such a charge (see below).--csloat 20:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Commodore, I probably shouldn't have discussed my POV at all, but wanted to own it. I've responded on your talk page. TheronJ 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I support TheronJ's formulation. Feith is not "merely used as an example"; Feith led the cabal. And Cole's view is shared by others; the people surrounding Feith are included in their indictment too. For heaven's sake, even Michael Hayden has questioned the wisdom of the things done by the OSP. Finally, there is no evidence in anything Cole says that the claims he makes about Feith are equally applicable to Noam Chomsky or Adam Sandler, so the "antisemitic" charge is pretty bogus here (talk about red herrings!) If we're going to keep the charge in, we should also keep the information in that people have questioned the loyalty of the people surrounding the OSP. Did you forget that someone in Feith's office actually was convicted of spying for Israel? This is not Protocols of the Elders of Zion style fantasy; the issue of dual loyalty is a real one.--csloat 20:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In the sentence being used in the article, Feith is used as an example. Cole concedes he is speaking of the Neoconservatives in general. You are welcome to your POV that there is a "cabal", and that Feith is its leader, but this POV has no place in an encycolpedia. Isarig 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not my POV that matters, it's Cole's. The "cabal" in question had an office and stationery, and the term "cabal" came from none other than the State Department's Larry Wilkerson. We're not talking about a vague Jewish conspiracy here; we are talking about specific individuals who worked for the US government at taxpayer expense, one of whom was convicted as an Israeli spy. I have removed the identifiers that you used -- "American Jews" -- and added "Bush Administration employees" because that is who Cole is concerned about. Their Jewishness has not shown to be a concern of Cole's at all, except when he replies to the trumped up antisemitism charge. It is racist POV-pushing to insert that Cole is critical of American Jews when he is actually critical of Bush Administration neoconservatives. That these men happen to be Jewish is not Cole's point and we shouldn't pretend it is. They are also all white men; should we say "American Jewish caucasian males" and imply that Cole also is anti-male and anti-white? Putting that language in there adds nothing to the argument of the anti-Cole people and it falsely makes it look like Cole is making that claim when he is not.--csloat 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole's POV can be quoted, verbatim. If you want to include a quote from Cole charging that there is a 'cabal', led by Feith, that has dual loyalties, be my guest. Wilkerson's POV belongs on his page, not this one. Individuals who have been convicted of spying can and do have their own WP page. Cole is indeed critical of "Bush Administration neoconservatives" - but he makes the dual loyalties charge against Jews, and only Jews, even when they are not part of the Bush Administration. If you can find Cole charging any non-Jew with dual loyalties, I'll be happy to go back to the previous formulation. Isarig 23:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing for including more quotes; I am arguing against making up quotes that refer to Jews when Cole himself does not. If you can find Cole charging Noam Chomsky or Adam Sandler with dual loyalties then I'll be happy to look at your formulation.--csloat 23:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My formulation does not have Cole charging that Jews, in general, have dual loyalties, only those who support Likud. Thus Chomsky and Sandler are a non-sequitur. If you canfind him making that charge against Bush administartion officials who are ntoo Jews, we can use your formulation. Isarig 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, no. You do not get to poison the well of this article just because your own POV is that you hate Cole. If Cole did not identify these people as "Jews" then we should not put those words in his mouth. I think this whole line of discussion is insulting to real Jews, frankly, and I really don't see the need to poison the well further with incendiary charges put into the mouth of someone who never said them. Stop shifting the burden of proof -- the burden is on you to establish the relevance of this language with evidence; it is not on me to find non-Jews that Cole doesn't like.--csloat 23:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't get to decide what is "the last time". This is WP, and your POV that Cole can do no wrong in no more presuasive than other POVs. I have already met the burden of proof you demand : it is factually correct that he accuses American Jews who support Likud of dual loaylties, and this is spelled out in the quotes provided. It has yet to be supported by those holding your POV that he has accused non-Jewish Bush officials of dual loyalties. Once you meet that burden of proof, we can go back to your formulation. (and as I side bar, I'd thank you not to speak for "real Jews") Isarig 23:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look up burden of proof and understand why it is your burden of proof to establish that Cole specifically targets Jews. And your indignation is no substitute for argument. I think this line of argument is insulting to real Jews -- whether or not particular Jews are insulted by it, I certainly am for this reason -- because it trivializes real antisemitism. The real victims of antisemitism are not prominent Bush Administration conservatives pretending to be offended at having their loyalty questioned by a professor in Michigan; many of the real victims are wearing involuntary tattoos as a grim reminder of the stakes of real antisemitism. But that is neither here nor there. The issue here is whether Cole identifies Jews as Jews when he criticizes certain Likudniks, and he does not. And again, if he does not question the loyalty of Adam Sandler as well as Douglas Feith, then it must be something other than their Jewishness that he doesn't like. Finally, you are turning the burden of proof around on an absurd argument -- Cole is charging Bush Admin officials with close ties to the Israeli Likud party with dual loyalty. Israel is a Jewish state last time I checked. I don't know of any non-Jewish Likud activists in the Bush Administration. If such individuals existed, I have no doubt Cole would question their loyalty too, and nothing that has been written by Cole counters that.--csloat 00:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole may target other groups as well (though I have not seen any evidence of this yet), but he clearly targets Jews. Feith worked for Rumsfled - where's the accusation that Rumsfeld has dual loyalties? Pres. Bush has far more publicly and openly supported various Likud policies - where's the claim that Bush has dual loyalites? Cheney sits on JINSA's advisory board, as does Bolton (alongside Feith), and both allegedly have ties to PNAC[3] - where's the allegation that they have dual loyalties? The fact that Cole uses euphamisms such as "Likudniks" or "pro-Israel Neocons" to avoid using the J-word does not give him a free pass. As pointed out to you elswhere on this page, the fact that Stalinst USSR refered to "rootless Cosmopolitans" does not mean that the WP article on the Stalin's USSR should pretend that the campaign was anything other than anti-Semitic. Some vicitms of anti-Semitism are dead. Other carry tatoos on their arms, but others are, like Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, victims of allegations of Dual Loyalty. If you want to state that Cole's anti-Semitism is of the more benign type, more similar to that of Dreyfus's accusers than to Hitler's - I won't argue that point. Isarig 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither Rumsfeld, Bush, nor Cheney has a "fanatical devotion" to Likud as Cole accuses feith of. None of them have explicit ties to Likud organizations as Cole accuses Feith of. None of them have spies in their office running secrets to Israel. His charges are based on specific facts, not on "Jewishness," and your insistence that this is like Stalin's pogroms is again insulting. The dual loyalties claim comes from Cole's belief that Feith is actually loyal to Likud -- he doesn't believe Bush or Rumsfeld is, whether or not they support pro-Likud policies. Again the only thing connecting this to their Jewishness is your opinion rather than anything Cole actually said.--csloat 04:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Feith has no "fanatical devotion" to Likud either - as discussed here previously, the only connection he has to Likud is that he once participated in a brainstorming session for the Likud gov't. As I've shown you in the cited source, Cheney and Bolton allegedly have the same ties to PNAC (the group connected with the aforementioned brainstorming session) as Feith. And as to the "spy in the office" charge - it is to laugh. For starters, Feith did not spy, and this is a lame smear by association, but if we were to accept its validity - that office was created by Rumsfled! Cole's charges are based on specific allegations, not facts, and he makes those allegations exclusively against Jews. And of course he believes the jews have 'fanatical devotion' to Likud, while the non-Jews don't - that's why he's accused of being an anti-Semite. Isarig 04:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Feith is fanatical in his devotion to Likud; all that matters is if Cole claims it is. It doesn't matter if Feith "really" has ties to Likud; what matters is that Cole claims he does. I will not debate you on whether Feith is tied to Likud. I never said Feith spied; I said there was a convicted spy working out of his office. I don't think Feith himself would disagree with the Likudnik label, which is why your argument is so odd. The office was created in the Pentagon yes but Feith was in charge of it; as the recent confirmation of Michael Hayden revealed, not everyone in the pentagon was comfortable with the goings on under Feith's watch. Cole's charges are based on facts, even though it is obviously his interpretation of those facts, but the argument that it has something to do with Feith's Jewishness has never been proven in any way. Your arguments are convoluted. First you claim that it doesn't matter if Cole would accuse Chomsky or some other Jew of dual loyalty because it is only the Likudniks he is after. Then you claim "Likudnik" means "Jew." Now you claim that Cole thinks all Jews are fanatically devoted to Likud? Finally, your calling Cole an anti-Semite is an insult to actual Jews, since it trivializes the charge. But I guess that doesn't really bother you. In the end it appears it is Cole's politics that bother you, not some perceived offense to Jews, which only seems to be raised as a way of sensationalizing the argument.--csloat 06:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't want to debate you on Feith's ties to Likud other than to say that you are misrepresenting things to the extreme if you say the only tie is via PNAC. It is hard not to see that argument as dishonest. Feith has always closely and quite publicly aligned himself with Likud. His father helped found the party!--csloat 07:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, one more thing. I forgot to follow up on Franklin. Your attempt to discard my argument as guilt by association sounds reasonable but it actually isn't. Franklin is not "associated" with Rumsfeld the same way he is with Feith. He was Feith's protege, and he worked closely with Feith since before 9/11. Also, the issue isn't whether or not there actually was a conspiracy of Likudniks in the Pentagon, but whether such a scenario is plausible enough that one could perceive and discuss such a network without being an antisemite.--csloat 10:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading Cole's blog entry cited for the Feith stuff, I think I understand Isarig's objection. I will try to rewrite the section to cut Feith out altogether. Everyone, let me know if you agree with the revision. TheronJ 20:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a step forward and I can live with it for now . It needs a little tweaking Thanks Theron. Take Care! --Will 17:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A new compromise proposal

If I understand Isarig correctly, he thinks the criticism of Cole isn't that Cole believes that Feith in particular has dual loyalties, but that Cole believes that all US officials who are also supporters of the Likud government have dual loyalties. IMHO, that's fair enough. As a second compromise proposal, I have rewritten the section to quote Cole's opinions on Likud supporters generally, but removed what Isarig feels is a side issue -- Cole's opinion of Feith personally.

