Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 10

Yale
There is already more than adequate coverage on this page of the fact that Cole didn't get the Yale appointment. Let's not turn this page into the nightmare the V&C page became. There is no need for a huge he-said/she-said section about the results of the Campus Watch letter-writing campaign or about a decision that was made behind closed doors. Jobs that people didn't get may be notable for their "fifteen minutes," but those minutes are long over for this yale thing, IMHO.csloat 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that the Yale controversy should be removed is noted. The consensus opinion is that this was notable and there is no good reason to re-hash it. &lt;&lt; armon &gt;&gt; 04:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. What happened on the V&C page is not something that needs to happen on this page; as you recall, the issues on that page were different - in fact, it was specifically created as a POV fork in order to put up junk that doesn't belong here.  As I said, we already have information about the Yale appointment, so the claim that it is "notable" (even if such a "concensus" existed) is not a good enough reason to have this entire section in.  Please dialogue about this rather than reverting. csloat 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

npov section
Please take care not to eliminate the npov tag until npov disputes have been dealt with. In the section, even though I have capitulated to the browbeating of certain editors who demand that the earth stop if a bogus quote about the Protocols of Zion is not put in here, the npov issues have not been resolved. Karsh aside, the frontpage and MEQ information about "new antisemitism" was specifically found to violate NPOV, BLP, and RS. That is not just my opinion; I believe it was shared by Centrx and CSTAR (though I'd rather let them speak for themselves on the issue). I could see removing the tag if that stuff is removed - as I've said, I'm not happy about the Karsh junk but I have capitulated on that particular issue.csloat 04:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you are using the tag to make a point. That is not an acceptable use of it. Once it has been decided that the content is notable, the issue narrows to whether it has been presented in a NPOV manner. &lt;&lt; armon &gt;&gt; 05:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No; the only point I am making is that there is an NPOV problem here. It has also not been "decided" that this content is notable. csloat 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you are the only one to have made the claim that it's not notable, I suggest you limit yourself to any NPOV concerns you may have with the text as presented. &lt;&lt; armon &gt;&gt; 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not the only one to make that claim; see comments by Centrx above among others. Second, you haven't addressed the NPOV, notability, BLP or RS issues I raised here. csloat 19:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

