Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 9
 | 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Is the Karsh quote unclear?
CSTAR, I responded to your concerns that Karsh was unclear, by paraphrasing it here. You didn't respond, but given the mess this page is in, you probably missed it. I don't think you've established that it's unclear, only that there is a huge difference of opinion among editors here about Karsh's assessment according to their POV. Armon 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I´ll look at it again, but I have limited access to internet currrently.--CSTAR 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here's what you say: his conspiratorial writings about the machinations of a cabal of "Likudnik" neocons is reminiscent of the Protocols and remain problematic. OK I agree that that's an interpretation. If Karsh had said that explicitly, I would be less concerned about the quote, primarily because it would be clear to the reader the exact association that Karsh claims between Ole and the protools (even though "reminiscent" is still too subjective an asessment) This of course has nothing to do with the veracity of the claim, but that is not the issue I'm concerned with.--CSTAR 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that, but I honestly don't see how it's unclear, or that the quote might be regarded either as "confirmation" that Cole is a conspiracy theorist or, a smear, is actually a problem. We could put the whole paragraph in the footnotes. Armon 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that if the quote has the meaning you claim it does, then it is an underhanded propaganda smear, as CSTAR pointed out. Regardless of Karsh's notability, such smears are not in themselves encyclopedic. csloat 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- As this is what you've consistently argued, the quote is therefore not "unclear". The problem is simply that you regard it as an "underhanded propaganda smear". Armon 00:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, those were CSTAR's words, not mine, but my analysis quoting them was based on your explanation of the quote; as CSTAR has shown, there are other possible interpretations (though that one is most likely). But the problem as far as wikipedia goes is that the material is not encyclopedic.csloat 00:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I understand those were CSTAR's words, not yours, but please let's set aside the issue of whether it's propaganda or notable or encyclopedic. The question is -is it unclear? We seem to be in agreement, let's savour it ;-) Armon 00:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, those were CSTAR's words, not mine, but my analysis quoting them was based on your explanation of the quote; as CSTAR has shown, there are other possible interpretations (though that one is most likely). But the problem as far as wikipedia goes is that the material is not encyclopedic.csloat 00:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- As this is what you've consistently argued, the quote is therefore not "unclear". The problem is simply that you regard it as an "underhanded propaganda smear". Armon 00:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the Karsh quotes are clear. The best way to avoid an interpretation that is misleading in any way is to use direct quotation(s) for him and for Cole's reply. Elizmr 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Once notability is established, that sounds like a fine solution. So, all we need now is a neutral third party commentator discussing the dispute in a dispassionate manner, indicating that this is actually a notable conflict between Karsh and Cole.csloat 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sloat, you are making up your own rules here. There is no reason that an editor has to prove notability to another editor in order to add content to an article. Elizmr 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- If it isn't notable it shouldn't stay in an encyclopedia. It's not about adding content to an article, it's about ensuring that the content in the article is actually encyclopedic. This particular content does not appear to be. csloat 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sloat, you are making up your own rules here. There is no reason that an editor has to prove notability to another editor in order to add content to an article. Elizmr 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- YOur opinion is noted (again). Elizmr 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Elizmr is right csloat, you're making up "rules" out of thin air. Armon 00:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Elizmr is quite wrong, Armon, I haven't made up any rules at all. All I've done is insist on notability as a guideline. If you have a better way of determining notability on this issue, I'm happy to entertain it; the problem is you seem to be equating notability with "criticism of Cole." csloat 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Punch this into Google: Juan Cole anti-Semitic OR antisemitic -site:en.wikipedia.org -site:www.answers.com. Cole himself frequently "notes" it. It's reported in WP:RS. You seem to be equating what you'd like whitewashed with non-notability. Armon 14:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Cole does sometimes write about anti-semitism, and such comments show up on google, but that is not the issue here. What WP:RS addresses the Karsh v. Cole dispute?-csloat 16:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Punch this into Google: Juan Cole anti-Semitic OR antisemitic -site:en.wikipedia.org -site:www.answers.com. Cole himself frequently "notes" it. It's reported in WP:RS. You seem to be equating what you'd like whitewashed with non-notability. Armon 14:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Elizmr is quite wrong, Armon, I haven't made up any rules at all. All I've done is insist on notability as a guideline. If you have a better way of determining notability on this issue, I'm happy to entertain it; the problem is you seem to be equating notability with "criticism of Cole." csloat 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Elizmr is right csloat, you're making up "rules" out of thin air. Armon 00:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There are at least two issues: One is notability of the quote and the other is finding a working interpretation of the quote so that if it's put in we know what we're writing about. Concerning notability, there are two "opinions" namely that it's notable or it's not. For the record only (and in the interest of full disclosure) I'm of the opinion that it´s not notable, but it's just that, my opinion. I'm not going to spend time arguing for this position.