I have tried to accurately convey what I understand Cole to have written, which is that in Cole's opinion, the Likud government is so reprehensible that anyone who supports it is not fit to serve in the US government. Whether Cole is right, wrong, or anti-semitic is an issue for the reader, but I've done my best to represent his opinion accurately. Again, everyone please let me know what you think, and please feel free to suggest or make changes, just remember that we want to represent all sides of the debate fairly. TheronJ 20:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

i'd like to see a definition of anti-semite in this article somewhere. we spend a lot of time talking about it, but what is it. To some here, it apparently means "one who in in favor of a comprehensive middle east peace and one who opposes the transfer of the indigenous people and curtailment of their rights and treatment of them as people w/o basic rights to life, property and pursuit of happiness in Judea and Samaria (West Bank)." Take Care! --Will 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was defining NAS not classic AS but that's what NAS does to you. That's its mischief, it confuses the two. Mea Culpa. My apology. I forgot to put the NEW in front of AS. The most highbrow definition I've seen is "AS is the identification of a perceived "Mercurial" component working at a crosscurrent to an "Appolarian" culture and the associated repression mechanism." "Mercurial" covered such traits as diaspora, entrepernarial, mercantile, transnational, and covered groups such as the overland Chinese, Jews, Lebanese, Scots. Take Care! --Will 09:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, Will, that's unfair on so many levels. You are trolling again. If I am to assume good faith on your part, I would have to say that I honestly can't believe you actually believe the bigoted and uninformed views of the extraordinarily complex situation you spout here. Elizmr 00:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

let me see a short definition of twenty five words or less. if you can't put it here or on my talk page email me hwanganloa@hotmail.com . I would really like to see what JC is being accused of. Take Care! --Will 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Will. I don't need to reinvent the wheel for you. Just read the antisemitism and new antisemitism articles in wikipedia. Elizmr 00:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I had read the protected disputed article about the new-anti-sem. and many agree with the following:

"Critics of the concept contend that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and that it is sometimes used to silence debate. [14] [15] Tariq Ali has written in Counterpunch that recent usage of the term is a "cynical ploy" by the Israeli government to shield itself from criticism of its treatment of the Palestinians." Take Care! --Will 01:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is also Cole's take on the issue. You asked for a def, and I pointed to one. Elizmr 01:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Partisan"

Isn't describing a source as "partisan" inserting POV? Elizmr 23:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not when the source is openly partisan. The National Review wears that like a badge; pretending it is anything other would be a lie.--csloat 06:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So from now on references should be to the "pro-Israel New Republic" and the "partisan The Nation"? After all, pretending they are anything else would be a lie. Precis 07:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem putting that in for those sources when relevant, or for any other. I also don't have a problem with not using the modifier here, but I do have a problem with pretending it is a nonpartisan source in order to satisfy some abstract NPOV standard that is divorced from reality. It is no more POV to say that the National Review is partisan than it is to say that George W. Bush is Republican.--csloat 08:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of the sources and individuals quoted here are "partisan". So when that modifier is used selectively, it gives the appearance of poisoning the well, whether or not the modifier is valid. Let's be honest, using "partisan" in a selective fashion betrays a definite POV; its purpose is to call attention to bias, thereby questioning the source.Precis 11:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And sometimes it is a good thing to call attention to bias. I'm not saying it is here; as I said above I am not defending that edit. But I also don't think it is at all out of line to call attention to bias in Wikipedia articles.--csloat 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

translation disputes

This section seems to be lengthening again. Should we pare down:

Experts differed as to which interpretation, MEMRI's or Cole's, is the correct one.Brookings Institute Scholar Omer Taspinar noted, "Why would he make a difference between California, Ohio, Pennsylvania? These are all American states. Al Qaeda would attack where it's going to attack. If he had wanted to target states, he would have easily said, 'Any state that votes for Bush is on our list of targets.'...He would have given a direct warning."[29] And Rand Corporation terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman told the Philadelphia Daily News that bin Laden's statement "'was not about...affecting the results of an election,' particularly since both Bush and Kerry have vowed to track him down. In view of that common stance, Hoffman said, it's 'a stretch to say that bin Laden is saying how each state should vote.'"[30] A different viewpoint was expressed by James S. Robbins, senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council and contributing editor to the National Review Online who accepted MEMRI's translation and concluded that "Osama bin Laden does not want you to vote for George W. Bush...When placed in full context, it is clear that MEMRI's analysis is correct; bin Laden is trying to strike a deal with the American people to use the power of the ballot to create more blue states than red."[31]

To this: "Expert commentators differed concerning the correct interpretation of Bin Laden's meaning(refs)". I won't change it, but note that the translation disputes section could easily overwhelm the article. Elizmr 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with shortening this section, but I really don't see the need to glorify Robbins' obvious political ploy. An opinion piece in National Review during an election hardly qualifies as "expertise" and is not even relevant here since he never mentions Cole and there is no evidence that he is responding to, or even aware of, Cole's interpretation. It also seems like this whole debate is ludicrous since Cole has been obviously proven right in the end - Bush won and the matter was dropped. Nobody claims today to believe that was a threat against red states and obviously that turned out not to be true (no red states were attacked, and this formulation of issues never again appeared in bin Laden's discourse. So I'd prefer "experts supported Cole's interpretation," with references, leave the quotes out, and then "an editorial in the National Review supported MEMRI's interpretation." (Even the latter is questionable since, again, there is no indication that the writer was even aware of a debate with Professor Cole).--csloat 00:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that to distinguish between the two sources may be overly picky. I'm not sure what the import of the whole Bin Laden thing is anyway. Thematically, it reads similarly to the dispute that follows. Some international "bad boy" says something very provacative. Many interpret it as threatening. Cole sees it as less threatening, almost philosophical or poetic. I don't see what the big deal is here. Academics make their reptuations by taking something and looking at it in a new way, giving it a new spin based on the insight that they've gained from their particular field of study. It is not suprising that Cole would translate things a little differently. That's his bread and butter. (note: It is a bit suprising that he attacks people who don't agree with him. I don't expect that (in print on record) from an academic.) I personally think we should leave out the translation disputes entirely in the article.Elizmr 00:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no question and never has been of Cole seeing OBL as "less threatening" and certainly not of Cole interpreting his threats as "poetic." The issue in this speech is whether OBL includes a specific threat to states who vote for Bush. In other words, what is at stake is politicking for an election long past. So let's keep the issue straight; it has nothing to do with what Cole's being accused of by Hitchens on the Iranian translation. In addition, and let us be very clear about this, this thing really isn't a "dispute" at all. There is nobody, repeat, nobody, criticizing Cole's interpretation of the speech. MEMRI gave a controversial interpretation and Cole criticized MEMRI's interpretation. MEMRI has never responded to Cole (and there is no reason they would or should bother to). I think everyone involved has likely since realized that the question of who OBL would vote for in a US election was silly, and that the only reason they were preoccupied with it was that the election had not yet occurred. I would be happy to remove this entire section, but I am vehemently opposed to portraying it as a debate between Cole and his detractors. That's simply not what is going on here. I certainly agree with you Elizmr about shortening this section, and I would also agree that these translation disputes are better off left out entirely. They are petty. But if they're going to be mentioned at all, we should keep them in context.--csloat 01:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Elizmr. Cole with his alternate Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezad interpretation helps keep us out of a War with Iran. The more exposure it gets the better. It's not all academic. --Will 01:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are way overestimating the power of Cole's translation to influence current events, but that is a side issue. G-d forbid any escalation of the current state of violence in the world, which is over the top as it is, but if you are editing Wikipedia as some kind of brief to the world to prevent war, you are using Wiki for a soapbox. However, if you thought that particular issue was very central, you could write something on it in "views" without all of the accompanying "he said she said" baggage of what is now in translation disputes. Elizmr 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to think that our collabrative effort involving people of diverse background and sometimes diametrically opposed views and interests to produce a fair balanced product on controversial topics is conducive to world peace. I regret anybody characterizes such good faith work as "soapboxing." Take Care! --Will 01:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on Will, I agree the process of editing Wikipedia can be a peace-creating one (however your trolling is not contributing to this), however when you argue that something non-encyclopedic has to be in the encyclopedia for a politically motivated reason to influence world events that is completely a different thing. I'm not saying anyone should go in and take Iran out, I am opposed to this, however before WWII softpedaling Hitler's power for destruction and intent could have been interpreted as working for peace while it would actually have saved 6million+ lives. We are here to tell the truth, we're not arguing a brief here. Elizmr 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(Just an aside) 6 million? That was just the Holocaust "proper". It's closer to 21 million -see democide --Armon 01:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove OBL speech translation "dispute"