no more edit wars please
Please Armon, I have tried to make peace with you a number of times. Don't edit war just because it's me. Take a look at the arguments and issues here. You cannot remove an NPOV tag just because you disagree -- you need to actually discuss the issues. As for the Yale thing, you are just ignoring the points I made here. This is already mentioned on the page. We don't need it twice, and we don't need this much detail. Thanks. csloat 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to make peace, I am however, skeptical of your sincerity when any edit I produce, including edits which are impeccably cited, or text which has already been through the NPOV ringer, results in you starting an edit war. &lt;&lt; armon &gt;&gt; 05:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this is a bug-ugly article with these views and controversies creeping in. This is terribly redundant and provides ample opportunity to confuse readers. The V&C article seems robust enough and is a stand-alone topic. I'd strongly support culling all of these and leaving a link to the V&C article along with something appropriately bland:
 * "Cole is an outspoken critic of American foreign policies in the Middle East. He has also attracted a broad range of critics. See Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole for additional details."
 * MARussellPESE 06:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's actually an option and it didn't work as a solution last time. What I suggest doing is edit. I think we should come up with a list of his notable "Views" and notable "Controversies and criticism" and then report them briefly &lt;&lt; armon &gt;&gt; 06:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Reviewing the discussion on the old V&C page I have a hard time seeing where concensus to merge was established. I'm not sure where csloat was seeing WP:BLP problems as he's never listed them. Centrix cited the same, but never answered csloat's acknowledgement that the blog is part of the discussion at hand. MARussellPESE 06:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * MARussellPESE, please see here and then here for Centrx's rationale for pp and the merge. No, it wasn't via a "consensus", but the V&C page was overlong and going nowhere good anyway. &lt;&lt; armon &gt;&gt; 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The blog is part of the discussion but not every comment on every blog about the blog is notable. In particular, the Yale stuff is not notable for more than a few sentences -- right now we have more information about a job Cole never sought and didn't get than we do about a job he actually holds.  It's a little strange, to say the least.  It may be time for yet another RfC on this page.  This is ridiculous.  By the way, Armon, don't hurl false accusations of vandalism at other editors, and please assume good faith. csloat 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Csloat, also see Centrx's instructions to merge "If you have trouble deciding what is neutral and what is appropriate to include in a biography of a living person and to what extent it should be included, decide based on the level of coverage in secondary, published sources, and represent the statements of those secondary sources accurately." I don't see how you can credibly argue that the "Yale controversy" suffers from a lack of WP:RS, and his instructions were to merge that which met the standard. At such time as you take your own advice re:WP:AGF, refrain from edit-warring, and accept that simple intransigence is not an acceptable response to reasoned argument and evidence, you will find the AofGF rapidly returning. &lt;&lt; armon &gt;&gt; 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I look forward to seeing that, Armon. As I've noted, I've tried; the response I've gotten so far is more charges of bad faith on your user page, spurious WP:ANI filings that misrepresent my actions, and false accusations of "vandalism."  I suppose we may have different definitions of "rapid."  In any case, for the Yale issue, we don't have any information or argument from you as to how this merits this much consideration in a BLP.  The claim that there are RS's (mostly a yale student paper) backing it up does not establish this; perhaps it establishes notability for a brief mention - e.g., what we had before you added four paragraphs on it - but not enough to merit far more coverage than any job Cole has actually held.  It's ludicrous, imho, to think that a job Cole didn't seek and didn't get is more notable than the job he currently has or than his vast contributions both to scholarship and to the public sphere.  To raise RS is a red herring, since I am not contesting that it is notable enough for a sentence or two of coverage in the section where it was before.  What I am contesting is the need for a huge section as if this were a major controversy in its own right.csloat 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The sentence you prefer made no mention of the context or the controversy -about which there are a plethora of sources. Other than notes 29 to 36, (yes I know some are repeats) there is this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this -for example. Is it a major controversy meriting its own article? Maybe not -but it is certainly a notable controversy concerning Cole. &lt;&lt; armon &gt;&gt; 04:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So we've got two notable WP:RSs in the bunch - WSJ and CHE; the rest are college papers and extreme right-wing opinion mags (frontpage? come on). The WSJ article is an opinion piece by John Fund that is clearly a smear piece; it is no more worth citing than the two responses I linked to his name.  The first CHE piece is an opinion piece that mentions the Cole "controversy" in two sentences out of the entire piece -- it's a good piece that all edit-warriors on this page could stand to read, but it doesn't make this controversy worth belaboring for four paragraphs.  The final CHE piece is the only thing really worth linking to this section - a forum of bloggers talking about Cole and about "the hazards of academic blogging"; it includes a piece with the title "The Controversy That Wasn't," which pretty much sums up this case.  I think adding a sentence to what was already there indicating there was much speculation among bloggers about why Cole didn't get the Yale job along with a link to this and a footnote indicating Cole's response (or simply a phrase or two quoted in the main text) should be enough here - there is no justification for four paragraphs of speculation about what it shows about "the contents of Cole's mind" or whatever.  Again, this article should maintain a sense of proportion here; this controversy that wasn't is currently presented as if it were at least twice as important as the totality of Cole's peer-reviewed published work. csloat 06:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

From The Controversy That Wasn't by Erin O'Connor:

The Juan Cole controversy struck me as essentially uncontroversial: Cole is free to write what he wants on his Web log, Informed Comment; Cole's readers are free to criticize his writing and to criticize Yale for considering hiring him; Yale is free not to hire Cole. In the absence of evidence that Yale capitulated to a political campaign to sink Cole's appointment, there seemed nothing else to say. But plenty has been said nonetheless, much of it along the lines of the comment by Zachary Lockman, president-elect of the Middle East Studies Association, that the opposition to Cole's appointment was "an assault on academic freedom and the academic enterprise."