Given that as a result of this negotiation process, I am willing to accept the quote to enable the writing of this article to proceed (I am speaking for no one else here but myself), I want to make sure we agree on what on what the quote says; this is research to some extent, but not original research. Having said that, we have the obligation to clearly state what Cole's position is that Karsh objects to (that may be stated elsewhere, but it should be clearly stated here, again, for purposes of clarity). There are other issues that need to be settled (such as the correct quantification: one critic says vs some critics say.) --CSTAR 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Status of Compromise
It seems that we almost unanimous agreement on a compromise which would have the Karsh quote in the article, followed by Cole's response to it. This compromise has been suggested by Lee Hunter ("I'm not sure that it's worth fighting to keep [the Karsh quote] out as long as it is immediately followed by Cole's response."), supported by CSTAR ("I am willing to accept the quote to enable the writing of this article to proceed "), supported by Wachholder0 ("Include both quotes- let the reader decide if the "protocols" quote is specious"), supported by Armon ("The exchange above suggests to me that we have NPOV. "), and supported by me. I believe Elizmr supports it as well. If so, I propose we ask that this article be unprotected so that the Cole response can be added. Isarig 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think we also need to add, perhaps in the Views section, a summary of the specific Cole commentary which sparked the Karsh quote so that we know that this whole thing arose from Cole's criticism of the Clean Break group (i.e. the guys who advised the Likud party to make getting rid of Saddam Hussein a top priority and then, a couple of years later, helped push the US into invading Iraq). Without this context it sounds like Cole was just making sweeping statements about Jews in government which was very much not the case. --Lee Hunter 23:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do we know that Cole's criticism of the Clean Break group sparked Karsh's criticism of Cole? In any case, it's seems notable to me. Just a general observation on the "Views" section -I think we should make sure that we get a good notable and representative sampling of his views, not simply those which have come under attack. Armon 01:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Armon and I agree on something else, it appears. I second this view that we should not simply just be listing those views that have been attacked.csloat 01:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do we know that Cole's criticism of the Clean Break group sparked Karsh's criticism of Cole? In any case, it's seems notable to me. Just a general observation on the "Views" section -I think we should make sure that we get a good notable and representative sampling of his views, not simply those which have come under attack. Armon 01:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is no evidence of agreement or compromise here Isarig; what there is is evidence of capitulation to the insertion of non-notable and defamatory material into a WP:BLP simply because three editors are united and intransigent on the issue. None of them have yet forwarded an argument as to why this material would improve this article in any way whatsoever. As Armon said in another context, don't mistake fatigue for consensus. csloat 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is evidence of 6 editors agreeing that we can have Karsh's quote followed by Cole's response. You are the only one stubbornly refusing any compromise. It does not look good. Isarig 04:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Isarig, please stop. I have implored you several times to stop personally attacking me. I'm not interested in your thoughts on my "stubbornness" or how "good" it looks. I have also not seen evidence of any compromise, as I said; there is only evidence of capitulation to those who "stubbornly refuse" - to use your words - to follow WP:BLP or to keep the article to notable issues. Personally, I don't own this article or any in Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep making this discussion about me. I'm not interested in your opinion of me, of my classes, of my personality, or anything else. csloat 05:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Describing your actions is not a personal attack. I thought that after you'd been told this by the admin who reviewed your phony report you'd understand that. If we were to use your ridiculous standard, then your calling the actions of 6 other editors "capitulation" would be an insult and a personal attack. You have no way of knowing what motivated them to agree, and their motivation is entirely irrelevant, besides. We have agreement by all editors but you about this compromise, and we will soon proceed to implement it. Isarig 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Seriously dude I'm just asking you to leave me alone. Just lay off. Is it that hard to understand? csloat 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- As you can easily verify above, my initial edit introducing this new section did not even