I propose the section on the OBL speech be eliminated entirely as per the above discussion; anyone opposed please state your reasons. Thanks!--csloat 06:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• AGREEElizmr 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agree unless there is some serious criticism of Cole based on his translation -- I don't think the Robbins piece is really notable enough to qualify.TheronJ 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree.--CSTAR 13:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree it was a notable controversy that Cole weighed in on as a expert. The fact that there wasn't any "serious criticism of Cole" isn't really the point. There was much debate about what OBL meant, and what effect, if any, it had on the US election and Cole was the one criticizing the much-cited MEMRI trans. A controversy involving Cole can also originate from Cole. The solution is to not bloat the section in the first place. --Armon 14:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Csloat claims that my points here have been addressed and refuted. Would anyone mind doing it? --Armon 05:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I already did, as I said below: "It's not that there was no "serious" criticism of Cole; there was no criticism of Cole. MEMRI never responded to Cole (probably in part because, after the election, MEMRI realized Cole was correct)." Now, let's forget the debate over my paranthetical comment, since it is extraneous. The fact is there is no actual "controversy" here. Some writers discussed a possible interpretation of OBL's use of a particular word. Cole suggested a different opinion. When a reporter actually asked other experts about Cole's interpretation, they agreed with Cole. Nobody criticized Cole's interpretation in print, to my knowledge. And the election was over a year and a half ago, and the topic has not been discussed since. I would be happy to see this information on the page about OBL's videotape (I forget what it's called but it exists), as it is relevant there. But it is simply not a "controversy concerning Cole."--csloat 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Note the title of this article is "Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole" and my point that a "controversy involving Cole can also originate from Cole". This is why I wanted clarification on the article's content. Armon 12:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed my error above. My point is not that this doesn't "concern Cole" but rather that it is not a "controversy." Since it has been voted on and nobody has supported your position I will delete it.--csloat 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. It was not a "controversy." It's not that there was no "serious" criticism of Cole; there was no criticism of Cole. MEMRI never responded to Cole (probably in part because, after the election, MEMRI realized Cole was correct).--csloat 19:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Man, that's a big assumption, but in any case, I think we need to clarify exactly what this page is about. I think that will likely solve most of our disputes. Please see below --Armon 13:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. You may have noticed, George Bush was in fact reelected, and there was no further threats nor any carrying out of any threats against "Bush" states. The whole thing was electioneering nonsense, and Yigal Carmon is probably smart enough to have recognized that by now. But the motivations do not matter -- the fact is, MEMRI has not replied to Cole's argument, nor has anyone else. I checked below and don't see any reason to keep this section, so it goes.--csloat 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that Cole was "correct" and MEMRI wrong so much as there wasn't really any way to judge. Both Cole and MEMRI agree that "wiliyah" is an archaic term meaning administrative province, but Cole thinks that Bin Laden meant "Nation" and MEMRI doesn't. They agree on the translation, but disagree on the Bin Laden mindreading. Niether a notable "contoversy" nor a notable "view," IMHO.TheronJ 20:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no way to read OBL's mind, but there is a way to make a reasoned judgment about this. We know that Bush won the election. We know that there were no terrorist attacks on "red" states. We know that OBL has made no subsequent threats to individual states. We also know, for the reasons cited by Cole, that it is extremely improbable that OBL would have meant such a thing. The preponderance of evidence and analysis leans heavily in Cole's direction. But it's neither here nor there; as we agree, this isn't much of a "controversy."--csloat 20:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

By that argument, Bin Laden didn't mean [i]anything[/i] by "wilayah," because there haven't been any attacks on America as a whole either.  ;-P TheronJ 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize you're just being "snarky" but it's not the mere lack of attacks I am pointing to, but the complete lack of any reference to the state thing at all since the election. He has certainly threatened attacks since the election, and none of his threats single out Bush supporters. Let's follow MEMRI's logic for a second. Why has OBL not singled out Georgia or North Dakota for attack when he issued threats in 2005 and 2006? His April 2006 audiotape does not even mention Tennessee, Al Gore's home state, which went to Bush. And his January 2006 speech never once mentions Ohio or Florida! Surely the close vote in those states and rumors of election regularities must have gotten his goat, since MEMRI claims he is so meticulous about American electoral politics. And it's quite amazing that he hasn't mentioned upcoming attacks on "Bush voters." Why is he wasting time threatening attacks in Sudan, when he should be threatening Texas? Why did al Qaeda attack London instead of Indiana? And why did al-Zawahiri's comments on the London bombing single out the Queen as an "enemy of Islam" instead of Bill Frist? Surely Zawahiri is well aware that Frist headed the platform committee for the Republican National Convention in 2004? --csloat 21:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK you're not going to like this, but one possibility is because the "war" had been brought to him in Afghanistan, and then the Iraq war has focused Jihadi efforts there, instead of at the US. London and the Sudan are softer targets. It's the standard neocon line. Also, if you're expecting some kind of consistency in OBL's threats, you won't find any. See his statements re: 9/11 --Armon 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I "like" it just fine, as a joke. But it's not what we're talking about (and it's patently untrue; you might want to review newspaper accounts of early July 2005 in London in case you missed what was happening there a few months after the speech in question). My point above is that OBL is not involved in the minutiae of the American electoral college. It is illogical nonsense that he would threaten states whose electors chose Bush and spare the others, which is why Cole considered MEMRI's interpretation of the speech "impossible." It's also obvious, since OBL makes the point in that very speech that neither Bush nor Kerry would make a difference in terms of his planned attack. It is funny to me that the US media are so wrapped up in elections that the important things said in this speech about Iraq were totally missed in favor of speculation about whom OBL wanted for president. (Especially, in fact, when we already have an official al-Qaeda statement from a few months earlier specifically saying they prefer Bush as president! Why try to read tea leaves with the word "state" when al Qaeda has much more direct statements?) Finally, if you think OBL is not logical in his threats, you are terribly misjudging your enemy (and, incidentally, such poor judgement is the reason the Bush Administration's strategy to deal with this particular enemy has been such an abject failure).--csloat 02:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just giving you an alternate explanation and was referring to OBL's apparent denials and then acceptance of responsibility for 9/11. This discussion is degrading into yet another "Quest for the TRUTH" when it's beyond our scope. --Armon 03:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Need to Add a Views Section: Cole on the New-Anti-Semitism

So much of this discussion is on Karsh's attack on Cole as an new-antisemite. And we spend endless hours keyboarding whether Cole is an ant-semite or a neo-anti-semite or new-anti-semite. But Cole has himself written on the suject of New-Anti-Semitism (herinafter "NAS") the very brush with which it appears he himself is here being vigoursly daubed. Since the subject article is aobut JC's views and controversis. there should be a section about his views re NAS. Here is a start from the WP NAS article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_anti-Semitism#To_Add_to_Criticism_Section:_Juan_Cole "To Add to Criticism Section: Juan Cole Juan Cole, a Michigan historian and pundit, has also written on about this subject. In the context of 2002 when many were concerned about the deterioriate situation in the Occupied Territories, Cole argued that some where using the label of "anti-Semitism" to silence criticisms of the policies of Arial Sharon's government: "But some use 'Never again' in a far more disturbing way, as a warrant for imprisoning, crushing or dispersing the Palestinian people. The state of Israel is a project of Jewish nationalism that is as legitimate as any other national project. But Israel as a state is not perfect and cannot be above criticism in democratic societies, including practical criticism." "The false and monstrous equation of practical criticism of Ariel Sharon's policies with anti-Semitism is designed to silence voices critical of those policies, and to make the divestment movement look as though it were motivated merely by bigotry." "Summers's statements are most urgently dangerous because they cheapen the phrase "anti-Semitism," and thereby weaken its force and its power in the struggle for civil liberties and human rights for everyone." From: Juan Cole, The Misuses of Anti-Semitism, George Mason University's History News Network, September 20, 2002. http://hnn.us/articles/1002.html Take Care! --Will 01:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"9-30-02 The Misuses of Anti-Semitism By Juan Cole

Mr. Cole is professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian History at the University of Michigan and author of Sacred Space and Holy War (I.B. Tauris, 2002). His website is: www.juancole.com.

Harvard President Lawrence Summers has equated favoring university divestment from Israeli stocks with anti-Semitism. Summers has for some time misunderstood the duties of his office to include bullying professors, and in this recent equation he is profoundly wrong. He and others who are taking this tack are also pursuing an extremely dangerous and troubling course with dire implications for civil liberties.

In twentieth century American history, Jews were excluded from admission to some private universities, denied the right to rent or buy certain houses, and suffered from false stereotypes. Prominent Americans like Henry Ford spewed vile slanders about them. These bigoted exclusions were profoundly wrong, as were those visited on African-Americans and Asian-Americans.

Prejudice and discrimination against Jews is iconic of ethnic hatred because of the Nazi holocaust. The Holocaust makes the dangers of a pervasive hatred of a particular people palpable, and for that reason it is a deeply human event, in the sense that it affects all humankind. The cry of "Never again" is a key support in the struggles of all civil libertarians and human rights workers.

But some use "Never again" in a far more disturbing way, as a warrant for imprisoning, crushing or dispersing the Palestinian people. The state of Israel is a project of Jewish nationalism that is as legitimate as any other national project. But Israel as a state is not perfect and cannot be above criticism in democratic societies, including practical criticism.

The Israeli state is in violation the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (which forbids the mistreatment of civilian populations under military occupation), and of too many Security Council resolutions to list. The government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon seems intent on seizing more Palestinian land. Over a fifth of Palestinian children under Israeli occupation are acutely or chronically malnourished, according to US AID and the United Nations.