Emphasis mine. Also:

What we do know: Scholars who blog should accept that their writing affects their professional image. If they take controversial stances, they will be criticized. If they behave badly online, their reputations will suffer. Academic freedom protects the tenured (a fast-shrinking group) from punishment when speaking out — but it does not and should not protect them from the unforgiving sorting process that is the marketplace of ideas. Much ink and many pixels have been expended deploring the energy with which Cole's candidacy was debated. But we should welcome such debate, and we should meet it with more. There is no threat to academic freedom in vigorous public discussion. There is only freedom itself.

...and finally, to address why controversies like this are more notable than the totality of Cole's peer-reviewed published work - "Cole's Internet status as Middle East expert emanates from his academic position as Middle East expert; as a public intellectual, he is better known for his blog than his scholarship." However, if you believe that's not the case, I'm open to evidence to the contrary. &lt;&lt; armon &gt;&gt; 08:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, all of that is interesting, but little of it is relevant to the question at hand. Yes, Cole's blog is important and well-regarded, and many pixels have been spent discussing it.  But only the first paragraph you quote discusses Yale, and your selective hilighting left out "struck me as essentially uncontroversial."  Yes, plenty has been said about it "nonetheless," but that alone doesn't justify a long discussion of it here. As I said, a couple sentences, including Cole's response to the "controversy," and perhaps the quote from Lockman that you cite above, should do the trick. Again, no need for bizarre speculation about how this reveals the "contents" of Cole's mind and such as is currently on the page. csloat 15:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The question at hand is: is it a notable controversy concerning Cole? The cite you highlighted supports the opposite of what you're claiming. Her position was that Cole's supporters didn't have a case that his rejection from Yale was a threat to academic freedom. How you manage to twist "Scholars who blog should accept that their writing affects their professional image. If they take controversial stances, they will be criticized. If they behave badly online, their reputations will suffer." into "Cole's blog is important and well-regarded" -is beyond me, but that's not the question. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why play "gotcha" with my points here? If we stick to the question of improving this page rather than trying to figure out which one of us is "winning," the discussion will be more productive.  I've not denied that the non-controversy is "notable"; the question is how notable -- as I've said, a couple of sentences, including the one you've quoted from Lockman, is more than plenty.  The quotes you have presented include the comment that it is "essentially uncontroversial."  The rest of the stuff that you bizarrely claim I have "twisted" is simply not about the Yale non-controversy at all; that was my point.  But let's leave that aside.  Again, what you have said is just non-responsive to my points on this. csloat 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're handwaving and avoiding clearly answering the question of whether it is a notable controversy concerning Cole? Does  "I've not denied that the non-controversy is 'notable';"  mean that you agree that it is a notable controversy concerning Cole? Yes or no? How much space to give it is a different issue. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 06:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're being very productive. This "controversy" was mentioned before you put four paragraphs in about it.  I'm not handwaving; I've consistently been clear that if this is to get any space at all it should not be more than a couple sentences.  You're the one avoiding the issue; before you put in four paragraphs, there was one sentence on the issue.  The dispute is not whether to mention the issue at all; the dispute is precisely how much space to give it.  I am happy with the one sentence on the issue that existed prior to your intervention. If you want to add one more sentence I am fine with the Lockham quote and perhaps a quote from Cole.  No more is needed; certainly not the lurid detail you've given it.  How many times must I say this until we can actually discuss the issue instead of you accusing me of various logical fallacies? csloat 09:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just answer the question. Now you appear to be saying the opposite. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop making this about trying to force me to answer your contrived question. I have been consistent throughout -- there was one sentence on Yale, I prefer that to four paragraphs, but I am willing to concede that a second sentence may be useful.  You are the one who added four paragraphs, Armon, and you are the one refusing to justify them.  I see no point in continuing like this. csloat 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The "contrived question", as you put it, is to 1) establish whether you think it's notable or not, and if so, 2) to end spurious claims that, it hasn't been agreed that it's notable, two days hence. If you don't want to be "trapped" into saying either way, I suggest running for office, not editing here. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is, why must there be four paragraphs about it? You haven't even begun to address that question. Just because you have repeated your question in bold face several times does not make it more important.  It is disruptive.  I have agreed that a sentence or two on this topic is reasonable.  That's all I need to say about it.  Please don't start insulting me again Armon - assume good faith and avoid personal attacks.  You should be familiar with those pages by now.csloat 19:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and made the appropriate change to the article, putting the one sentence about Yale (along with the deleted sentence about Cole's current appointment) where it was before and removing the huge section that Armon had devoted to it. I think it is reasonable to add another sentence quoting Lockham and Cole on the non-controversy, and perhaps even to move it to the "controversies" section, but I see no support in any of this discussion for the extended discussion of the issue. csloat 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that was appropriate so I've restored it. There are several reasons for this, 1) there was a notably controversy about this (see evidence above) 2) the version csloat prefers makes no mention of this, 3) the Yale non-appointment is not part of his "Background, education, appointments and awards" and is therefore in the wrong section, and 4) this is merged text from the defunct article which other editors have worked on/argued about/come to some sort of agreement on, it is not csloat's prerogative to unilaterally delete it. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 18:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * None of those "reasons" justifies the extended dissertation you have included on this issue.  Please be careful when edit warring;  you made another edit that you have not justified (see below). As I said, if you want to add another sentence to this  about the non-controversy over the non-appointment I will be fine with it.  It seems we should be able to agree on this at this point.  Thanks.csloat 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