mention you. Rest assured this was done intentionally, partially because of your requests to "leave you alone", and partially because you had pretty much willingly placed yourself outside the consensus opinion, so I do not feel there any point in discussing this with you further. It is more than somewhat comical to observe you interjecting yourself, personally, into a discussion that did not involve you, and then whine about editors who will not "leave you alone". Isarig 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your attacks in this particular thread started with the comment "You are the only one stubbornly refusing any compromise. It does not look good." As you know, we don't have "consensus opinion" on this, but I don't see the point of arguing that with you anymore. As you also know, your comments that I am comical and that I am whining are continued personal attacks. Once again, I implore you, please cease and desist.csloat 22:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- My comments (not "attacks" - repeatedly mischaracterizing my comments about you, which are descriptive of your actions, as "attacks" are in themselves violations of [[WP:AGF], WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA) started after you had interjected yourself into a debate which did not involve you, and personally addressed me. If you want me to "leave you alone", you'd do well to stop interjecting yourself into debates you are not part of, and making them persoanl. If, on the other hand, you want to continue to do so, and to continue making it personal, stop whining about being addressed personally. Now, once again, from the top: Describing your actions as stubborn refusal is not a personal attack. Describing this situation as comical is not a personal attack. We not only have consensus on this, this consensus has already been implemented in the article. If you don't want to argue anymore - just stop arguing. Isarig 23:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Are you still talking? csloat 00:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- My comments (not "attacks" - repeatedly mischaracterizing my comments about you, which are descriptive of your actions, as "attacks" are in themselves violations of [[WP:AGF], WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA) started after you had interjected yourself into a debate which did not involve you, and personally addressed me. If you want me to "leave you alone", you'd do well to stop interjecting yourself into debates you are not part of, and making them persoanl. If, on the other hand, you want to continue to do so, and to continue making it personal, stop whining about being addressed personally. Now, once again, from the top: Describing your actions as stubborn refusal is not a personal attack. Describing this situation as comical is not a personal attack. We not only have consensus on this, this consensus has already been implemented in the article. If you don't want to argue anymore - just stop arguing. Isarig 23:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your attacks in this particular thread started with the comment "You are the only one stubbornly refusing any compromise. It does not look good." As you know, we don't have "consensus opinion" on this, but I don't see the point of arguing that with you anymore. As you also know, your comments that I am comical and that I am whining are continued personal attacks. Once again, I implore you, please cease and desist.csloat 22:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- As you can easily verify above, my initial edit introducing this new section did not even mention you. Rest assured this was done intentionally, partially because of your requests to "leave you alone", and partially because you had pretty much willingly placed yourself outside the consensus opinion, so I do not feel there any point in discussing this with you further. It is more than somewhat comical to observe you interjecting yourself, personally, into a discussion that did not involve you, and then whine about editors who will not "leave you alone". Isarig 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Seriously dude I'm just asking you to leave me alone. Just lay off. Is it that hard to understand? csloat 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Describing your actions is not a personal attack. I thought that after you'd been told this by the admin who reviewed your phony report you'd understand that. If we were to use your ridiculous standard, then your calling the actions of 6 other editors "capitulation" would be an insult and a personal attack. You have no way of knowing what motivated them to agree, and their motivation is entirely irrelevant, besides. We have agreement by all editors but you about this compromise, and we will soon proceed to implement it. Isarig 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Isarig, please stop. I have implored you several times to stop personally attacking me. I'm not interested in your thoughts on my "stubbornness" or how "good" it looks. I have also not seen evidence of any compromise, as I said; there is only evidence of capitulation to those who "stubbornly refuse" - to use your words - to follow WP:BLP or to keep the article to notable issues. Personally, I don't own this article or