Ariel Sharon's arrogant trampling on the basic human rights of Palestinians is often justified by reference to the horrible incidents of terrorism suffered by Israel in the past two years. These suicide bombings are unspeakable. A sober estimation of their impact, however, would reveal that about 300 Israelis have died in them per year. More innocent Palestinian civilians, including women and children, have been killed in Israeli military action against the terrorists than have Israeli civilians in the terrorist attacks. The terrorists have amounted to a few dozen individuals, whereas almost all the 3.2 million Palestinians in the occupied territories have been peaceful.

Israel's current harsh lockdown of the entire West Bank would not be countenanced in other similar international situations. Would the United Kingdom have been justified in militarily occupying all of Ireland and keeping all Irish under strict curfew in their houses because of the terrorist attacks of the Irish Republican Army? In the 1970s, after all, the Northern Irish death toll was similar to what Israel has suffered in the past two years. It is hard not to conclude that a certain amount of racism toward west Asians like the Palestinians allows the world to turn a blind eye to such collective punishment.

Sharon's policies are widely perceived in the rest of the world to be an extension of those of the United States. A U.S. F-16 was used by Israel to attack a terrorist leader in an apartment building full of civilians, resulting in numerous civilian deaths. The footage of such events is shown repeatedly throughout the Middle East. The U.S. government keeps silent about Israeli human rights abuses. Sharon's iron fist is creating waves of new anti-Americanism in the rest of the world at a time when our country is still reeling from the September 11 attacks and attempting to dampen the flames of terrorism. With friends like Ariel Sharon, who needs enemies?

University communities have very little impact on world affairs and can exercise influence only through writing or through local campus actions. The false and monstrous equation of practical criticism of Ariel Sharon's policies with anti-Semitism is designed to silence voices critical of those policies, and to make the divestment movement look as though it were motivated merely by bigotry.

In the 1980s, many campuses saw a successful campaign for divestment against South Africa, a racist regime with which U.S. and Israel governments and industry at times collaborated. Only fringe voices would have suggested that the campaign was animated by prejudice against white people or by anti-Semitism. Summers's statements are most urgently dangerous because they cheapen the phrase "anti-Semitism," and thereby weaken its force and its power in the struggle for civil liberties and human rights for everyone." JC speaks. Hearing it from the horse's mouth. Take Care! --Will 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This stuff belongs in the Israel and US policy sectoin. Elizmr 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Abusive edits by Armon

Armon, I see being blocked for violating WP rules has not caused you to reflect at all upon the purpose of the discussion page as you were asked to by the administrator who blocked you. Please use the talk page to justify your controversial changes, especially when they are currently in dispute by other editors! Being bold is one thing; being obnoxious is quite another. When you remove sourced and reliable information wholesale for obvious POV reasons and the only explanation in the edit summary is "snip bloat," your edits have crossed the line into obnoxia. Once again I invite you to show good faith and revert your edits and engage in a discussion about your proposed changes rather than foregoing the discussion and making massive POV changes. If you ever want the NPOV tag removed, you have to engage in conversation about your changes. Armon a lot of us on both sides of the issue have worked very hard in the talk page to discuss the reasons for particular changes; your wholesale editing without responding to talk is insulting to those of us who have invested a lot of time and energy into this process.--csloat 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat if you don't want an edit-war, don't do it, it's that simple. Otherwise, continue as you have, but at least spare me the disingenuous righteous indignation. Oh, and AGF please! --Armon 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon, I'd second the request that you engage on the talk page. Either talk first, then edit, or edit and talk at the same time (but risk reversion), but either way, start a discussion on your edits. It's the only way to get past an edit war, and I think you will be pleasantly surprised at how willing people are to discuss your issues.TheronJ 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Can you tell I've just quit smoking? I've got no problem discussing, what I have a problem with are endless circular "arguments" that go nowhere. The edits/issues csloat is bitching about have discussed over and over again. One of the main points of the consensus before Cole was unblocked was that it needed to be more concise -and not a soapbox for either side. It's been already discussed, and it's been made clear that the article suffered from an "arms race" approach which lead to a lot of bloated soapboxing. Unsurprisingly, the only person who took issue with that was csloat. Unless there's a valid reason to include repetitive points from Cole (apparently based on the assumption used on these talk pages that repetition somehow makes your argument stronger) I will delete them. I will not (and didn't) add in more "criticism" to "balance things out" (other than what was deleted). In fact, I summarized a point from Cole on the Iraq war which hadn't been there before. Ultimately, the edits should speak for themselves, so if I can't be bothered writing a novel about why "soapboxing" is "soapboxing" and a violation of WP:Point every time I clean some up, please just compare the versions. --Armon 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon these points are not repetitive. You are deleting relevant sourced commentary only because you disagree with it, not because it is "repetitive." This is not soapboxing; this is simply being correct about the context and arguments being made. And frankly if you refuse to engage in talk explaining your edits, you shouldn't be surprised to see them reverted every time.--csloat 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the Iraq stuff that Armon keeps deleting but I left his other changes to that section. As I have said a couple times now, Cole's arguments against the Iraq war are not typical, and deserve more than the one sentence summary that Armon wants there.--csloat 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I also have an objection/concern re: Cole's "3 points" on Iraq war, but let's set that aside for now. I'd like your input to clarify what this article's purpose is because that may solve most of the problem anyway. --Armon 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

removing [sic]

Armon, the reason for the [sic] is that we have a sentence fragment preceding it. To the reader it appears as if the sentence was mutilated in transit; however, it is a direct quote. I don't like it there either; it was Isarig's suggestion. My other suggestion was to delete this sentence entirely, but that suggestion was not met with a positive reaction. Surely Wikipedia would be better off if we only quoted Karsh when he used the language properly? I know we don't agree on much else, but I am certain we can find common ground on this point. And, by the way, congratulations on quitting smoking. It is a brave and difficult move but it is very much worth it. It gets much easier after the first couple weeks.--csloat 02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So let's just remove the [sic] -we're not the grammar police and it's unclear what it's referring to. --Armon 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and cheers for the moral support re: smoking. Difficult yeah, but I don't know if I'd call it "brave". I'm quitting because I'm scared of the health effects ;) --Armon 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh... it's brave to give up an emotional crutch as strong as cigarettes. As for the [sic] -- it's obvious what it refers to. It refers to the crappy grammar. I think if Wikipedia is to maintain credibility in that sense, we should either include the [sic] or remove the sentence fragment. My preference is definitely the latter.--csloat 19:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You've presented a false choice -all we need to do is remove the [sic]. Karsh's "crappy grammar" is his problem, and leaving it in suggests a POV discrediting of his point because of it. --Armon 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But leaving Karsh's crappy grammar in makes it Wikipedia's problem. I don't understand what point is conveyed by this incomplete sentence. It is incoherent. Why can't we just leave it out as I suggested? I thought the one thing we could find common ground on is that an encyclopedia should use the English language properly. The [sic] was Isarig's suggestion, not mine; my preference is to remove the sentence fragment entirely. Surely if this so-called "point" were so important, Karsh would have repeated it elsewhere in the article using complete sentences? Can someone else jump into this discussion? Am I the only one who thinks grammar is important in an encyclopedia? This article is embarrassing enough as it is without such obvious flaws. And, by the way, the [sic] is not a POV discrediting of Karsh; Karsh's crappy grammar discredits him on its own. The [sic] simply confirms to the reader that the poor grammar is, as you say, Karsh's problem. But again I would prefer to do without the [sic] entirely--csloat 00:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Karsh's crappy grammar discredits him on its own. The [sic] simply confirms to the reader that the poor grammar is, as you say, Karsh's problem." Your needing to "confirm" his crappy grammar has just proven my point about it being an attempt to discredit Karsh. If his grammar is really so self-discrediting, we don't need to point it out -just be happy he's doing it for you. Armon 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're misreading this entirely. My point is that the [sic] confirms to the reader that there was no mistake in quotation (that's why it is used). If you don't like the sic, let's remove the crappy grammar! But if we're going to keep it, we need the sic, for the credibility of wikipedia. This has nothing to do with discrediting Karsh; this has to do with Wikipedia's credibility. I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would insist on keeping an incomplete (and incoherent) sentence in an encyclopedia!--csloat 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The following passage from Karsh [4] should put a quick end to these complaints about grammar:

While Cole pays the customary lip service on his blog to Israel's right to exist within its pre-1967 borders (and says it would be worth American lives to defend Tel Aviv), he also makes clear that he thinks the Middle East would have been better off without the Jewish state. Discounting altogether the millenarian Jewish attachment to Palestine, so as to misrepresent Israel's creation as an ordinary colonialist project, he claims in one post that it would have been preferable for the British to have simply accepted Jewish refugees "rather than saddling a small, poor peasant country with 500,000 immigrants hungry to make the place their own." Precis 06:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Precis -- now we see that it was a Wikipedia editor, and not Karsh, who was responsible for the crappy grammar. I think we should either include the whole sentence or exclude it (I prefer the latter, since the sentence offers no new information). Keeping a partial sentence in is not a good idea, IMHO.--csloat 18:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

removing "repetitive soapboxing"

Armon I have asked you several times to explain your deletions with something more substantive than "rm repetitive soapboxing." Now you have again deleted the following for the third or fourth time:

Cole rejects this interpretation, however; regarding "the attribution to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the statement that 'Israel must be wiped off the map'," he states: "No such idiom exists in Persian, and Ahmadinejad actually just quoted an old speech of Khomeini in which he said 'The occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.' Of course Ahamdinejad does wish Israel would disappear, but he is not commander of the armed forces and could not attack it even if he wanted to, which he denies."^[1]