loyalties removal
I also removed material from the "dual loyalties" section that had nothing whatsoever to do with "dual loyalties." If we want to add a section about "ad hominems from Karsh" or something like that then perhaps the paragraph could go back in. I don't find it particularly notable, but I have fewer objections to the paragraph per se than I do to its inclusion as a "dual loyalties" dispute.csloat 17:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that needs some work. Cole has been criticized for commenting outside of his field of expertise re: Arab/Israeli issues, as well a strong anti-Israeli bias. This is a related, but not strictly the same criticism as that of his conspiracy theories. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First, there is no "conspiracy theory" involved here. Second, this "criticism" is not one; it is simply a tendentiously worded statement by Karsh that says that Cole represents the mainstream of his field, along with a false charge that Cole doesn't have the background to research what he researches, and Cole replying that Karsh is wrong about the latter. This isn't notable, but if it is, it has nothing to do with "a strong anti-Israel bias" (which is another bogus charge, of course).  Either put this nonsense in a separate section or leave it out. Stop the edit war. csloat 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK what do you suggest it be subtitled then? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be there at all; I already suggested one subtitle. If you think it should be there, why don't you tell us what you think it is actually about? csloat 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed your suggested subtitle for that paragraph, you simply deleted it. Also, I just told you what I thought it was about. How about: "Expertise and bias"? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing about bias in the paragraph; "expertise" is fine if anyone else thinks it is notable. I don't; I still think it should be deleted. csloat 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Karsh's critique of his analysis is also a charge of bias. I suggest merging the related criticisms (such as Hitchens' charge) together, rather than breaking them out into a subtitled litany. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 19:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hitchens has nothing to do with this. I suggest (again) removing the paragraph entirely; if not, I suggest the title "Expertise."  I also suggest getting other editors (without a horse in the race) to discuss this topic.  Frankly, it appears heading down the road to severe WP:BLP violations.  "Criticism/Controversy" sections are eschewed in general for good reason; if we must have them, we should be very careful not to make Wikipedia the source of a controversy's "notability." In general, if a neutral third party WP:RS cannot be found discussing the controversy as a controversy, it should not be treated as one.csloat 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Armon disruption
Please do not edit war Armon; if you want to make progress on this page it is not the way to do it. You have not justified four long paragraphs on a "controversy" that your own sources say is "not controversial." I have agreed to another sentence or two on the issue to satisfy your complaints. But you have not justified the changes you are making, and your steamrolling edit war -- which consistently has ignored an entirely separate edit, indicating you are not even reading what you are reverting -- is totally unproductive and unjustified. csloat 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation recommendation
I strongly recommend all parties that you take this to mediation. The situation on the article itself is bordering on blockable edit-warring. Please relax and de-escalate the article edits in the meantime. Georgewilliamherbert 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is edit warring, and if they continue they will be blocked. It is not so important to have a favored revision on a page for three minutes, or even three days. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am all for this solution and have advocated it for days. How can I take this to mediation?-csloat 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mediation is now commencing on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Juan Cole. M a rtinp23 22:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed cites and material based on blog post