any in Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep making this discussion about me. I'm not interested in your opinion of me, of my classes, of my personality, or anything else. csloat 05:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is evidence of 6 editors agreeing that we can have Karsh's quote followed by Cole's response. You are the only one stubbornly refusing any compromise. It does not look good. Isarig 04:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify. My position, which I though was supported by Isarig and Lee, is that the text as it reads now is fine. True, it's not a direct quote from Cole, but it's considered a fair summary of his response to the charges, and references a WP:RS. My concern is that it will turn the article back into an overlong blog slugfest when the issue is not simply a Karsh/Cole dispute. That being said, I'm more than willing to look at alternative versions of Cole's response, but I think we should discuss them here first in order to make absolutely sure that this passage has consensus. Armon 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, what you're saying is your position is you would like to see Cole get "slugged" but you would not like to see Cole "slug" back? I can't say I'm surprised, but don't expect such a version of the page to stay that way for very long. The issue is simply a Karsh/Cole dispute, despite your assertion to the contrary -- I've asked again and again for evidence otherwise and you have failed to produce it. In any case, if I'm going to capitulate to the non-notable defamation being inserted into the page, I'm certainly going to do my best to make sure that the description of the non-notable dispute is as accurate and NPOV as possible. csloat 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're not addressing what I said, you're simply assuming bad faith and threatening to edit war. Armon 00:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I did neither. Re-read what I wrote; my apologies for any offense taken. I'm not "threatening" anything other than improvement of the article. I believe I've made my position clear here.csloat 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, what you're saying is your position is you would like to see Cole get "slugged" but you would not like to see Cole "slug" back? I can't say I'm surprised, but don't expect such a version of the page to stay that way for very long. The issue is simply a Karsh/Cole dispute, despite your assertion to the contrary -- I've asked again and again for evidence otherwise and you have failed to produce it. In any case, if I'm going to capitulate to the non-notable defamation being inserted into the page, I'm certainly going to do my best to make sure that the description of the non-notable dispute is as accurate and NPOV as possible. csloat 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Straw Poll
The current version of the passage re: allegations of antisemitism is not necessarily endorsed, but acceptable:
- Support Armon 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Support alternative formulation of Cole's response:
Support removal of passage:
Support permanent and everlasting removal of Karsh Protocol:
- PuhleezeGodspeed John Glenn! Will 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Since the question is framed as what I "support" (as opposed to what I can live with). --Lee Hunter 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Good point. I've changed it. << armon >> 00:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Another Lockup
- "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." - Let me guess? Karsh? Same crowd. Ah ha. It appears to be so. I"ll notify the Professor. He"ll be amused. In the meantime i've stayed out of the way and we are still here in a time warp. I still have to report Isarig for violation of WP:CIV for calling Cole a "jewbaiter" in an edit log.
- (cur) (last) 01:21, 13 November 2006 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (Cole is a jewbaiter, so his jewbaiting quotes are in. thsi was moved to v&C, but you've deleted V&C, so it's back here) Unless somebody else has Godspeed John Glenn! Will 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see report here. I am utterly fed up with this sort of nonsense. << armon >> 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Unlock
I will unlock it.--CSTAR 18:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yet another edit war and 3RR by sloat
csloat objects to my sentence: "He has expressed sympathy for divestment campaigns, but has publicly opposed a blanket ban on Israeli academics."
To quote Juan Cole:
Why We Should Not Boycott Israeli Academics
"I thought the divestiture movement and the boycott of academic institutions in the old racist South Africa a good idea, and was cheered to see students at the University of Michigan demonstrating against apartheid in the 1980s. I do not feel the same way about boycotting Israeli academics, as has been called for by hundreds of European scholars since April."
"In contrast, I could support the divestment campaign at some American campuses, aimed at university investments in Israeli firms, because the business elite in Israel is both more powerful and more entangled in government policy than the academics." (emphasis mine)
and here...