This quote is sourced and relevant. It responds on point to the charge made by Sullivan. I think the Sullivan quote should go as well if we are removing this; or are you only interested in removing soapboxing from one side? I don't think it's reasonable at all to give Sullivan the soapbox in this piece when it is really a debate between Hitchens and Cole, but if we're going to include him, it is only fair to include Cole responding to the specific concern Sullivan raises.--csloat 02:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sloat here. I don't see anything wrong with leaving Cole's and Sullivan's cites here.Elizmr 13:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hitchen's doesnt blog, his buddy Sullivan does, so the rejoinder is effectively coming from him. The rejoinder to the rejoinder quote from Cole is not a response to the points of either Hitchens or Sullivan but a simple repetition of what wrote in his first blog post on the Slate article. The only reason to keep it is to give Cole the last word -therefore it's soapboxing. --Armon 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Armon. What new point does Cole make in the last quote, that he has not already made in pervious quotes? Isarig 13:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is a repeat, then I totally agree with Armon and Isrig. How about you Sloat--do you think there's anything new there? If so, what is it since A and I aren't clear. Elizmr 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's avoid an edit war

I'd like to propose the following controversy go to RfC, since Isarig and I seem to be at an impasse. Isarig wants the following included:

Cole's critics allege that he accuses pro-Israel Jewish Bush Administration officials of having dual loyalty to Israel. Cole has been critical of Jewish US government officials whom he alleges have ties to the Likud Party. Charging that this group has dual loyalties, Cole writes:... [emphasis added]

I prefer the following text, which is the same but without the word "Jewish":

Cole's critics allege that he accuses pro-Israel Bush Administration officials of having dual loyalty to Israel. Cole has been critical of US government officials whom he alleges have ties to the Likud Party. Charging that this group has dual loyalties, Cole writes:...

You can see the full debate between he and I about this above. In short, I feel that if Juan Cole does not say he is criticizing anybody's Jewishness, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to single this factor out when describing people. The people Cole criticizes are also white but we don't single this feature out. Isarig claims to know that Cole means "Jewish" when he says "Likudnik," but that is Isarig's opinion, and it is one not shared by other editors of this page. Does anyone else have any thoughts on whether we should include this information? And I would add that if we do include it, why are we not including such information about all of these people? E.g., "The atheist Christopher Hitchens criticizes Cole..." or "Cole criticizes the Muslim president of Iran..."--csloat 04:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It easy to settle. Name a non-Jewish person Cole identifies as a "Likudnik" ^{[citation needed]}. --Armon 13:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Name a non-Jewish person with close ties to Likud who is fanatical about supporting Israel who also works for the Bush Administration. Now please see my arguments about this above.--csloat 19:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That how it starts first NAS then NAS=AS. I agress with CSloat. Cole doesn't focus on ethnicity, faith, or race. Take Care! --Will 09:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I see the point here and think it is an important one. Does Cole accuse any non-Jews of dual loyalties to Israel? Elizmr 13:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that I've read, but csloat's going get us a cite. Also, I don't want to get too "controversial" here -but isn't the fact he targets Jews for having "dual loyalty" what leads his critics to accuse him of Antisemitism?
Well, that's what his critics say, but obviously they're wrong because csloat and Will314159 think so. That's really the core of the problem. There's the Truth, and then there's what Cole's critics and detractors say. Of course! Plus we need WP to get the Truth out because only Cole can save us from the predations of the neocon cabal who's forcing the US into a war with Iran. Why didn't I see this before? Instead, I've been stupidly focused on some abstract NPOV standard that is divorced from reality. --Armon 13:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon, please assume good faith. I almost never agree with CSloat, and he sometimes makes me want to pull out my hair, but he's always willing to work out issues on the talk pages, and I've never had reason to doubt his good faith. Let's all buckle down and see if we can write an encyclopedia here.TheronJ 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The embedded paraphrase and quote in my little epiphany is quite enough reason to doubt it. Will's new, and may be saddled by his trial experiences where you attempt any rhetorical tactic the judge will let you get away with -but I admit he's tried. I don't know what csloat's excuse is, but he's not lifting his game, and if you think that 1200 words of debate on the word "Jewish" is somehow reasonable, I'm sorry, I disagree. --Armon 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Armon, we shouldn't need 1200 words to explain why it is insulting for Wikipedia to intervene in a debate on racism in this manner. If you have a Cole quote where he specifically targets Jews for Jewishness, let's include it by all means. Otherwise, we should not be intervening in the debate by adding the term "Jews" to this entry. As you said above, it's that simple.--csloat 19:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So in other words, what you're saying is "just let me have my way". You just don't get it. --Armon 01:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words Armon. After your nice note on my talk page, reading this is a little disheartening. I never said let me have my way; in fact I have twice already announced that I am resigned to not getting my way! What is frustrating is that the arguments are not being addressed here. And what is sad is that Wikipedia now includes what I see as a racist red herring -- blatant Jew-baiting -- in order to libel the subject of a biographical article.--csloat 21:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, look. I understand why you feel it's Jew-baiting etc. The problem is that with these endless, beyond scope, debates to establish the "TRUTH", what's getting lost, and what you're not getting, is that we're reporting not intervening. Cole's attracted criticism on this point because, to his critics, he singles out Jews, EOS. You are perfectly entitled to view that as bullshit, no problem from me. Where we're going but heads however, is when the criticisms piss you off so much that you want us to somehow avoid stating the obvious and properly reporting his critics POV. --Armon 16:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No; the article states "Cole has been critical of Jewish US government officials whom he alleges have ties to the Likud Party." How about we eliminate that sentence entirely, since the sentence before it already states that his critics believe that. Then at least it would be clear that the vicious Jew-baiting is coming from Cole's critics and not Wikipedia. If your problem with what I'm saying is that you think I want to improperly state what his critics have to say, this compromise should be acceptable?--csloat 00:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: Based on the Cole posting in question, I think Isarig's edit is fair.

1. As Cole writes, it is natural for persons of various ethnicities to support their home country: "It is natural for Armenian Americans to have a special tie to Armenia, for Greek Americans to have a special tie to Greece, for Iraqi Americans to feel strongly about Iraq. For them to take pride in the achievements of their homeland is right an natural, and unexceptionable. There is no reason on the face of it to even bring up their ethnicity with regard to public service. But if a Syrian American is a strong devotee of the Baath Party, would you appoint him Undersecretary of Defense?" He then goes on to analogize Likud supporters in the US government with the aforementioned Syrian Ba'ath supporters. Cole's point is: (1) It's natural and nonoffensive for American jews to feel a "special tie" to Israel, or to take pride in Israel's accomplishments, but (2) support for Likud is beyond the pale.
2. There's an unspoken hypothetical - if somebody in defense were, say, an evangelical Christian supporter of Likud, would Cole accuse them of having a political "dual loyalty." My guess is yes, but that's WP:OR. The piece he's written is about when ethnic Americans may be suspected of dual loyalty, and the ethnicity in this case is Jews.
3. Alternately, if you can find another piece where Cole talks about whether gentile Likud supporters are guilty of dual loyalty, however, that would resolve it.

Thanks,TheronJ 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat, the word Jews was introduced by TheronJ when rewrote the section with his proposed compromise formulation, not by me. You can't remove it and then ask us not to put it back until we've settled it in Talk. Isarig 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think if you could find an evangelical Christian Likudnik working for the Bush Administration with as close ties to Likud as Doug Feith, Cole would question his/her loyalty too. However, there isn't one. Last time I checked, Israel was a Jewish state. My problem with inserting the word Jews there is that it makes it seem as if Cole singles out these people for being Jewish. It's a way to poison the well before the reader even reads the actual arguments. If Cole said that, fine, but if he didn't say it, what does Wikipedia gain by including it?--csloat 19:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Has Cole questioned any administrative official with dual loyalties other than Jews? When John F Kennedy ran for US president, people worried that he had "dual loyalities" to Rome. Cheney could be said to have "dual loyalties" because of ties to Halliburtin, Bush to the evangelicals and Catholics who helped elect him, etc etc. Has Cole talked about this and said that these people should not be in power because of "dual loyalties"? This is a fair question. I don't know. If he hasn't, then the use of the word "Jew" is certainly appropriate in my view. Elizmr 19:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how one thing has to do with the other. Cole addresses the point directly when he speculates about having a Syrian Baath devotee in the government, and he says clearly he would have just as much problem with it. It's not the person's ethnicity that bugs him; it's their loyalty to a political institution outside of the U.S. Government. Again, if Cole doesn't identify them as Jews, at best it is WP:NOR for us to do so.--csloat 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My take is that it's (1) verifiable and (2) true. I think the sentence as Iharig writes it is fair - Cole accuses Jewish American supporters of Likud of dual loyalty. It's probably true, I think, that Cole would accuse Syrian American supporters of Likud of dual loyalty, or Jewish American Ba'ath supporters, but that's crystal ball gazing, since he hasn't made those accusations, even in his hypothetical. We've got a pretty comprehensive Cole quote up, and I think Cole's words speak for him - IMHO, we've quoted enough that readers can judge his point. TheronJ 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is both verifiable and true that they are all white too; why not say Cole accuses white American supporters of Likud of dual loyalty? It appears George W. Bush is Christian; should we say "Cole is a staunch critic of the Christian George W. Bush's policy in Iraq"? We are not crystal ball gazing; he addresses this point directly. It is also not "supporters of Baath" that he has a problem with in US office but active Baathists with ongoing ties to the Baath party and an expressed loyalty to that party. There is a big difference here. I agree with you, Cole's words speak for him; why is it necessary to include the well-poisoning in Wikipedia? Let's just use Cole's words there and avoid this whole debate.--csloat 20:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Theron's comment's above. Elizmr 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If Cole is not interested in any of the possible ways administrative officials can have dual loyalties (see my discussion above, which you ignored), except the Jewish admin officials to the Jewish state, then why is it not ok to say "Jew"? And please please don't just repeat what you've said before by way of response, please respond to the content of the remark. Elizmr 20:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I have said above in fact is my response to the content of that remark. Please read it and indicate whether you actually have a response to that. Thanks.--csloat 23:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, impossible to answer you in any way that will satisfy you except to simply agree with you and I don't. Elizmr 23:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you find yourself unable to respond to an argument, you should consider the possibilities: (1) the argument represents an irreconcilable philosophical difference. That does not seem to be the case in this instance. (2) your side of the argument is incorrect. That does seem to be the case to me, but of course I am an interested party in the argument. (3) your side of the argument lacks evidence at this time (or you are unable or unwilling to find that evidence). If #3 is correct, yet you feel you are still in the right, consider letting the argument go at this point and coming back when you have evidence to support your argument. It is perfectly fine to walk away from an argument without "winning" it, and there is nothing wrong with believing your side is correct despite having conceded the argument, but it is not OK to expect that your side of the argument should carry the day when you have conceded the main points.--csloat 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You've been asked to provide evidence that Cole accuses anyone non-Jewish of dual loyalties (not limited to dual loyalties to Israel--dual loyalties of any kind as described above). Rather than providing this evidence you choose to instead bully me. Elizmr 00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not bullying at all. I haven't even reverted - there is no need to call me names. What I did was respond by showing why this point was not relevant. Whether Cole accuses anyone non-Jewish of something does not matter, and the insistence that I come up with names of goyim is not relevant to this argument. I have responded with several arguments above; to recap:

1. the point is not relevant. All that is relevant is whether Cole identifies people as Jewish or identifies the source of his problem with them as their Jewishness. Otherwise Wikipedia is putting words into his mouth. (This is especially problematic given that Cole specifically refutes this argument).
2. the burden of proof is on those who would insert "Jewish" or "Jews" into the page, not on those who do not see it as necessary or relevant.
3. Israel is a Jewish state. The Likud party is made up of Jews. It is statistically unlikely that there would be a non-Jew in the Bush Administration with intimate ties to Likud and expressed allegiance to the party such as Mr. Feith. If there were, we can reasonably assume Cole would worry about their loyalty as well.
4. Cole has himself specifically addressed this with the hypothetical Syrian Baathist, and his position is cogent and consistent. He would question the loyalty of a fanatical Baathist devotee in the Pentagon too. The fact is, no such person exists, so there is no possibility of me being able to produce the names that you are demanding.
5. Putting the term "Jews" in the paragraph is a way of poisoning the well, biasing the debate before it is even articulated. The reader sees that Cole accuses Jews of something and it seems like he is accusing all Jews, or like he is accusing them specifically for their Jewishness. Yet we know this is not the case, for Cole does not accuse other Jews of disloyalty. Only those who are fanatically devoted to Likud.

So please do not accuse me of ignoring your arguments when it is you who is ignoring mine. You are right, I have not produced the name of a non-Jew accused by Cole of dual loyalty, but you are incorrect that I have not responded to the argument. It is not your prerogative to define what counts as an acceptable response.--csloat 00:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, actually it is. If you want to actually convince anyone, you need to produce some evidence rather than simply hand waving. If you think that asking for a cite is somehow unreasonable, good luck, but I think you're just setting yourself up for a whole lot of frustration on WP. You might want to stick to soap boxing on your blog instead. --Armon 01:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. I have offered five separate responses to this claim above, and you have ignored all five points. I'm not sure what this has to do with "soapboxing" or my blog. Either respond to the arguments or stay out of it; it appears that you are the one hand waving.--csloat 01:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's because all 5 are unconvincing. 1 and 2 are the same attempt to shift the burden of proof. The pro-"Jew" side has cites, you do do not. 3 is an assumption -it may be correct, but lacking evidence, that's all it is. 4 Hypothetically, if Cole accused a "Syrian Baathist" of the same thing, he'd likely come under similar attacks for being anti-Arab/Syrian -but problem is it's hypothetical and therefore also an assumption. 5 It's not poisoning the well, it's reporting the nature of the criticism. Cole attacks Jews "who are fanatically devoted to Likud" -his critics see this as a) unevidenced, b)antisemitic because he singles out Jews and Israel for particularly harsh criticism/demonization. --Armon 15:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No; the burden of proof is on those who would include "Jew" -- 1 & 2 clarify that point. What cites does the "pro-Jew" side have? As I've said all along, if you have a quote from Cole attacking Jews for Jewishness, please put it in. I just don't think WP should make the claim; leave it up to Cole. 3&4 are not assumptions; there is an actual quote from Cole on point to this matter, where he discusses the Syrian hypothetical. The evidence is in the quote. You may choose to disbelieve Cole but your disbelief is not something we need in the encyclopedia. 5 yes it is. If it is just "reporting" the criticism, why are you unable to find a quote from Cole specifically attacking Jews *as Jews* rather than attacking people he sees as "fanatically devoted to Likud" who happen to be Jewish? I understand his critics see it as antisemitic, and I have not removed that opinion. But the fact is there is dispute about the matter. Cole's critics should not be judged correct by Wikipedia and Cole incorrect. Putting the Jews in there biases the description of the dispute.--csloat 20:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You're simply repeating yourself. Your arguments don't get better this way. --Armon 03:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered the above.--csloat 03:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would I? I already have. --Armon 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't. See above. In fact, don't. Just forget it - this debate is going nowhere. I suggested a compromise edit; let me know what you think of that and let's not continue this pointless line of argument.--csloat 00:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call you a bully; I said you were bullying me. There is a difference. We disagree on what constitutes the burden of proof here; that does not mean you are right. The Bathist argument doesn't do it--it is just far fetched and absurd. I agree that Israel is a Jewish state and it would be hard to find a likud supporter who wasn't Jewish for this reason, but government officials can have any number of dual loyalties to any number of things (as I've articulated above), and these dual loyalties could cause them to make decisions which could be detrimental to US. But Cole doesn't rail about any of these dual loyalties (like Cheneys to his business dealings) even though they could have been quite influential in pushing the US into attacking Iraq (because his former co would stand to profit from war industry). If you supply the name of anyone Cole accuses of dual loyalties to *anything* who is not Jewish I will totally agree your objection to the "Jewish" wording is reasonable. Cole's position re: all non-Likud jews is well articulated inwhat follows at length---adding the word does not poison the well. Elizmr 01:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I did not bully you.
2. The Baathist arg is only "far fetched and absurd" because there are no Syrian Americans with close Baath Party ties in the Bush Administration. That seems to be the condition at work here, and that is what you're pressing me for. If we agree that there is no such non-Jew available for this argument, yet we agree that were such a non-Jew to exist then Cole would call them out, then we agree that Cole has not specifically targeted Jews.
3. Again I must reassert the burden of proof argument here. It is those who wish to include mention of the Jewishness of these people here who bear the burden to prove that Cole is targeting their Jewishness; otherwise we are putting words into his mouth.
4. Cole does in fact criticize Cheney's business dealings, but I don't see how it's relevant here. At issue is whether Cole attacks the Jewishness of Feith et al., and he does not.
5. I have responded why your insistence on my naming names is unreasonable yet you keep coming back to that as some kind of standard for the argument. Simply repeating your demand does not make it reasonable. You are the one who should be providing evidence that Cole actually "attacked American Jews." The people who he attacked are not just Jews; they are people with loyalty to the Likud party. It is not relevant that they happen to be Jewish. WP should not make it relevant, anymore than we would point out that Cole criticized the Christian George Bush or the Muslim Saddam Hussein.
6. You assert that adding the word Jews does not poison the well, but I have shown why it does above. Your assertion does not include any evidence, whereas I have explained how it biases the argument.
7. Finally, why is this important to you? Or anyone here? If you don't believe it poisons the well or affects the way people see the argument, then why do you insist it is so important? I have a hard time believing we are spending this much time on one word.--csloat 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to resolve this one, but would entertain suggestions. FWIW, I don't agree that it poisons the well -- I think it accurately represents what Cole wrote in his piece for the reasons I originally stated. TheronJ 02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments above were that it is verifiable and true. Let me ask this: can we change it to be more specific? How about we change "Jewish US government officials" to "Ashkenazi Jewish US government officials"? The addition is equally verifiable and true. And one could argue that it is relevant to this whole question; after all, perhaps Cole only has a thing against Ashkenazi Jewish conspiracies. Perhaps I should insert the term and then insist that others name a single Sephardic Jew who Cole accuses of disloyalty? I won't, of course; I am merely trying to illustrate the point. I realize I'm outvoted here, folks, so I'm going to, ummm, let my people go. But I do think it is a little sad to see Wikipedia using religious identification as a means of sensationalizing things.--csloat 02:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cole's argument, as I read it, is (1) it is natural and unoffensive for Jewish American officials to feel a special relationship with Israel, but (2) if those officials also support Likud, then those officials may legitimately be suspected of having a dual loyalty. He doesn't make a distinction in his piece between Askenazi and Sephardim, but he does make a distinction between Jews and non-Jews. TheronJ 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not when officials "support" Likud that Cole has a problem; it is when they are fanatical devotees of Likud. Feith is extremely close to Likud; his father helped found the party. It has nothing to do with him being Jewish any more than it has with him being Ashkenazi -- it only has to do with his fanatical devotion to Likud. Your conditions for including "Jewish" were that it is verifiable and true; so is "Ashkenazi." My point is simple -- if Cole said "Jewish" in this context, let's quote him directly. If not, what value is served by having Wikipedia add the qualifier?--csloat 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with TheronJ) Sloat: I've felt quite bullied by your language, but totally accept that it is not your intention to bully, so let's leave that, ok? As far as the substantive stuff goes, you write: "The Baathist arg is only "far fetched and absurd" because there are no Syrian Americans with close Baath Party ties in the Bush Administration. That seems to be the condition at work here, and that is what you're pressing me for. If we agree that there is no such non-Jew available for this argument, yet we agree that were such a non-Jew to exist then Cole would call them out, then we agree that Cole has not specifically targeted Jews.". Thanks for clarifying. I would disagree that "there is no such non-Jew". I have given you the example of Cheney. He stood to financially from the Iraq war quite substantially due to Halliburtin ties. This constitutes a dual loyality to 1) the US govt of which he is VP and 2) the organization he stands to profit from. He had considerable influence on the decision to go to war in Iraq. He is not a Jew. Did Cole accuse him of dual loyalties? Elizmr 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have not bullied you Elizmr. To bully you would be to make the changes anyway despite your protestation. I have already given up on the changes even though you guys are conceding most of the arguments; if anything, I am the one who should feel bullied. Regarding Cheney, I have responded above. Cole does criticize Cheney's connection to Halliburton. But it isn't a "dual loyalty" issue; thankfully, Cheney does not publicly display a "fanatical devotion" to Halliburton the way Feith does with Likud.