I removed the material based on this blog post of Cole's. With all the discussion of WP:BLP as relating to Cole, I believe that it's been forgotten that BLP applies to Karsh as well, and not only on his article. Any material we have on Cole should be able to be properly sourced and I'm assuming that where I've removed this cite, particularly in the biographical section, there will be no problem getting better ones. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing the links isn't really the same as finding good sources, though these should be verified elsewhere. Also, in general keep in mind that it is okay, at least provisionally, to have plain, non-controversial statements sourced to reliable primary sources if the information is necessary to have an article without holes on an otherwise notable subject. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing the links was only meant to be temporary. I didn't change the bio text and I avoided using {fact} or {cite} templates because they may be interpreted as me starting a fight. Cole's critics have challenged his scholarship on contemporary issues but, as he is president of MESA, I have no doubt that there are good RSs supporting him. In fact, citing them avoids any claim that he's being "self-serving". I assumed other editors had cites ready to go, but I'll look myself and fix them. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I removed Karsh's challenge to his expertise/analysis as well because even though there are RSs challenging him on this, the whole issue needs a rewrite if it's to be included. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't be touching this article until it enters mediation, but I vigorously oppose Armon's changes. I'm sorry, but deleting an explicit response by Cole to specific criticism from Karsh is just a way of handicapping one side of the debate to suit your POV.  Claiming BLP issues is nonsense; Cole's response raises no more BLP issues than the Karsh charges in the first place.  If you want to do away with such issues, delete the whole section, as I have been advocating from the beginning.  I want to assume good faith but it is difficult to do so when Armon has so vehemently argued for keeping the Karsh criticism in (as well as the charge of "anti-semitism") despite BLP, and yet now he claims BLP as the reason for deleting Cole's response to the charges.  Now we have horrible NPOV issues as well as BLP issues, since we essentially have a biography entry that quotes Karsh and others calling Cole the equivalent of a Nazi and absolutely no response from Cole or any other indication that the charges are baseless.  I hope someone besides me has the good sense to restore Cole's response.csloat 01:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually going to ask that Armon restore the material he deleted from Cole's blog for two reasons -- 1 is what I wrote above, that his deletion was completely unjustified, but 2 is that this section is precisely one of the sections specified under the request for mediation. Interestingly, rather than respond to the request as is policy, Armon chose to make more contentious edits to this section of the article, specifically changing the grounds for mediation. I think he should show good faith by restoring the material that responds to Karsh's charge and then agree to the mediation. If he does not agree to the mediation, that is another issue. But until we have agreement to enter mediation (and agreement by an admin to serve), we should not be editing those parts of the article that will potentially be mediated. It would be a simple good faith move but it is up to Armon - as I said, I am not going to revert his edits because I entered into mediation in good faith and because we have both been warned that edit warring is not the way to handle this. His deletion is a clear revert of a change I made a while back, and his explanation for the change is inadequate. Cole's specific response to Karsh is not in any way a violation of BLP. csloat 01:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)