"Yet another attempt is being made to institute an academic boycott in Europe of Israeli professors. Academics, please sign this petition and stand up. Israeli academics as a class have not done anything wrong and it is not right to subject them to a blanket ban." (emphasis mine)
This is not even a marginal case of sloat suppressing evidence & accuracy in an effort to advance the POV that Cole is "Pro-Israel" or something. Despite his polite invitation, I'm utterly uninterested in engaging into yet another ad nauseum debate with him on something so obvious, so I've placed the evidence here and reported him for 3RR. << armon >> 02:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've only reverted twice; you reverted three times. A simple statement in talk of what you felt was wrong with my summary would have been appropriate. The "blanket ban" thing is not from the article you cited here, it is from another source. If you were more careful with your editing in the first place you might have avoided this. Why make this about me? csloat 03:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Re-reading over everything, I still support the more npov version of the citation. Lee is right that the cryptic reference to divestiture is misleading, and the insistence on "blanket ban" makes it seem as if Cole supports boycotting some Israeli academics, yet there is no evidence that he does. If you want to quote that entire sentence from the blog as a separate sentence I might not argue about it but I'm not sure it's that notable. Why this insistence on twisting Cole's words around over the most minute of points? Cole publishes a clear statement against the boycott, why try to pretend it is anything other than he says it is? What are you so invested in here?--csloat 03:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hey guys, Armon is right about the text. Cole does use the phrase "blanket ban" in the second cite and does say he supports divestment from Israel in the first cite. It is towards the end. Why is this so problematic? Elizmr 04:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Armon didn't cite the second cite. Only the first was in his version of the page. The cite actually cited refers to the boycott of Israeli academics; so does the link. He's pulling "blanket ban" out of Cole's blog in order to make a phony distinction between boycotts Cole supports and those he does not. It's a minor point that he appears to be twisting out of context for reasons he won't explain. I think we should use the first cite (which is not a blog) and stick to the phrase "boycott of Israeli academics" (which matches the wiki link). I don't see the point of inserting subtle bias into every minor phrase. An attempt at NPOV would be much better here.csloat 04:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hey guys, Armon is right about the text. Cole does use the phrase "blanket ban" in the second cite and does say he supports divestment from Israel in the first cite. It is towards the end. Why is this so problematic? Elizmr 04:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and put both quotations into the article; Armon, I hope you will see beyond our dispute about the Karsh quote (which you will note I have not deleted, despite your claims that I "threatened" to) and WP:AGF about my edits. My edits are not attempts to "suppress evidence & accuracy in an effort to advance the POV that Cole is 'Pro-Israel'." And I have not wikilawyered or violated the 3RR - I was very careful about that; my edits were an attempt to compromise.-csloat 08:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Iraq position
Let's not cherry-pick quotations to make Cole look contradictory. The "complexity" of Cole's position is explained in his 2005 quotation for anyone too simple-minded to understand that there are more than two positions possible on the issue. Isarig felt the need to insert that this quote was "two years after" the war, but without noting that it was a response to a smear campaign by other bloggers who cherry-picked the same quotes Isarig pulled out in order to protray Cole as shifting his position (I'm not sure why that is seen as a bad thing per se; obviously, things have changed in Iraq over time). Anyone who reads what Cole had to say about Saddam during that period and now can see that he has been remarkably consistent on the fact that Saddam was an awful thug and that he always had mixed feelings about US involvement in the region. I don't see the point of using the Wikipedia article to play out blog-debates -- I've filled in other things Cole said (from the same link Isarig used) to make Cole's position more clear, but I also think Cole said enough about Iraq and Saddam that was quoted in WP:RS's both before and after the war that make his position clear. csloat 23:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, let's not cherry pick quotes. Until a day ago, the view section simply mentioned his pre war-stance that the war in Iraq would be "worth it", alongside his criticism of the way the war was handled. You felt the need to add some cherry picked quotes which attempted to portray him as an opponent of the war, who thought it was a "terrible idea", so some quotes that actually reflect his positions during pre-war days, on the eve-of-war, shortly after the war commenced, and years after the war. Some readers may view this as shifting positions, others may view it a 'complex position'. And I see that you can't post a single thing without some uncivil insinuation about the ability of other editors to understand Cole's allegedly "complex" position. Isarig 23:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I felt the need to add a quote explaining the "contradiction" that some bloggers had smeared Cole with. Then you cherry-picked quotes from a page with many comments about Saddam, summarized one of those comments in an inaccurate manner, and ignored those comments that did not support your inaccurate summary - the definition of "cherry-picking." I have added quotes to show that Cole's position was indeed "complex" before the war; the only way to believe that it wasn't is to simply ignore the quotes that you don't like. I didn't make an uncivil comment about