I'm really not sure what the argument is here anymore. Nobody seems to be making the argument anymore that it is Feith's Jewishness that Cole opposes; obviously, it is his association with Likud that concerns him.--csloat 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So, why is it that Cheney doesn't have a dual loyalty "issue" and the "likudniks" do? I understand that you think it is obvious, but I don't get it at all, so please draw it out for me. Elizmr 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Halliburton is a company. Not a country or political party. As I said above, Cheney does not publicly display a "fanatical devotion" to Halliburton the way Feith does with Likud.--csloat 23:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Halliburton is a company not political party. Why can one have dual loyalty to the latter, but not the former? And once again, Cheney displays a similar public "fanatical devotion" to Likud as Feith - which is to say, hardly any, except for allegation by partisan sources that membership in JINSA or PNAC is "fanatical devotion" to Likud (and Cheney shares that with Fieth). Isarig 01:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Halliburton is not a set of ideologies that one can have a "fanatical devotion" to. The only ideology Halliburton represents, perhaps, is the profit motive, and there is no question that Cole has taken Cheney to task for pursuing the profit motive over American national security interests and for undermining American national security (e.g. [5]). But this is the issue -- you do not become a "Halliburtonik," you do not vote for Halliburton, you do not read and write political Halliburtonik manifestos and screeds, but you do do such things with a political party such as Likud. I really don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand. There is a huge difference between having your primary loyalty be to a political party of a foreign government (think Ba'ath) and having your primary motivation be to make more money (which is arguably consistent with American patriotism). Cheney does not display a public fanatical devotion to Likud -- show me. I have not seen any evidence to that effect. Cheney is not a member of JINSA or ZOA -- the two Likudnik organizations that Feith is intimately associated with. You can PNAC is not at issue here; as I explained above, that was a red herring at best. Also, Cole certainly does lump Cheney in with the "American acolytes" of Likud, so perhaps he does consider the dual loyalty charge applicable to Cheney. The claim that Cole lets Cheney off the hook is a pretty odd one; it is actually totally incorrect.--csloat 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

One can have as much of a fanatical devotion to one's company as they can to one's political party. You read and write company mission statements and visions, you rpoduce self serving press releases, and you go on PR crusades for it. You "vote" for that comapny every day you continue to work there. You are just hand waving. As to your other claims, you are making it very hard for me to AGF when you keep repaeating things like "show me. I have not seen any evidence to that effect" when I have already presented you with the needed evidence, in a previous post that you have read and responded to. Here it is once again, from [6]: "Before they entered the administration, JINSA's board of advisors included Cheney, Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith....PNAC affiliates include Cheney and his chief of staff Lewis Libby, Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz"

ZOA, far from being a Likud organization is the Zionists Organization of America, an organization founded in 1897, long before "Likud" ever existed, whose past leaders include such "Likudniks" as Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver or US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. To recap: ZOA is not a Likud-related organization. Neither is JINSA nor PNAC, but even if they were, Cheney has the exact same affiliation with them as Feith. I don't doubt that Cole "lump[s] Cheney in with the "American acolytes" of Likud" - but I point you to the obvious fact that he has not accused Cheney of dual loyalty. You get two guesses why that is. Isarig 03:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC) This is complete nonsense. You believe you can be a Halliburtonist or a Halliburtonnik? Get real. Mission statements are not the same as political ideology and you know it. This is the first time I am hearing that Cheney is on a board that advises JINSA but it hardly responds to the point. PNAC is irrelevant as established. I don't deny that Cheney is pro-Likud and even cited Cole criticizing him for that. But he is not a fanatical Likud devotee on the order of the son of one of the founders. You accuse me of bad faith? How about your showboating above claiming that the only thing connecting Feith to Likud was PNAC? You seriously claim ZOA has no association with Likud? And are you totally unaware of the fact that Cole is far from alone in recognizing Feith's dual loyalties?? Anyway, I refuse to continue this. You guys think Jew-baiting is appropriate in a biographical article, bully for you; I don't see the point of continuing to fight. I recognize I am outvoted.--csloat 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So that it how it goes with Cole supporters. If you disagree with them, your arguments are "complete nonsense". Allow me to enlighten you further: Yes, of course you can be a Halliburtonist, and Cheney is. There is no meaningful difference between a company's mission statement and a politcal party's stated principles, in the context we're debating. The first time you're hearing about Cheney's JINSA affiliation? I think not. On 04:05, 31 May 2006, I wrote "Cheney sits on JINSA's advisory board, as does Bolton (alongside Feith), and both allegedly have ties to PNAC" - and provided the very same cite as above. You not only read that, you responded to it. And now that you have heard of it, you dismiss it out of hand - it's supposedly not responsive to the point that Chenet has the same affiliation to JINSA as Feith. You have a funny concept of the burden of proof - if you allege that ZOA is affilated with Likud - you need to show that, I don't need to disprove it (though I have already done so, by noting that ZOA predates Likud by more than half a century). Ditto for Feith's alleged "fanatical devotion" to Likud - you made that claim, you need to back it up. I've read Feith's WP article, and the only Likud tie mentioned there is the particiaption in the brianstorming session for the newly elected Likud gov't. As I've told you several times already, to accuse someone of "dual loyalty" - a hairline away from an accusation of treason - on such flimsy grounds is beneath contempt. I think if the topic of discusison (cole) engages in jew-baiting, it is of course highly appropriate in an article discussing his views and opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)

(1) I am not a "Cole supporter" except insofar as I don't see the point of turning this page into a hit piece. (2) I called your arguments complete nonsense because they make no sense to me, not because I disagree with them. (3) Your comments that there is no meaningful difference between a country's political parties and a private corporation are an interesting interpretation of reality. Back on earth, people are born with national identities and join parties because of ideological committments to something more significant (but less tangible) than a profit margin. I don't think Cheney would fight and die for Halliburton, but many will fight and die for a flag or a political ideology. I feel like I am being condescending by even explaining this; surely you are capable of understanding this without my comments? As for JINSA and ZOA -- try google yourself; if you find anywhere where either organization departs from the Likud position on something, it would be interesting to see. The reason I said it was irrelevant was that Cole does criticize Cheney for undermining American national security. Your comment that Feith's only Likud tie is a "brainstorming session" again seems to me either profoundly ignorant or knowingly mendacious. Again, google is your friend. A simple google search will confirm that Feith has been outspokenly and publicly devoted to Likud for a long time. His father helped found the party. As for the treason issue -- well, I would agree that Feith is guilty of treason, since it seems extremely likely that he was in on the Larry Franklin spying episode, but of course that is for the courts to decide and they have convicted Franklin on other charges; it seems unlikely that case will be revisited or that Feith would be charged. But there is no question in my mind -- apart from his connection to Franklin, it is well known that Feith released classified information for the purposes of manipulating intelligence so as to make the invasion of Iraq more likely. Even General Hayden, the new DCI, acknowledged this much. Cole's claim that Feith did this out of loyalty to Likud may or may not be accurate, but he offers good reason not to trust him, and it is confirmed by other US government employees such as Larry Wilkerson. You can say it is "beneath contempt" to be concerned about such things, but your extreme POV should not be Wikipedia's authoritative voice. Finally, it is not Cole who is engaged in Jew-baiting; as we have established over and over, Cole does not at any point indicate that he questions anyone's loyalty because of their Jewishness. I am concerned about the article engaging in Jew-baiting by putting this claim in there when it is not something Cole expressed. In any case, I have suggested a compromise solution to this otherwise endless debate; let me know what you think of that.--csloat 00:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hitchens section

The section currently reads:

In an October 26, 2005 speech, Iranian President Ahmadinehad referred to a statement that had been made by Imam Khomeini, calling it "very wise": "een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e Qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." "Qods" is Farsi for Jerusalem. The phrase was translated by the New York Times as Israel,"must be wiped off the map". A similar translation was provided by the Associated Press, Al-Jazeera^[2], and Iran's official IRNA news agency ^[3]. Cole translated the phrase as, the occupation of Jerusalem, "must [vanish from] from the page of time." MEMRI similarly translated the phrase as, 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history"^[4] The speech was seen as an Iranian threat against Israel, Cole however, suggested that Ahmadinejad was referring to describing an inevitable and grand historical process which would end the Zionist state, possibly via a poetic metaphor. Christopher Hitchens attacked Cole's interpretation for focusing on the "wipe off the map" phrase, and implying that Ahmadinejad believes that only Israel's "occupation" of Jerusalem needs to end. Hitchens considered this to be a whitewash of Iranian threats to destroy Israel, especially in light of Iran's nuclear ambitions. ^[5] Cole responded that "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." ^[6] Andrew Sullivan, a friend of Hitchens who was present when he submitted his Slate article, called Cole's justification a "rhetorical sleight of hand...[and] an attempt to deny the existence of a real genocidal evil in the world that Cole himself knows exists." ^[7]

A previous version seems far superior to me (though I would make some changes):

In an October 26, 2005 speech, Iranian President Ahmadinehad referred to a statement that had been made by Imam Khomeini, calling it "very wise": "een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e Qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." "Qods" is Farsi for Jerusalem. The phrase was translated by the New York Times as Israel,"must be wiped off the map". A similar translation was provided by the Associated Press, Al-Jazeera^[8], and Iran's official IRNA news agency ^[9]. Cole translated the phrase as, the occupation of Jerusalem, "must [vanish from] from the page of time." MEMRI similarly translated the phrase as, 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history"^[10] The interpretation of this remark has been controversial. Some have interpreted it as a threat of an Iranian attack against Israel, while Cole has suggested it refers to an inevitable and grand historical process. Christopher Hitchens has criticized Cole's translation for implying that Ahmadinejad believes that only Israel's "occupation" of Jerusalem needs to end, while most other translators say that he is suggesting the whole of Israel should be destroyed. ^[11][6]. Cole states that ^[6] "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."^[12] Andrew Sullivan, a friend of Hitchens who was present when he submitted his Slate article, called Cole's justification a "rhetorical sleight of hand...[and] an attempt to deny the existence of a real genocidal evil in the world that Cole himself knows exists." ^[13] Cole rejects this interpretation, however; regarding "the attribution to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the statement that 'Israel must be wiped off the map'," he states: "No such idiom exists in Persian, and Ahmadinejad actually just quoted an old speech of Khomeini in which he said 'The occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.' Of course Ahamdinejad does wish Israel would disappear, but he is not commander of the armed forces and could not attack it even if he wanted to, which he denies."^[14]

The current way makes Cole's view look a lot sillier because it refers to Cole as believing that poetry will end the Israeli state, or some such. That is nonsense. I realize there is dispute about keeping the last quote from Cole in, and I'm going to leave that alone for now, but the other changes that have been made have not been justified. Also, I feel it unnecessarily biases this "dispute" to have Hitchens and Sullivan quoted at length, whereas the stuff Cole wrote after the dispute started is not here at all.--csloat 21:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence to read: Cole however, suggested that Ahmadinejad was referring to describing an inevitable and grand historical process which would end the Zionist state, possibly via a poetic metaphor. -which is what Cole argued. Please re-read the cites. As for your complaint about "Hitchens and Sullivan quoted at length" it's bogus. Hitchens is not quoted at all but paraphrased, and Cole's response to Hitchens is quoted here:

Cole responded that "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." The Sullivan quote is about half or 2/3s the length of this one.

Finally, the Cole point you want to insert after Sullivan presents a strawman as if it were true, when no one ever argued that "wiped off the map" exists as a Farsi idiom. See Hitchens' point about it "being too free a translation". --Armon 01:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW Cole's point: "(he is in any case not in command of the Iranian military)" is, for a non-American, a silly one. Tony Blair isn't "in command" of the British military either. --Armon 03:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yours is the silly point Armon. Cole's point is that Ahmadinejad has no say in Iran's foreign policy. (In fact, his opinions on foreign policy are not taken seriously by Iran's rulers (or people for that matter). I don't know how things work in the UK but I do know that is simply not the case for Tony Blair.--csloat 00:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If that was Cole's point, why didn't he say "Ahmadinejad has no say in Iran's foreign policy" instead of "he is in any case not in command of the Iranian military" (which is true of almost all heads of state)? why is it that someone who's supposedly articulate enough to be a frequent commentator on major networks has so many problems making his points clealry , to the poin tof needing an army of "interpreters" who like csloat keep telling us what his "real" points are? Isarig 01:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the point is clear Isarig. I don't know why he made certain word choices -- perhaps the same reason Karsh chooses to write incoherent and incomplete sentences. But his meaning is pretty obvious and I'm not suggesting we put in my interpretation of it, only that we keep Cole's words in if we're going to keep this section. I was just responding above to Armon pretending not to understand his point.--csloat 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WTF is "possibly via a poetic metaphor" doing there? Is Iran threatening to destroy Israel by spouting verse at them? Cole mentions that the statement Khomeini made was likely a quote from an old poem. He never said anything about going through a poetic metaphor, whatever that means. The Sullivan quote adds nothing to the conversation except invective. The comment about it not being a Farsi idiom is the response to the argument being made by Hitchens and Sullivan that it should be interpreted as a military threat. That is part of Cole's response. You should not delete it just because you find the point difficult to understand.--csloat 02:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Cole suggested that the phrase "must [vanish from] from the page of time" was possibly from a old poem and not to be taken as a literal threat, therefore he's arguing that it's a poetic metaphor. You're simply hand waving yet again. --Armon 03:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're simply being insulting without even trying to understand my argument. I'm criticizing the language used in the article. Why not say the phrase was possibly taken from an old poem instead of writing language that suggests Mr. Ahmadinejad is using poetic metaphors as weapons or some such? Take a step back from the agonistics here and just look at the language. My point here is grammatical, not political.--csloat 00:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I admit it. I don't see how you can infer that this passage "The speech was seen as an Iranian threat against Israel, Cole however, suggested that Ahmadinejad was describing an inevitable and grand historical process which would end the Zionist state, possibly via a poetic metaphor." means anything like Mr. Ahmadinejad is using poetic metaphors as weapons especially with the Soviet Union quote from Cole. But I'm not against clarfying it. How about:
The speech was seen as an Iranian threat against Israel, Cole however, suggested that Ahmadinejad was describing an inevitable and grand historical process which would cause the Zionist state to disappear, and was possibly using a poetic metaphor. Armon 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pure grammar, Armon. a "process which would end the Zionist state, possibly via a poetic metaphor." The "possibly via a poetic metaphor" appears to apply to "process which would end the state" rather than to Ahmadinejad's description. Your change is better, but why not just say that Cole says Khomeini was possibly quoting an old Persian poem? Since that's what Cole actually says?--csloat 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you've conceded the other points here, we need to decide either to remove Sullivan or to put back in Cole's response to that point. I would lean in favor of removing Sullivan but I know that empty quote is near and dear to you, so can I assume you support restoring the deleted comment from Cole?--csloat 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what the points you think I've conceded are? I've defended keeping the Sullivan quote above, and the second Cole blog post on the subject is repetitive and apparently only there to give him the last word. Armon 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I responded to those points and you did not reply to my response. To quote myself: "The Sullivan quote adds nothing to the conversation except invective. The comment about it not being a Farsi idiom is the response to the argument being made by Hitchens and Sullivan that it should be interpreted as a military threat. That is part of Cole's response. You should not delete it just because you find the point difficult to understand."--csloat 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This section was hard to understand. I did a rewrite. I think it is true to what everyone intended to say. I also added some context about the subject of the speech and where it was given since I thought it would kind of seem to come out of nowhere to a casual reader of the page. Elizmr 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Early insertion of Qods

The reader will see the Farsi quote and wonder "Why is the article now picking a single word from the quote and translating it?" After this initial puzzling distraction, the reader will learn about the controversy. A few sentences later, in the proper place, Qods is translated. The reader will soon understand what is going on. The writer intended to plant "Jerusalem" very early into the mind of the reader. Why? Perhaps to suggest that in any translation dispute, the translation emphasizing Jerusalem is the correct one? If the article is going to translate right from the beginning, it should translate every word, instead of cherry-picking a single word which could have the effect of poisoning the well. Precis 01:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and, as I've repeately pointed out, the word Qods/Jerusalem is irrelevant to the crux of the debate in any case. Armon 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Cherry picking "Qods" without providing concomitant context can hardly provide any useful perspective at this stage. Yet the claim is made that this provides "perspective for [the] ENTIRE translation dispute up front" (emphasis mine). Even those who find some relevance to the word "Qods" should have trouble swallowing such hyperbole. Precis 13:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WHY WILL WHY...do you keep inserting this little sentence about Quods into the article????????????????????????????? As you have inserted it, it is WP:OR, it breaks the flow of the article, and it is also irrelevant. I'm sure you are inserting the thing there to support Cole's point that PresAh. is referring to only pre1967 Israel borders. However, the sentence reads "the regime that is occupying Quods" not "occupied Quods", ie--the SUBJECT is THE REGIME and not QUODS. Do you get this? Could you stop putting in this sentence of yours? Cole's point is made below. If you feel it is not made well enough where it is made, please go ahead and clarify or expland there, but please stop putting back this little Quods sentence, OK? Elizmr 12:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)