any editor; my comment was directed at the bloggers who misrepresent Cole; for Wikipedia editors who appear to be influenced by those bloggers, I have nothing to say other than read what Cole actually said if you hope to understand his position. My point was simply that I don't see this as that complex at all - it is indeed possible to be glad Saddam is gone but also to be critical of the war, and Cole was both. It is "simple-minded" to believe that there are only two possible positions on Saddam; I'm not sure that comment is uncivil or all that controversial. Anyway none of this is relevant - it appears we agree on one thing - "let's not cherry-pick quotes." So let's not. csloat 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- This contradiction was not mentioned anywhere in the article, so it's not at all clear why you had to "explain" it. My summary was hardly misleading. I wrote Cole did not oppose war for regime change, and thought Milosevic was worse, when he in fact said "I am an Arabist and happen to know something serious about Baathist Iraq, which paralyzes me from opposing a war for regime change in that country (Milosevic did not kill nearly as many people)." If you don't want cherry picked quotes, I am fine with you reverting back to the version of 19:37, 24 November 2006. Isarig 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please see Cherry picking if you are confused about my use of this term. csloat 00:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am quite familiar with the term, and it accurately describes your additions to the Views on Iraq section. As I wrote, if you want to go back to the version of 19:37, 24 November 2006, that would be fine with me. Isarig 00:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, it does not describe my additions; you might want to read about it. I have no desire to go back to a previous version of the page, but thanks for asking (twice). csloat 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- It describes your edits to a 't'. Since you're happy with the current state of the page, let's move on. Isarig 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have, but it would behoove you to read the page on cherry-picking so that you learn to use the metaphor properly. Have a nice day. csloat 22:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- You just can't leave well enough alone, nor resist the temptation to condescend, can you? Your edits, which selected a few choice Cole quotes (e.g. "I thought it was a terrible idea") that highlighted his alleged anti-war position, to advance your POV that Cole was opposed to the war, while neglecting a host of other Cole quotes (e.g ""it is a great good thing that [Saddam's regime] is gone." or " I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices "), is exactly what cherry-picking describes as "the act of pointing at individual cases which seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases that may contradict that position." Isarig 23:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- See, you're wrong. That's the problem here, not whether I can "leave well enough alone." You were the one who included supposed pro-war quotes while neglecting those (on the same page you cited!) that revealed a more nuanced position. I did not neglect those quotes; I left them on the page, and even included one myself that said "I will be ecstatic to see Saddam go!" I did not cherry pick; I simply included additional quotes to balance out the cherry picking that had been done by you. I hope this clears up the issue. csloat 23:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sophistry. On 11/24, the article had no anti-War Cole quotes. You added anti-War Cole quotes from his blog, to advance the POV that he was "really" anti war, while neglecitng other quoyes, from the same blog, that had a pro-War feel to them (and you did all this before I added any of the pro-War quotes). You were textbook cherry-picking. Isarig 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sigh. You could stand to look up "sophistry" too, but I'm not interested in pursuing yet another misunderstanding with you. On 11/24, the entry stated "On the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, Cole wrote that he felt the removal of Saddam Hussein from power would be worth the sacrifices to be made by all sides" with a footnote. I added the quote about his position being "very complex" from that point, since the summary that existed seemed to me to elide the complexity of his position. I never tried to make it sound as if he didn't say the anti-Saddam things that you characterize as "pro-war"; in fact, the quote I added specifically included the line "I believed that if Saddam's genocidal regime could be removed by the international community in a legal way, that some good would have been accomplished," which is entirely consistent with the material you wrongly claim I neglected. I also added his comment about the war in Afghanistan, which you could more easily characterize as pro-war, so it is difficult to understand why you think I want to portray him as unproblematically "anti-war." So it's clear I was not cherrypicking. Now let's look at your edit -- even the edit summary makes it clear that you are trying to portray it as if Cole had two or three different positions at different times, even though other quotes from the same page you quoted as his "prewar" position make clear that his position was more nuanced. Classic cherry-picking, yes? It is not until I added the quotes from that same page that you ignored in your edit that we had a more accurate summary of Cole's position on the Iraq war. Interestingly, even the postwar quote you included about the "great good" thing Saddam is gone was cherry-picked; a full couple of sentences makes clear that your version excluded the material that may contradict your position: "The Iraq war has resulted in many human casualties that make any humane person want to weep. I hope the human sacrifice will have been worth it; certainly Saddam's regime was virtually genocidal and it is a great good thing that it is gone. But the continued urban looting is an indictment of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's carelessness." Since the excluded material was in such close proximity to the material you picked out I can only conclude that you were well aware that you were cherry picking the quotes. I hope this clears everything up. csloat 00:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sophistry. On 11/24, the article had no anti-War Cole quotes. You added anti-War Cole quotes from his blog, to advance the POV that he was "really" anti war, while neglecitng other quoyes, from the same blog, that had a pro-War feel to them (and you did all this before I added any of the pro-War quotes). You were textbook cherry-picking. Isarig 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- See, you're wrong. That's the problem here, not whether I can "leave well enough alone." You were the one who included supposed pro-war quotes while neglecting those (on the same page you cited!) that revealed a more nuanced position. I did not neglect those quotes; I left them on the page, and even included one myself that said "I will be ecstatic to see Saddam go!" I did not cherry pick; I simply included additional quotes to balance out the cherry picking that had been done by you. I hope this clears up the issue. csloat 23:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- You just can't leave well enough alone, nor resist the temptation to condescend, can you? Your edits, which selected a few choice Cole quotes (e.g. "I thought it was a terrible idea") that highlighted his alleged anti-war position, to advance your POV that Cole was opposed to the war, while neglecting a host of other Cole quotes (e.g ""it is a great good thing that [Saddam's regime] is gone." or " I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices "), is exactly what cherry-picking describes as "the act of pointing at individual cases which seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases that may contradict that position." Isarig 23:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have, but it would behoove you to read the page on cherry-picking so that you learn to use the metaphor properly. Have a nice day. csloat 22:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- It describes your edits to a 't'. Since you're happy with the current state of the page, let's move on. Isarig 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, it does not describe my additions; you might want to read about it. I have no desire to go back to a previous version of the page, but thanks for asking (twice). csloat 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am quite familiar with the term, and it accurately describes your additions to the Views on Iraq section. As I wrote, if you want to go back to the version of 19:37, 24 November 2006, that would be fine with me. Isarig 00:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please see Cherry picking if you are confused about my use of this term. csloat 00:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- This contradiction was not mentioned anywhere in the article, so it's not at all clear why you had to "explain" it. My summary was hardly misleading. I wrote Cole did not oppose war for regime change, and thought Milosevic was worse, when he in fact said "I am an Arabist and happen to know something serious about Baathist Iraq, which paralyzes me from opposing a war for regime change in that country (Milosevic did not kill nearly as many people)." If you don't want cherry picked quotes, I am fine with you reverting back to the version of 19:37, 24 November 2006. Isarig 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I felt the need to add a quote explaining the "contradiction" that some bloggers had smeared Cole with. Then you cherry-picked quotes from a page with many comments about Saddam, summarized one of those comments in an inaccurate manner, and ignored those comments that did not support your inaccurate summary - the definition of "cherry-picking." I have added quotes to show that Cole's position was indeed "complex" before the war; the only way to believe that it wasn't is to simply ignore the quotes that you don't like. I didn't make an uncivil comment about any editor; my comment was directed at the bloggers who misrepresent Cole; for Wikipedia editors who appear to be influenced by those bloggers, I have nothing to say other than read what Cole actually said if you hope to understand his position. My point was simply that I don't see this as that complex at all - it is indeed possible to be glad Saddam is gone but also to be critical of the war, and Cole was both. It is "simple-minded" to believe that there are only two possible positions on Saddam; I'm not sure that comment is uncivil or all that controversial. Anyway none of this is relevant - it appears we agree on one thing - "let's not cherry-pick quotes." So let's not. csloat 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
As Sophistry tells us, "a sophism generally refers to ... insincere argument used by someone to make a point". So you "added a quote" - which conveys a certain POV, but negleted other quotes, which conveyed the opposited POV - which is the definiotn of cherry-picking. Isarig 00:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Simply asserting something doesn't make it true. You could read the evidence above that shows why you are incorrect, or you could simply drop it. Either way, don't comment on my sincerity. csloat 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- That you "...felt the need to add a quote explaining the "contradiction" that some bloggers had smeared Cole with" is undoubtedly your sincere opinion. It is however, unacceptable to attempt to rework the text in order to erase such a "contradiction". Please stop it. << armon >> 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Poor word choice, my bad. Don't order me around. csloat 04:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- That you "...felt the need to add a quote explaining the "contradiction" that some bloggers had smeared Cole with" is undoubtedly your sincere opinion. It is however, unacceptable to attempt to rework the text in order to erase such a "contradiction". Please stop it. << armon >> 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)